Two things very interesting about this:

1.  As the Washington Post noted, these weren’t just any banks, or even a cross section of small banks from around the country. These were banks from congressional districts where Democrats face tough races this fall. You see…this has nothing to do with economics or what’s good for the American people. EVERYTHING he and the others do in Washington is political. (It was all politics, not economics, when they decided to pull the plug on the dumb idea to tax plastic surgery procedures and switch it to another dumb idea to tax tanning salons.)

But, as Harry Reid defended the bribe paid (with YOUR money) to Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson (hey Senator, here’s what I’ll give you if you vote for health care reform–we are going to treat Nebraska differently from other states and give you a permanent exemption from Nebraska’s share of Medicaid exemption…how’s that?”) …”That’s what legislating is all about.”

How brazen.

How B.S.

2. Back to the bankers. Know what their response was?: “it takes two to tango and right now there is no demand for loans. This is exactly what the small businesses I work with are telling me… ”

a. “too risky to expand”–no telling what the rules will be next year

b. “too expensive to expand”–health care reform will surely increase my costs, cutting into my profits

c. “end of recession? What end of recession?” : until the economy gets going and people are getting back to work no one is buying…so what do I need to borrow money for?

Problem was that the Democrats need the support of the American Medical Society to get “reform” through. They weren’t getting it as long as the cosmetic surgeons were being unfairly singled out for tax.

So what did the wizards in the Senate do? According to today’s Wall Street Journal, the pulled the ‘ol switcheroo and decided to “un-tax” the cosmetic surgeons and tax tanning salons instead. Presumably what they do is even more “unnecessary” than what cosmetic plastic surgeons do.

I guess the salon tanning industry has a smaller lobbying force!

Here’s the problem with politics. ALL decisions are made for political reasons. There’s not a one of them who understands economics. Virtually everything that comes out of Washington comes out for a bad reason.

You cannot stimulate an economy out of a recession by taxing. The only way to stimulate spending is to reduce taxes across the board. This allows more employers to hire and more employees to go out and buy. Its a simple formula but not achievable when every decision you make is based not on what is rational but on what political favors you are buying.

Here’s the issue:

President Obama is attacking the banks, encouraging them to “lend more.”  He says (to banks) “you are making too much money and “you guys caused the problems.”

In my discussions with small business owners, its not “bank lending” that is at the core of their issues but its

1. how can I get more customers in the door — I’d be fine if I could get that fixed; and

2. I’m not sure what the rules will be next year (i.e. will health care costs and/or increased taxes affect my bottom line)  so I’m not going to risk a bunch this year on increased marketing and/or hiring.

So I wonder….if you are a small business owner….which is it for you?

If its “none of the above,” then maybe you are having a break out year and will share what you have done.

Compelled by force of the government. No choice.

She recounts a number of sad instances of hardship falling on employees who become ill or who must stay at home to care for someone else who is ill in their family. She argues for passage of the “Healthy Families Act.”

Here’s why she is dead wrong on this issue. It may well be a good idea for an employer to have an employee stay at home but still get paid. If it is a good idea the only one in any position to judge the idea is the employer. If the employer believes this to be in his or her rational self-interest than the employer and employee can agree to these terms.

It is not the place of government to use its heavy hand to force this agreement, however. Such a law makes the employer a slave to the employee. This is immoral.

I wonder what she would think about this law: let’s create a law that says when things get really busy in the workplace that the employer can compel the employee to work for free. I’ll bet she wouldn’t go for that.

Again, no one argues that sickness or injury or 100 other things don’t cause hardship. No one argues that it isn’t a good idea for an employer to pay an employee for staying home. That’s a decision a rationalemployer can make and I can envision a situation where that is the right decision. However, it is no place for government intervention and regulation. Especially in a bad economy. A crazy law such as the Healthy Family Act would be one more unnecessary, unwarranted and harmful tax on the small-business owner.

In some cases the government comes after you to get you to “share the wealth.”

This is going on with the Monsanto corporation now. Monsanto is an agricultural company. It helps farmers become successful. When farmers are successful food is delivered to your dinner table.

Essentially, through genetic engineering, Monsanto has developed a technology that allows plants to stand up to and thrive amidst a powerful herbicide. This technology allows farmers to use the weed killer “Roundup” even after the crops have started to come up. This saves the farmers work and enables them to cultivate more land. “Roundup” itself kills just about all weeds and us saves farmers is step of tilling the earth. This makes the cost of producing the crop lower.

Farmers like the new technology that Monsanto produced and they buy it. Monsanto licenses the technology to hundreds of independent seed companies and to its major competitors but apparently that is not enough for some. They want the “heavy hand of the government” to force  Monsanto to make its product available to its competitors at a lower price.

One of its competitors, DuPont, argued that “Monsanto has abused its unlawfully acquired monopoly power to block competition, thwart innovation and extract from farmers unjustified price increases of over 100% in recent years.”

Unjustified? As measured by who? Who but the buyer of a product has the right to determine whether the product is priced appropriately? And if that buyer believes the product is priced too high the buyer has a choice-don’t buy.

This whole approach to successful companies is nuts. Monsanto devoted its own time, energy and money to the development of its product. Others could have chosen to do the same but they did not. Now Monsanto should be allowed to reap the benefit of its hard work. If the price that Monsanto charges for its technology is “too high” then fewer will purchase it and, with demand shrinking, the price will come down. Farmers can, after all, choose to not use its product.

Some group calling itself the “American Antitrust Institute” has, according to press reports, broadened the antitrust case against Monsanto and called for legal enforcement, citing “an almost intractable situation for competition.” In other words, you did so well nobody else can beat you, so let’s have the government slow you down.

If a company is “rewarded” for innovation and risk-taking by having the government come in and force it to share what it has earned then companies will hesitate to innovate. Innovation, creativity and risk-taking is what America was built on.

About 10% of the wealthiest in America got that way through inheritance and that number is dwindling every year. It seems that oftentimes when wealth is passed from a generation of producers to a generation of non-producers, it vanishes. Imagine that.

Some of the young people profiled by the Post lack a fundamental understanding of both reality and economics. One had a startling lack of a moral compass.

One, Burke Stansbury, inherited $1 million from his grandfather who created the wealth through building businesses and investing in real estate. Stansbury expressed the view that he “resists” the privilege [of wealth] and denies it because of the inequalities that exist in society. He protested against Costco who wanted to build a store in the Mexican city. Apparently the store would involve cutting down trees and, as he put it, “displacing a sacred community.” At meetings, he vents about politics and what he views as an insulated upper-class and he supports increasing estate and capital gains taxes.

Stansbury probably should have stayed enrolled at Georgetown University and taken more classes. Probably should have read How Capitalism Will Save Us: Why Free People and Free Markets Are the Best Answer in Today’s Economy or Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem

He assumes, incorrectly, that his wealth (or anyone else’s) makes someone else poor. That’s like saying that one’s health make someone else sick.

He also fails to realize that when Costco went to build a store in Mexico that store would’ve created jobs and wealth not only for the employees but for the producers of goods that would’ve been sold in the store. The store also would have raised the quality of life for its customers by providing a place where they could trade the dollars that they earned by work for products that they deemed valuable. Stopping a store for the sake of trees in a poverty-stricken area makes no sense on any level. Finally, he missed the lesson where they taught that nowhere in the history of the world has wealth been created or the plight of people been improved by increasing taxes.

I’ve got a better idea for Stansbury. Take that million dollars you have and create something. Start a business. Risk your capital. Employ people. Create a product or service that someone else values and then let them trade with you. The only formula for creating wealth and eradicating poverty and hunger in the world is to take your gifts and talents and produce something. Then teach others how to take their gifts and talents and produce something.

Then there’s Janelle Treibitz. This part-time waitress told the Post that “I definitely feel like I am at war between my desires instilled in me to eat out at nice restaurants and my better sense and principles” and yet, amazingly, she told the Post reporter that earlier this year she broke her finger and didn’t have insurance. She went to a hospital and got an x-ray and gave the hospital a fake name and walked out. She actually asked this question:

“is that okay that I’m doing that–taking resources because I am refusing to take money from my parents?”

Apparently her struggles with her “better sense and principles” don’t include her proclivity to engage in theft of medical services. (I have an idea for her “fancy restaurants” moral dilemma: pick one she really likes and that would satisfy her desires, make a reservation under a false name, and then skip out when the waiter isn’t looking. There, she can have her cake and steal it too.)

So I guess for Ms. Treibitz the options for dealing with others don’t include being honest, honoring your debts and working to repay them. I’ll make it even simpler: the answer to your question ma’am is that your hospital bill has nothing to do with your parents’ money.

No one should begrudge these individuals and their wealth. They got lucky by birth and their luck doesn’t make any of us unlucky or less wealthy ourselves. (I did notice that none of them had renounced their inheritance or immediately handed it all over to any other entity!) Their refusal to understand both reality and economics, in spite of their immense wealth and opportunity for great universities and private schools, is indeed startling.

First, do they have any objective evidence that someone who marches into a 7-Eleven looking for the chocolate covered cream filled pastry is going to be dissuaded when he learns it’s packing 1200 calories? Even if there was such evidence why should the role of government to protect the consumer from himself? It’s his responsibility to take care of his own health.

Next, this “problem” is something that should be solved by the market if the market wants it solved. So, if you go into 7-Eleven looking for the 1200 calorie donut but wanting to know whether you should choose the 1000 calorie doughnut and that information is not available you simply say to the business owner “hey, I’m going to stop shopping here until you tell me which donut has 1200 calories.” If enough consumers “vote with their wallets” problem solved.

It is shocking that government spends so much time and money trying to solve other people’s problems when it can’t get the big things like traffic, education, protection from criminals right.

She even quotes from an organization calling itself the “Center for Responsible Lending” that complains that the new rules don’t go far enough.

Unfortunately, the new rules will do nothing but raise fees and costs for those who act responsibly. More people will now be denied access to automated teller machines and debit cards because of the irresponsible minority.

Look, no one forces you to use an automated teller machine. No one forces you to obtain or use a debit card. My solution for overdraft fees? Take personal responsibility and don’t overspend. Know how much money is in your bank account.

There, I did it. I fixed the problem and it didn’t take one committee to do it.

The “almighty business” that “makes a buck” because it charges fees under free and voluntary contracts entered into between it and its consumers are the same businesses that brought us the convenience of automated teller machines, debit cards, and credit cards. These are the same businesses that allow us to pay bills with electronic transactions using simple online portals. These are the same businesses that provide access to capital for thousands of entrepreneurs across the country. The entrepreneurs that make America grow.

When will we stop with the over-regulation? When will consumers learn to act responsibly?

He is preparing emergency legislation that would guarantee paid sick days for anyone diagnosed with the H1N1 virus. Guarantee, not by the government but by the business owner who is risking time and capital to run a business.

His exact quote: “families shouldn’t have to choose between staying healthy and making ends meet.”

Okay, so this is another tax on the small business owner. Someone gets sick and the owner loses productivity or hires a replacement for the day. The Senator’s proposed new government interference with small business would mandate that the employer pay the sick employee for the time it.

I wonder if he has ever run a business in his life or done anything to produce a dollar? This is purely a role for private agreement between the employer and employee. Some employers will gladly have the employee stay calm and will be more than happy to pay that employee to stay home. That’s their business. It is not the role of government to tell the small business owner how to run their business.

Gee, can we send the bill to the government? Look, the swine flu isn’t good for anyone. Having to stay home and not being able to be paid for the day obviously isn’t good for the employee but who made the rule that it’s the employer we are going to stick this bill with?

They rely on a 1970 amendment to the Federal Anvestment Company act that not to accept excessive compensation. The amendment gives investors the power to enforce the duty in Court.

The problem is that the sets law no standard by which a mutual fund advisor can tell whether he is going to be sued or not. He leaves it to lawsuits (this one now five years old) and the courts to sort through the dispute. This is terribly inefficient.

There are over 8000 mutual funds available to an investor. Moreover, any investor can go online to see the fees paid to advisers and directors. If the investor thanks the fees are too high love they can exercise their voluntary free will and not purchase shares in the fund. It is absurd to think that the government should have any role in regulating mutual fund adviser fees. The free market already protects investors.

What if next time they seek to regulate the fees you charge in your business? What if it fixes the prices of the goods you sell — the goods that consumer voluntarily purchases from you at a price that he deems to be in his best interest?