Washington public policy is replete with examples of government regulators thinking they know best, imposing new government rules that then exacerbate the existing problems. As things become worse, they blame the free market and call for more government regulations to fix the burdens they created.  Of course, just as it was the first time, the cure is worse than the disease. And the vicious cycle continues.

Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren could be the poster child for the law of unintended consequences.  Warren’s career was built upon advocacy of government regulations that created bigger problems than those she initially addressed.  As the problems compound, so does her call for even more government red tape.

All of this mader her a hero to the progressive community, a Harvard professor, an advisor to the president and a creator of a new regulation-pushing agency of government known as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).  Maybe once, she will get something right but don’t hold your breath. The housing market collapse is a case in point.

In 1994, President Clinton and his cronies laid the groundwork for the creation of the Housing Bubble and the Wall Street crisis a decade later.  The Investors Business Daily uncovered a “smoking gun” memo that declared war on a near invisible enemy – racism is mortgage lending:

(more…)

Today, in 2008, Fidel Castro resigned as President of Cuba, after holding complete power for almost 50 years. Never in the history of the world has any man been so thankful for a U.S. trade embargo. Here’s hoping the U.S. trade embargo doesn’t extend to the afterlife, because Castro really needs to get what’s coming to him.

With the onset of the holiday season, Washington, D.C., is getting quieter by the day.  However, opponents of net neutrality—which the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is considering implementing—are not taking a break from tough policy debate quite yet.  With the FCC expected to reach a decision on net neutrality early next year, one major foe of the policy spoke out against it again last week in harsh terms, suggesting that if net neutrality rules were implemented, they might fall afoul of the First Amendment’s intent and purpose.

Kyle McSlarrow, President of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, said at a lunch held last Wednesday by the Media Institute that the implementation of net neutrality rules “would ultimately decrease the overall amount of speech on the Internet, thus harming, not helping, First Amendment interests.”  Furthermore, he argued, net neutrality proponents who claim the policy is needed to protect First Amendment rights have their facts “upside down.”  McSlarrow went on to add, “By its plain terms and history, the First Amendment is a limitation on government power, not an empowerment of government.  Making these arguments is, ironically, almost proof that First Amendment rights are being implicated…let’s not forget that the First Amendment is framed as a shield for citizens, not a sword for government.”

(more…)