FDIC

The Globe Reports:

The federal agency that insures bank deposits, which is asking for emergency powers to borrow up to $500 billion to take over failed banks, is facing a potential major shortfall in part because it collected no insurance premiums from most banks from 1996 to 2006. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which insures deposits up to $250,000, tried for years to get congressional authority to collect the premiums in case of a looming crisis. But Congress believed that the fund was so well-capitalized - and that bank failures were so infrequent - that there was no need to collect the premiums for a decade, according to banking officials and analysts.

This is getting some play across the blag-o-net, and will undoubtedly be getting more, but I'd just like to point the following two facts out:

• In 1996, the first year in which Congress refused to authorize the FDIC to collect premiums, Republicans had just recently gained control of Congress
• 2006, the last year in which Congress refused to authorize the FDIC to collect premiums, was the last year that Republicans had control of Congress
  

PUBLIC CHOICE THEORY~!

Read This

Matthew Yglesias is relevant to your interests.

I am going to write more about this topic this weekend. Exciting!

Oh, and, once again, Klein Sucks, Yglesias Rules.

Why Twitter Works for the Republicans

As any West Wing fan knows, the key to winning superficial political debates is the 10 word answer. The Republican party, at the moment, is completely bereft of serious policy thought - they've pretty plainly become the party of "No." So, while a serious policy debate obviously needs to go past 10 words, having a serious policy debate is monumentally dangerous for the modern Republican.

Twitter limits posts to 140 characters.

Twitter and Republicans - made for each other.

Speech Clouds: Solidarity Forever

Here is the Wordle word cloud for the eighth speech I gave, entitled "Solidarity Forever":

New blog Rules

Henceforth, any use of the phrase "Wall Street Journal Editorial" shall be replaced by the phrase "LOLERSKATES!!!"

That is all.

Five Thirty Die Commie Bastard!

Red baiting now, are we? Bravo Nate, bra-vo.

A Tax Increase is a Tax Increase

While this is assuredly nitpicky, this is a pet peeve of mine. While I'm generally in favor of public-health targeted taxes, it is decidedly not the case that if you increase taxes on product X, overall consumption will not be affected and people will just buy less X and more not X. Because a tax increase is a tax increase - and just like increasing the sales tax generally will depress consumption, a targeted sales tax increase will decrease consumption. Now, clearly, a targeted tax increase on one sort of product will cause a much smaller drop in consumption, but it won't be neutral. Just like when you build a new lane on a road, it does actually decrease congestion. Aure, adding a 3rd lane doesn't cut congestion by 2/3rds, but there isn't a 50% increase in traffic either - more people take the road, and there's a small drop in congestion, but its still a reduction.

Just more proof that Klein Sucks, Yglesias Rules.