Timothy P. Carney

This week, Matt Drudge highlighted the statistics on private-sector hiring vs. government-sector hiring: a 232,000 loss in jobs vs. a 13,800 gain in jobs. Did you know Maryland is now the wealthiest state, and the three richest counties in the country are all D.C. bedroom communities? My Examiner column today checks this all out:

When I bought a town house on Capitol Hill in 2004, my friend and fellow conservative journalist David Freddoso suggested that I had to worry about a second threat in addition to the possibility of a future broad housing slowdown.

“But what about the fact that Republicans control the White House and Congress? They’re going to shrink the government, which will drive down demand for property in Washington,” David exclaimed.

Then we both had a good laugh….

Did you notice the green peacock in the corner of NBC’s and MSNBC’s broadcasts last week? Did you remember that GE owns NBC? My Examiner column this week discusses the dynamic.

Environmentalism today almost always means government intervention. Government intervention means higher costs and higher taxes. And as this column has documented for more than a year, government intervention usually means profits for a well-connected special interest.

It would be nice if GE would disclose its interest in convincing America to “go green.”

Last week I wrote about the tax bandits–those people and businesses who love high taxes because they live off of taxes. In this week’s column, I focus on one group of tax bandits: the Gas Tax Bandits:

With gasoline prices averaging over $3.38 for a gallon of regular, Sen. John McCain has proposed a summertime gas-tax holiday. It’s probably the most eye-catching and voter-pleasing plank in the economic platform the presumptive nominee unveiled on Tax Day, but it certainly has its detractors: those on the receiving end of the gas tax.

For most Americans April 15 means you’re poorer with a headache. This week in the Examiner, I write about the other America.

For a minority of Americans, however, Tax Day is worth celebrating because taxes — either the dollars you pay or the complexity of complying with the law (or both) — are good news for them. I call them tax bandits, and they fit into four categories: the tax spenders, the tax receivers, the tax parasites and the tax shelters.

Obviously Bear Stearns’s bondholders benefit from the Federal Reserve’s bailout, but let’s not forget about the chief beneficiary: power-hungry politicians and regulators. I explain in my Examiner column today:

Asking politicians and bureaucrats for a bailout doesn’t really involve twisting arms, because the officials know it will give them more control and love of control is why they are government officials in the first place.

This is why you won’t find liberal Democrats trying to undo or prevent such bailouts. They may use the bailout as a valid critique of the influence of corporations, but they know that expanding corporate welfare expands their regulatory power.

I tend to focus on who gets rich off of regulations, but this week in my Examiner column, I hone in on a firm that may be lobbying against its interests, Pepsi.

The regulatory front is more treacherous. Any cap-and-trade legislation will be complex and nuanced, with the details determining who gets rich and who suffers, meaning he who has the best lobbying team usually wins.

Just looking at Pepsi’s cohorts in USCAP, it’s easy to see the soda maker is not the biggest kid on the block. Pepsi spent $1 million on lobbying last year, compared to GE’s $23.6 million, General Motors’ $6.4 million and Alcoa’s $1.6 million.

More specifically, PepsiCo has not lobbied on environmental issues in more than three years, according to federal filings.

This is enough to make a shareholder worry that Pepsi is in over its head in this high-stakes game of global warming regulation

For a couple of years I have been trying to bring some equality to the whole media game of examining business’s ulterior motives. In my Examiner column today, I look at “philanthropist” Julian Robertson who is funding a lobbying effort to push global warming regulations.

Relevant to his cap-and-trade position are his investments in China’s leading biofuels maker Gushan and in a company that deals with nuclear waste disposal. Given the right global warming legislation, both of these investments will benefit.

A bigger Robertson bet, presenting a more insidious angle, is his short position on 10-year Treasury bonds paired with a long position on two-year Treasuries. Basically, if the U.S. economy is fundamentally unsound, Robertson gets rich. “I’ve made a big bet on it,” Robertson told Fortune. “I really think I’m going to make 20 or 30 times on my money.”

It’s hardly a shocker, but last year the Export-Import Bank dedicated a majority of its subsidies to financing the sale of Boeing jets. I discuss the facts in my Examiner column this week.

Last year, Ex-Im subsidized 21 different Boeing sales, guaranteeing $4.5 billion in financing. Every other company, combined, received $2.5 billion in Ex-Im loan guarantees. Sixty-four percent of Ex-Im’s subsidies, then, benefited one manufacturer.

Obama’s big win in Mississippi highlights that he is in the driver’s seat of this nomination battle, but Florida and Michigan battles could really shake up the race, we explain in this week’s Evans-Novak Political Report. Also: Geraldine Ferraro, explained; delegate update; congressional elections this week.

In a follow-up to last-week’s piece, my Examiner column this week asks why The Medicines Company wouldn’t sue their patent lawyer who was one day late with a filing, potentially costing the company $1 billion. One of the interesting threads in this story is that the law firm that could be on the hook is Ropes & Gray, which defended Ted Kennedy after Chappaquiddick. Kennedy, again, sponsored the bill that bail out the drug maker (and possibly their lawyer) from this misstep.

Read the whole thing here.