Mrs. Clinton has suggested that we use American anti-trust law to address the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries or OPEC.  Anti-trust law addresses the promotion of competition and consumer choice in the United States.  Courts try to maximize consumer welfare with their decisions.  Courts and the appropriate regulatory agencies focus on concentration of economic power. 

Mrs. Clinton is arguing that OPEC represents concentration of economic power.  In general, this is what a cartel represents.  What Mrs. Clinton fails to do, however, is to point out that consumers are endusers of gasoline.  The cartel that she wants to after via the use of anti-trust law sells oil as a wholesaler to other wholesalers who in turn sell their refined product, whether it be jet fuel, diesel fuel, or fuel for vehicles, to retailers.  The reality is that consumers have choice.  Going after OPEC only provides additional aid to Exxon and Hess.

American anti-trust law is not designed to break up a cartel that does not operate in the United States.  Also, the complexity of OPEC makes the use of anti-trust law inappropriate.  OPEC serves primarily a political purpose with oil as its chief weapon.  If Mrs. Clinton is really interested in sound policy designed to reduce the cost of gasoline, Mrs. Clinton needs to focus on supply and demand issues and determine what incentives government can provide to reduce the demand for oil and gas.

 .... good luck, Mrs. Clinton. 

Mrs. Clinton has been calling for increases in taxes on oil companies so that there would be additional funds available for pursuing alternative fuels.  I don't agree with this approach. 

Taxation is exercised for one of two reasons.  First, taxes are imposed to raise revenues.  Second, taxes are imposed to regulate behavior.  It is the second rationale, the regulation of behavior, that has me the most concerned.  Taxation would interfere with the business judgment rule.  The business judgment rule is usually tossed around by lawyers and judges, so Mrs. Clinton should be very familiar with it.  Firms, in general, are allowed to exercise business judgment without undue interference from the government.  If a firm wants to invest some of its profits in tiddly winks, that is it's perogative, as long as the investment maximizes shareholder wealth.  Bottomline, the decision to reinvest should be left up to the oil company.

As with all taxes, such a tax increase will lead to inefficiencies in production.  In other words, oil companies will not be using their resources to the maximum to produce oil because of the additional expenses a tax creates.  Instead, oil companies will reduce output, layoff workers, take plant offline, and pass on the increased tax expenses to the consumer.  The consumer, before realizing any benefits from alternative fuels, which by the way will cost more, will experience increased costs of using the only currently available fuel source.

Senator Obama is correct on this point.  All this talk about gas taxes is just a gimmick.  Save $28 this year and lose the ability to drive the next.  There is only one way to bring down the cost of energy.  Reduce the cost by increasing supply of current sources.   

Hillary Clinton has proposed appointing a poverty czar whose function would be to address the ongoing battle to end poverty in America.  This proposal appears to be an emotional, patronizing response to recent observations marking the 40th anniversary of the Dr. Martin Luther King's death.  The United States already has a poverty czar--the President of the United States.  The president has all the tools he or she will need to wage the ongoing and future war against poverty.

You may ask why I describe the war against poverty as ongoing.  It is ongoing because mankind over its long history has favored the dichotomy of rich and poor.  Without these distinctions there would be little incentive to manipulate one's personal skills and resources to dominate his economic and social surroundings.  If you want to end poverty, you have to change the mindsets of both the rich and the poor and I trust that won't be happenning anytime during my lifetime or my son's.

This is not to say that the ravages of poverty cannot be minimized or that opportunities cannot be created for advancement from one class to the next.  The president has the tools and the obligation to regulate the economy while business maintains its role as the manager of commerce in a free market.  The president has the help of her commerce, treasury, and labor departments for developing growth policies.  The president's budget is a management tool for determining the appropriate amount of government spending necessary for priming the fiscal pump.  The president also has the assistance of the Congress and the Federal Reserve, given the Congress' role in implementing fiscal policy through expenditures and the Federal Reserve's role in monetary policy.

No, the president does not need a poverty czar.  The president needs the acumen and judgment for designing sound economic policy and the management skill for coordinating her existing tools to help bring about these policies.  The current administration has not done so and Senator Clinton's proposal promises to deliver more of the same. 

Consumer advocates are quickly calling for the federal government to treat homeowners the way the Federal Reserve is treating Bear Stearns.  The Federal Reserve provided Bear Stearns with an indirect bailout over the weekend; providing JP Morgan Chase with access to $30 billion worth of liquidity needed for shoring up the once mighty investment banker.  At first glance, one might argue that if the feds can bail out a bunch of greedy Wall Street types, why not bail out the little guy who was screwed over by (guess who) the same greedy Wall Street types. 

I believe fair is fair.  If you are going to throw a lifeline at Bear Stearns, why not send one to Joe Blow consumer.  I tried my damndest to make an argument work for equity but I couldn't.  For example, I tried the equal protection argument.  If a homeowner is an investor and Bear Stearns is an investor, why not treat everyone as being in the same class and thus provide everyone with the same type of protection i.e. bailout.  It sounds good, until you start breaking down the similarities.  A home, for the most part, is not an investment. 

Yeah, homeowners, may think their houses are investments but what the consumer has done is purchased a final good.  Bear Stearns provides a service and plays a crucial role in the transfer of capital from idle hands to creative hands.  Bear Stearns is a part of the financial system, an intermediary if you will.  The homeowner does not play such a role.  The money simply stops at the homeowner.  

Yes, it appears unfair but remember, this is an election year.  The Bush administration does not want to add an eroded financial system to its legacy.  That would cost the Republican party in November.