Sandy A Case Study In Big Government Failure

As Amity Shlaes noted in the opening words in her fantastic book The Forgotten Man, floods change the course of history.

So do hurricanes.

Shlaes noted the effort of Herbert Hoover in the aftermath of the floods of 1927.  George Bush was excoriated for the efforts of the government in the aftermath of Hurricane Katina in New Orleans, we think unfairly.

This past week, our fellow citizens in the northeast have been hit with a hurricane for the ages in that neck of the woods. Millions of people have been effected by Hurricane Sandy, and there are areas that will never be the same.

President Obama joined New Jersey Governor Christ Christie to tour the hard hit areas, and while throwing in a few political jabs, pledged immediate and sustained help from the Federal Government. FEMA is on the ground.

These efforts have been a colossal failure. Unlike ignorant Kayne West and the progressive Democrats nationwide, we recognize that Obama is not going to go out with a shovel and is not responsible for the government failing to help those in need.

Tempers are flaring, and residents of the area are blasting the political leaders who have been eloquent in running their mouth but short on achievement levels. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, top of the list of the political elites who think government should and can run your life better than you can, got an earful.

There is a bigger issue at play here.

Government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem. Obama and Bloomberg represent the big government entitlement crowd who seek a citizenry of dependency where they gain and expand their power. But even as the balance sheet of the agencies tasked with this work expand exponentially, the failing results are sadly the same.

CNBC's Larry Kudlow visited with Amity Sclaes, who wrote and outstanding column, for ironically enough, Bloomberg, noting that distasters create bigger, not better government. Take a listen:



In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, the government relaxed or temporarily suspended  environmental regulations in an effort "cut the red tape" to speed up delivery of energy sources for the folks.  These are regulations that should not exist, and by the government taking this action they confirm these regulations hamper the market system from operating at optimal efficiency.

There is a place for limited government in this regard, but the local governments, churches, citizen groups, charities and the citizens of the community are best equipped to effectively deal with these types of disasters.  The federal government can be on stand by to assist if requested.

As the cameras roll out on Staten Island today, what we see once again is the failure of big government to handle the job, even with a bloated budget and slews of technocrat administrators.

As we approach election day, the words of Ronald Reagan ring loud.  Government is not the solution to the problem, government it the problem.  Check out the Rockaways on Staten Island  and Rockaway in Queens for proof.  Unfortunately, the situation continues to worsen.  Please keep thse folks in your prayers.

Limited government and free market principles have been and remain the best path to prosperity.

Dangers to Prosperity Lurk in Cap & Trade

On his radio program Friday afternoon, Rush Limbaugh referenced an article from The American Thinker blog regarding the Cap & Trade legislation, and the untold hidden land mines associated with it.

The cap and trade legislation is being pushed as a vehicle for America to curb emissions as part of the fight against global warming, which is the greatest hoax of all time.

While is is always an excellent, cost effective idea for individuals and corporations to refrain from polluting, further costly regulatory legislation is arena unnecessary. Until the global warming hoax is completely exposed, and given our main stream media this could take some time, it acts a tax on business which is passed on to the consumer and prohibits economic growth and prosperity. And with a multitude of recent reports questioning the validity of global warming evidence, it becomes apparent that global warming is more about governmental control than climate change and represents a vehicle for the global transfer of wealth.

Trying to ascertain what is what in a 1400 page bill is daunting, particularly when it refers back to other bills. Have at it! However, it appears that under the Waxman-Markey bill, which recently passed the House, the costs of real estate transactions, ownership and new construction will go up.

Essentially, an administrator (czar) of The Environmental Protection Agency, appointed by the President, will develop a national set of enforceable building codes which all new construction must adhere to which mandates increases in energy efficiency by approximately 30%.

Each home, new and existing, will be investigated to determine a "final score" on energy efficiency and labeled. While there is much confusion as to whether homes must meet certain requirements prior to a sale, a few things come to mind which are not clearly spelled out in the bill.

The bill makes a distinction between public housing and assisted housing, but does not define the parameters of such. So, I am wondering, are homes whose loans have been recently modified with government money "assisted housing"?

The bill does spell out that if you rent property to assisted renters or provide public housing and receive monetary incentives to retrofit your property you cannot pass any costs on to the renter by way of rental rate increases, even though you have seemingly improved the property.

Over the past year, approximately 75% of new mortgage loans have been FHA loans, so I wonder if since the government holds the note they can mandate the retrofit. In fact, with Fannie and Freddie's loan portfolio and the Obama administration owning large positions in many major banks, will those properties be subject to the retrofit legislation? Will new FHA loan interest rates be based upon the energy rating of the improvement?

The bill does give the administrator the ability to adjust annually the energy requirements, so they will start out low in an effort to enhance the probability of the bill passing only to be adjusted without legislation going forward, no doubt a bad idea. This legislation, if it becomes law, will be an assault on property rights, seizure of yet another portion of our freedom and a new level of taxation to help in the fight against the speculative global warming. Quite obviously, building codes should be set by local governing bodies and a federal mandate in this arena, similar to the recently passed health care bill, is likely unconstitutional.

At any rate, if passed into law, the legislation will increase costs of home ownership, increase the difficulty of selling improved properties and limit choice for property owners. The new law would make the administrator one of the most powerful players in our government and would be asking the public to trust the governing adjustments going forward. Has this administration earned our trust? To the contrary, they appear to be running a thugocracy full of deceit and corruption.

It looks like through excessive regulatory legislation in an effort to combat the speculative global warming issues, the government is going to put a governor on the appreciation of home values, which in istelf is an attack on free market capitalism.