George McGovern wises up?

According to Larry Elder, who boldly proposes that George McGovern--yes THAT George McGovern--speak at the upcoming Republican National Convention.

What would make Larry Elder say this? According to him, McGovern, after leaving the Senate, went into business--and wised up the hard way:

McGovern went into business for himself — and went bust.

Following the recommendation of a friend with "a lifetime of hotel- and restaurant-management experience," McGovern bought a small hotel and restaurant, the Stratford Inn in Connecticut. He poured his savings into the place, investing his seven year's worth of post-Senate earnings from the lecture circuit.

A contributing factor to the failure, according to McGovern, was the regulations that make it tough to make a profit. In a mea culpa that should chill every lefty on the Hill, McGovern said: "I wish I had known more firsthand about the concerns and problems of American businesspeople while I was a U.S. senator and later a presidential nominee. That knowledge would have made me a better legislator and a more worthy aspirant to the White House. ... I learned first of all that over the past 20 years America has become the most litigious society in the world. ... The second lesson I learned by owning the Stratford Inn is that legislators and government regulators must more carefully consider the economic and management burdens we have been imposing on U.S. businesses. ... Many businesses, especially small independents such as the Stratford Inn, simply can't pass such costs on to their customers and remain competitive or profitable."

"I wish I had known more firsthand about the concerns and problems of American businesspeople."

Holy Ayn Rand! Then in the spring of 2008, McGovern wrote an article called, "Freedom Means Responsibility":

"Many people can't afford the gold-plated health plans that are the only options available in their states," wrote McGovern. "Buying health insurance on the Internet and across state lines, where less expensive plans may be available, is prohibited by many state insurance commissions. Despite being able to buy car or home insurance with a mouse click, some state governments require their approved plans for purchase or none at all. It's as if states dictated that you had to buy a Mercedes or no car at all."

This is, of course, exactly what Republicans, pre-ObamaCare, offered as one of the ways to increase the affordability of health care insurance — without further government intrusion.

McGovern, in warning about excessive regulation, sounded almost Reaganesque: "Since leaving office, I've written about public policy from a new perspective: outside looking in. I've come to realize that protecting freedom of choice in our everyday lives is essential to maintaining a healthy civil society.

"Why do we think we are helping adult consumers by taking away their options? We don't take away cars because we don't like some people speeding. We allow state lotteries despite knowing some people are betting their grocery money. Everyone is exposed to economic risks of some kind. But we don't operate mindlessly in trying to smooth out every theoretical wrinkle in life.

"The nature of freedom of choice is that some people will misuse their responsibility and hurt themselves in the process. We should do our best to educate them, but without diminishing choice for everyone else."

McGovern did a lot of damage while in Congress. Here's a chance for him to help undo some of it. For the sake of the country, McGovern should share his hard-earned wisdom — at the Republican National Convention.

Invite him, Mitt. If he can't make it, then quote him.

Global capitalism saves the children

Rich Lowry gives us sone common sense debunking of the Left.

But he does let one little leftist dogma go by:

Better practices to protect against disease and to enhance nutrition — more vaccinations and mosquito nets, more breast-feeding and vitamin A drops — played a role, but the most important factor in this global good-news story is economic growth. (bold emphasis mine)

It has been a dogma of the Left that evil corporations like Nestle and others tried to stir 3rd world women away from breast feeding. Never mind that at the time baby formula first came to the 3rd world, the adult mothers frequently were themselves malnourished and as a result they couldn't lactate! "Better to at least have the babies properly nourished" was the reasoning of a good many aid agencies, and baby formula was greatly appreciated.

Are mothers in those countries now better nourished so that they can breast feed? All the better. But are we too assume that these 3rd world women are too stupid to think for themselves in their feeding decisions? Now THAT is a kind of arrogant paternalism that used to be associated with colonialism!

"Index of economic freedom": USA 4th of 157

The United States maintains the fourth-freest economy in the world, so says the brand-new 2007 Index of Economic Freedom, a co-production of The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal. The methodology can be found here.

The overall message is undeniable: that governments which limit economic freedom--socialist governments, for example--limit the quality of life of their citizens. Likewise, those governments that get out of the way and allow free enterprise to flourish will see substantially more prosperity.

It is also undeniable that English common law was and is the best foundation for economic freedom, as the nations with high economic freedom tend to overwhelmingly in the Anglosphere.

While the overall thrust of the Index may make sense, I find the rankings flawed in several ways:

1. No account of that subtle thing called personal freedom. Which is understandable, because it's hard to quantify, unlike tax rates, trade barriers, and property rights (although corruption, the WSJ and Heritage admit, is a difficult thing to quantify too). But I'm sorry, personal freedom does matter to me. Singapore (ranking #2) may be a wonderful place to invest, own property and make money, but it's still a place where you can't chew gum as you please. Singapore has nanny police statism, if not nanny high-tax big government statism. I wouldn't rate Singapore so high.

2. No accounting for Hong Kong's new status. While they have retained British common law and business policies, the threat of Red China pulling the rug out from under them is oh-so-palpable and ever present. If we are going to include Hong Kong in the rankings of "nations", then why not rate the various "Special Economic Zones" of Red China as well? And if Hong Kong merits ranking because of its Special Administrative Region status, where is Macao then?

3. I think a separate Index ranking for female business personnel is necessary, given the nature of Islamic barbarism. To their credit, Muslim nations that were former British colonies and have retained English Common Law retain a high degree of economic freedom. Still, if I were a female business executive, I'd rather do business in Mexico (ranking #49) or Italy (ranking #60) or Brazil (ranking #70), despite their higher taxes, high degree of corruption and poor contract law, than I would do business in Bahrain (ranking #39) or Malaysia (ranking #48) or Oman (ranking #54).

4. I suppose I could get nitpicky and argue that federal nations (USA, Australia, Brazil, Canada) need subranking for their state or provincial parts, but that's minor.

Panel calls for more flavored malt beverage taxes

Get ready for more nanny-statism, Cali voters, you asked for it:

Reversing a decision made a day earlier, the state's tax policy board on Wednesday voted to take the first steps toward hiking the tax on "alcopops" -- sweeter-tasting alcoholic drinks that a coalition of youth groups believes are targeted at teenagers.

Alcopops -- which refer to flavored malt beverages such as Smirnoff Ice and Mike's Hard Lemonade -- are taxed at 20 cents per gallon, the rate for beer. The coalition wants the beverages taxed at $3.30 per gallon, the rate for distilled spirits, with the hope that the steeper price will make the drinks less accessible to minors.

Never mind that they have about the same alcohol content by percentage as most beer, and often even less. Moreover, flavored malt beverages have been around for decades, while most underage drinking still involves brew-skis and mixed drinks from hard liquor.

This reminds me of the Joe Camel hysteria a decade ago, where it was claimed that young smokers were more likely to smoke because of the character. And yet, if you look at any teenage smokers, what cigarettes are they almost always smoking? That's right--Marlboros!

Board member and state Controller Steve Westly, who made the motion for a second vote on Wednesday, disagreed (with keeping the malt beverage tax rate at the level of beer).

"There is no doubt that based on how they are marketing (the drinks) ... they're being targeted at the youth market," he said in an interview.

Oh really? What proof do you have of that? Has Steve Westly even SEEN a Mike's Hard Lemonade advertisement? The fact is that the Mike's Hard Lemonade ads feature older, thirtysomething men and women. Remember Anheuser Busch's Spuds McKenzie advertising campaign for Bud Light Beer? Now THAT was clearly aimed at college age people, many of whom were (and still are) 17-20 years of age and drinking illegally (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).

The five votes on the Board of Equalization (excise taxes) member panel consist of three Democrats and two Republicans. Guess which two want to keep the hard lemonade tax at a reasonable beer-like level, precisely because it has a beer-like alcohol content?

Voting no were Bill Leonard, whose district includes the San Joaquin Valley, and Claude Parrish, who represents a Southern California district. (Parrish ran for State Treasurer, losing to Bill Lockyer). Both men worried the tax might place an undue hardship on beverage makers, distributors, retailers and restaurants. Some establishments, Leonard said in a statement, might not have the correct licenses to sell the drinks if they are reclassified.

"This is something (that will) kill a product, kill a business, and it sounds like it's predatory," Parrish said at Tuesday's hearing.

Indeed. Why do I get the feeling that the beer industry is behind raising the tax on a competing beverage?

Carly Fiorina's Catty Memoir

For those of us born and raised in what came to be known as Silicon Valley, the rise and fall and rise again of the Hewlett-Packard Corporation has been interesting to watch.

In her book "Tough Choices", Former CEO Carly Fiorina clearly has scores to settle, which get in the way of what might have been a fascinating story. (I link the WSJ because they really do sum up what I have read of it so far, very very well).

To Fiorina's credit, she does not have a ghostwriter, and her book, unlike the works of Jack Welch and Lee Iacocca, has fewer trite nostrums and pretentious pontifications.

However, while Carly Fiorina clearly does have interesting corporate war stories, she appears to have forgotten that utterly bogus "affirmative action" policies were in large part responsible for her rise to power. She should be bitter. No one wanted her just for her mind.

And let's face it Carly, Compaq was a dog, arf arf. Especially for what you had HP pay for it.

Ultimately, what I have read so far seems to be a self serving story with little evidence of honest insight. Not enough honest responsibility for some demonstrably poor decisions. The WSJ sums it up well:

Ms. Fiorina calls some unidentified directors "amateurish and immature." Indeed, the H-P board has lately been racked by scandal and resignations. But Ms. Fiorina sidesteps her own responsibility. She was chairman during most of her H-P days, with the power to remake the 10-member board. She brought in only two fresh faces while accepting several Compaq directors who gained H-P board seats after the 2002 merger.