Released Emails Show Wind Lobby, Soros Group Helped with White House PR (PJM Exclusive — Read the Emails Here)
And so are YOU. This is pretty cool.
Ilya Somin has an update on the regrettable Kelo v City of New London decision ::: and its aftermath:
For years, the site of the property condemned in the controversial Kelo v. City of New London case has stood empty. Now however, there are recent reports that the city of New London has found a developer interested in building townhouses on the site (see here andhere) [HT: my RA Eva Choi, and Michael O’Malley of the Yale University Press].
Several previous plans to develop on the condemned property have gone under. In November, the Pfizer Corporation, whose lobbying helped instigate the initial takings, announced the planned closing of its headquarters in New London. That step further reduced the likelihood that anything will be built in the area. It remains to be soon whether the townhouse development will work out better than these previous efforts. At present, it is not clear how much the new project will cost taxpayers, and a news report indicates that “[c]onstruction on the project will not occur any time soon.”
Even if the townhouses are eventually built, it is unlikely that they will generate enough development to offset the value of the numerous homes and businesses wiped out by the condemnations, the opportunity cost of having the area lie empty for years, and the over $80 million in public funds already expended on the project.
Ironically, much of the condemned area was a lower-middle class residential neighborhood before the takings, and New London’s current plan is to use the land for roughly the same purpose. The City could have “achieved” this result at far lower cost simply by leaving the neighborhood alone in the first place. Taken as a whole, the Kelo story exemplifies the ways in which “economic development” takings not only victimize property owners, but also often destroy more development than they create (see also my more extended discussion inthis article, which cites figures for the costs of the Kelo takings).
Ilya has added an update worth checking out. Me linky. You clicky.
Thank god that the Democrats are in control finally so that the special interests and lobbyists are no longer … uh … oh, wait :::
Lobbyists for healthcare, energy and financial interests had a banner year in 2009, with the average payout for each reaching as high as $177,000.
Despite his push to rein in special interests, President Barack Obama sparked a boom on K Street with major new proposals on healthcare, climate change and financial policies.
“The magnitude of the work done in the three fields is just huge,” said Michael Levy, of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck’s Washington office.
New lobbying restrictions led to a decline in the number of registered lobbyists working for clients in each of the three industries, according to data from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.
The combination of more work for fewer lobbyists meant record payouts per lobbyist.
Lobbyists working in each of the three industries took home the most on average that they have in a decade, even when adjusted for inflation, according to analysis of the data by The Hill.
Many lobbyists work for clients in several policy areas, so the average payout by industry doesn’t necessarily equal the average overall compensation those lobbyists received. Spending was up in all three broad areas of healthcare, energy and financial-services reforms.
Healthcare clients spent the most overall on lobbying at $544 million, which was roughly $60 million more than in 2008. But there were more lobbyists (3,405) on healthcare issues than on either energy (2,311) or financial legislation (2,654).
Lobbyists earned an average of $160,000 for healthcare-related work.
Energy clients paid $409 million for an average of $177,000 per lobbyist. Lobbyists for energy clients beat out financial lobbyists for top billing.
That, combined with this story have me just shaking my head at all those hopey changey types :::
Barack Obama has long decried the corrupting influence of money in politics. As a candidate, he ran against lobbyists and the pay-for-play culture of Washington. As president, he has continued to hammer the theme, most recently in his impassioned attacks on the Supreme Court’s ruling inCitizens United v Federal Election Commission.
Given this, it’s a little surprising to learn that Obama has not only embraced the sordid money-driven culture of DC, but actually outdone his predecessors. An analysis by the American Foreign Service Association, for example, found that Obama has stuffed the diplomatic corps with more political appointees (i.e., cronies) than any president in the past 40 years. Only a year into the administration, close of half of the president’s biggest donors already have federal jobs.
But I already blogged about that.
Barack Obama has long decried the corrupting influence of money in politics. As a candidate, he ran against lobbyists and the pay-for-play culture of Washington. As president, he has continued to hammer the theme, most recently in his impassioned attacks on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission.
Given this, it’s a little surprising to learn that Obama has not only embraced the sordid money-driven culture of DC, but actually outdone his predecessors. An analysis by the American Foreign Service Association, for example, found that Obama has stuffed the diplomatic corps with more political appointees (i.e., cronies) than any president in the past 40 years. Only a year into the administration, close of half of the president’s biggest donors already have federal jobs.
Below is a list of Obama campaign bundlers and the taxpayer-funded positions they’ve received:
Go read the list for yourself.
Tragic. The US government nationalizing and bailing out major financial institutions it helped to destoy...
I am a libertarian. To contrast this with Democrat and Republican: we might say that the Republicans (at their core) want the government to stay out of our financial lives, but control what we do in our bedrooms (morality/religion). Democrats (at their core) want the government out of our bedrooms, but control how we manage our financial affairs (welfare/regulation/wealth redistribution). Libertarians want the government out of our financial lives and out of our bedrooms. Libertarians stand for the individual rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness according to our own conscience. They believe that the purpose of government is to protect the freedom and rights of citizens through a police force to protect us from the initiation of force by other citizens, court system to protect us from fraud (enforce contracts), and a military force to protect us from foreign invaders. The libertarian stance on foreign aggression is: commerce with all nations, alliances with none. Libertarians not only want us out of Iraq, they want us out of Japan! (and our other 800+ military bases around the world!) Let them hate us for our freedom and wealth, without the military presence/force that forces that freedom and wealth down their throats.
My reasons for being libertarian are simple. I believe that history has demonstrated (in every time. and in every part of the globe) that the more power you give to government, the more those who hold the power will be corrupted by lobbyists (business, religious, bankers, racists, populists, etc.). As PJ O'Rourke put it, "When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators." The more money and favors/regulations the government controls, the more money and favors the lobbyists can afford to spend to buy them, because (although it is somewhat of a gamble) the return on investment for lobbying is typically 10 to 1. As a lobbyist, I can spend $50 million dollars influencing various politicians in order to get a $500 million dollar annual contract, and $1 billion to get $100 billion contract. Smart business always follows the clearest incentives, and competing for government largess is clearly incentived. People/politicians are corruptible (especially through blackmail, which money buys easily), and so governments become corrupt. The solution is to reduce government power to reduce the scope and destructiveness of its corruption and keep it maximally accountable to its core functions. Hence, Libertarianism. The American Constitution/experiment, was created by men whom, by todays standards, are radical Libertarians, for the exact reasons stated above. I believe that they created the most beautiful social contract in human history, and I find it tragic that it is being increasingly ignored and distorted. I am patriotic in this sense: I believe that the ideals and values of life, liberty/freedom, protection of our right to use our property according to our own conscience (as long as we are not violating the identical rights of others) are worth cheering about and if necessary, fighting to maintain.