The Harvard Crimson (see the disclosures here) has an editorial declaring that a shutdown by regulators of a private interstate bus line is a good reason for more government spending on Amtrak:

While buses may have their place delivering children to school and ferrying tourists around a city, there are few compelling arguments to why they should be relied upon for long distance transportation. At the moment, trains serve as the perfect surrogate. But a rise in demand must be met with a commensurate rise in supply. We hope America's policymakers understand this basic point of introductory economics and bolster support for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, otherwise known as Amtrak.

Instapundit and law professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds has an op-ed in USA Today updating his idea of a tax that would slow the revolving door between federal employment and the private sector:

since it's getting more attention, perhaps I should flesh this idea out a bit more.

First, I'd apply it only to political appointees in the executive branch, at least to begin with. I'd be thrilled to apply it to congressional staffers -- and to members of Congress -- as well, but I think that such a bill would face too much opposition in, well, Congress to make it through. But if executive officials are subject to this sort of law, the pressure will grow to extend it the legislative branch as well. (And I wouldn't apply it to people who aren't political appointees because it seems unfair to slap a surtax on someone who finishes his hitch in the Marines and joins a private-security company).

Libertarian law professor Richard Epstein's column this week is about "enforcement guidance" from the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission. Under the guidance, Professor Epstein writes, "all private employers and all state employers must use detailed and particularized inquiries before turning down a minority applicant who has a criminal arrest or conviction on his record, even though employers can turn down a white applicant with the same past record without going through such hoops."

He goes on, "by raising transaction costs, the EEOC will continue on its mindless job-killing path. Once again, the EEOC seems utterly oblivious to the harm that it causes to the groups that it most wants to help—and indeed to everyone else."

Keith Hennessey, a former George W. Bush administration economic policy official, has a typically astute analysis of the politics of the sequester. He writes:

without a deal to replace the sequester, the President now has a new target for blame-shifting in his macroeconomic message.

Old message: All economic bad news is George W. Bush's fault, all good news is because my policies are working.

New message: All economic bad news is Congressional Republicans' fault, while all good news is because my policies are working.

Of course, President Obama signed the sequester into law, and, as Bob Woodward reported, it was his White House staff's idea to begin with, so blaming it entirely on Congressional Republicans is somewhat inaccurate. But the president doesn't appear to view that as an obstacle.

Warren Buffett's letter to shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway, its internal contradictions, and how it differs from Berkshire's SEC filing are the topic of my column this week. While the letter touts Berkshire's wind and solar energy investments, the SEC filing warns, "New requirements limiting greenhouse gas emissions could have a material adverse impact" on Berkshire's electric utility company, MidAmerican. Please read the column at the New York Sun (here), Reason (here), or Newsmax (here).

Robert Samuelson's Washington Post column blaming the Kennedy tax cuts for America's current fiscal problems is right up there. There are at least two mostly accurate sentences in the column. They are these: "The promise of Kennedy's tax cuts was that, by promoting faster and more stable economic growth, government could afford more because the economy would perform better. When Republicans proposed 'supply side' tax cuts in the 1980s, they made similar arguments and referred admiringly to Kennedy."

The Harvard Crimson, a newspaper I once served as the president of (and still serve as a graduate council member of), has an editorial encouraging conservatives such as Mitt Romney, Bill O'Reilly, and Ted Cruz who might later criticize the university not to attend in the first place. (By this logic, instead of writing God and Man at Yale, William F. Buckley Jr. should never have matriculated.)

When someone sent the editorial to me I thought it was a joke, but the current Crimson president is apparently going on television defending it.

WBGO, the Newark-based jazz public radio station, has a report about the New Jersey Senate considering a bil that "would allow retailers to sell premium gas at the price of regular if they run short of fuel during emergencies."

Why not let retailers sell gas at whatever price they want even if it isn't an emergency?

It's almost comical, the way that the Garden State allows market-based pricing mechanism to operate only in cases of emergency. In normal conditions, the government tells the retailers how much they have to charge.

Naturally, the regulated businesses in some cases like the regulation because it protects them from competition. The WBGO dispatch quotes the executive director of the New Jersey Gasoline and Automotive Association, Sal Risalvato, declaring the legislation unnecessary because, as the article paraphrases him, "most retailers would not hurt their profits by selling premium at regular prices."

Bloomberg Television has an interview with hedge fund manager Stanley Druckenmiller that gets into some policy-related matters, including the puzzling question of why President Obama and his allies were advocating a large tax increase while warning of the supposedly devastating effects that much smaller spending cuts will have on the economy: "it's just a little ridiculous to say a $600 billion tax increase over ten years and $150 billion increase in the payroll tax is going to have no effect on the economy. But an $85 billion cut in discretionary spending is going to tank the economy? If the economy were to soften, I can tell you it won't be because it will not be because of this $85 billion..."

Charles Krauthammer has a column on the sequester: "Because of this year's payroll tax increase, millions of American workers have had to tighten their belts by precisely 2 percent. They found a way. Washington, spending $3.8 trillion, cannot?"

Good catch by someone working for the New York Times in Albany, who reports:

Six weeks after approving an expanded ban on assault weapons, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and lawmakers are considering whether to amend the measure to add an exception — for Hollywood/

Mr. Cuomo said Wednesday that while he and lawmakers did not want assault weapons on New York's streets, they did not intend to ban their use on film shoots, and that concerns had been raised that the new measure could put a damper on the state's growing film and television industry.

"Should you be able to use these types of guns in movies? The answer is yes," Mr. Cuomo said in a news conference at the Capitol. "We do spend a lot of money in this state bringing movie production here."

Dow Chemical lost a federal court case this week involving what the Justice Department said were "$1 billion in phony tax deductions," Accounting Today reports.

The Accounting Today dispatch quotes Assistant Attorney General Kathryn Keneally of the Justice Department's Tax Division, who praised court's opinion and said, "It is offensive to all taxpayers who pay their fair share when our largest corporations believe that they can claim hundreds of millions of dollars in tax deductions that are manufactured by abusive tax schemes."

We've noted here previously that the CEO of Dow Chemical, Andrew Liveris, is President Obama's second-favorite CEO. The president invited him to a state dinner at the White House and has appointed him to be a member of the President's Export Council and the U.S.-India CEO Forum. Mr. Liveris also wrote a book calling for greater government subsidies for renewable energy.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has an analysis of Governor Scott Walker's proposed tax cut that is illuminating for showing just how far today's leading Republicans are willing to go to avoid being portrayed as cutting taxes on the rich. The analysis was tweeted by Governor Walker, so it seems to be an accurate portrayal, or at least one he does not dispute:

According to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, the taxpayers with the largest percentage reduction in taxes under Walker's plan are those making between $20,000 and $50,000, with an average tax reduction of just over 3%.

A Census Bureau press release out today reports:

The rate of employment-based health insurance coverage declined from 64.4 percent in 1997 to 56.5 percent in 2010, according to a U.S. Census Bureau report, Employment-Based Health Insurance: 2010. Among employed individuals, employment-based coverage declined from 76.0 percent in 1997 to 70.2 percent in 2010. ...A higher proportion of unemployed individuals were uninsured in 2010 (46.2 percent) than in 2005 (39.8 percent) and 2002 (43.1 percent).

The Heritage Foundation has a really fabulous chart showing how the tax increases that went into effect January 1 are nearly twice as large as the sequester that President Obama is running around warning will ruin the economy.