Now we’re begging: Will someone PLEASE bring back Glass-Steagall? The Glass-Steagall Act was, of course, the legislation passed in the early 1930s in response to a certain banking crisis that led to a particular Great Depression. Among other things, the Act erected a “Chinese wall” between a financial institution’s investment banking and merchant banking functions. In less complicated terms, the law forced banks to separate any business it was transacting on behalf of clients from the speculative moves it made with its own money. For the layman: banks can’t make dumb bets with clients’ money.

Sort of makes sense, doesn’t it?

Well apparently it seemed a bit stingy for President Clinton and the Republicans in Congress in 1999. We have Senator Phil Gramm and Representative Jim Leach to thank for that one. Here’s the problem: The heads of big banks have this terrible habit of thinking that they’re the smartest guys in the room. Anyone who doesn’t believe that need only watch Ben Bernanke talk for more than 30 seconds. Actually, let’s refine that a bit. The problem isn’t that banking executives think they’re savants, the real problem is that they aren’t.

In the modern financial age, a lot of very highly paid guys with impressive titles who look at way too many numbers and think they make sense have concocted some very complex “hedging” strategies for “managing risk.” They think they understand the crafty derivatives they’ve invented – which are completely unregulated and totally opaque – and all the counterparty risk involved. They don’t, and therein lies the rub.

(more…)

Looking to the 2012 elections, top operatives with organized labor say they are going to concentrate their efforts at the state level and will withhold their support for federal candidates. In the 2008 election cycle, unions spent almost $80 million on independent broadcast advertising, mail, and advocacy to either elect or defeat candidates for federal office, according to OpenSecrets.org. Federal records also show that labor union political action committees (PACs) contributed over $66 million to federal candidates in 2008, with 92 percent of this total going to Democrats.

But, this investment did not secure enough votes to pass the “card check” legislation and other policy measures weighted against the business community. So, a change in strategy is in order. Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Firefighters, told FOX News, his organization is eyeing the political terrain at the local level. But there is no reason for states, especially Right to Work states, to play defense.

Instead, they should follow the example set by Danny Martiny, a Republican state senator in Louisiana, who has introduced a bill to safeguard competitive bidding practices in the construction industry. In a pre-emptive move aimed against contracts negotiated between employers and unions before workers are hired, Martiny has introduced Senate Bill 76. This legislation prevents state government officials from mandating Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) on publicly funded construction projects.

PLAs call for construction contractors, including those non-unionized, to require their employees to be represented by a union on government-funded construction projects. In practice, they lock out non-union construction shops from the bidding process, officials with the Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC), a private industry group, have argued.

Although the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 generally prohibits pre-hire agreements, an exception in the law was created for the construction industry.

(more…)

Haiti is located on the western side of the island of Hispaniola approximately 700 miles southeast of Miami between Puerto Rico and Cuba.  The Treaty of Ryswick signed by France and Spain in 1697 resulted in the formation of two separate but incongruous states, Haiti and the Dominican Republic.  The official language of Haiti is French and Creole while in the Dominican Republic it is Spanish.  The mostly black population is a result of slave trading when it was a French colony.

In 1897 through 1912 instability in Haiti drew attention to its strategic importance.  A small number of Germans maintained a large amount of economic power.  German military intervention during a Haitian revolt in 1902 and word that Berlin considered using Haiti as a fueling station for its naval fleet became a concern for the United States. Under the policies of the “Monroe Doctrine” President Woodrow Wilson began planning for the occupation of Haiti.

The occupation of Haiti finally ensued and the United States ruled Haiti through a military government from 1915 through 1934. Under military rule Haiti prospered through development of a road system, schools, improved disease prevention, medical care and communications.

Unfortunately the Haitians grew to resent the occupation of the United States and violent protests resulted in the deaths of many Haitians at the hands of the US military.  In 1934 the US left Haiti and the country became a dictatorship.

(more…)

Our President blames the Bush Administration. Many on Wall Street are now blaming Obama. Democrats blame Republicans. Republicans blame Democrats.  Who really is at fault for our economic troubles?

The answer is rather simple.

Government and those that proclaim it can solve so many of our problems – regardless of their party.

In 1959, in an interview with Mike Wallace, Ayn Rand posited that:

“A free economy will not break down. All depressions are caused by government interference and the cure that is always offered . . . is more of the same poisons that caused the disasters.”

(more…)

Speaking recently a Steamboat Institute conference, I explain that big government is America’s fiscal challenge, not whether the spending is financed with taxes or borrowing.  This issue is important because the statists are trying to create the conditions for a big tax hike. We got huge spending increases under Bush, and now Obama has picked up the baton and is racing in the same direction. Needless to say, the politicians don’t care about deficits when they are spending money. But when it is time to discuss tax policy, deficits suddenly become a giant threat to the economy and turning more of our money over to the political class is the only solution.

The Q&A session (which can be seen here) also is interesting. I pontificate about the financial crisis, Keynesian economics, the rule of law, and tax competition (both videos courtesy of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity).

A friend of mine on Facebook recently wrote the following about an article on the life of the late Irving Kristol:

“Once upon a time, not too many years ago, the Republican Party was the party of ideas. Would even its staunchest supporters say so today? I think not. The sole substance of the Republican Party today is opposition to whatever the Democrats are for, period.”

Were it true, it would be damning.  Thankfully it’s not.

My friend, a former White House high-ranking employee in both the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations, grew angry, very angry, about the direction of the Republican Party under President Bush 43, something upon which I agree with him.  But, unlike him, I prefer to stay and fight for what’s right within the party I agree with most, not abandon it. He grew so angry that he voted for Obama in 2008.  Now, I don’t claim to know how any human being works internally, but I don’t understand how someone who claims to be a conservative could make that sort of switch. Simply because your side didn’t live up to their ideals doesn’t mean, to my mind, that  you switch to the side that advocates explicitly the opposite point of view.

But that’s neither here nor there. My friend, and everyone else, is free to vote for whomever they want, for whatever reason they want.  What I take issue with his the common mantra of the Left, echoed by my friend, that Republicans are out of ideas and Democrats are a fountain new ones.

(more…)

Remember the good old days, when the federal government was, shall we say, smaller? And by “smaller,” I mean half the size it is today.

Well you should, because that was only nine years ago.

Economist Chris Edwards ran the numbers, and found that since 2000, the federal government’s budget has doubled, from $1.79 trillion to an estimated $3.65 trillion today. Much of that can be contributed to former president Bush’s giant spending programs and the increase in defense spending to pay for the wars, but the largest upswing occurred just in the past year.

In 2009, the federal budget exploded from $2.98 trillion to an estimated $3.65 trillion, which would be the largest one-year leap in nearly 60 years when adjusted for inflation.

DownsizingGovernment.com has all the details, including a breakdown of federal spending by each federal department. It might even make you pine for those “old days.”