My latest Oped - how fracking got Obama reelected

Here is my latest oped.  It's currently running in the Lock Haven newspaper.  It was sent to several mid-sized newspapers in "fracking country" at the same time, so it might appear in other papers as well.

An excerpt:

While many things here are controversial, one is not. Fracking has had a positive impact on the economy and has decreased the unemployment rate in the United States. What hasn't been considered, however, is that fracking changed the result of the 2012 presidential election. 
  

Great photo ...

My thoughts on the IRS scandal

First, a couple links:

1. Ramesh Ponnuru has a great oped.  

2. Jay Leno's "joke".  I don't think the crowd thought he was joking. 

3.  George Will's column from a couple weeks ago.

I'm not sure I can add too much to this, but I'll try.  The problem is that government officials can get away with way too much.  This isn't strictly a problem with the left targeting the right, although we'd expect more of that since government workers will tend to be a bit more left-wing.  It's a lack of accountability and too much power.  

The punishment scheme for people who are abusing their political power should be such that if you have government power, and you abuse it, you are punished so severely you go out-of-your-way to make sure you're not abusing your power.  

My recommendation.  Those who abused their power should be tried for treason.  I think you could reasonably define the abuse of a government position to target political enemies as an "extreme act against the nation".  Those who are found guilty should be punished in whatever way we punish traitors.  If you are a government official, you absolutely cannot  abuse your power to affect the political process and/or elections.  If you do that, and are caught, no punishment is too severe.  Without this type of punishment, this will happen again.  

I don't even think this is a left-vs-right type issue.  While this time it's the Obama administration going after the right, we know that the Nixon administration was almost as bad in the past. 

Voter fraud, a huge basketball bet, and my business school's London Program is highlighted

1.  Voter fraud in Ohio and Florida.  More evidence we need voter ID laws.  You have to show your ID to get a gun, buy a beer, and drive a car.  But not to vote?  It stuns me that people oppose these laws.

2.  A $5.9 million dollar bet? I enjoy gambling on occasion - but this type of bet stuns me.

3.  My university's London program is highlighted in this YouTube video.  This video was shot this past academic year (2012-2013).  I taught this same semester abroad program (The London Program) in spring 2012.

Assorted Links

1.  Typical talking points for those who say cutting budgets to National Parks will hurt economy.  They're wrong on the national level, of course.  Cutting National Park budgets will hurt the local areas that contain the park, but those who pay for those parks are located across the country. Each area without a park is incrementally better off, meaning the cuts to the parks won't have an impact on the national economy.

2. The Freakonomics crew posted some funny ads that now would be thought of as repugnant.  My favorite:

3. This blog focuses focusing solely on ending the PLCB.  Quite a bit of good stuff here.

4. Sad but still a bit funny ...

A detailed response to a comment opposing PLCB privatization

I received a comment on my post discussing some of the tactics of those who oppose PLCB.

I will not hide I am a PLCB employee an a ssistant manager.I do have an interest in the privatization.I do believe that we are about to be privatize a mistake we will live with some regret as PA home owners and tax payers.1st the governors own people have now come down from the oringinal figure of 2 billion over three years to now 800 milion over 3 years. Now where will the 1 billion dollar promised to education from the sale and other groups come from? PSEA saw through this vail promise and do not back privatization. Like I said I believe the governor is going to strong arm this through the senate. People on both sides of this issue need to remember on election day the people who are pushing this issue and vote out this anti union governor who also wishes to privatize PENNDOT, the welfare system,and other government programs,and has not done anything to save jobs in PA, proof GE moving to Texas,and the fact that we are no longer one of the friendliest states to industry to the worst for new industry. Let us remember this next election day. I know I will have plenty on time to see that Tom and his cronies should be ready to answer on election day. So folks we may disagree on should the LCB,PENNDOT,State lottery,and the wealfare system should be privatize or not just look on election day are we the people better off pre Corbetization or now. Remember and do not forget the anti PA governor who will have lots of backing from Walmart,CostCo, Rite Aid, and others that will continue to create low paying jobs without benefits. 

Because I think this comment is somewhat representative of some of the arguments made by those who oppose privatization, I thought I would respond.

1. I appreciate that you are honest about your employment, and I do sympathize with the position you're in.  It's not your fault that our state has this system.  You could be the world's greatest assistant manager and be doing everything you can to run your store well.  While I am for privatization, and I know in the long run that it won't cost jobs (see my oped), there will be short term pain by those who work for the PLCB.  

2. Let's be completely honest about PSEA's stance.  They don't want to lose union jobs.  That's it. View every argument they make in this context.  No union really advocates for what's best for the state/country - they want what's best for the union (or unions in general).  That's not criticizing them - that is their job.  Now let's get to those arguments ...

3. There won't be enough tax revenue from this.  I don't know how the final transactions will come down, but remember that if there is tax revenue, it is coming from Pennsylvania citizens.  If there is less revenue coming in, it means that Pennsylvanians are paying less.  Further, as Washington state showed, a scheme could be set up where tax revenue increases from privatization.  I really hope we don't do that - I hope that taxes would be such where they stay the same or decrease slightly, but it could easily increase.  Either way - remember that this money coming into the state coffers from state control of liquor is coming from Pennsylvanians, who are being financially punished (tax) by the current system.

4.  Governor has done nothing to save jobs in PA.  This is a bit off the topic of PLCB issues, but ...  I'll still respond. First, I'm not Corbett's biggest fan, by any means.  However, the top sector for creating jobs in the past four years has been ... fracking.  Who's been more supportive - Corbett or Democrats? Many would argue he has been too supportive.  In the long term, the best a lawmaker can really do to "create" jobs is to have good government policies and not screw things up.  (To see screwups, for example, look to Obamacare, federal tax rate uncertainty, uncertainty over targeting business on a national level.)  Corbett has done nothing to make Pennsylvania's business climate worse.

5.  People on both sides of this issue need to remember on election day the people who are pushing this issue.  This one seems obvious.  However, if people are able to buy a six pack of beer in a more convenient location (like their gas station/grocery store), I promise that anyone who dislikes Corbett will not want them to remember Corbett was "pushing this issue".  If people credit Corbett for making their lives a bit easier each week/month/whenever they buy beer/wine, Corbett might actually get reelected.

The government is inefficient when it runs the economy.  It doesn't work.  The state control of liquor is different other state controlled economies (like the former Soviet Union) only because it's just for one sector (alcohol).  Economic theory and experience shows us that state control is inefficient and our society will be much better off if government control is ended.

NFL teams accused of colluding against veteran free agents

Link here

Also refers to article here.

An excerpt: 

"I basically think the owners got together and decided not to spend the cash on free agents," Freeney told CBSSports.com. "I definitely think that's part of it. I think the owners made a pact. There's only 32 of them and none of them broke ranks. I think they all decided not to spend money."

So Dwight Freeney claimed that owners made a pact to collude to lower the salaries of veterans.  This is a standard type of problem that we cover in principles of microeconomics courses.  

There are incentives for firms to collude and form a cartel (even though it is usually illegal).  The big problem for a cartel is that it only takes one firm to "cheat" on the agreement.  And there usually is an incentive for firms to cheat on the cartel.

In this case, there are 32 NFL teams.  It seems crazy to think that all 32 teams could be in on this collusion and a) no word about it leaks to the press and b) one of the firms doesn't decide to cheat on the agreement and sign a player anyway.