Voice For Liberty

Category: Role of government

  • Tax Chambers of Commerce, Right Here in Kansas

    This week, Kansas Liberty has a very fine editorial titled The KC Chamber: Enemy of Life, Enemy of Business. Prominent is the mention of the work of my friend the Kansas Meadowlark in revealing the funding of the The Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce. See Greater Kansas City Chamber PAC, Awash With Cash, Forms New PACs to “Buy” Kansas Elections for the Meadowlark’s original reporting.

    I won’t reveal the entire content of the Kansas Liberty piece, as I urge you to read it in its entirety. But here’s a sample: “Through its well-funded political action committees, the best funded in the area, the Chamber is working to create a high tax environment that is indifferent to small business and the free market and downright hostile to the culture of life.”

    This reminded me of an article from last year. Here’s something from Stephen Moore in the article “Tax Chambers” published in The Wall Street Journal on February 10, 2007:

    The Chamber of Commerce, long a supporter of limited government and low taxes, was part of the coalition backing the Reagan revolution in the 1980s. On the national level, the organization still follows a pro-growth agenda — but thanks to an astonishing political transformation, many chambers of commerce on the state and local level have been abandoning these goals. They’re becoming, in effect, lobbyists for big government.

    …

    In as many as half the states, state taxpayer organizations, free market think tanks and small business leaders now complain bitterly that, on a wide range of issues, chambers of commerce deploy their financial resources and lobbying clout to expand the taxing, spending and regulatory authorities of government. This behavior, they note, erodes the very pro-growth climate necessary for businesses — at least those not connected at the hip with government — to prosper. Journalist Tim Carney agrees: All too often, he notes in his recent book, “Rip-Off,” “state and local chambers have become corrupted by the lure of big dollar corporate welfare schemes.”

    …

    “I used to think that public employee unions like the NEA were the main enemy in the struggle for limited government, competition and private sector solutions,” says Mr. Caldera of the Independence Institute. “I was wrong. Our biggest adversary is the special interest business cartel that labels itself ‘the business community’ and its political machine run by chambers and other industry associations.”

  • Voters Want Less Pork, Even in Their Own District

    From Voters Want Less Pork, Even in Their Own District, July 24, 2008 Wall Street Journal:

    The Club for Growth recently conducted a nationwide poll on government spending, and the results were exactly the opposite of what most politicians have been saying for years. Voters are fed up with Washington’s out-of-control spending. Politicians aren’t representing the will of the people when they bring home the bacon. They are really representing the will of their special-interest cronies. And it’s not just conservative voters who feel that way. Voters across the board have finally found something they can agree on even if their elected officials can’t: It’s time to cut the fat, even if that means fewer projects for their own districts.

  • Efforts to Regulate ‘Wild West’ Markets are Long Overdue

    A Christian Science Monitor article Efforts to regulate ‘Wild West’ markets are long overdue contains a number of misstatements.

    For one thing, characterization of the American West as “wild” in the sense that mayhem prevailed, and that life and property were not safe, is not correct. An article in the Journal of Libertarian Studies titled An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West tell us this:

    The West during this time often is perceived as a place of great chaos, with little respect for property or life. Our research indicates that this was not the case; property rights were protected and civil order prevailed. Private agencies provided the necessary basis for an orderly society in which property was protected and conflicts were resolved. These agencies often did not qualify as governments because they did not have a legal monopoly on “keeping order.” They soon discovered that “warfare” was a costly way of resolving disputes and lower cost methods of settlement (arbitration, courts, etc.) resulted. In summary, this paper argues that a characterization of the American West as chaotic would appear to be incorrect.

    The article quotes E.J. Dionne as saying “A well-functioning capitalist system relies on clear rules.” Very true, but there are two rules that anyone can understand that are in danger of being overturned. First, if you borrow money, make sure you understand the terms of the loan and are prepared to repay the loan as required. Second, if an institution such as a pension fund buys repackaged securities (like subprime loans) without understanding the risks, they shouldn’t expect others to make good their losses. These two clear principles or rules are in danger of being overturned.

    If they are overturned, then we might ask Mr. Dionne just what rules can be trusted to be clear?

    This article also states: “The oddity of today is that a Republican administration is pushing an expansion of government regulation.” If the author of this article did a little research, he would learn that regulation has increased rapidly in recent years. According to the Heritage Foundation” “Despite the claims of critics — and some supporters — of the Bush Administration, net regulatory burdens have increased in the years since George W. Bush assumed the presidency. Since 2001, the federal government has imposed almost $30 billion in new regulatory costs on Americans. About $11 billion was imposed in fiscal year (FY) 2007 alone.”

    If we look at the root causes of this crises, we would understand that excessive government control in the form of the Federal Reserve is largely responsible for this crisis, such that it is. Now government calls for even more power to solve the problem that it created. These extra powers, pitched to the public as necessary to deal with some current emergency, rarely disappear after the emergency has passed. Instead, they live on as a permanent part of expanded government.

  • Wichita Eagle Voter Guide Responses

    I am running for Republican precinct committeeman. The Wichita Eagle sent me a request to answer some questions to appear in a voter’s guide. These are the questions asked (to the best of my recollection; I didn’t record the text of the questions and now I can no longer log in to the system to see them) and my responses.

    1. What do you believe should be in the party’s platform?

    I believe the Republican party has strayed from its commitment to individual liberty, limited government, and free markets. The party should commit itself to nurturing economic prosperity by reducing government control of the economy. We should allow people to decide how to best spend and invest their time, money, and talents. By reducing the intrusiveness of government, we can create a laboratory of economic freedom in Wichita that would restore Wichita’s tradition of entrepreneurship.

    2. What is your position on social issues?

    Government should relinquish its monopoly on the financing of education by allowing school choice through tax credits. Parents would then have more control over the education of their children. Government’s ability to take private property through eminent domain should be severely restricted. All elected officials should be subject to term limits. Governments should respond to citizen requests for records in a reasonable way.

    3. What is your position on fiscal issues?

    Voter approval should be required for all tax increases. Governments should pledge to limit their increases in spending to the inflation rate plus population growth. The use of tax increment financing (TIF) districts and tax abatements should be eliminated. Giveaways such as the interest-free loan to the Old Town Warren Theater must be stopped. We should be careful that trading a higher sales tax rate for property tax relief doesn’t lead to more taxes overall.

  • Spending other people’s money is not the best way to reflect one’s values

    From the Goldwater Institute (www.goldwaterinstitute.org):

    A recent Arizona Republic letter to the editor lamented the fact that our government funds war, but not universal health care. The writer asks what that says about our values. That letter got me thinking, what does government spending say about our values?

    In the book Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism Who Gives, Who Doesn’t, and Why It Matters, economist Arthur C. Brooks points out that Americans who believe in limited government give more to others on average than those who believe in active government. Believers in small government give more time, money, and even blood. They give more to secular causes, too. This is not to say that there are not very generous individuals of every political stripe. The issue is one of emphasis and how much values are, in fact, reflected in a government budget.

    The Wall Street Journal just published an article on the revival of the “religious left.” The religious left, mostly left-leaning clergy, agitates for increased minimum wages and social program spending.

    One must wonder, though, how virtuous a society is when traditionally charitable giving must be forced on people through taxation. Perhaps those who recommend such a policy are too unwilling to give of themselves. As Dr. Brooks’ research suggests perhaps one’s values are best reflected in one’s personal spending rather than in the spending of other people’s money.

    An excerpt from the book Who Really Cares, by Arthur C. Brooks (See www.arthurbrooks.net):

    Let us be clear: Government spending is not charity. It is not a voluntary sacrifice by individuals. No matter how beneficial or humane it might be, no matter how necessary it is for providing public services, it is still the obligatory redistribution of tax revenues. Because government spending is not charity, sanctimonious yard signs do not prove that the bearers are charitable or that their opponents are selfish.

  • A Message From Ron Paul

    I received this in an email from Ron Paul’s campaign:

    As my great mentor Ludwig von Mises showed, government meddling in the economy creates conflict, as special-interest groups seek to rip us off through big government. The voluntarism of the free market, on the other hand, brings social cooperation and peace.

    I have never heard Ron Paul describe Ludwig von Mises as his mentor. Now I know I really like Ron Paul!

  • Attacking Lobbyists Wrong Battle

    The economist Walter E. Williams has recent column that places the recent lobbying scandal in proper perspective.

    Professor Williams explains to us that given the “awesome growth of government control over business, property, employment and other areas of our lives” Washington politicians (and I would add state and local politicians too) are in the position to grant valuable favors. “The greater their power to grant favors, the greater the value of being able to influence Congress, and there’s no better influence than money.”

    Continuing: “The generic favor sought is to get Congress, under one ruse or another, to grant a privilege or right to one group of Americans that will be denied another group of Americans. A variant of this privilege is to get Congress to do something that would be criminal if done privately.”

    “Here’s just one among possibly thousands of examples. If Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) used goons and violence to stop people from buying sugar from Caribbean producers so that sugar prices would rise, making it easier for ADM to sell more of its corn syrup sweetener, they’d wind up in jail. If they line the coffers of congressmen, they can buy the same result without risking imprisonment. Congress simply does the dirty work for them by enacting sugar import quotas and tariffs. The two most powerful committees of Congress are the House Ways and Means and the Senate Finance committees. These committees are in charge of granting tax favors. Their members are besieged with campaign contributions. Why? A tweak here and a tweak there in the tax code can mean millions of dollars.”

    What is the solution? I believe, and I know Dr. Williams does too, that we should reduce the power that government has over our lives. I believe we should rely more on free markets for solutions to problems, as these markets are composed of people voluntarily entering into transactions, rather than a coercive government forcing decisions on us based on who lobbied the hardest. Dr. Williams also relates this story and solution: “Nearly two decades ago, during dinner with the late Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek, I asked him if he had the power to write one law that would get government out of our lives, what would that law be? Professor Hayek replied he’d write a law that read: Whatever Congress does for one American it must do for all Americans.”

    Hayek also wrote in his book The Road to Serfdom: “As the coercive power of the state will alone decide who is to have what, the only power worth having will be a share in the exercise of this directing power.” We are well down this road, where government becomes more important than liberty and individuality. This is the battle we need to fight. Lobbying scandals are just a symptom and manifestation of the larger problem.

  • Winning lawsuits: how being irresponsible pays off

    Winning Lawsuits: How Being Irresponsible Pays Off
    Sarah McIntosh, Flint Hills Center for Public Policy

    They are everywhere — in the office, on the street, in the malls, and even in your house. They can end up costing you hundreds of thousands of dollars. No, it’s not pests I’m referring to. What is this pervasive problem, you ask? Torts.

    Simply put, a tort is a negligent or intentional civil wrong. Tort law has been around for a long time, but in the last couple of decades tort liabilities have expanded exponentially.

    It used to be that if you invited someone to your house you were responsible for taking reasonable steps to protect people from hazards in your home. Now, however, in many states you are responsible for protecting people who you did not invite — even people breaking into your home.

    Our culture has changed in the United States. Instead of treasuring personal responsibility and property rights, we reward people who act unreasonably and unlawfully.

    Take for instance the case of the homeowners in Pennsylvania who lost a $500,000 lawsuit to someone who broke into their home. When the robber left their house he tried to escape through the garage. The automatic door opener was not working, however, and since the door to the house had locked when the robber shut it, he was stuck in the garage. He spent eight days living on a can of soda and dry dog food. He was awarded that $500,000 for his “undue mental anguish.”

    The robber broke the law and violated the homeowners’ property rights and still thought he had the right to compensation for anguish brought on by his own illegal behavior.

    Or what about the man who won $74,000 plus medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand? The neighbor didn’t see that the young man was busy stealing his hubcaps.

    Should this outcome be surprising? Maybe not. We have been on this path for decades, a path of transforming right and wrong not based on our own actions or rights but because we don’t like to see people physically or emotionally hurt. So, we ignore the fact that the party held liable is “hurt” by forcing compensation to make ourselves feel better for the irresponsible person’s pain.

    For instance, a jury awarded a woman $780,000 after she broke her ankle when she tripped over a toddler running inside a furniture store. The store had to pay for her pain even though the running child was her own. Apparently the jury ignored the fact that the woman had a responsibility to control her own child. Is this really the direction we want to take our society?

    Do we want to live in a world where we aren’t expected to take responsibility for our misbehaving children, or our own stupid actions? While that may sound comforting to some, it means that EVERYONE is potentially liable. If you have any assets, watch out.

    We have created a culture that is quick to blame others for our own mistakes. Take the case of the woman who sued Winnebago when she set the cruise control to 70 on her RV and left the seat to make herself a sandwich. Apparently Winnebago should have explained in the owner’s manual that cruise control isn’t the same as automatic pilot.

    The consequences of these lawsuits are that whenever we buy something we have pages of warnings about products that seem to grow more ridiculous yearly. We create a societal cost by shifting the blame. When companies are sued, their costs are born by their future customers. When individuals are held to too high of a standard in their homes, society starts to lose out on the value of spending time with people in their homes.

    We also lose some freedom when these behaviors are allowed. We lose the freedom of how we want to live in our own homes. Should we put up warnings for those breaking in? Should we leave some extra food and water in the garage just in case?

    As society breaks down along these lines, more and more laws will be created to legislate “fairness,” compensation, and morality. Children will learn to blame others for their own bad acts. No one will be responsible for themselves but everyone will be responsible for everyone else.

    When unreasonable, risky, or stupid behavior is rewarded, everyone ends up paying. Is that what we want?

    Sarah McIntosh is Vice President of Programs for the Kansas-based Flint Hills Center for Public Policy. A complete bio on Ms. McIntosh can be found at http://www.flinthills.org/content/view/24/39/, and she can be reached at sarah.mcintosh@flinthills.org. To learn more about the Flint Hills Center, please visit www.flinthills.org.

    The Flint Hills Center for Public Policy is an independent voice for sound public policy in Kansas. As a non-profit, nonpartisan think tank, the Center provides critical information about policy options to legislators and citizens.

  • Public-sector lobbyists are exempt

    Dan Mitchell summarizing John Fund:

    ….lobbyists visiting Capitol Hill are bound by House and Senate ethics rules that cap most individual gifts at $50 per elected official or staffer, with an annual limit of $100 per recipient from any single source. But local governments, public universities and Indian tribes are exempt from the limit, so they are able to shower members and their staffs with such goodies as luxury skybox tickets to basketball games and front-row concert tickets. Having members or their key aides attend such free events in the company of glad-handing university presidents and local government officials winds up costing taxpayers a pretty penny. Much of the explosive growth in earmarks has been directed to local governments and universities. …Universities and colleges spent at least $75 million in 2005 on lobbying according to a study by USA Today. The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that $2 billion in grants flowed into higher education in 2003. …The same lobbying rules that apply to private-sector lobbyists should also apply to taxpayer-funded government lobbyists. …Disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff once told me that he built his lobbying business in such a way that all his major clients were Indian tribes and local governments, in part because he knew he could wine and dine power brokers on Capitol Hill without breaking any laws.

    From “March Madness — Public-sector lobbyists lavish gifts on congressmen and their staffers. The scandal is it’s perfectly legal” located at www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009776