Month: August 2014

I’ll be appearing on
HuffPost Live today at 1030am ET to discuss the current
prospects for a lasting peace between Israel and the
Palestinians, which
I wrote about yesterday on these very web pages.

I will be joined by host Josh Zepps and human rights
attorney Noura Erakat, who
wrote
this piece for The
Nation, criticizing Israeli government
talking points on the current conflict. 

Should you miss the live feed, the segment will be
available to watch later
here.

The Export-Import Bank,
denounced by Sen. Barack Obama in 2008 as “little more
than a fund for corporate welfare,” gives loan guarantees and other
forms of supra-market financing to foreign countries and companies
that buy American exports. Well, products made by the handful of
companies that get this sweetheart backing.

One of the single-biggest beneficiaries of Ex-Im backing is
Boeing, a struggling little airplane-making outfit with a market
value north of $90 billion. According to Reason columnist
and Mercatus
Center policy scholar Veronique de Rugy, between 2007 and 2014,
companies with operations in Washington state accounted for 44
percent of total disbursements of Ex-Im largesse. By which she
means Boeing.

The Ex-Im Bank—which President Barack Obama supports—is a pure
example of concentrated benefits and distributed costs. Writes de
Rugy:

The truth of the matter is that the Ex-Im Bank yields negligible
benefits for the vast majority of state exports, aside from one big
outlier. These charts make it clear that the Ex-Im Bank primarily
exists to benefit Boeing at the expense of everyone else in the
country.

You might wonder why lawmakers would refuse to acknowledge this
reality. For one, politicians are pressured by an army
of lobbyists representing
powerful companies who are committed to protect their perks even if
it hurts everyone else. But politicians are not exactly shrinking
violets, here. They like being able to point to the small
businesses and American jobs that they “support” through the Ex-Im
Bank.

What is much harder is to point to the millions of victims of
the Ex-Im Bank. Taxpayers, for instance, bear a massive $140
billion exposure so that giant corporations like Boeing
and General
Electric can make a little more profit each year. Should
the bank’s portfolio go south, normal people like [us] will be on
the hook.

Read the whole column at the Washington Examiner.

When Rep. Kevin McCarthy came in as House
Majority Leader in June (after Eric Cantor was sent packing in his
primary), his first big, bold statement was to say House
Republicans would act to kill the Export-Import Bank, which comes
up for reauthorization at the end of September. With few
exceptions, GOP members are already starting to dodge that stand,
instead talking about how they’ll only vote for its renewal if
stringent new reforms are put in place. At the Lincoln Labs Reboot
conference in San Francisco, I spoke with Rep. Cathy McMorris
Rodgers, a Republican who hails from eastern Washington. When I
asked point blank whether she would vote to kill the bank, she said
she was waiting on what reforms might be included in the
reauthorization. “There’s some questions that need to be answered,”
she told me. “I’ll see what that looks like when it comes.” In
other words, put her down for a yes.

McMorris Rodgers, who voted to reauthorize in 2012, is hardly
alone in her position. In 2012, all Democratic senators voted in
favor of the bank, along with 27 Republicans (19 Republicans
voted against it). In the
House, 183 Democrats and 147 Republicans voted in favor of it,
with just 93 Republicans and zero Democrats voting against. All
eight members of the Washington state delegation (four Ds and four
Rs) voted in favor, as did both Democratic senators.

From a small-goverment perspective, there is no reform that can
“fix” issues with the bank’s operations, since it shouldn’t exist
in the first place. It absolutely helps pick winners and losers in
the marketplace by backing the purchase of some companies but not
others and, more important, puts taxpayers on the hook for up to
$140 billion in loan guarantees. Which of course cost nothing—until
they cost a lot.

Watch Reason’s “3 Reasons to KILL the Export-Import Bank
FOREVER!,” featuring a special appearance by Art Vandelay:

The Export-Import Bank,
denounced by Sen. Barack Obama in 2008 as “little more
than a fund for corporate welfare,” gives loan guarantees and other
forms of supra-market financing to foreign countries and companies
that buy American exports. Well, products made by the handful of
companies that get this sweetheart backing.

One of the single-biggest beneficiaries of Ex-Im backing is
Boeing, a struggling little airplane-making outfit with a market
value north of $90 billion. According to Reason columnist
and Mercatus
Center policy scholar Veronique de Rugy, between 2007 and 2014,
companies with operations in Washington state accounted for 44
percent of total disbursements of Ex-Im largesse. By which she
means Boeing.

The Ex-Im Bank—which President Barack Obama supports—is a pure
example of concentrated benefits and distributed costs. Writes de
Rugy:

The truth of the matter is that the Ex-Im Bank yields negligible
benefits for the vast majority of state exports, aside from one big
outlier. These charts make it clear that the Ex-Im Bank primarily
exists to benefit Boeing at the expense of everyone else in the
country.

You might wonder why lawmakers would refuse to acknowledge this
reality. For one, politicians are pressured by an army
of lobbyists representing
powerful companies who are committed to protect their perks even if
it hurts everyone else. But politicians are not exactly shrinking
violets, here. They like being able to point to the small
businesses and American jobs that they “support” through the Ex-Im
Bank.

What is much harder is to point to the millions of victims of
the Ex-Im Bank. Taxpayers, for instance, bear a massive $140
billion exposure so that giant corporations like Boeing
and General
Electric can make a little more profit each year. Should
the bank’s portfolio go south, normal people like [us] will be on
the hook.

Read the whole column at the Washington Examiner.

When Rep. Kevin McCarthy came in as House
Majority Leader in June (after Eric Cantor was sent packing in his
primary), his first big, bold statement was to say House
Republicans would act to kill the Export-Import Bank, which comes
up for reauthorization at the end of September. With few
exceptions, GOP members are already starting to dodge that stand,
instead talking about how they’ll only vote for its renewal if
stringent new reforms are put in place. At the Lincoln Labs Reboot
conference in San Francisco, I spoke with Rep. Cathy McMorris
Rodgers, a Republican who hails from eastern Washington. When I
asked point blank whether she would vote to kill the bank, she said
she was waiting on what reforms might be included in the
reauthorization. “There’s some questions that need to be answered,”
she told me. “I’ll see what that looks like when it comes.” In
other words, put her down for a yes.

McMorris Rodgers, who voted to reauthorize in 2012, is hardly
alone in her position. In 2012, all Democratic senators voted in
favor of the bank, along with 27 Republicans (19 Republicans
voted against it). In the
House, 183 Democrats and 147 Republicans voted in favor of it,
with just 93 Republicans and zero Democrats voting against. All
eight members of the Washington state delegation (four Ds and four
Rs) voted in favor, as did both Democratic senators.

From a small-goverment perspective, there is no reform that can
“fix” issues with the bank’s operations, since it shouldn’t exist
in the first place. It absolutely helps pick winners and losers in
the marketplace by backing the purchase of some companies but not
others and, more important, puts taxpayers on the hook for up to
$140 billion in loan guarantees. Which of course cost nothing—until
they cost a lot.

Watch Reason’s “3 Reasons to KILL the Export-Import Bank
FOREVER!,” featuring a special appearance by Art Vandelay:

To say that Obamacare enthusiasts are having a bad few weeks
would be a major understatement. First, a three-judge panel at the
DC Circuit Court ruled against them in Halbig vs.
Sebelius, a lawsuit they
called “stupid” and “criminal” for arguing that the subsidies
that Uncle Sam was handing out through 36 federal exchanges
violated the law. Then, videos surfaced showing that one of the
law’s key architect’s – MIT’s Jonathan Gruber – had gone around the
country two years ago basically making Halbig’s “stupid”
and “criminal” argument, only to change his tune after the lawsuit
was filed.

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers, who set out to destroy, once and
for all, Halbig’s argument, ended up confirming it. Greg
Sargent of the Washington Post excavated Senate documents
that he said proved — proved — that subsidies through
federal exchanges were legitimate because they were contained in an
earlier version of the bill – only to be
explicitly dropped from the final law!

And yesterday our friends at the Competitive Enterprise
Institute petitioned the Supreme Court to rule on the legality of
these subsidies before the full DC Circuit reverses the three-judge
panel and the lower courts are still split, given that other
Circuits have rejected Halbig’s argument.

But the odds, I note, in my latest column at The Week,
are that the politically squeamish Chief Justice Roberts won’t
accept the case. He’ll let the issue be resolved at the lower court
level instead of getting his hands dirty in a partisan
mudfight.

That might mean the end of Halbig, but not the end of
Obamacare’s political troubles. “The program’s biggest
vulnerabilities are still down the road,” I note. And that’s no
accident. The administration postponed implementation of the more
painful aspects of the program till after the president is safely
out of office — partly through the original law and partly by
altering the law through executive fiat. Hence:

a postponed tsunami of discontent awaits ObamaCare, just around
the time the president exits office, when union plans are hit with
new taxes; insurance companies may require a bailout; appropriation
battles get underway; providers confront massive cuts; hospitals
suffer losses; employers face mandates; and patients, once again,
revolt against sticker shock as they are forced to pay higher
penalties or buy policies they don’t want…

So, the Obamacare film will be at 11 every night for the
forseeable future.

Go
here to read the whole thing.

To say that Obamacare enthusiasts are having a bad few weeks
would be a major understatement. First, a three-judge panel at the
DC Circuit Court ruled against them in Halbig vs.
Sebelius, a lawsuit they
called “stupid” and “criminal” for arguing that the subsidies
that Uncle Sam was handing out through 36 federal exchanges
violated the law. Then, videos surfaced showing that one of the
law’s key architect’s – MIT’s Jonathan Gruber – had gone around the
country two years ago basically making Halbig’s “stupid”
and “criminal” argument, only to change his tune after the lawsuit
was filed.

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers, who set out to destroy, once and
for all, Halbig’s argument, ended up confirming it. Greg
Sargent of the Washington Post excavated Senate documents
that he said proved — proved — that subsidies through
federal exchanges were legitimate because they were contained in an
earlier version of the bill – only to be
explicitly dropped from the final law!

And yesterday our friends at the Competitive Enterprise
Institute petitioned the Supreme Court to rule on the legality of
these subsidies before the full DC Circuit reverses the three-judge
panel and the lower courts are still split, given that other
Circuits have rejected Halbig’s argument.

But the odds, I note, in my latest column at The Week,
are that the politically squeamish Chief Justice Roberts won’t
accept the case. He’ll let the issue be resolved at the lower court
level instead of getting his hands dirty in a partisan
mudfight.

That might mean the end of Halbig, but not the end of
Obamacare’s political troubles. “The program’s biggest
vulnerabilities are still down the road,” I note. And that’s no
accident. The administration postponed implementation of the more
painful aspects of the program till after the president is safely
out of office — partly through the original law and partly by
altering the law through executive fiat. Hence:

a postponed tsunami of discontent awaits ObamaCare, just around
the time the president exits office, when union plans are hit with
new taxes; insurance companies may require a bailout; appropriation
battles get underway; providers confront massive cuts; hospitals
suffer losses; employers face mandates; and patients, once again,
revolt against sticker shock as they are forced to pay higher
penalties or buy policies they don’t want…

So, the Obamacare film will be at 11 every night for the
forseeable future.

Go
here to read the whole thing.

• House Republicans says they will
  remain in Washington until a new border bill has been
  passed.

• The cease-fire between Israel and Hamas has
  broken down.

• An American Ebola
  patient will be evacuated from West Africa and brought back to
  the U.S. for treatment. The death toll from the current outbreak
  now stands above 700, making it the largest Ebola outbreak on
  record.

• The U.S. unemployment rate has
  increased to 6.2 percent.

• Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has
  no plans to retire in the near future. “All I can say, I am
  still here and likely to remain for a while,” the 81-year-old
  justice declared.

• “Syfy says its sequel to the horror spoof ‘Sharknado’ snapped
  up
  3.9 million viewers Wednesday night. The film, officially
  titled ‘Sharknado 2: The Second One,’ nearly tripled the 1.37
  million viewers who saw last summer’s premiere of the original
  ‘Sharknado’ film.”

Follow us on Facebook
and Twitter,
and don’t forget to sign
up for Reason’s daily updates for more
content.

Guardians of the
Galaxy is what happens when you hire a graduate of the
merry Troma schlock factory, hand him $170-million, and set him
loose on a lower level of the Marvel Comics empire—a place where
X-Men and Avengers would never think to tread. The result is a
fresh kind of blockbuster, a picture with wit and charm and a
wonderful wisecracking sense of humor. All the familiar comic-book
elements are in place: the fantastical planets (Morag and Xandar
and Dark Aster—home of the fearsome Kree!) and exotic MacGuffins
(there’s a mysterious Orb, and an Infinity Stone of a sort that
will be familiar to Marvel adepts). But while director James
Gunn—the Troma guy—clearly loves this stuff, he doesn’t take it too
seriously. He knows that only fan folk will likely be able to keep
track of it all, so he just ladles it on and plows right through
it. What a relief, writes Kurt Loder, who also reviews Get on
Up, a problematic tribute to the great James Brown.

View this article.