where I'm at

http://bmisc.wordpress.com/

my boy, Josh Hamilton

For those of you unfamiliar with the Josh Hamilton story, you better recognize. Who knows what problems this will lead to for the Reds outfield, but baseball guy Jerry Narron will cross that bridge when he comes to it.

Kentucky

According to the Kentucky Post, the Newport City Commission gave "preliminary approval Monday to a tax incentive program to attract new businesses to the city."

Montana

The Great Falls Tribune reports that Montana Governor "has vetoed a bill that he said would continue an improper property-tax break for cellular-phone companies."

Imus

You may be as tired as I am of discussing the Imus-Duke-Nicole's baby dramas, but the one thing I continue to ponder is the "free speech" aspects of what happened to Old Man Don.

Peter J. Riga, for instance, wrote the following to the Houston Chronicle:

The firing of Don Imus over some stupid racial remark is not only a blow against the First Amendment for free speech, it is the American version of the Danish cartoon affair. What about Imus' constitutionally protected free speech?

To be sure, there is a lot to question on what happened to Imus. Is there a double-standard, after comparing his statements to those of people like Al Sharpton? Where do the Rutgers' basketball players go from here? Should we give Imus leeway because he is a shock-jock? Did anyone actually consider Imus to be funny and worth listening to?

But when it comes to Imus' constitutionally protected free speech rights, he cannot seek recourse to them because there was, thankfully, no action taken by the government. Among other things, the right to free speech allows Americans to voice their opinions on anything and everything without fear of government interference.

That doesn't mean that your speech does not have consequences, as the Imus situation illustrates. In fact, for those who believe what happened Old Man Imus was a sham, the silver lining in all of this is that there were several instances of free speech. Imus said what he wanted, the media responded how they wanted, as did the players, corporations, and media conglomerates who eventually asked Imus to hit the showers -- all without the FCC telling us what we should listen to or watch!

Yes, there is a chance that the treatment accorded to Old Man Imus was a little too much and that there will be a chilling effect on satire in general. But the equilibrium of the marketplace of ideas is not a constant one. Societal standards will eventually move back towards the comedic end, and maybe we'll realize that Imus wasn't even funny in the first place.

For more on this, go here.

"a big orgy of lawyer-driven rent seeking at taxpayer expense"

Randy Balko has a great post about the profession into which I am about to enter.

[W]e have a society that enables such a huge demand for lawyers in the first place. The enormous growth in the number of lawyers in this country is, by definition, a result of a huge increase in demand for people who can interpret, manipulate, and influence the law. That demand means there has been a corresponding increase in the influence and pervasiveness of the law (as opposed to, say, voluntary transactions). And law of course is the domain of government. We have more lawyers because we have more law.

tax incentives

Too long since I last posted on tax breaks and incentives. In fact, you may have noticed above that this blog is no longer technically dedicated solely to tax breaks and incentives, but now allows for posts on other "musings." Life's too interesting to blog on just one topic, especially when that topic is tax incentives and I'm not getting paid for it.

That being said, I'm not going to forget about the issue. Local agencies giving tax breaks to certain companies but not others is a policy of which not enough people are aware, so I'm going to do my part to make hopefully at least a small difference.

Kentucky seems to pop up more often than other states in offering incentives to large corporations. Toyota looks to be another beneficiary, and other companies only get a break on their taxes when they create jobs, sadly.

Today's Los Angeles Times has on Wisconsin state tax breaks for the film industry, noting that "more than three dozen states have laws that offer tax breaks and other financial lures to filmmakers."

spring cleaning

I do not have songs included with this blog anymore. Various reasons for doing this -- sometimes it was a hassle to upload the song to a server and I didn't think I was changing it often enough, not having a song will allow this blog to download (is that the right computer language?) more quickly, and people may not listen to it anyways or get any benefit from it. I can't imagine I'm disappointing too many people with this decision.

I've been introduced to blogs of three friends of mine that you may find of interest. Len is a cycling fan, blogs on the sport, and posts Katie's e-mails on her quest to do an Ironman. Matt is a law student (graduating soon, like myself) who offers right political thoughts. Mark is a priest and my former cross country coach and blogs about his work in Iraq.

DC talk

"We're supposed to be fighting this war and paying for the troops -- making sure they have what they need,'' he said. "We're not supposed to be paying for avocado growers.''

That quote is from a March 6 Bloomberg article and is a follow up to my March 5 post. What's happening with the Democrats and the war also correllates with my August 2 post.

This goes to show that we should always have a healthy skepticism about politicians, right or left. Sure, there were be those public servants who do well and understand the limited role government is meant to have under the Constitution. But they are the exception to the rule, and it's better to error on the side of caution than begin with a romantic view of government. Let them earn your trust.

The lack of understanding about what actually occurs in Washington is an important issue. Many who have "normal" jobs are either indifferent to politics or feel that DC politicians have everyone's best interests in mind, and these are understandable feelings.

But the truth is that politicians, like most of our society, are self-interested. And by self-interested, I don't mean that they're looking for what's necessarily best for their constituents in the long-run. Self-interest instead means asking "What do I have to do to get re-elected?"

For me, the most frustrating aspect of this is that I was so naive to the whole process until after my first year of law school. It does not upset me that high school civics courses were taught with a romantic perspective of government. What bothers me is that I spent four and half years at a decent business school and the influence that DC has on business and vice versa was rarely discussed.

Economics was awesome--I learned that there's no such thing as a free lunch, the importance of scarcity and economies of scale, etc. International business was a waste. Basically, the only thing taught with that major is that people in other countries have different perspectives and you should learn to deal with those perspectives. Common sense if you ask me.

For all the coverage on multinational firms and their rise to power, class discussion centered on efficiency, inputs, productivity, supply, demand, and other economic and business concepts. Rightly so, but no one ever mentioned the importance of having the right people on K Street. Any Fortune 500 CEO would be lying if they said what happened in Washington wasn't important. This aspect of business should be reflected in a business school's curriculum.

new blogger

I've been switched over to the new blogger for a few weeks now. So far I'm not very impressed. I had to create a new account with my hotmail e-mail address. It is so far impossible to leave comments on blogger with this new account. The other day I tried to post a Champions League goal from YouTube (I've done anything with YouTube or soccer, so you know it had to be special) but that didn't work because Blogger told YouTube that it didn't recognize my blog or account when I tried to post it.

It is only two things, but the ability to post comments and YouTube videos are fundamental aspects of the blogging experience. Maybe they will improve after I sign up for a gmail account, which will likely occur next week.

One positive aspect of the new blogger is that general posts are published more quickly.

NCAA tourney

With the NCAA basketball tourney coming up, that means more Billy Packer, unfortunately. Personally, I really can't listen to games when he is the main color analyst. College basketball is supposed to be a fun game, but some reason listening to him makes it a miserable experience.

I'll probably have to find a bar for the Final Four games that he will broadcast. If you happen to meet a CBS executive in the near future, have him or her explain to you why he is chosen over Bill Raftery for marquee matchups.

More thoughts on the issue . . .

selling out

In their criticism of the Iraqi war, Democrats have opposed sending more troops to the region and the war in general on the legitimate basis that innocent Americans are dying there with no real benefit to Iraqi society.

But a recent post at Cato@Liberty begs the question whether this opposition is genuine or is instead a political ploy. Would funding a war with which you apparently and fundamentally disagree be easier to digest if you got something out of it?

The Hill reports that Blue Dog Democrats are very concerned about the proper balance of powers between the president and Congress. But for a big hike in farm subsidies, they’ll forget about that little constitutional matter.

House Democratic leaders will add nearly $4 billion for farmers to a bill funding military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to attract conservative Democrats concerned that the measure would wrongly constrict President Bush’s power as commander in chief.

The Democrats hope that moderate Republicans are just as malleable:

Democrats may also add money for children’s health insurance in the hope of winning the votes of Republicans such as Illinois Reps. Mark Kirk (R) and Judy Biggert (R), whose home state faces a $240 million deficit in its State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

To be fair, there’s no proof in the story that Kirk and Biggert are considering such a deal, but Republican leaders are reported to fear it.

In the civics books, they tell us that members of Congress deliberate about war, separation of powers, balanced budgets, and so on, and then make collective decisions. If you read a newspaper, though, you soon learn about logrolling and other budget games. Still, it’s one thing to trade your vote for farm pork for the other guy’s vote for urban pork; the taxpayers lose twice, but at least it’s only money. Trading your vote on a matter of life and death, which is also a fundamental constitutional issue, for a few billion in home-state pork seems entirely unbecoming to a member of the legislature of the world’s most successful republic.

I believe it was Michael Corleone who once noted to a U.S. Senator that "We're both part of the same hypocrisy."

Kentucky

The Lexington Herald-Leader reports that "Lexmark International received approval for a $500,000 state tax incentive package yesterday that would help pay for an expansion of its research and development operations in Lexington."

Worth noting, however, is that "Unlike other state economic incentive programs administered by the Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority, KEIA does not require that jobs be created. Lexmark does not anticipate any new jobs strictly related to the new expenditures . . . [but] the company continues to hire for R&D positions in Lexington."

president

For better or for worse, the race for the 2008 presidential election is well under-way in early 2007. When it comes to the candidate du jour, he or she will predictably fall into the pro-choice or pro-life crowd on the abortion issue.

I look forward to the day when a candidate is asked for his views on abortion, suggests that he is pro-choice or pro-life, and then turns the table on the inquiring reporter, "Should my view really make a difference?"

Indeed, it would be quite refreshing if a presidential candidate acknowledged that, while he may have personal views on a specific matter, his role as president would be limited -- it's not the job or duty of the President of the United States to make policy on abortion (and many other issues, for that matter).