While it is certainly is good news that the state of Maryland hasn’t denied permission to developers hoping to install slots in a new casino planned in the Anne Arundel Mall, the rationale on which the decision was based and the fact that they require permission at all is deplorable.
The amount of tax revenue and number of jobs that a new casino could generate for the state should not be the basis for government getting out of the way of private business owners. The government should not be in the way in the first place.
The Maryland state lottery has been drawing money from residents since 1973 and it is sheer hypocrisy and protection of the state’s monopoly for politicians to limit the amount and types of gambling offered by private operators.
Beyond hypocrisy, the real issue is individual liberty and the proper role of the government. The question is, should governments limit the choices of individual consumers and business owners if their actions do not violate the rights of any other individuals? Certainly not. The government shouldn’t be in the business of determining if gambling should be allowed, what kinds, how much, or where it should be allowed. These rights should be left to individual property and business owners.
Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) is once again proving that she has no understanding of either the wireless phone industry, the rationale behind contract law, or basic economics. Verizon Wireless announced last week that it was changing its early contract-termination fee for smartphone customers from a flat $175 to a pro-rated $350 that decreases $10 for every month that contract is in effect. Sen. Klobuchar sent complaints to both FCC Chair Julius Genachowski and Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam. From her letter:
I remain concerned that ETFs – especially at these high prices – unfairly penalize consumers, bear little to no relationship to the cost of the handset device, and are anti-consumer and anti-competitive. In fact, Verizon Wireless’ decision underscores the need for Congress to act and to pass the Cell Phone Consumer Empowerment Act.
Sen. Klobuchar – a vocal critic of the wireless industry – obviously doesn’t understand that wireless carriers subsidize the cost of handsets for customers in exchange for a fixed-duration service contract. $500 upfront for an internet-capable handset is prohibitively expensive for most consumers, and so the popular business model has been below-cost phones + two-year (give-or-take) contracts. No wireless company could stay in business offering subsidized phones without requiring customers to sign service contracts. Moreover, having a brand new shiny gadget – near or below cost – is neither a right nor an entitlement for any consumer. Verizon’s response stated that if a customer absolutely cannot wait two years to get a new high-tech cell phone, then they have the option of going contract-free and upgrading – at full retail price – whenever they desire.
The government should not be in the business of regulating service charges and contract fees. A clever commenter in the Star Tribune article (cited above) exemplifies the madness of Sen. Klobuchar’s complaint best: “I got charged four bucks for a movie late fee the other day. I believe that fee unfairly penalized me and bears little relationship to the price of the movie.”
Your host Richard Morrison welcomes back returning guest co-hosts Michelle Minton and Jeremy Lott for Episode 54 of the LibertyWeek podcast. We start with ominous hints of new taxes, California state employees making strike threats and the possible antitrust implications of the Microhoo partnership. We continue with a double-dipping pay scandal, the suppression of dissent in Venezuela and some fully transparent Olympic News.
Today, in addition to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s expected announcement of a major mortgage modification plan through the $700 billion TARP, Barney Frank’s House Financial Services Committee is holding a hearing entitled “Private Sector Cooperation with Mortgage Modification.” However, despite the word “cooperation” in its title, it’s clear from letters Frank and others sent out that the hearing will be confrontational rather than cooperative. Specifically, Frank and some fellow committee members seek to villify investors in mortgage-backed secuties who assert their property rights under contracts with banks servicing the mortgages.
The harsh tone was set in a letter that Frank and fellow committee Democrats, including Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., and Maxine Waters, D-Ca., sent to investor William Frey. The representative wrote that they were “outraged” the Frey was opposing their “voluntary efforts” to “achieve a dimuntion in foreclosures” through the Federal Housing Administration refinancing plan mortgage bailout passed this summer. They then urged him to “reverse his position of trying to obstruct the operation of the bill.” So much for “voluntary,” huh.
But all Frey was doing was asserting the basic American property right of having a contract upheld. Because of securitization, many mortgages are not the banks to modify. Instead they are owned by investors, including pension funds holding the savings of the very middle-class families Frank and others are trying to help. In my OpenMarket post a few months ago, “Abrogating Peter’s Contract to Pay Paul,” I noted that according to investment bank Credit Suisse, 14 percent of MBS are owned by pensions and mutual funds that serve middle-class savers. So a big bailout, I wrote, “not only ‘robs Peter to Pay Paul,’ through taxpayers’ bailout of bad loans by banks and borrowers. It can also be said to ‘abrogate Paul’s contract to Peter.’”
[click to continue…]
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
Twitter 
Facebook 
CEI.org 
WorkPlaceChoice.org 
GlobalWarming.org 
CEI On Demand Video 
Liberty Week Podcast 