Category Archives: Government

Unemployment Benefits: A Rational Course

I’ve long been an opponent of the unemployment policy usually advocated by our government.  In my moments of most extreme Libertarian I can make the case for no unemployment benefit system at all.  People, understanding that they won’t have a program to fall back on will make efforts to protect against the downside.  This might take the form of more aggressive saving or, perhaps, not getting fired in the first place.

However, not all terminations are due to performance, many are due to economic conditions out of the control of the employee.  Further, it’s unlikely that I’d be able to prevail in my rather “draconian” response to unemployment.  So, knowing that benefits are going to be provided, how best to work within the system to create the best outcome?

Other than its existence, I have two problems with unemployment benefits:

  1. The benefit too closely approximates the typical wage.
  2. The duration of the program is too long.

The system creates the wrong incentives.  In the first place, it reduces the value of working.  For example, if I lose my $10 an hour job and can pull $325 in benefits, the marginal value of me returning to work is $75.  [Maybe $125 or so – I seem to remember the first fifty is “free.]  So the value of working 40 hours moves from $400 to $75.  An hourly rate of $1.88.  In the second place, the system is built with the incentive to delay returning to the workplace until the benefits expire.

So, what to do?

It seems to me that if I had bought into building a system that worked, that is I agreed to set aside the ideology and build a program I might not 100% agree with, I would first define the goals.  It might go like this:

  1. Provide folks assistance to get through the transition to the next job.
  2. Return folks to the workforce as soon as possible.

And the method I would use to build the program that solves both of these goals would be this:

  1. Determine the mean time to return to work without the debilitating incentive of making money while not working.
  2. Pay the unemployed a lump sum regardless of employment status.
    1. Either literally pay the individual a lump sum in the form of one check.
    2. Guarantee weekly benefits for the duration of the identified mean regardless of employment status.

This satisfies the [dubious] requirement of the government providing assistance in the face of adversity while also removing the perverse incentive not to return to the workforce.  In fact, it might actually provide the incentive to return more quickly; who can pass-up on “double dipping.”

 

Oh For Pete’s Sake

I’m late on this; it’s been in my stack for awhile now.  But what in the world can be gained by the government suing Intrade?

Today, Americans were told that they must close their Intrade.com accounts. That happened because the federal government agency known as the “Commodity Futures Trading Commission” (CFTC) today sued the prediction market, where people from all over the world bet about things like who will win elections.

Intrade decided all its U.S. customers must now close their accounts and withdraw their money from the site.

I’m sure someone somewhere feels that I, the wilting consumer, must be protected from myself, but seriously.  How is this good?

What law are they breaking?

In English: the government says that many of the things Intrade allows people to predict – everything from what the price of gold will be in the future to whether the U.S. will go to war soon – are legally considered “commodity options,” and that Intrade broke the law because it isn’t licensed to trade those. The penalty is $140,000 per violation.

So, just get a license:

Why doesn’t Intrade just obey the complicated law and become a licensed exchange? They tried, but the CFTC won’t give them a license. When an established, licensed U.S. commodity exchange applied for permission to do what Intrade does, the CFTC turned them down, too.

The pompous CFTC enforcer claims that the regulation “is important for a number of reasons, including that it enables the CFTC to police market activity.”

This is the perfect microcosm that is the state of government today.  And Stossel sums it up perfectly:

Please. These regulations don’t help police market activity. When people make money on Intrade, Intrade sends them the money. There are no allegations of fraud. Customers are happy with Intrade, judging by increased activity on the site (over $50 million was bet about whether Obama or Romney would win.)

The market polices itself.

In a sane world, government would focus on preventing fraud, not on crushing innovative ideas.

Stossel goes on to point out that this isn’t just a democrat or republican problem, rather it’s the mindset that gentle flower that is the rugged American needs protection from …. from something, surely.  And THIS is the state of our future that I fear.  How to prove to, to convince, people that the future may not be “bad” with these rules, but it certainly is less better.

Homeless – Help Out or Help Up and Out

I saw the story the other day of that cop who took his own money and bought that guy a pair of boots:

After Officer Lawrence DePrimo knelt beside a barefoot man on a bitterly cold November night in Times Square, giving him a pair of boots, a photo of his random act of good will quickly took on a life of its own — becoming a symbol for a million acts of kindness that go unnoticed every day and a reminder that even in this tough, often anonymous city, people can still look out for one another.

Those boots cost him a hundo.

I like stories like this for two reasons:

  1. I think too often we’re inundated with only bad shit going on in the world.  That everybody is out to get everybody.  More good news would be a good thing.
  2. People ARE capable of giving individually.

Anyway, as I read the story, like I said, I felt good.  But I have to admit that when I got to the cost of the shoes I kinda reacted with a “Uh-oh.”

Sadly, as the story continues, we find that the boots are gone:

Since Mr. Hillman’s bare feet became famous, other people reported seeing him without shoes — one even after Officer DePrimo’s gift — and one woman said she had bought him a pair of shoes a year ago. Whatever the case, Mr. Hillman seemed accustomed to walking the pavement shoeless.

Now, I don’t know Hillman’s story, of course.  The life he leads is violent and full of crime; those boots may have been stolen.  Or, Mr. Hillman may have reacted rationally and decided that the money gained from the shoes was more valuable than the shoes themselves, so he sold or returned ’em.  Again, I don’t know.

But it got me to thinking on the best way to help the folks who have found themselves in the precarious condition of living on the streets.

When I moved to Seattle all those years ago, my buddy and I asked the logical first question, “Where do we go out?”  Everyone told us Pioneer Square.  So we hit that neighborhood 4-5 or 6-7 nights that week.  It was a blast.  Rocking music scene, walking neighborhood with restaurants, bars, shopping and whatnot.  It was great.

But, during that week I was exposed to the folks on Seattle’s streets.  I suspect I had seen homelessness during my time at the University of Minnesota, but I was literally off the farm in rural Minnesota; Right on the Banks of the Plum Creek.  This was new to me.

Over the course of those nights there were two men who were always at the same corner, right in the best place and always seeming, I don’t know – comfortable.  So my buddy and I got to know ’em.  I smoked then and we would sit down and share a smoke.  When it was time for a slice of pizza or a sausage, we’d buy an extra couple and eat with ’em.  I never drank with those guys or gave ’em money, but we got to know them.

I would get a job in that neighborhood and would often walk out of my place and bring them food, take time to smoke and always stop and talk.  To say that we were “friends” probably wasn’t accurate; we never hung out or did anything together.  But then again, when “grandpa” didn’t show up for “work” one night, I found he’d been taken to the hospital.  I told my boss I had to go, she agreed, and I went to visit him.  So, eh, not friends but certainly a connection was present.

One afternoon I was talking to the younger man, slightly older than me at about 30 or so.  I told him that I thought he carried himself well, his conversations displayed a nimbleness and that he was funny and easy to like.  Finally I said that if he needed to, I’d “borrow him” the money for clothes, a tie and jacket and some shoes.  He could use my address and phone number and I’d take messages and I would run him through practice interviews.  “Just puttin’ it out there…..”

He kinda looked at me, not funny – after all, this wsn’t the random act of kindess of a stranger, but still.  And he shook his head, “Naw man, I don’t wanna job.  I’d have to punch in and punch out, do stuff other people told me to do, and then I’d just come here anyway.  I don’t mind my life, I’m not hungry or cold, I have friends and I make enough money – heck, I make 60-80 bucks a night.”

“But you don’t have a home,” I said.

He corrected me, “I don’t have a house.”

Point taken.  And so it was that he decided to live there.  On the corner.  Eating with strangers and other passerbys.  I kept on eating with him, smoking with him.  We remained “friends” until I move, or until I quit working full time down there in the square.  But it was a little different after that talk.  It was different in that he had made a choice.  In the same way I made a choice, to go to school, then to work and to pay rent and all that stuff.

I’m sure that he’s the exception to the rule, I’m sure that the 636,017 folks out of homes today would rather not be out that home.  That they would want to be back in a secure place, warm fed and safe.  And I know that, my friend’s place was unique.  Seattle is a remarkably safe city, hell, I’d walk home, 1-2 miles at 03:00 AM with a bartender’s take of cash in my pocket right THROUGH the heart of the city.  Not once did anything happen.

But it has always made me wonder how is it best to help the folks that find themselves down on their luck?  How many cases are there of otherwise fully capable functioning families or individuals who just got hit with a random life event that knocked ’em off their feet for a sec?  And yes, literally a free apartment, some food, clothes and a razor would get them back on track.  How many would need more than that, perhaps less?  I’m sure that a ton are mentally ill and unstable; there is no amount of money or care that will allow a hope at a traditional functioning life spent working, paying rent and caring for a self and a home.  But what then? And, of course, there is my “friend” in Seattle.  He has made a clear and rational decision to live on those street and finds himself in a perfectly happy place.

I don’t think anyone questions that “we” give assistance through “entitlements”.  Maybe I speak for myself, but I ask the question, “What is the most effective form of aid?  How will we know it’s working?  What will we do when it hasn’t?  Are we prepared to stop providing the assistance in the event it isn’t fulfilling our goal?”

Those are the questions I have.

Another Government Creation, Another Bailout?

In the same way that government created the housing bubble, the government has created the college-loan bubble.

Once upon a time, government officials decided it would help them keep their jobs if they could claim they had expanded the middle class.  Unfortunately, none of them really understood economics or even the historical factors that led to the emergence of the middle class in the first place.  But they did know two things:  Middle class people tended to own their own homes, and they sent their kids to college.

So in true cargo cult fashion, they decided to increase the middle class by promoting these markers of being middle class.  They threw the Federal government strongly behind promoting home ownership and college education.  A large part of this effort entailed offering easy debt financing for housing and education.  Because the whole point was to add poorer people to the middle class, their was a strong push to strip away traditional underwriting criteria for these loans (e.g. down payments, credit history, actual income to pay debt, etc.)

We know what happened in the housing market.  The government promoted home ownership with easy loans, and made these loans a favorite investment by giving them a preferential treatment in the capital requirements for banks.  And then the bubble burst, with the government taking the blame for the bubble.  Just kidding, the government blamed private lenders for their lax underwriting standards, conviniently forgetting that every President since Reagan had encouraged such laxity (they called it something else, like “giving access to the poor”, but it means the same thing).

What are the chances that we bail out all those kids who’ve majored in such “in demand” course work as Art History, Religious Studies, Women’s Studies and others?

I’d say pretty high.

The Real Story Of Thanksgiving

It’s almost Thanksgiving here in Puerto Rico.  In honor of the holiday, enjoy:

Each year at this time school children all over America are taught the official Thanksgiving story, and newspapers, radio, TV, and magazines devote vast amounts of time and space to it. It is all very colorful and fascinating.

It is also very deceiving. This official story is nothing like what really happened. It is a fairy tale, a whitewashed and sanitized collection of half-truths which divert attention away from Thanksgiving’s real meaning.

The official story has the pilgrims boarding the Mayflower, coming to America and establishing the Plymouth colony in the winter of 1620-21. This first winter is hard, and half the colonists die. But the survivors are hard working and tenacious, and they learn new farming techniques from the Indians. The harvest of 1621 is bountiful. The Pilgrims hold a celebration, and give thanks to God. They are grateful for the wonderful new abundant land He has given them.

The official story then has the Pilgrims living more or less happily ever after, each year repeating the first Thanksgiving. Other early colonies also have hard times at first, but they soon prosper and adopt the annual tradition of giving thanks for this prosperous new land called America.

The problem with this official story is that the harvest of 1621 was not bountiful, nor were the colonists hardworking or tenacious. 1621 was a famine year and many of the colonists were lazy thieves.

In his ‘History of Plymouth Plantation,’ the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years, because they refused to work in the fields. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with “corruption,” and with “confusion and discontent.” The crops were small because “much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable.”

In the harvest feasts of 1621 and 1622, “all had their hungry bellies filled,” but only briefly. The prevailing condition during those years was not the abundance the official story claims, it was famine and death. The first “Thanksgiving” was not so much a celebration as it was the last meal of condemned men.

But in subsequent years something changes. The harvest of 1623 was different. Suddenly, “instead of famine now God gave them plenty,” Bradford wrote, “and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God.” Thereafter, he wrote, “any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day.” In fact, in 1624, so much food was produced that the colonists were able to begin exporting corn.

What happened?

After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, “they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop.” They began to question their form of economic organization.

This had required that “all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means” were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, “all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock.” A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take out only what he needed.

This “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that “young men that are most able and fit for labor and service” complained about being forced to “spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children.” Also, “the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak.” So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.

To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of famines.

Many early groups of colonists set up socialist states, all with the same terrible results. At Jamestown, established in 1607, out of every shipload of settlers that arrived, less than half would survive their first twelve months in America. Most of the work was being done by only one-fifth of the men, the other four-fifths choosing to be parasites. In the winter of 1609-10, called “The Starving Time,” the population fell from five-hundred to sixty.

Then the Jamestown colony was converted to a free market, and the results were every bit as dramatic as those at Plymouth. In 1614, Colony Secretary Ralph Hamor wrote that after the switch there was “plenty of food, which every man by his own industry may easily and doth procure.” He said that when the socialist system had prevailed, “we reaped not so much corn from the labors of thirty men as three men have done for themselves now.”

Before these free markets were established, the colonists had nothing for which to be thankful. They were in the same situation as Ethiopians are today, and for the same reasons. But after free markets were established, the resulting abundance was so dramatic that the annual Thanksgiving celebrations became common throughout the colonies, and in 1863, Thanksgiving became a national holiday.

Thus the real reason for Thanksgiving, deleted from the official story, is: Socialism does not work; the one and only source of abundance is free markets, and we thank God we live in a country where we can have them.

Go now, earn your wages.  Keep what is yours and sell what you want.

We will all be happier.

A Him – Part II

I’ve seen this going around my Facebook.  Thought I’d repost:

Let’s get one thing clear.

  1. I care for the people less fortunate.
  2. The government has no role in that caring.

Okay, that’s two, but the second is important.  The government has a role.  And that role is to act as the referee in disputes.  It is to make sure that we all face the same rules and laws.  Sure, there is a cost in maintaining a government, so we tax to pay for it.  But that role of government is not meant to take money from those who have it and just flat out GIVE it to those who don’t.

When that role is given to the government, bad things happen.  Really bad things.

It creates incentives that aren’t natural.  People begin to look for ways to avoid paying their taxes and people begin to look for ways to maximize their TAKE of people’s taxes.  Neither system works well.

When people slide around money to avoid taxes, the revenues realized aren’t as high as expected, so taxes are raised.  While generating the income, it increases the incentive to defraud the government.  This further punishes the honest man at the benefit of the crook.  Further, taxes relieve a man of his property.  What the government takes is first private property.

People forget this.

The money being taken first belonged to someone who earned it.  Confiscation of that property should be done with significant reluctance.

Most importantly, by taking one man’s property and giving it to another, the second man is less incented to earn his own.  Life becomes simply a series of cons and loopholes meant to get through today.  We lose the productivity of the second man and the power of the money had it been spent in more productive ways.

We lose on both sides.

Some highlights:

  1. 0:08  Do you need a tissue?
  2. 0:26 – You can’t find no job they give you money to live on.
  3. 0:44 – The furrowed brow.  This will be a hilarious recurring theme.
  4. 1:12 – I spent it on myself.
  5. 1:35 – The you’re stealing that money.  BOOM!
  6. 1:36 – No!  See tissue above.
  7. 2:32 – $22,000!  Per year!
  8. 3:15 – My conversation is rent…
  9. 3:24 – I’m 21.
  10. 4:24 – I’m me!
  11. 4:30 – That’s what were creating.
  12. 4:49 – Sending this tape to Congress.
  13. 5:00 – As taxpayers, we have spent at least $70,000.
  14. 5:10 – I appreciate that Judge Judy…Note he can’t keep a straight face.
  15. 5:45 – $70,000 right down the sewer.

I’m not sure if the end makes me laugh or cry.  She was actually suing him for rent.

Football Stadiums And WHo They Are Built For

There was talk that the Minnesota Vikings were going to move.  The Metrodome is old and not built to take advantage of the revenue streams available in today’s market.  Further, the dome collapsed recently and is showing it’s age.

Given the popularity of the team in Minnesota, the state legislature, run by republicans at the time, along with the governor, a democrat, passed legislation that created a publicly assisted stadium to be built.

At them time I was conflicted.  I hate it that private business is able to successfully lobby the government to get taxpayers to build them infrastructure while keeping all the profits.  But given all the money going the other way, I felt a guilty and legitimate pleasure on being on the receiving end of the public dole.  I don’t like it but I do get to keep my team.

But now the governor is expressing his disappointment in the Viking’s management:

Gov. Mark Dayton wrote a stern letter Tuesday to the owners of the Minnesota Vikings threatening to undo the stadium deal if they pass on the cost of building the $975 million project to the fans.

“The project’s strong support came from many regular Minnesotans, not just rich Minnesotans, because they believed the Vikings are also their team,” Dayton wrote. “If a new stadium were to betray that trust, it would be better that it not be built.”

Dayton sent the letter to Vikings owners Zygi and Mark Wilf.

I refuse to be shocked and outraged over the fact that the governor feels the Vikings ownership is going to increase their wealth as a result of the Viking’s stadium being built with taxpayer money.  But the governor continues to prosecute the issue:

“I strongly oppose shifting any part of the team’s responsibility for those costs onto Minnesota Vikings fans,” Dayton wrote in his letter to the Wilfs. “This Private Contribution is your responsibility. Not theirs. I said this new stadium would be a ‘People’s Stadium,’ not a ‘Rich People’s Stadium.’ I meant it then, and I mean it now.”

The stadium legislation gives the Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority, which is working with the team to oversee development of the project, the right to own and sell the seat licenses, although the revenue then goes to the Vikings construction costs. “Reportedly the purpose for this arrangement is to shield revenue from taxes,” Dayton wrote in the letter dated Nov. 13. “If true, I deplore it.”

He added that since it is the Authority which will make the decision on whether to sell the licenses, “I will urge its Board not to proceed.”

I don’t know what kind of tool thought otherwise; of COURSE building stadiums for sports teams is being done for the rich at the expense of the non-rich.

The Slow Decline Of GM

The whole of the rust belt went for Obama.  The auto states have long been democratic strong holds and no matter what happened to GM they likely would have supported Obama.  However, Ohio has a history of swinging and was in play November 5th, 2008.

And Obama knew this.

So, when faced with the dilemma that was the failing corporations, GM and Chrysler, he made the political play to bail the companies out with government money giving a huge gift to his political allies; the auto unions.

After this move, the companies failed anyway and they both went through bankruptcy where Obama continued his assault of reasonableness and simply ignored well established bankruptcy law.  He paid the unsecured creditors first which benefited the very voters he would need later in 2012.

It paid off.

But Romney, back in 2008, wrote an Op Ed for the NY Times where he called for the managed bankruptcy of the two companies , not a bailout.  Here’s what he said:

IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

Fast forward to today:

(Reuters) – Ford Motor Co, which clung to the road with a timely swerve before the 2009 crisis that bankrupted General Motors Co, may now be pulling a similar stunt in Europe.

The Dearborn, Michigan-based automaker is scrapping three European plants and thousands of jobs while its rival appears to be stuck on the starting grid. The speed of Ford’s restructuring plan – and the comparatively slow pace of GM’s – has become more important during a protracted slump in Europe’s auto market, with sales down another 7.2 percent so far this year.

Both companies unveiled hefty third-quarter losses in the region and warned they could lose a combined $6 billion or more in Europe in 2012-13.

The bad news weighs heavily on GM’s troubled Opel unit, which has lost billions of dollars over the past decade, has a long history of ill will with its labor unions, has seen its products and brand image pummeled in the media and has shown the door to all but a handful of its top executives.

More than anything, however, the cost of making cars is simply too high, with too many workers still on the payroll given sagging demand in most of western Europe.

Ford, quick and nimble – able to respond to changing needs – is outpacing the “saved” company that Obama “saved.”

Ford adjust.  GM didn’t.  And they’re paying.

By 2009, the company was solid enough to stay afloat as GM took a government bailout and Chrysler was sold to Fiat – both through Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.

Beyond the disposals, Ford seeks more gains by building future cars and trucks from just five basic platforms, compared with nine distinct vehicle architectures currently deployed.

The push to consolidate underlying technologies – led by rivals VW and Hyundai – is already lifting earnings at home. Ford’s North American operating profit amounted to 12 percent of third-quarter sales, pulling further ahead of GM’s 7.8 percent margin.

“We track how we’re performing versus Ford very closely and we’ve got a good understanding of the gap,” GM’s U.S. finance chief Chuck Stephens told reporters and analysts this week. “Obviously it’s widened thus far this year. Ford is about two years ahead of us (in) getting scale on global architectures.”

Ford’s lead over GM is closer to four years in the European restructuring stakes. And even then, Bochum’s 2017 closure should not be taken for granted, some observers warn.

Ouch.

 

Romney Was Right And Obama Has Been Covering Up Benghazi

For a long time now I’ve been advocating the position that Benghazi has been a big deal.  I thought that Obama mismanaged the event in real time, the next morning I felt he was off.  Further, in the weeks that followed the man-made disaster, I felt that Obama was feeding us information that didn’t ring true.

And all the while there wasn’t mention of it at in the media; Fox was the only organization that was prosecuting Obama on this issue.  And guess what?  It was Fox that was being accused of “foul play.”  As if the media doesn’t have a job to ferret out administrations and get the real truth.

Well, in recent days I’ve seen CBS doing some good work.  I didn’t finish the post I started by there was an article this past week where CBS reported on e-mails they obtained.  Good stuff.

And now we learn that CBS interviewed Obama on 60 Minutes but didn’t include the whole interview.  Fine, we all know that not every single bit of film makes the cut.  However, CBS DID release the full interview later and this is part of what was left on the floor:

“Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya attack,” correspondent Steve Kroft asks the president. “Do you believe that this was a terrorism attack?”

“Well, it’s too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans,” Obama answered. “And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.”

Obama would. not. answer. the. question.

Mr. Kroft straight up asked the man a yes or no question, “Do you believe that this wasn’t a terrorist attack?”

And the President would say it was.

This should have come out the minute the interview was over.  This shouldn’t have been cut.  This was the EXACT point Romney made during that second debate when he was pounding the Barckness Monster over his handling of the attacks.

Obama and his team were clearly out of their element.

At least now we know.

Obama And The Tape That Is Red

Obama is getting rave reviews over his handling of the disaster relief efforts through the area hammered by Sandy:

Autrey did that during Hurricane Katrina, which ripped through the Gulf Coast in 2005. FEMA’s reputation took a beating because of the government’s unacceptable response to that storm. Obama forcefully made it clear he doesn’t want Katrina’s performance repeated:

“I want you to cut through red tape,” he told federal agencies during his Red Cross visit. “I want you to cut through bureaucracy. There’s no excuse for inaction at this point. I want every agency to lean forward and to make sure that we are getting the resources where they need — where they’re needed as quickly as possible.

“So I want to repeat — my message to the federal government: No bureaucracy, no red tape. Get resources where they’re needed as fast as possible, as hard as possible, and for the duration.”

Now, FEMA is a government agency.  And agency that democrats and Obama wanna keep at the federal agency.  Any red tape that exists is because it is a federal bureaucracy.  That red tape is there precisely because people like Obama put that tape there.

I’m encouraged that President Obama sees fit to remove layers of government regulation.  But I find the praise being heaped upon him a bit ironic, yes?