Voice For Liberty

Tag: Koch Industries

  • Greenwald and Sanders try to defend Social Security, slam Charles and David Koch

    Are the free market critics of Social Security a shadowy “echo chamber” seeking to end the system for the benefit of the rich, or sounding a fact-based alarm that government and its supporters dispute and don’t want you to hear?

    According to a short video by Robert Greenwald, it’s the first choice. But examination of the claims made will lead us to the opposite conclusion, and you’ll wonder why Greenwald has any credibility.

    The video features U.S. Senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders, who describes himself as a democratic socialist. He describes Social Security as a federal program that has been “enormously successful,” so right away we need to take issue with Sanders. Social Security a success? If creating a system where millions of people are dependent on government for their retirement income is a successful program, the government has done just that. What has been the result? As George Reisman recently wrote: “Not surprisingly, in the conviction that the government was now providing for people’s old age, the rate of saving in the United States has declined precipitously over the years, falling all the way to zero in some years.”

    We’ve transitioned from savers to government dependents. For a socialist like Sanders, that may very well have been his goal. He certainly can’t be unhappy with the results.

    Right after this, the video shows images and names of think tank organizations that are funded in part by Charles Koch and/or David Koch, with Sanders claiming these organizations spread “disinformation” about Social Security. The information generated by these think tanks is truthful, however, and an important antidote to a huge whopper of a lie Sanders will spread later on.

    (At this point one might be tempted to ask: What is the interest of the Charles and David Koch in reforming Social Security? John Hinderaker in his Powerline article A Less Than Magnificent Obsession answers this question when he writes: “… does it make any difference to the Kochs’ company, Koch Industries, whether the retirement age is 65 or 68? I can’t imagine why it would. Likewise, the brothers themselves are both billionaires. Whether Social Security is or is not reformed makes zero difference to them personally.” I would say, however, that Charles and David Koch have long advocated for liberty and economic freedom for everyone, and since Social Security is contrary to that, this could explain their interest.)

    A huge focus of the video is raising the retirement age. It’s repeated over and over — so as to scare viewers. As John Hinderaker notes at Powerline, it’s been done before: “proposals to raise the age of Social Security eligibility have been a bipartisan staple of reform proposals for decades. … The bipartisan Bowles-Simpson Commission, which was appointed by President Obama, recommended increasing the age of eligibility.”

    It’s important to note that the Social Security retirement age is simply the age at which one can begin receiving benefits. Contrary to the claims of Sanders in this video, it doesn’t mean that everyone has to keep working until that age. Over the course of a working career, isn’t it possible for someone to save enough to cover the several years between when they decide to quit working and when they’re eligible for Social Security? Or will we let the government — people like Sanders — tell us how long we must work?

    Sanders also says that older people need to retire and get out of the workforce to make way for younger workers to take their jobs. This is an example of the fallacy — followed by nearly all on the political Left, it seems — of believing that the economy is a fixed size, and that one person can have income only if someone else gives up theirs.

    Perhaps the most dangerous lie of Sanders is his claim that Social Security has a $2.6 trillion surplus available to pay future benefits. He’s referring to the Social Security trust fund. Here, Sanders is correct one on level: The system has collected that much more than it has needed to pay benefits, forming the balance referred to in the trust fund. That money has been lent to other federal government agencies, and they spent it all. So while Federal Agency X may owe the trust fund $50 billion, the only way that agency can repay the trust fund is by borrowing or increasing taxes. (Less spending might be another way, but that’s a difficult goal, and we’d be taxed the same for a lower level of services — a tax increase by another name.) See Social Security trust fund: a problem in disguise.

    Sanders dismisses private retirement accounts as risky and dangerous: “You may lose all your retirement savings when you get old.” While true, any reasonable investment strategy designed for the long term has little chance of that happening. Unless, of course, one gets greedy and invests everything in a company like Enron — greed of that type being something Sanders rails against.

    Saving on one’s own, however, isn’t what leftists like Bernie Sanders have in mind. Far better for him, Democrats, and big-government Republicans that people remain dependent on government for their retirement security. Once people save and gain some wealth of their own, they find that they can thrive very nicely without a nanny state government. They find themselves wishing they could have saved more throughout their working lives, rather than making forced contributions to a government retirement plan that’s now broke. Even if not broke, most people would be in a much better position if they could have kept their own and their employers’ payroll tax contributions for their own investment.

    Finally, Sanders makes a major point of “huge campaign contributions” made to advance the interests of Charles and David Koch. Hinderaker chases down some of the actual numbers, and finds that contributions from Koch Industries PAC are sometimes less than what a single labor union has contributed.

    In the end, I’m sure that Sanders said something that’s true in this video. But I can’t bear to watch it again to try and spot it.

    Here’s my video response:

  • Kansas and Wichita quick takes: Wednesday May 25, 2011

    The failure of American schools. The Atlantic: “Who better to lead an educational revolution than Joel Klein, the prosecutor who took on the software giant Microsoft? But in his eight years as chancellor of New York City’s school system, the nation’s largest, Klein learned a few painful lessons of his own — about feckless politicians, recalcitrant unions, mediocre teachers, and other enduring obstacles to school reform.” Key takeway idea: “As a result, even when making a lifetime tenure commitment, under New York law you could not consider a teacher’s impact on student learning. That Kafkaesque outcome demonstrates precisely the way the system is run: for the adults. The school system doesn’t want to change, because it serves the needs of the adult stakeholders quite well, both politically and financially.” … Also: “Accountability, in most industries or professions, usually takes two forms. First and foremost, markets impose accountability: if people don’t choose the goods or services you’re offering, you go out of business. Second, high-performing companies develop internal accountability requirements keyed to market-based demands. Public education lacks both kinds of accountability. It is essentially a government-run monopoly. Whether a school does well or poorly, it will get the students it needs to stay in business, because most kids have no other choice. And that, in turn, creates no incentive for better performance, greater efficiency, or more innovation — all things as necessary in public education as they are in any other field.” … Overall, an eye-opening indictment of American public schools.

    Professors to Koch Brothers: Take your green back. In The Wall Street Journal Donald Luskin takes a look at what should be a non-controversy: A gift by the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation to Florida State University to endow a program to study the foundations of prosperity, social progress, and human well-being — at the Stavros Center for the Advancement of Free Enterprise and Economic Education. (Sounds like a good match.) Writes Luskin: “Then there’s the donors. One of the donors, according to the two professors, is known for his ‘efforts to influence public policy, elections, taxes, environmental issues, unions, regulations, etc.’ Whom might they be referring to? Certainly not George Soros — there’s never an objection to that billionaire’s donations, which always tend toward the political left. No, it’s Charles and David Koch, owners of Koch Industries.” … Critics say the gift is an assault on academic freedom. Luskin counters: “The issue at FSU isn’t that the university has bargained away its academic freedom. The problem is that FSU has exercised its academic freedom in a way that the political left disapproves of. As [FSU College of Social Sciences] Mr. Rasmussen put it to the St. Petersburg Times: ‘If somebody says, ‘We’re willing to help support your students and faculty by giving you money, but we’d like you to read this book,’ that doesn’t strike me as a big sin. What is a big sin is saying that certain ideas cannot be discussed.”

    History and legacy of Kansas populism. Recently Friends University Associate Professor of Political Science Russell Arben Fox delivered a lecture to the Wichita Pachyderm Club that was well-received by members. Now Fox has made his presentation available on his blog In Media Res. It’s titled The History and Legacy of Kansas Populism. Thank you to Professor Fox for this effort, and also to Pachyderm Club Vice President John Todd, who arranges the many excellent programs like this that are characteristic of the club.

    Federal grants seen to raise future local spending. “Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.” — Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman (The Yale Book of Quotations, 2006) Is this true? Do federal grants cause state and/or local tax increases in the future after the government grant ends? Economists Russell S. Sobel and George R. Crowley examine the evidence and find the answer is yes. The conclusion to their research paper Do Intergovernmental Grants Create Ratchets in State and Local Taxes? Testing the Friedman-Sanford Hypothesis states: “Our results clearly demonstrate that grant funding to state and local governments results in higher own source revenue and taxes in the future to support the programs initiated with the federal grant monies. Our results are consistent with Friedman’s quote regarding the permanence of temporary government programs started through grant funding, as well as South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford’s reasoning for trying to deny some federal stimulus monies for his state due to the future tax implications. Most importantly, our results suggest that the recent large increase in federal grants to state and local governments that has occurred as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) will have significant future tax implications at the state and local level as these governments raise revenue to continue these newly funded programs into the future. Federal grants to state and local governments have risen from $461 billion in 2008 to $654 billion in 2010. Based on our estimates, future state taxes will rise by between 33 and 42 cents for every dollar in federal grants states received today, while local revenues will rise by between 23 and 46 cents for every dollar in federal (or state) grants received today. Using our estimates, this increase of $200 billion in federal grants will eventually result in roughly $80 billion in future state and local tax and own source revenue increases. This suggests the true cost of fiscal stimulus is underestimated when the costs of future state and local tax increases are overlooked.” … An introduction to the paper is here.

    Debt observed as sold. New U.S. Representative Tim Huelskamp, who represents the Kansas first district, recently observed the Bureau of Public Debt electronically sell debt obligations of the United States of America. In a press release, the Congressman said: “In a matter of minutes, I observed the United States sell $30.4 billion more in debt. The ease with which this transaction was done reminded me that it is just too simple for Washington to acquire, buy, sell and trade debt.” As to the upcoming decision as to whether to raise the ability of the U.S. to borrow: “As Congress considers yet another increase in the debt limit, the only responsible option that exists is to put America on a path to fiscal responsibility with clear limits on spending. Democrats say they want a debt limit increase that is ‘clean’ without any of the budget cuts we have proposed. Yet, they have offered no plan to eliminate annual trillion-dollar deficits. There is nothing ‘clean’ about increasing the limit without tackling the massive deficits and ever-increasing debt. … With nearly one-half of the nation’s debt held by foreign countries, including more than $1.1 trillion by China, our national security is threatened as well. Too many of our freedoms and liberties are threatened when Americans owe trillions of dollars to nations who put their interests before ours.”

  • Pickens criticism illustrates divide between free markets and intervention

    Last week’s criticism by energy investor T. Boone Pickens of U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo, a Wichita Republican serving his first term, continues to illustrate the difference between those who believe in economic freedom and free markets, and those — like Pickens — who invest in politicians, bureaucrats, and the hope of a government subsidy.

    Pickens is pushing H.R. 1380: New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act of 2011, or NAT GAS act. The bill provides a variety of subsidies, implemented through tax credits, to producers and users of natural gas. The goal is to promote the use of natural gas as the fuel the nation uses for transportation.

    In his op-ed in the Wichita Eagle, Pickens was critical of Pompeo for his stance in favor of free markets and in opposition to subsidies. His criticism, however, was inconsistent and contradictory. Further, Pompeo’s position on this issue is clear, as part of a resolution he introduced reads: eliminate existing energy subsidies.

    There was another target of Pickens’ criticism. He didn’t mention the company by name, but there were several thinly-veiled references to Wichita-based Koch Industries. Charles Koch and his brother David Koch have emerged as prominent defenders of economic freedom and the freedom and prosperity it generates. Charles Koch, in particular, has been outspoken in his criticism of the type of subsidies that Pickens seeks. Koch’s op-ed, also in the Wichita Eagle and on Koch Industries website at Advancing economic freedom, was pointed in its criticism of corporate welfare: “Our government made a point of reforming its welfare policies for individuals but not for corporations. … Unfair programs that favor certain companies — such as the current well-intentioned but misguided suggestion that the natural-gas industry should receive enormous new subsidies — don’t just happen. They are promoted, in large part, by those seeking to profit politically, rather than by competing in a market where consumers vote with their wallets.”

    In a statement on the company’s Viewpoint website, Dr. Richard Fink, Executive Vice President of Koch Industries, continued to explain the harm of government intervention, saying “Koch has consistently opposed subsidies that distort markets. We maintain that the marketplace, while not perfect, is the best mechanism for allocating resources to consumers. People deciding what fuels to purchase, instead of the government, is best for consumers and our country. Likewise, if natural gas vehicles are truly advantageous and economically efficient, then consumers will demand that they be developed without political mandates that exhaust more taxpayer dollars.”

    Fink continues, “We do not question T. Boone Pickens’ intentions or integrity in this debate. We recognize his experience in the energy markets and take him at his word that he thinks this is a good idea. However, we believe history has demonstrated over and over that these subsidies end up undermining the long term prosperity of the country. For these principled reasons, we oppose this bill to give tax incentives to buyers and makers of natural gas-powered vehicles and related infrastructure. We also consistently oppose subsidies for all other fuels whether or not we benefit from them.”

    Pickens would probably object to the use of the term “subsidy,” as the legislation he pushes grants “credits,” a term that sounds fairly benign. Timothy P. Carney, writing in the Washington Examiner, provides an explanation of the difference: “Pickens draws two dividing lines in the piece: tax credit vs. grant, and permanent versus temporary. A temporary subsidy is certainly better than an indefinite or permanent one. The tax credit question is trickier. Many free-market champions support every tax break ever proposed (Ron Paul, for instance). Other free market types (like me, probably) think that tax credits act as subsidies which distort the market, and ultimately lead to tax hikes on others. One of the bad things about tax credits is that they reward businesses for following political signals rather than market signals, but they do it in a way that allow the beneficiaries, like Pickens, to act as if they’re not on the public dole. Sure, a tax credit (most of the time) isn’t a handout, but the favored product (like ethanol or natural gas) only succeeds because its competition is taxed at high rates. So tax credits are the socially acceptable form of corporate welfare.” (emphasis added)

    While Carney usually gets things just right, I’ll disagree with him that the question of tax credits is tricky: They have the same economic effect as a grant or subsidy. They engineer the behavior the government wants. But Carney is right about the confusing appearance of tax credits, allowing them to be “the socially acceptable form of corporate welfare.” Unless we really think about it, that is.

    In any discussion of Pickens and natural gas, we must recognize that he is an investor in gas and another energy technology related to gas: wind power. In 2008 Pickens ordered 667 wind turbines worth $2 billion from General Electric with plans to build a large wind power plant in Texas. Wind power is highly dependent on government subsidy, with supporters claiming the industry will be devastated unless Congress continues to renew the subsidies.

    At one time Pickens wanted to use wind power to generate electricity, and the natural gas saved would be used to power transportation. But there’s another relationship between wind power and gas, and it stems from the unreliability and variability of wind power. It’s difficult to quickly adjust the output of most power plants. But natural gas turbine plants are an exception. Kansas recently saw one of its major electric utilities complete a new natural gas power plant. The need for the plant was at least partly created by its investment in wind: A document produced by Westar titled The Greenhouse Gas Challenge noted the “Construction of the 665 MW natural gas-fired Emporia Energy Center, providing the ability to efficiently follow the variability of wind generation.” In another document announcing a request for a rate increase it stated “Our Emporia Energy Center is excellent for following the variability of wind production.”

    At the time of these investments by Pickens and Westar, the price of natural gas was high. Now it is low — so low, and the prospects for future low prices certain enough that Pickens has abandoned his wind farm projects. Even with all the subsidy granted to wind power, it’s cheaper to generate electricity with gas.

    (Pickens has been left with many wind turbines he can’t use. According to the Wall Street Journal: “He’s hoping to foist them on ratepayers in Canada, because that country has mandates that require consumers to buy more expensive renewable electricity.” In other words, relying on some other country’s government intervention to relieve him of his mistake.)

    So we see Pickens moving from one government-subsidized industry — wind power — to another: the subsidized market for natural gas-powered vehicles he hopes to create. The distinction between political entrepreneurs and market entrepreneurs couldn’t be clearer.

  • Charles Koch: Advancing economic freedom

    In recent years Charles Koch and his brother David Koch have emerged as prominent defenders of economic freedom and the freedom and prosperity it promises. In today’s Wichita Eagle, Charles Koch explains the importance of economic freedom and warns of the threats to freedom and prosperity that our country faces.

    A key component of economic freedom is property rights. In his 2007 book The Science of Success: How Market-Based Management Built the World’s Largest Private Company, Mr. Koch explained the importance of property rights: “Countries that clearly define and protect individual private property rights stimulate investment and grow. Those that threaten and confiscate private property lose capital and decline. They also lose the capability and efforts of the individuals who would be the greatest contributors to economic growth.”

    In the Economic Freedom of the World report, there are five broad areas that are measured to determine the relative economic freedom of countries:

    • Size of Government: Expenditures, Taxes, and Enterprises;
    • Legal Structure and Security of Property Rights;
    • Access to Sound Money;
    • Freedom to Trade Internationally; and
    • Regulation of Credit, Labor, and Business.

    We can see the importance of property rights to economic freedom. When government taxes, it takes our property and gives it to someone else — often to business firms in the form of corporate welfare. Without a developed legal system, property rights are not secure. Without sound money, government takes our property by devaluing our savings through inflationary monetary policies.

    It is the advancement of policies that promote economic freedom that, as Koch writes, “help societies prosper.” We see this in the rankings of countries on the economic freedom index. Countries with high levels of economic freedom, like Hong Kong, are prosperous even through they often have little in the way of natural resources. And countries that are rich in resources but not in economic freedom: Their people suffer, although corrupt leaders usually live richly.

    Economic freedom is not just for rich people. Everyone — especially those on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder — benefits.

    Charles Koch: Economic freedom key to improving society

    By Charles G. Koch

    My brother David and I have long supported the principles that help societies prosper. I have actively done so for nearly 50 years, as has my brother for more than 40.

    In recent years, we have stepped up our efforts to deal with the enormous threats to the future well-being of the people of this country. This has prompted some extreme criticism. From the White House to fringe bloggers, we are now being vilified, mischaracterized and threatened.

    In a perverse way, these attacks indicate that we are having a positive effect on public awareness and policymaking. That is why we are working even harder to advance economic freedom and prosperity.

    We do so because we believe economic freedom is essential for improving the well-being of society as a whole, especially those who work hard to provide for their families, as well as our most vulnerable. History and sound theory are clear on this point. If we allow our government to waste scarce resources and become the ultimate decision maker, almost everyone will suffer a lower standard of living.

    Continue reading at The Wichita Eagle. A slightly different version of Mr. Koch’s editorial is available on the Koch Industries website at Advancing economic freedom.

  • Study looks at spending, strategy in cap and trade debate

    While those who advocate cap and trade legislation charge that conservatives, particularly Charles and David Koch, have outspent them, a study finds the opposite.

    According to American University Professor Matthew Nisbet, in 2009 environmental groups spent $394 million on climate change and energy policy efforts such as promoting cap and trade. Opposition groups spent $259 million. Information like this helps place the reports of conservative spending, including that of Charles and David Koch, in perspective. Without this, we’re left with the one-sided reports from Greenpeace and the New Yorker magazine, in which numbers are mentioned without — or with little — context.

    Nesbit’s report is Climate Shift: Clear Vision for the Next Decade of Public Debate.

    The report also looks at expenditures on lobbying. In this area, it’s less clear how much was spent lobbying for or against cap and trade legislation, as companies and organizations report their total spending on all lobbying activity, not the amount spent on specific bills. In this light, Nisbet reports that “environmental groups were able to forge a network of organizations that spent a combined $229 million on lobbying across all issues. In comparison, the network of prominent opponents of cap and trade legislation spent $272 million lobbying across all issues.”

    Spending on elections is mixed. Considering contributions to members of Congress, proponents of cap and trade legislation outspent opponents. But in independent expenditures, the situation is reversed. But on Proposition 23 in California, environmental groups spent the most.

    In conclusion to its chapter on spending, the report states: “… propelled by a wealthy donor base and key alliances with corporations and other organizations, the environmental movement appears to have closed the financial gap with its opponents among conservative groups and industry associations. Indeed, the effort to pass cap and trade legislation may have been the best-financed political cause in American history. The effort also demonstrates not only the vast revenue base and organizational capacity of the environmental movement, but also the movement’s enhanced ability to coordinate activities among its constituent members and to build partnerships.”

    Climate Change Advocacy: Revenues, Spending, and Activities

    By Matthew Nisbit

    After the failure of the Senate cap and trade bill in August 2010, many commentators blamed the bill’s demise on the massive spending by fossil fuel companies, industry associations and their conservative allies. Others, however, noted that environmental groups—joined by dozens of leading companies and organizations—had devoted record amounts of financial resources in an effort to pass the bill. As an unnamed Obama administration official said about environmental groups, “They spent like $100 million and they weren’t able to get a single Republican convert on the bill.”

    To better understand the influence of spending in the cap and trade debate, in this chapter I review the nature, composition and funding sources of the U.S. environmental movement and compare these factors to the opposing coalition of conservative think tanks and industry associations. Then, analyzing data compiled from tax returns, annual reports, and other sources, I systematically compare the revenue and forms of spending by both sides in the debate.

    Though most environmental groups are limited in how much money they can devote to direct lobbying, in the debate over cap and trade, they were able to spend heavily on efforts to educate the public and policymakers on the need for a mandatory emissions cap, hiring the country’s top political consultants. They also invested in partnerships with corporations and other organizations in a strategy aimed at counter-balancing the amount spent on lobbying by opposing industry associations and companies.

    As the analysis indicates, the environmental movement has made sizable gains in closing the spending gap with their conservative and industry opponents. Indeed, the effort to pass cap and trade legislation may have been the best-financed political cause in American history. The effort also demonstrates not only the vast revenue base and organizational capacity of the environmental movement, but also the movement’s enhanced ability to coordinate activities among its constituent members and to build alliances.

    Continue reading from Chapter 1 of Climate Shift: Clear Vision for the Next Decade of Public Debate

  • Kansas and Wichita quick takes: Thursday April 21, 2011

    Can anything Think Progress says about the Kochs be believed? Mark Tapscott, Washington Examiner Beltway Confidential: “Almost certainly not, to answer the question posed by the headline above. Here’s the latest example of why. Think Progress is all atwitter about a Nation magazine report concerning the Koch Industries 2010 Election Packet. This dastardly document, according to Think Progress, was “mailed to 50,000 employees instructing them on who to vote for in the 2010 midterm elections.” Curious, I clicked over to the Nation and read the cover letter in the packet. Here’s what it said about how Koch employees should decide for whom to vote: “For most of you, we’ve also enclosed a listing of candidates supported by Koch companies and KOCHPAC, the political action committee for Koch companies. Of course, deciding who to vote for is a decision that is yours and yours alone, based on factors important to you. (emphasis added)” … At RedState, Erick Erickson contrasts the behavior of unions: “Think Progress and Lee Fang love them some unions. And what do unions do? Unions send out fliers encouraging union members to vote for union backed candidates. Hell, unions even get union members to go door to door for candidates and give union dues to candidates — something KOCHPAC cannot do with all employees, just executives. Additionally, unions will often bus employees to the polls and have a poll monitor watch to make sure the union members have voted. Koch Industries does not do that. But here’s where the real intellectual dishonesty or stupidity come in. Lee Fang and Think Progress support card check. They want unions to be able to stand over a business’s employees and find out whether or not the employee has signed a card to unionize and, if not, intimidate and cajole the employee until he does (not that Think Progress or Lee Fang are on record supporting that last bit).” … Lee Fang is apparently assigned full time to digging up dirt on Charles and David Koch, and Fang’s reporting has been found to be unreliable and misinformed.

    Kansas governor on first 100 days. In a press release, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback listed some accomplishments of the first 100 days of his administration. Highlights mentioned were: “First Month Commitments” in the Governor’s Road Map for Kansas accomplished, including releasing a Strategic Economic Development Plan and establishing the Office of the Repealer. … Six Executive Reorganization Orders designed to restructure state government to become law on July 1, 2011 to increase efficiency, restructure government, and cut overhead costs. … Numerous Road Map for Kansas goals achieved through bi-partisan-supported legislation signed into law including the “Rural Opportunity Zones” bill, several deregulation bills, two pro-life bills, a voter ID bill, and a workers compensation reform bill. … On challenges ahead, the Governor said: “I am pleased with what we have accomplished in our first 100 days but our state continues to face a multitude of fiscal challenges that need to be addressed. More than 100,000 Kansans are still out of work. This administration will continue to focus on building a pro-growth environment that includes allowing businesses of all sizes to expense their investments and abolishing burdensome regulations to protect Kansans and encourage job creation.”

    Freeloaders come in all types. Recently John Stossel had an hour-long special show that focused on freeloaders. The show is now available on the free hulu service by clicking on Stossel: Freeloaders. The freeloaders Stossel profiles are not just panhandlers, although Stossel did work in disguise as a panhandler and discovered he could make over $90 a day — tax free, he added. One segment of the show uncovered farmers who received $50,000 because they were discriminated against by lenders. But — some of these farmers merely grew potted plants or fertilized their lawn to qualify as a farmer. Another reported on homeowners who stopped paying their mortgages on advice of a website. The homeowners and the website operator said there is no moral obligation to pay their mortgage loans. Corporate freeloaders didn’t escape, as General Electric was mentioned as a large recipient of government handouts. And, they won’t pay taxes: “Despite billions in profit, they’ll pay no taxes this year,” reported Stossel. … The severe poverty of American Indian tribes that live on government-managed reservations and living on government handouts is contrasted with a tribe that accepts no handouts and has no casinos. … Stossel covered his own beach house, which was covered by low-cost subsidized federal fund insurance. It suffered losses twice. … Standing in front of the U.S. Capitol, Stossel said “We rich people freeload off you taxpayers all the time, because the over-promisers in there keep churning out special deals for politically-favored groups. And they tend to be rich people, because the rich can afford lobbyists. … Think about how much money we could save if these guys just didn’t pass so many laws that encourage freeloading. But they do, year after year. They micromanage life with subsidies. And the winners are not so much the needy, but people like Bon Jovi, Ted Turner, Maurice Wilder, and — me. So let’s hope for an end to all this freeloading.”

    Are taxes the solution? From Bankrupting America: “It’s Tax Day 2011! And while it isn’t the most pleasant thing to think about, it doesn’t sting as bad as when you consider we’re $14 trillion in debt and face a $1.6 trillion deficit. So what got us into this mess? We’ve had an unfortunate habit of spending far more than we can afford — and have been doing it for years. The logical solution is to … well … stop doing that. But some have suggested we should tax our way out of the hole. Beyond the question of whether we should, there’s a more important question: can we?” … The site has an interesting infographic relating to taxes.

    The spontaneous society — centralized planning not required. In the following excerpt from Austrian Economics — A Primer Eamonn Butler explains that we don’t need centralized government planning in order to have great human accomplishment. Also, markets process far more information than any central planner could: Many people find it hard to believe that a society or an economy could survive — much less create and distribute wealth in any organised and rational way — without central planning and authority. Hayek has provided the explanation, however: the liberal human society and economy is, he says, an example of a spontaneous order. Just because something is not planned from the centre does not mean that it is wild, unkempt, random and disorderly, he points out. Societies of bees and termites are very orderly, but they are hardly planned. Human language, similarly, was never “invented”, but evolved, and grew and survived because it is useful. … The market and the price system, similarly, was never planned, but evolved as people exchanged different goods. Nor do they need any central command structure to maintain them: they have survived and expanded because they deliver such enormous benefit to us. In other words, there is a great deal of wisdom in these institutions, despite the fact that they have never been consciously designed and planned. The price system, for example, quickly and efficiently steers resources to their highest value uses, without anyone ever having deliberately invented it. The fact that there is no central planning does not mean that it is “unplanned” and irrational. We are all planners, says Hayek, in that we consciously act in order to satisfy our ambitions with the materials and information that are available to us. In the market order there is in fact far more planning taking place, and far more information being used and acted upon, than could ever be achieved by the single mind of any central authority. … In the case of the liberal market order, the rules are principles like the respect for private property and the right to hold or dispose of it, the rejection of violence and coercion, the freedom of people to enter into voluntary contracts, and the honouring of such contractual promises. Astonishingly, a few simple liberal rules such as these are sufficient to create what Rothbard calls an “awe-inspiring” harmony and co-ordination between individuals, and a precise, swift arrangement to guide resources to the greatest possible satisfaction of consumers’ desires.

  • New York Times correction, finally

    Almost two weeks ago I spotted an error in a New York Times op-ed piece. In my post, I wrote: “Perhaps it’s a small matter. But maybe not, as a New York Times op-ed chose to mention it in the limited space these things have.”

    The error was the article’s claim that Charles and David Koch have contributed to FreedomWorks, a group that advocates for limited government.

    As reported on its corrections page for April 13: “An Op-Ed article on April 4, about disclosure rules for nonprofit groups that engage in political advocacy, imprecisely described contributions by the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch to such groups. While they contributed to a predecessor of the conservative group FreedomWorks, they say they have not contributed to FreedomWorks itself.”

    I suppose this qualifies as a correction. The Times can’t quite bring itself to use the word incorrectly, using the vague and less harsh term imprecisely instead.

    Powerline has more on this matter here, and on an earlier error by the Times here.

  • ThinkProgress and Lee Fang: wrong again

    Earlier this week we noted that Center for American Progress Action Fund (an arm of the Center for American Progress, a think tank closely associated with President Barack Obama’s administration and left-wing financier George Soros) was launching an “ideologically driven news organization.” Its implementation would be through the ThinkProgress blog, which has been active for some time, including a role as a vocal — and often highly misinformed — critic of Charles and David Koch.

    This bit of background is important because ThinkProgress has shown to be an unreliable source of information. Case in point: Yesterday John H. Hinderaker of Powerline examined a recent post on ThinkProgress that is critical of Koch Industries and found it and its author Lee Fang to be highly lacking in a number of areas, such as facts, knowledge, and understanding of economics. One comment left to the article included: “Based on 25 years of scholarly research and market experience, I can say that Fang the Farcical knows not the first thing about either manipulation or commodities pricing. You would think that Soros could have found a junior assistant trader to teach Fang the basics. But then there wouldn’t have been a story, would there?”

    Here’s just a small example: One of the most telling parts of Fang’s article is this: “Big banks and companies like Koch employ a contango strategy by buying up oil and storing it in massive containers both on land and offshore to lock in the oil for sale later at a set price.”

    Here Fang is criticizing Koch Industries for speculation in oil markets. Hinderaker notes that unlike banks — which aren’t in the oil business — Koch Industries is actually in the oil business: “Koch certainly does buy oil and store it; it is in the oil business. However, I would be curious to know what ‘big banks’ ‘buy[] up oil and stor[e] it in massive containers both on land and offshore.’”

    Buying something when the price is low and storing it for later use seems a rather innocent act. I wonder if Fang has ever done like I have: When I notice the grocery store has Diet Pepsi on sale, I buy extra and store it for later use when I expect the price will be higher.

    Contango Confusion

    By John H. Hinderaker

    The Think Progress web site is a Soros-funded mouthpiece for the Obama administration. Someone at Think Progress or its parent, the Center for American Progress, has instructed cub reporter Lee Fang to devote full time to attacking Charles and David Koch and their company, Koch Industries. (It would be interesting to know who gave that instruction, and why.) We have deconstructed several of Mr. Fang’s attacks, all of which have been juvenile. But his latest effort is perhaps his most pitiful yet.

    In “The Contango Game,” Fang tries to show that Koch Industries “manipulates the oil market for profit.” Unfortunately, young Mr. Fang has neither the business experience nor the intelligence to understand the issues about which he writes. The result is that nearly every sentence is a howler. Among other things, while a contango market is the main subject of Fang’s post, he doesn’t know what the phrase means.

    Fang begins with the claim that oil prices are high these days because of speculation. Whether it is even possible for “speculators” — some call them investors — to have a material impact on the price of oil over time is dubious. While partisans like to blame speculators for rising oil prices–never, however, for falling prices–objective studies, like this one by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in 2008, have failed to document any such influence.

    Continue reading at Powerline.

  • Center for American Progress starts ideologically driven news organization

    A common criticism of anyone taking a conservative political position is that they should stop getting all their information from Fox News. Criticism like that works both ways, however, especially now that the Center for American Progress Action Fund, according to Politico, is “ramping up an in-house full-fledged, ideologically driven news organization aimed in part at tripping up Republican candidates on the ground in the early presidential contests.” In the coming weeks the ThinkProgress blog will be relaunched as this news organization.

    Some key points:

    • There are ambitious goals: “The newsroom side is absolutely competing with all the leading news organizations,” said Faiz Shakir, the editor-in-chief of ThinkProgress. “We’re not out there to peddle research — we’re out there to make news.
    • Disclosure requirements are good for my political enemies, but not for me: “ThinkProgress may quack like a duck, but it’s hardly just another media organization. For one thing, like the conservative groups that have drawn Democratic criticism, its parent 501(c)4 nonprofit doesn’t disclose its donors, which Palmieri justified on the grounds that, unlike those groups, they don’t produce political advertising.”
    • CAP Action fund is, of course, an arm of the Center for American Progress, a think tank closely associated with President Barack Obama’s administration and George Soros, who advocates many liberal and left-wing political causes: “Further, CAP Action Fund openly runs political advocacy campaigns, and plays a central role in the Democratic Party’s infrastructure, and the new reporting staff down the hall isn’t exactly walled off from that message machine.”
    • Oh, it’s a moral thing: “Rejecting a question from POLITICO about why CAP declined to reveal its donors while calling out the Kochs for not disclosing their donations, he [blogger Lee Fang, a vocal critic of Charles and David Koch] said ‘It’s fundamentally different when you have wealthy individuals that want to donate to a worthy cause, and the Koch brothers and some of their cohorts that are funding groups that are essentially just advancing their self interests and their lobbying interests.’” Fang and the others at Center for American Progress and its allied organizations are evidently not able to understand that the economic freedom that Charles and David Koch advocate is not necessarily in their own interests, if all they wanted to do is become richer. As Charles Koch recently wrote in The Wall Street Journal: “Too many businesses have successfully lobbied for special favors and treatment by seeking mandates for their products, subsidies (in the form of cash payments from the government), and regulations or tariffs to keep more efficient competitors at bay. Crony capitalism is much easier than competing in an open market.”

    It’s the big-government, freedom-killing policies that Center for American Progress supports that are not moral. As seen in the video presented Monday by Walter E. Williams, most government programs exist to take property from one American and give it to another to whom it does not belong, thereby making us all poorer in the process. After these government programs become ensconced, we end up with a country that is not able to care for itself and make arrangements for even the most important things such as retirement and health care, as George Resiman explained.

    Center for American Progress news team takes aim at GOP

    By Ben Smith & Kenneth P. Vogel

    The liberal Center for American Progress Action Fund is ramping up an in-house full-fledged, ideologically driven news organization aimed in part at tripping up Republican candidates on the ground in the early presidential contests.

    The group, executives told POLITICO, now has 30 writers and researchers at ThinkProgress, its blog, which is being redesigned and relaunched in the coming weeks. The editorial staff, similar in size or larger than that of many political websites, marks the latest phase in the deliberate, decade-long construction of a liberal infrastructure for reporting, research, and hammering home a message that the right is scrambling to match.

    “We see ourselves as a content provider,” said Jennifer Palmieri, the president of The Center for American Progress Action Fund, the group’s advocacy arm. “There actually is an echo chamber now.”

    Continue reading at Politico