Follow-Up to: Why Isn’t There an All-Smoking Airline?

Drug Policy, Nanny Statism, Statism, Taxation, Uncategorized
Share

Right on cue, the vigilant bureaucrats at Protect-You-From-Yourself-Central, A.K.A., New York City, have launched a volley for concerned tax-feeder busybodies everywhere.  Writes LRC Blog reader, James Nellis:

I thought this was an excellent sidebar to your recent blog post:  NYC sues roll-your-own cigarette shops over taxes

The linked piece is chock-full of statist brilliance, and I don’t want to spoil it for you, but here is the bottom line. Folks in NYC who smoke have found a way to circumvent the gargantuan taxes levied against packaged cigarettes, by rolling their own. Smoke shops in NYC enable this circumventing by providing their customers with automatic cigarette rolling machines. (Gawd, I love free enterprise.)

Follow-Up to: Why Isn’t There an All-Smoking Airline? Read Post »

Why Isn’t There an All-Smoking Airline?

Anti-Statism, Drug Policy, Libertarian Theory, Nanny Statism, Statism, Uncategorized
Share

I am not a smoker. Never have been. Frankly, I admit to thinking it’s a vile habit. Those caveats aside, the treatment of smokers in the U.S. is something of a quandary to me. Here is a group composed of a cross-section of Americana that might be unrivaled in its breadth. Rich people smoke. Poor people smoke. People of color smoke. White people smoke. Men smoke. Women smoke. Young folks smoke. Old fogies smoke. Lawmakers smoke. Hell, even the POTUS has been known to light up a time or two. Truly, everybody is represented on the smoking band wagon. With all that representation, again I ask:   Why isn’t there an all-smoking airline? The answer is obvious: because the government says so. The obligatory airline safety briefing contains words to this effect: “Federal regulations prohibit smoking on airplanes.” Why in the hell…?

Why Isn’t There an All-Smoking Airline? Read Post »

Five reasons not to support Newt Gingrich for President

Vulgar Politics
Share
  1. He’s for invading foreign countries to fight “radical Islamists,” except when he’s not.
  2. He suggested instituting the death penalty for drug trafficking in the 1990s.
  3. He supports ethanol subsidies as part of a “low-cost energy program”, which may include a cap-and-trade system, or maybe not.
  4. He’s strongly opposed gay marriage as a threat to traditional American values, which no doubt played a vital role in his three marriages (and extramarital affairs).
  5. In 1994 Gingrich claimed “People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz.”  He’s right, you know: he probably would be a guard at the front gate.

Five reasons not to support Newt Gingrich for President Read Post »

The Chamber Says: No Unauthorized Progress!

Business, Corporatism
Share

Auburn, Alabama, experienced some tornado damage the other day, and the place was just a mess. Trees were down. Houses had collapse. Fences were in tatters. Yards were trash heaps. The damage was not major by any standard but there was plenty to do in the wake of this one.

As happens, enterprise was there to make a buck fixing things up. Contractors came from all states in all directions. The unemployed suddenly had work. Skills that had been dormant were suddenly needed. This isn’t the Broken Window fallacy; it is just a reality that new kinds of work needs to be done and enterprise jumps at the chance. Good for enterprise and good for those who need help repairing the damage.

So get this. The following note appeared in my inbox this morning, from the Chamber of Commerce:

The chamber would also like to remind those of you who have damage to your personal property to ask for proof of a license to do business in Auburn as you are negotiating with contractors and other businesses for cleanup, roof repair and other services. Additionally, we as a chamber encourage you to use your local chamber members first. For your convenience we have provided you with a list of chamber members who could offer their service to you.

What’s the priority? Getting the job done or preserving the cartel of favored businesses? We know where the Chamber stands.

The Chamber Says: No Unauthorized Progress! Read Post »

Real tax dollars, imaginary threat

Corporatism, Vulgar Politics
Share

That Barack Obama has handsomely rewarded supporters who bankrolled his presidential campaign is no secret; he’s just the most recent in a very long line of Leaders of the Free World who indulge in political patronage.  It’s a tradition in Washington, like spring cherry blossoms and Congressional sex scandals.

But perhaps having run out of political appointments and “green” energy companies to throw money at, now the Obama administration appears to be just making up opportunities for its supporters, according to a detailed story in the Los Angeles Times:

Over the last year, the Obama administration has aggressively pushed a $433-million plan to buy an experimental smallpox drug, despite uncertainty over whether it is needed or will work.

Senior officials have taken unusual steps to secure the contract for New York-based Siga Technologies Inc., whose controlling shareholder is billionaire Ronald O. Perelman, one of the world’s richest men and a longtime Democratic Party donor.

Smallpox was wiped out in the late 1970s, and no evidence has surfaced that any “rogue nations” or terrorist groups have obtained the virus, which is reportedly held only by the U. S. government and a Russian research institute.  Even if smallpox should surface again, the Feds have stockpiled a billion dollars’ worth of the vaccine, which has a shelf life of decades – quite unlike the drug being developed by Siga, which barely lasts three years.

And it’s uncertain whether it would even be effective, since testing it would require that someone becomes infected with, you know, smallpox.

None of these concerns seemed to deter Health and Human Services officials from securing the funding for Siga, to the point that they essentially created a no-bid opportunity for the pharmaceutical company:

But the federal contract [for developing the antiviral drug] required that the winning bidder be a small business, with no more than 500 employees. Chimerix Inc., a North Carolina company that had competed for the contract, protested, saying Siga was too big.

Officials at the Small Business Administration investigated and quickly agreed, finding that Siga’s affiliation with MacAndrews & Forbes disqualified it.

The Obama administration could have awarded the contract to Chimerix as the only eligible small-business applicant. Or it could have reopened the competition to companies of any size.

Instead, the administration moved to block all companies — except Siga — from bidding on a second offering of the contract.

Read much more here.

Real tax dollars, imaginary threat Read Post »

Scroll to Top