It is not uncommon for anyone to omit something from his tax return or financial disclosures and find the need to file an amended return or statement.  It is another thing to omit numerous significant entities that could affect your stated worth or income by half. And it is entirely another thing if the absent minded taxpayer is the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee that actually writes the tax code; Mr. Charles Rangel.

In the Friday (8/28/09) editorial of the Wall Street Journal they note that the Chairman amended his financial disclosure to report more than a half million dollars in assets and income, about half of his net worth.   He omitted his Federal Credit Union balance of over $250,000; vacant properties in New Jersey, stock in PepsiCo, and $75,000 in income from rental properties in the Dominican Republic.

While not significant sums in the scheme of trillion dollar deficits, it is sloppy at best and should be unacceptable from the man wielding so much power over how much taxes the rest of us pay. Given how many Obama appointees had to withdraw over tax improprieties, the Democrats would improve their credibility in tax and financial reform if they would demand some integrity from their own leaders.

I have wondered if the fact that Ford did not need a government bailout would positively impact its sales and how much of an effect it would have.  While uncertain this quote in the WSJ.com’s Political Diary adds some credence to the idea:

“Some customers really didn’t believe I was Henry Ford. They didn’t expect the great-great-grandson of Henry Ford to be selling cars in California. That’s a conversation-starter right there. A lot of people said they thought I’d be a jerk – arrogant. But I like talking to people. . . . About one-half [of customers are] Ford owners and one-half other brands, including the imports. Ford had a perception problem, but people now say they like Ford because we didn’t take any government money. It comes up a lot” — Henry Ford III, who is spending the summer as salesman at Galpin Ford in suburban Los Angeles, speaking with staff reporter Kathy Jackson of Automotive News.

One of the most valid criticisms of this blog is that I am only preaching to the choir. I may be voicing legitimate points, but it is not accomplishing much since few opposing my viewpoints will read it..

When I started writing Rebelyid is was not with any intent to persuade others to follow a different path.  Most of the time I wrote to just to clarify my own thinking whether it was to summarize books and articles or to explore ideas out loud. Writing helps bring disparate ideas to a logical conclusion.

I have no strong loyalty to the Republican Party, but I have less for the Democrats.  I mostly espouse libertarian thoughts, but I even find their party functionally sterile.  I find economics and history to be enlightening and I try to apply those perspectives on controversial issues; that is why I find the left and right descriptions to be irrelevant.

One of the compliments I value is when readers claim they cannot discern if I am liberal or conservative. When I approach an issue those are the two least important thoughts in my head.  I am sure that my recent posts make that seem unlikely since I oppose so much of Obama’s programs. If I am able to have any influence it was not my original goal.

But how does one have any influence on the readers? First of all I doubt if anything can have any influence on the extremes from either side.  I believe only the middle third are even open to an original or questioning thought. Most people read for confirmation not information. Once someone claims any party loyalty their thought process seems to focus on defending that position rather than to entertain any thought that would question or doubt their belief.

While I like to debate positions I am only interested in an open discourse.  Once the word ‘liar’ or ‘idiot’ is inserted into the debate I am done. When the person associated with a statement is the target more than the statement itself, I realize a debate is futile.

But the reality is that most people react and choose emotionally, not logically and few logical ideas will change them. To the extent that current myths can be debunked and more people will question their own positions I guess writers and bloggers may have some influence, but perhaps the best we can do is to continue to clarify in our own minds our positions and to continue to think them through so we are better prepared to promote and defend those ideas when the opportunity arises.

There probably isn’t much more a writer can do.

Obama’s claim that a government option will somehow keep the private health insurance carriers honest is either disingenuous or incredibly ignorant of basic economics.

Can the government honestly be expected to both regulate and compete with private insurance carriers? When a private carrier cannot recoup or control its costs,  it loses money and goes out of business; a government insurance provider can be subsidized by the tax payer indefinitely.  Think Post Office and Amtrak.

But why does Obama think that a market with thousands of insurance companies competing needs to be kept honest by anyone?  Do we also need the federal government to enter  the auto or life insurance markets to keep them honest or is only health insurance in need of such government supervision?

Do the greedy oil companies need a state owned oil company to keep them honest? Should we have government owned grocers and farms to keep food costs down?

Some argue that the government would not have to earn a profit. But it is the desire to make a profit that attracts competition into a market and drives costs down. It is the desire for profit that drives efficiency to reduce costs. Medicare is fraught with fraud costing over $70 billion a year.  In New York State alone it is estimated to be 10% of their cost.  They have no profit incentive to control that cost.

If we depend on the government to keep private providers honest, who do we depend on to keep government providers honest?

The editors of National Review note the destructive aspects of the cash-for-clunkers program in “Uncreative Destruction”.  read it here.

If there is one absolute rule in economics it is that everything has a cost.  What were ‘clunkers’ to the program were the kinds of cars poor people drove for years.  Poor people do not buy new cars- even with a generous credit.

Removing these clunkers from the market will likely raise the price of used cars that the poorer rely on.  We would also expect a decline in the number of used cars that are donated to charity.  As far as stimulating the auto industry, it is a heroin like fix that will wear off; leaving empty showrooms when the program ends.  By stimulating the purchase of new cars, the money spent is money not spent on new clothes, books, fishing gear, health food, gym memberships, blenders, dining out, cameras, computers, shoes, video games, vacations, body lotion, fountain pens, stainless grilles, wine, bathroom remodeling, cigars, lottery tickets, concerts, guitars….. I think you get the idea.

A dollar spent on new cars is a dollar not spent on something else. There is no stimulus. I repeat- “no stimulus”.  In fact by destroying the old cars there is a net destructive effect on our economy.

This administration is committed to spending our way to prosperity and it simply doesn’t work. Prosperity comes from stimulating production, and almost every policy this administration pushes destroys production.  Business people understand that the spending stimulus must end and they will be left with substantially higher taxes and the vast uncertainty of the cap and trade, health reform and strong pro union legislation. No one will invest in production in this environment except the crony capitalists lining the pockets of the Washington elite.  And these capitalist whores generate very few jobs compared to the small business people who are on hold until some common sense is restored.