Voice For Liberty

Tag: Politics

  • Lies of liberal progressives, Sunday edition

    On the C-SPAN television program Washington Journal (Sunday August 14, 2011) Democratic strategist Mark Mellman appeared and gave viewers a lesson on how the political left lies and distorts in order to score political points against what it sees as easy targets.

    Mellman said: “The tea party comes out, and has really done real damage to this country. Most people in this country think it’s okay to to stop giving subsidies to oil companies. The tea party says no. Most people say it’s okay in the country to make corporate jet owners pay taxes, or hedge fund managers pay taxes. The tea party says no, you can’t do that, you only have to cut spending. And what spending do they end up cutting? They want to cut Medicare, they want to cut Social Security. Those are the plans that have been put forth by the Republican Party.”

    Mellman is not alone in his use of these lies and distortions. They are stock talking points of the Democratic Party and liberals or progressives. It’s a low form of demagoguery that picks a few targets that are easy to stir up hatred for, and then distorts facts without any regard for the truth.

    On the oil industry, for example: The magnitude of the subsidies and tax breaks to the oil industry is about $4 billion per year. Eliminating this is not going to come anywhere close to balancing the budget. As a matter of fact, this annual amount that President Obama complains about is just about what the U.S. borrows each day to cover its spending in excess of its revenues.

    But being a relatively small amount is not a reason for ridding the tax code of these measures, even though some of the tax measures appear to be similar to treatment that all industries receive, such as the ability to intangible costs associated with drilling a well. To the extent that conservatives and tea party groups oppose eliminating special tax treatment of the oil industry or any other industry, they become just another special interest group. It is essential for our country to eliminate preferential tax treatment and the spending of money through the tax system.

    Regarding Mellman’s assertion that we need to “make corporate jet owners pay taxes” — with the implication that presently they pay no taxes: This is a lie. The measure Mellman refers to is an economic incentive implemented in the form of accelerated depreciation for purchasers of corporate jets. This provision allows companies to deduct depreciation costs from their income sooner, so they save on taxes now rather than later.

    (This incentive, by the way, was part of President Obama’s stimulus bill passed in February 2009.)

    Depreciation is an accepted concept that allows companies to recognize the costs of their capital investments over time, which is appropriate for purchases of long-lived assets like airplanes. Accelerated depreciation doesn’t increase the total amount of depreciation that can be deducted from income, and therefore doesn’t decrease the tax that must eventually be paid. While not as blatant as other forms of preferential treatment found in the tax code, this provision should be eliminated with all others.

    Of course, taking a deduction this year rather than in a later year is valuable. But receiving this deduction a few years sooner is nowhere near the same as paying no tax at all, which is what Mellman asserted.

    At the same time Mellman and liberals attack industries they sense they can stir up hatred towards, they pick programs they believe are unassailable to accuse conservatives of attacking.

    For example, Mellman mentioned Medicare. He didn’t tell viewers that President Obama has proposed cutting Medicare spending, too. It’s rare that any Democratic source mentions this.

    And according to the Washington Post at one time this summer Obama proposed Social Security cuts as part of the debt ceiling negotiations.

    In either case, the changes that are usually proposed to these programs by conservatives are quite gentle, and recognize that reforms must be made or these programs will sap the country of its vitality.

    Democratic political operatives, on the other hand, ignore these problems and attack those who recognize them. They must do this. The entire system of modern American liberalism is based on the lie that human freedom and liberty is enhanced by expanding government beyond what is minimally necessary to secure our true rights and freedoms.

  • Sweatshops best alternative for some workers

    From April, 2010.

    While sweatshops are not the place most Americans would choose to work, they are often the best alternative available to workers in some countries. Pay is low compared to U.S. standards because worker productivity is low, and the process of economic development will lead to increases in productivity and pay. But most policies promoted to help the purported plight of sweatshop workers actually lead to harm.

    That’s the message of Benjamin Powell, who spoke to a group of university students and citizens last night in Emporia on the topic “In Praise of Sweatshops.” Powell is a professor of economics at Suffolk University in Boston and is affiliated with The Beacon Hill Institute. His appearance was part of the Emporia State University “Lectures on Liberty” series.

    “Often when people say there’s something wrong with sweatshops, implicitly what they’re saying is ‘while this is bad, the alternative must be better.’ Often the alternatives in these countries are much, much worse.” The alternatives are often subsistence agriculture and working in farm fields, Powell said.

    A sweatshop, according to Powell, is a workplace with low wages (compared to U.S. standards), and poor, possibly unsafe, working conditions and benefits, again compared to U.S. standards. The sweatshops that Powell is defending are those where people voluntarily choose to work. Sweatshops where workers are forced to work under the threat of violence constitute slave labor, which cannot be defended. These are not better than the alternatives available to the forced workers, the evidence being that the workers are forced to work in these sweatshops.

    As evidence of non-sweatshop working conditions is some countries, Powell mentioned the case of a Cambodian girl and her working conditions, as reported by Nicholas D. Kristof in the New York Times in 2004:

    Nhep Chanda is a 17-year-old girl who is one of hundreds of Cambodians who toil all day, every day, picking through the dump for plastic bags, metal cans and bits of food. The stench clogs the nostrils, and parts of the dump are burning, producing acrid smoke that blinds the eyes.

    The scavengers are chased by swarms of flies and biting insects, their hands are caked with filth, and those who are barefoot cut their feet on glass. Some are small children.

    Nhep Chanda averages 75 cents a day for her efforts. For her, the idea of being exploited in a garment factory — working only six days a week, inside instead of in the broiling sun, for up to $2 a day — is a dream.

    Generally, sweatshop workers are paid much more than most other workers in the country, and their working conditions are much better. Powell mentioned that working inside — rather than outside — is very desirable in most countries. The fact that sweatshops pay higher wages and have better working conditions than the workers’ alternatives is important to remember.

    Powell explained the factors that determine how much workers are paid. The upper bound that employers are willing to pay workers is based on the amount of value that a worker can create. In economic terms, this is called the marginal productivity of labor.

    The lower bound, the minimum employers can pay, is the value of workers’ next best alternative.

    If we want to increase the earnings of sweatshop workers, we have to create policies that raise both the upper and lower bounds, Powell said, adding that about three-fourths of the variation in earnings across countries is explained by the upper bound. This points to the importance of increasing worker productivity.

    In one debate, Powell said his opponent wanted to take the question of sweatshop wages off the table, admitting that pay is higher in them. Instead, she wanted to focus on worker health and safety. But it’s important to remember, Powell told the audience, that working conditions, even those related to health and safety, are part of a total compensation package. Wages and working conditions are interconnected and can’t be separated.

    Sometimes people ask why apparel companies — the largest users of sweatshops — can’t simply pay the workers more, pointing to large profits and highly paid executives at these companies. But Powell said that apparel companies usually aren’t excessively profitable.

    Additionally, businesses are not charities. Forcing them to pay workers more means that companies will begin to look at ways to reduce the amount of labor they use. They may replace workers with machines, or use more productive workers in other countries. The result is sweatshop workers will lose their jobs.

    Powell reminded the audience that it’s important to remember that in most countries where sweatshops are used, these jobs are much better — both in terms of pay and working conditions — than what the workers face as alternatives. Anything that causes companies to shut down sweatshops or employ fewer workers, then, means that workers lose these better jobs and return to harder work at lower wages, or perhaps no work at all.

    In discussing the anti-sweatshop movement, Powell said that some groups sincerely want to help sweatshop workers, but don’t understand the economic realities in sweatshop-using countries. But labor unions such as UNITE do understand economics. The policies they advocate to help sweatshop workers — international labor standards and minimum or “living” wages, for example — increase the cost of sweatshop labor, causing companies to use less of it. It also makes unionized garment workers more attractive, and may lead to more employment in developed countries like the United States.

    “So unions advocate this not out of love for third world workers. They do it quite maliciously, actually, to unemploy third world workers for the benefit of already relatively wealthy union members in the United States and Western Europe countries.”

    The worst thing that advocates for sweatshop workers can do is to call for boycotts of products produced in sweatshops. If a boycott decreases demand for a product, the company must reduce its price, and the upper bound of what sweatshop workers can earn goes down. Then workers either have their wages reduced, or they lose their jobs.

    Powell presented the results of his research examining sweatshop wages. In many countries that use sweatshops, wages are very low, compared to U.S. wages. But that isn’t the appropriate comparison. Instead, when comparing the wages of sweatshop workers to the average income in the workers’ own country, we find that sweatshop workers do very well, often earning from two to seven times as much as the average worker in each country.

    Powell said that “ethical branding” is an idea that might help sweatshop workers. This is a marketing strategy where a company uses the fact that products are produced in sweatshops as a way to increase demand and prices. This, in turn, would increase the demand for sweatshop workers and increase their wages. But this has to be a voluntary strategy, Powell said. Companies must see this as a business success. If it is not successful in increasing demand but companies are forced to implement this strategy, it will lead to less sweatshop employment.

    Also, demand — in terms of the number of units sold — must not fall. This is a problem with “fair trade” coffee, where people purchase less of the more expensive fair trade coffee.

    The real solution for improving sweatshop wages and working conditions, Powell said, is the process of economic development. Sweatshops existed in Great Britain and the United States at one time. As capital is accumulated, better technologies are developed, and workers become more educated, workers become more productive and earn more, both in income and better working conditions.

    This process took over a century in the U.S., but countries like Hong Kong, Singapore, and South Korea, which were sweatshop countries in the 1950s and 1960s, made very rapid improvements in wages and working conditions. Capital and technology is available from abroad, Powell said, and this process can be repeated. But anti-sweatshop policies risk stalling this development, resulting in a permanent sweatshop country with low incomes.

    The real question, Powell said, is not why some countries are poor, but why some countries are rich. Rule of law, respect for property rights, and respect for individual liberty and economic freedom are policies that promote rapid economic growth. Countries that do not have these stagnate and do not increase their standard of living.

    In conclusion, Powell said that sweatshop wages and working conditions are better than what many workers face as alternatives, and that’s why people voluntarily choose to work in them. While wages are low compared to developed countries, this is because productivity is low. The process of economic development is the way to raise productivity and wages. Much of the work of anti-sweatshop groups risks undermining the economic development processes that will raise living standards.

    A question from the audience asked about the proliferation of sweatshops abroad leading to the loss of American jobs. Powell replied that sweatshops lead to the decline of the American apparel industry. But it is in the interest of America, he said, to get garments at lower cost overseas, freeing up high-skilled U.S. labor and capital to do what we’re relatively better at. This increases the wealth of America.

    Another question referred to the human costs of sweatshop labor, contrasting those workers to Nike executives who earn millions. What is the cost in terms of damage to human dignity? Powell replied that businesses are not charities, and they don’t pay executives high salaries simply because they want to. The extremely high pay of the top executive serves as an incentive for underlings to work harder in jobs that are hard to observe quality of effort. Most people do not understand this, Powell said.

    He also said that if we’re concerned about the dignity of sweatshop workers in third world countries, we should be even more concerned about those who don’t have sweatshop jobs. These people either have no jobs, or jobs with much lower pay and worse working conditions than sweatshop workers.

    Another question asked if it would help the economies of third world countries if we simply raised the wages of sweatshop workers, referring to companies that are making millions in profits. Powell said that laws mandating higher wages will change the behavior of sweatshop companies, resulting in a loss of sweatshop jobs. But voluntary programs like ethical branding could work.

    Related material on this topic by Powell includes a Christian Science Monitor op-ed Don’t get into a lather over sweatshops, a working paper titled Sweatshops and Third World Living Standards: Are the Jobs Worth the Sweat?, and an article In Defense of “Sweatshops.”

    The ESU Lectures on Liberty was conceived by Greg Schneider, professor of History at Emporia State University, to bring in important academics who support the idea of research and scholarship on critical issues regarding liberty in American history. The lecture series is underwritten by the Fred C. and Mary R. Koch Foundation in Wichita.

  • Kansas and Wichita quick takes: Friday August 5, 2011

    More jobs, but … Today’s jobs reports shows more jobs created than the small number many feared would be reported. Commenting on this is Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson: “Today the Labor Department’s announcement of the unemployment report showing 117,000 new jobs created is a testimony to America’s job creators who are fighting hard against the economic headwinds created by Obama’s bullheaded adherence to a failed 1930s economic philosophy. … The drop in the unemployment rate to 9.1 percent though is a false signal as the drop is largely attributable to even more Americans giving up hope of getting a job and dropping out of the workforce. Since Obama has become president, Americans have been leaving the workforce in droves. For them, and the almost 14 million unemployed, Obama’s change has robbed them of hope.”

    Sedgwick County budget. Wednesday’s meeting of the Sedgwick County Commission featured some actual legislative action as two fiscally conservative commissioners sought to reign in some county spending as the commissioners considered the 2012 budget. Commissioner Karl Peterjohn offered an amendment that would have reduced county spending by almost $500,000 in net spending reduction by eliminating one county center in health data, eliminating the new county lobbyist position, cutting $125,000 in airline subsidies as well as other business incentive spending, and several smaller categories of county spending. This amendment failed with only Commissioner Richard Ranzau voting with Peterjohn. A second amendment by Peterjohn deleted the new county lobbyist position to save $83,546. This amendment failed by the same vote as the first.

    There are emergencies, and then there aren’t. KAKE Television reports that during Wednesday evening’s storm, about 65 percent of the calls handled by the 911 system operators were for non-emergency reasons. “A majority of the calls from the storm were people requesting to be transferred to the electric company,” the station reports. Story and video at Majority Of Emergency Calls Were Non-Emergencies .

    Debt ceiling bill seen as feckless. The Cato Institute’s Jagadeesh Gokhale sums it up quite colorfully: “It’s been a frustrating two months watching politicians alternately squirm and spin only to achieve a damp squib of a deal.” He also writes that “The President and leaders in Congress have basically thrown in the towel.” The problems, he writes are “far too little by way of spending cuts, keeps open the possibility of new taxes, and hikes the debt ceiling substantially.” The major problems of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security were not addressed, he adds. More from Gokhale at The Debt Deal: Failures of Leadership and Resolve. … His colleague Daniel J. Mitchell notes the path American is taking: “America is on a path to becoming a Greek-style welfare state. Thanks to the Bush-Obama spending binge, the burden of federal spending has climbed to about 25% of national economic output, up from only 18.2% of GDP when Bill Clinton left office.” Of the spending cuts, he writes “federal spending will actually be higher every year and that the cuts were based on Washington math (a spending increase becomes a spending cut if outlays don’t climb as fast as some artificial benchmark).” It is thought that spending cuts amount to only $22 billion next year. Out of likely $3.6 trillion budget, that’s 0.6 percent. Mitchell concludes: “One group of people, however, unambiguously got the short end of the stick in this budget deal. Ordinary Americans are caught in the middle. They’re not poor enough to benefit from the federal government’s plethora of income-redistribution programs. But they’re not rich enough to have the clever lobbyists and insider connections needed to benefit from the high-dollar handouts like ethanol subsidies and bank bailouts. Instead, middle-class Americans play by the rules, pay ever-higher taxes, and struggle to make ends meet while the establishment of both parties engages in posturing as America slowly drifts toward a Greek-style fiscal meltdown.” More from Mitchell at Debt Deal: Politicians Win, Middle Class Loses.

    Higher fuel standards mean higher death toll. It’s simple physics, writes the Washington Examiner. Weight is the main enemy of fuel economy, so higher fuel economy standards from the government mean lighter cars. This lighter weight translates directly into highway deaths: “In 2003, for example, a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration study estimated that for every 100 pounds of weight taken out of a car weighing under 3,000 pounds, the death rate goes up more than 5 percent; the increase is slightly less than 5 percent for those weighing more than 3,000 pounds. Two years before that, a National Academy of Sciences study estimated that the lighter vehicles required to satisfy CAFE were responsible for as many as 2,600 highway deaths in one year alone. And in 1999, a comprehensive multiple regression analysis by USA Today of the government’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System data concluded that 7,700 people died for every one additional mpg attributable to CAFE regulation.” … Thomas Sowell warned us of this in 2005 when he wrote “Many of the same people who cry ‘No blood for oil!’ also want higher gas mileage standards for cars. But higher mileage standards have meant lighter and more flimsy cars, leading to more injuries and deaths in accidents — in other words, trading blood for oil.” … This is another example of the unintended consequences of regulation, although many times the consequences are intended.

    Myths about markets. Tom G. Palmer has a wonderful paper that tackles the criticisms of free markets that have evolved into myths. For example, the first myth is that markets are immoral or amoral. Palmer states the myth: Markets make people think only about the calculation of advantage, pure and simple. There’s no morality in market exchange, no commitment to what makes us distinct as humans: our ability to think not only about what’s advantageous to us, but about what is right and what is wrong, what is moral and what is immoral. His destruction of the myth: “A more false claim would be hard to imagine. For there to be exchange there has to be respect for justice. People who exchange differ from people who merely take; exchangers show respect for the rightful claims of other people. The reason that people engage in exchange in the first place is that they want what others have but are constrained by morality and law from simply taking it. An exchange is a change from one allocation of resources to another; that means that any exchange is measured against a baseline, such that if no exchange takes place, the parties keep what they already have. The framework for exchange requires a sound foundation in justice. Without such moral and legal foundations, there can be no exchange. Markets are not merely founded on respect for justice, however. They are also founded on the ability of humans to take into account, not only their own desires, but the desires of others, to put themselves in the places of others. A restaurateur who didn’t care what his diners wanted would not be in business long. If the guests are made sick by the food, they won’t come back. If the food fails to please them, they won’t come back. He will be out of business. Markets provide incentives for participants to put themselves in the position of others, to consider what their desires are, and to try to see things as they see them. Markets are the alternative to violence. Markets make us social. Markets remind us that other people matter, too.” … The entire paper is at Twenty Myths about Markets.

    What are rights? “Individuals have rights. But are they natural? And how do they compare and contrast with legal or constitutional rights? Are legal or constitutional rights similar to those inalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence? Professor Aeon Skoble distinguishes such constitutional rights, such as the right to vote, from the rights protected by governments and constitutions — natural rights not actually granted by governments themselves. He concludes that legal systems should create rights that are compatible with natural rights.” This video is from LearnLiberty.org, a project of Institute for Humane Studies, and many other informative videos are available.

  • Balanced budget amendment is needed

    Despite claims made in a Wichita Eagle op-ed by its former editor Davis Merritt, we desperately need a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution. (Balanced-budget amendment is unworkable, August 2, 2001)

    Merritt calls the promise of a balanced budget amendment a “cruel deception” that “limits imagination and progress.” He gives three reasons as to why we should not adopt such an amendment:

    First: “It would need to define exactly and in detail what constitutes a balanced budget, and that’s unwieldy and impossible.” He cites the gimmickry that is often used to hide the reality of what’s in a budget. This, no doubt, would be a difficult problem to solve — but it’s not a reason to fail to try. Some things we could do would be to reduce the complexity of the budget so that we actually understand how much and on what we’re spending. Requiring a high hurdle for the treasury to borrow funds would also be a signal that spending is being hidden in the budget.

    Second: “It would destroy the constitutional tripartite balance of powers, the core of our system, and would strip citizens of their only leverage, their votes.” Here Davis raises problems with enforcement of such an amendment, noting the delay in bringing court cases and giving judges too much power to decide how to balance the budget. But cases can be fast-tracked to the Supreme Court, and a judicial remedy could be to simply refuse to let the government spend any money until Congress and the president produce a balanced budget.

    Third: “It would leave the most crucial fiscal decisions in the hands of congressional minorities, a profoundly undemocratic idea.” Davis mentions the need to spend for national emergencies like Hurricane Katrina. Also: “… less than 15 percent of the House of Representatives paralyzed that body while the nation hurtled toward default and collapse.” I would counter that our nation is hurtling towards collapse precisely because of spending and resultant debt that politicians of both parties have approved for decades. Without the opposition of this small group, it would have likely been business as usual, and that business has been harmful.

    (At least Davis didn’t mention war as justification for deficit spending. Forcing politicians to pay for wars now rather than later might help keep peace.)

    As for national emergencies, a few thoughts: First, people might decide to take care of themselves through advance planning and the purchase of insurance. Second, along with a balanced budget the government could establish “rainy day” or contingency funds for these types of disasters, should the federal government decide to still have a role in these matters. Or, the federal government might buy insurance to cover its costs for handling these disasters. Then, that expense becomes an annual budget item that is known in advance.

    Davis also mentioned a recession cutting into revenues. Again, a rainy day fund can help. While not Davis’ argument, many opponents of a balanced budget amendment cite the need for the federal government to engage in counter-cyclical spending to manage the economy. This, of course, is the Keynesian formula that has been proven many times to be a failure. A policy that prevents our government from engaging in Keynesianism is a plus, not a minus.

    Unless restrained by constitutional rules, legislators will run budget deficits and spend excessively

    One of the best arguments for a balanced budget amendment is found in the book Common Sense Economics: What Everyone Should Know About Wealth and Prosperity by James D. Gwartney, Richard L. Stroup, Dwight R. Lee, and Tawni H. Ferrarini, in a section titled “Unless restrained by constitutional rules, legislators will run budget deficits and spend excessively.” That title says it all, and it is exactly what has been happening. Despite the debt ceiling deal reached this week — a deal denounced by liberals as one that will ruin the country and its economy — huge deficits will still happen, and debt will increase.

    Before 1960, the authors tell us, there was “widespread implicit agreement” that the budget should be balanced, except in times of war. And, the deficits and surpluses that did occur were small relative to the economy. But enter Keynes:

    The Keynesian revolution changed all of this. Keynesians — those accepting the views of English economist John Maynard Keynes — believed that changes in government spending and budget deficits could help promote a more stable economy. They argued that, rather than balancing the budget, the government should run a budget deficit during periods of recession and shift toward a budget surplus when there was concern about inflation. In short, the Keynesian revolution released political decision makers from the discipline imposed by a balanced budget. Freed from this constraint, politicians consistently spent more than they were willing to tax.

    Imagine if Lord Keynes had called upon politicians to fix the economy by doing something other than what they like to do: He would be merely a curiosity of economic history. But Keynes calls for government deficit spending to fix the economy, and spending is what nearly all politicians and bureaucrats like to do. They just don’t like to pay for it, as Common Sense Economics explains:

    The political attractiveness of spending financed by borrowing rather than taxation is not surprising. It reflects what economists call the short-sightedness effect: the tendency of elected political officials to favor projects that generate immediate, highly visible benefits at the expense of costs that can be cast into the future and are difficult to identify. Legislators have a strong incentive to spend money on programs that benefit the voters in their district and special-interest groups that will help them win reelection. They do not like to tax, since taxes impose a visible cost on voters. Debt is an alternative to current taxes; it pushes the visible cost of government into the future. Budget deficits and borrowing allow politicians to supply voters with immediate benefits without having to impose a parallel visible cost in the form of higher taxes. Thus, deficits are a natural outgrowth of unrestrained democratic politics.

    Then, the realities of public choice economics are cited: the well-known problem of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs:

    The unconstrained political process plays into the hands of well-organized interest groups and encourages government spending to gain rich patronage benefits for a few at the expense of many. Each representative has a strong incentive to fight hard for expenditures beneficial to his or her constituents and has little incentive to oppose spending by others. In contrast, there is little incentive for a legislator to be a spending “watchdog.” A legislative watchdog would incur the wrath of colleagues who find it more difficult to deliver special programs for their districts and retaliate by providing little support for spending in the watchdog’s district. More important, the benefits of spending cuts and deficit reductions that the watchdog is trying to attain (for example, lower taxes and lower interest rates) will be spread so thinly among all voters that the legislator’s constituents will reap only a small part of these benefits.

    This is another reason why earmark spending, while a small part of the total federal budget, is harmful. We need to watch to make sure the promised earmark reform is meaningful and lasts.

    A numerical example helps illustrate what happens when there’s a disconnect between receiving something and paying for it in a collective manner:

    Perhaps the following illustration will help explain why it is so difficult for the 415 representatives and 100 senators to bring federal spending and the budget deficit under control. Suppose these 535 individuals go out to dinner knowing that after the meal each will receive a bill for l/535th of the cost. No one feels compelled to order less because his or her restraint will exert little impact on the total bill. Why not order shrimp for an appetizer, entrees of steak and lobster, and a large piece of cheesecake for dessert? After all, the extra spending will add only a few pennies to each person’s share of the total bill. For example, if one member of the dinner party orders expensive items that push up the total bill by $10, his share of the cost will be less than 2 cents. What a bargain! Of course, he will have to pay extra for the extravagant orders of the other 534 diners. But that’s true no matter what he orders. The result is that everyone ends up ordering extravagantly and paying more for extras that provide little value relative to cost.

    The section goes on to explain how large debt leads to higher borrowing costs, which make it even more difficult to control spending. Eventually the result is a financial crisis.

    The authors conclude that spending must be controlled, and that rule changes are needed: “It is vitally important for the federal government to control its spending and borrowing in the years ahead. This is unlikely to happen without a change in the political rules. The rules need to be changed so it will be more difficult for politicians to spend more than they are willing to tax.”

    As for rule changes that would work, the authors mention a balanced budget amendment or requirement for supermajorities for spending proposals and increases in the debt ceiling.

    While I’m encouraged about some of the new members elected to Congress last year, there are still many members — and their constituents — who believe more spending and more debt is the way to go. Relying on people to do the right thing is different from relying on systems to be correct. This is why we must have a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Consitution.

  • Kansas and Wichita quick takes: Monday August 1, 2011

    Debt deal seen as victory for smaller government. Wall Street Journal Review & Outlook A Tea Party Triumph: The debt deal is a rare bipartisan victory for the forces of smaller government. “If a good political compromise is one that has something for everyone to hate, then last night’s bipartisan debt-ceiling deal is a triumph. The bargain is nonetheless better than what seemed achievable in recent days, especially given the revolt of some GOP conservatives that gave the White House and Democrats more political leverage. .. The big picture is that the deal is a victory for the cause of smaller government, arguably the biggest since welfare reform in 1996. Most bipartisan budget deals trade tax increases that are immediate for spending cuts that turn out to be fictional. This one includes no immediate tax increases, despite President Obama’s demand as recently as last Monday. The immediate spending cuts are real, if smaller than we’d prefer, and the longer-term cuts could be real if Republicans hold Congress and continue to enforce the deal’s spending caps.” … Most commenters, from all political viewpoints, say the fuss over the raising of the debt ceiling would not have happened but for tea party activists.

    Wichita city council. This week the Wichita City Council accepts comment on the city budget at its Tuesday morning meeting. The final public hearing on the budget will be at the August 9th meeting. The city has a page with the budget, supporting documents, presentations, and video at 2012-2013 Proposed Budget. … As always, the agenda packet is available at Wichita city council agendas.

    Sedgwick County Commission. This week the Sedgwick County Commission will adopt — or not — its budget. The only remaining opportunity for public input, at least in a public hearing situation, is Tuesday evening at 7:00 pm in the county commission meeting room. At its Wednesday morning meeting the commission will vote whether to adopt the budget, and no input from the public will be taken at that time. More information about the county’s budget is at Sedgwick County Division of Finance. … The commission will also consider an interesting road vacation item that has advocates of property rights split on the matter. The agenda information is at Sedgwick County Commission, August 3, 2011.

    Obama on the debt ceiling, 2006 version. As a United States Senator from Illinois in March 2006, President Barack Obama said this: “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government can not pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.” It’s not uncommon for politicians of all stripes to undergo shifts in thought like this. But, the very real question that we need to ask is this: Did his core values really change, or does he say whatever advances the political goal he wants to accomplish at the moment? … This is not limited to Democrats, as a Republican member of the House — I can’t remember his name — insisted that the Boehner plan had bipartisan support, despite receiving just five votes from Democrats.

    New Wichita city council members. This Friday’s meeting (August 5th) of the Wichita Pachyderm Club spotlights the three newest members of the Wichita City Council: Pete Meitzner (district 2, east Wichita), James Clendenin (district 3, south and southeast Wichita), and Michael O’Donnell (district 4, south and southwest Wichita). Their topic will be “What it’s like to be a new member of the Wichita City Council?” … Upcoming speakers: On August 12 Kansas Representative Marc Rhoades, Chair of the Kansas House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations, will speak on “The impact of the freshman legislators on the 2011 House budgetary process.” … On August 19, Jay M. Price, Ph.D., Associate Professor and Director of the public history program at Wichita State University, speaking on “Clashes of Values in Kansas History.” His recent Wichita Eagle op-ed was Kansas a stage for “values showdowns.” … On August 26, Kansas State Representatives Jim Howell and Joseph Scapa speaking on “Our freshmen year in the Kansas Legislature.” … On September 2 the Petroleum Club is closed for the holiday, so there will be no meeting. … On September 9, Mark Masterson, Director, Sedgwick County Department of Corrections, on the topic “Juvenile Justice System in Sedgwick County.” Following, from 2:00 pm to 3:00 pm, Pachyderm Club members and guests are invited to tour the Sedgwick County Juvenile Detention Center located at 700 South Hydraulic, Wichita, Kansas. … On September 16, Merrill Eisenhower Atwater, great grandson of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, will present a program with the topic to be determined. … On September 23, Dave Trabert, President of Kansas Policy Institute, speaking on the topic Why Not Kansas,” an initiative to provide information about school choice. … On September 30, U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo of Wichita on “An update from Washington.”

    Project moves forward, despite missing welfare. The project didn’t qualify for tax exemptions via Wichita’s industrial revenue bond program, but nonetheless the project will proceed. The project is Pixius Communications and its expansion at 301 N. St. Francis Street. According to the Wichita Business Journal, the project will proceed, but on a smaller scale. Moving forward despite the claim that corporate welfare of one form or another is required reminds me of the Save-A-Lot grocery store now under construction in Wichita’s Planeview neighborhood. Rob Snyder, the initial developer was insistent that subsidies were required. But someone else found a way to do it without subsidy.

    Wichita downtown restaurants. There are mixed opinions, writes the Wichita Business Journal.

    Cato University. Last week I was away attending Cato University, a summer seminar on political economy. (That’s why the articles from last week were reruns.) Besides attending many very informative lectures and meeting lovers of liberty from across the world, I became aware of several brilliant Cato scholars and executives whom I had not paid much attention to. One in particular is Tom G. Palmer, who is Senior Fellow and Director of Cato University, besides holding a position at Atlas Economic Research Foundation. He delivered many of our lectures and is the author of Realizing Freedom: Libertarian Theory, History, and Practice. An important chapter from this book is Twenty Myths about Markets. In this video he discusses being effective in bringing about change.

  • In Kansas, P.J. O’Rourke promotes free markets

    From May, 2010.

    Last month Americans for Prosperity-Kansas hosted a summit in Topeka where 400 citizens gathered to learn more about free markets and Kansas politics. It wasn’t all instruction, however, as political satirist P.J. O’Rourke was on hand to entertain the audience while also providing insights into politics and economics.

    O’Rourke is the best-selling author of 12 books and contributor to many magazines. He is H.L. Mencken Research Fellow at the Cato Institute.

    An Easterner, he told the audience that people on the east coast are skeptical of the Midwest, saying it’s awful flat out there. “That’s so we can see you coming,” he said.

    The free market, he said, is the greatest repository of our freedoms. He told the audience that “economic freedom is the freedom that we exercise most often and to the greatest extent.” Freedom of speech is important — if you have anything to say.

    The free market is a measurement, he said. It tells us “what people are willing to pay for a given thing at a given moment.” While people may not always like the results the free market produce, it isn’t possible to legislate perfect results.

    He said that while we may not understand the causes of the recent economic crisis, we do understand business investment, “something the Obama Administration seems to be doing everything it can to prevent.” Business investment defines humanity and civilization.

    While O’Rourke heaped criticism on Democrats, he said that Republicans deserve criticism too. “Republicans are the party that says government doesn’t work, and then they get elected and prove it.”

    Bush policies such as No Child Left Behind, immigration reform, and social security reform are examples of failed programs or proposals that didn’t make it into law. “Bush said if illegal immigrants wanted citizenship, they’d have to do three things: pay taxes, learn English, and work at a meaningful job. Bush didn’t meet two out of those three qualifications.”

    While the Bush Administration disappointed, he said the Obama Administration has just began to disappoint.

    Speaking on the role of politics and government in society, O’Rourke said that we keep blaming political problem on politicians. People believe that only if we had better politicians, the world would be better. He countered: “The problem isn’t politicians. The problem is politics.”

    O’Rourke told the audience that all society’s ills can’t be cured through politics. “Politicians lie to us, but it’s not like they’ve got much choice. Think about what the truth would sound like on the campaign stump. Even a little, bitty bit of truth. Imagine the politician who said to the voters ‘No, I can’t fix public education. The problem isn’t funding, or overcrowding, or teachers unions, or lack of computer equipment in the classroom. The problem is your damn kids.‘”

    He said that after 40 years making fun of politicians, he realized he hates politics — all politics. We use the word “politics” in ways that reveal our true attitude, he said: “office politics,” “plays politics,” someone is a “real politician” — all these have negative connotations. True conservatism, he said, is a room deodorizer, trying to get the bad smell of politics out of our lives.

    While partisan political bickering is often viewed as a block to accomplishment, O’Rourke said “We want them to bicker. The two most frightening words in Washington — and right here in Topeka too — are ‘bipartisan consensus.’”

    There is a desire by many to stop worrying about politics, but that’s not possible, as we rely on politics for so much. Politicians of both parties want government to solve all our problems. But O’Rourke mentioned government’s poor record of accomplishment: “Government has trouble figuring out where mail goes, and mail has our address right on the front of it.”

    O’Rourke told the audience that corruption is ingrained in politics. “When buying and selling are controlled by voting, the first things that get bought and sold are votes.” Politicians understand this, he added.

    On the role of lawyers in politics, he quipped “Letting lawyers write laws is like letting pharmaceutical companies invent diseases.”

    On economics, O’Rourke said that “wealth is not a pizza, where if I have too many slices you have to eat the Domino’s box.” Wealth is not a zero-sum gain. In a free market there are no losers when someone gets rich, he added.

    The political quest for equality leads to fear and envy of the rich. The Biblical commandment to not covet your neighbor’s things needs to be applied to the nation: “don’t whine about what others have — go get your own.”

    In an interview after his talk, I was able to ask a few questions. Since much of his talk to the audience was on economic freedom, I asked why isn’t economic freedom more popular?

    He said that psychologically, freedom requires taking responsibility. The zero-sum idea — that when someone makes money, they’re somehow taking it from me — is hard to shake. It’s a relatively new idea in human history, and we have not adjusted, psychologically or politically. Also, he said that children today spend a long time in “socialist dependence” in the family setting. Although children are instinctively in favor of private property, they are brought up in a collectivist settings like families, churches, schools, scout groups, and universities.

    So have we as conservatives or libertarians not done a good job explaining wealth creation through voluntary transactions?

    He said no, this is not taught well at all. The moral aspect of economics is not taught. Economics doesn’t fit into the typical secondary school curriculum, he said, and so students usually don’t received much instruction. There is an element in the education establishment that either doesn’t understand the moral aspects of the free market, or they disagree.

    Responding about a question about the push for tax increases in Kansas, O’Rourke said that government spending advocates assume as a given that the spending needs to be done. He said that an adequate amount is being spent on education, but we’re not getting results.

    Since many of the people in the audience are activists, I asked what advice he had to start reducing the amount of government we have.

    He noted that the paradox is that political involvement is necessary to diminish the role of politics in people’s lives. Moving political power to the local or state level is one way. This requires people to become more politically active. More people need to be more engaged in the decisions that are now being made in Washington. But it’s easy to slough off problems to Washington, O’Rourke said, and this is one of the reasons why government has grown.

    I asked about the state sovereignty and tenth amendment movements: Do we risk replacing a tyrannical federal government with tyrannical state governments? He said the idea of sovereignty may apply to the health care issue, as all states are already involved in this area. But states can be just as oppressive as the federal government, referring to the new Arizona illegal alien law.

    On climate change and global warming alarmism, O’Rourke said this is a tool people use to increase political power. There is a desire to increase the scope of political power, and “any excuse will do,” he said. Using an observation made by Milton Friedman, he added that solving problems through increasing political power relies on the “absurd assumption that we can somehow find honest and unselfish men to put in control of dishonest and selfish men.” There is a qualitative division between the type of people who go into politics and everyone else, he added.

    I asked about those who work for greater government power at the expense of economic freedom: Have they never been exposed to the ideas of free markets, or have they been exposed to these ideas and don’t believe them, or are they simply venal?

    O’Rourke said that — putting the best possible face on it, he said — many politicians regard politics as a “counterweight to what they think of as market failures.”

    He said that the small “l” left believes that man is good, but that the systems of power in the world are inherently bad. And for most of history, the systems of power have been bad. If the power structures of the world can be changed, the “goodness of people will shine through.” O’Rourke said that this idea is wrong: People are not not good, but they’re not evil; they have a capacity for both. The free market is a method to move power away from the political elite and aristocracy and toward ordinary people.

    This represents two different views of the world and human nature. He said that his point of view requires less interference in people’s lives, making it better — or at least less annoying.

    He told of a conversation with Cato Institute’s David Boaz, telling him that he is as over-certain in his libertarianism as anyone on the left is in their beliefs. Boaz replied “Yes, but I’m not prescriptive in my over-certainness.”

  • Despite allegations, Wichita’s Dave Burk remains favored

    As Wichita proceeds with the redevelopment of its downtown, one developer seems to be on the cutting edge of harvesting corporate welfare — despite his past behavior. Last year this person, Dave Burk of Marketplace Properties, acted in a way the Wichita Eagle described as deceptive in order to reduce his property taxes. Yet, Burk remains a favored developer at city hall, and he’s soon going to ask taxpayers to pay higher taxes for his benefit. These are the same taxes he himself doesn’t like to pay. The following article from February 2010 explains.

    Today’s Wichita Eagle contains a story about a well-known Wichita real estate developer that, while shocking, shouldn’t really be all that unexpected.

    The opening sentence of the article (Developer won tax appeal on city site) tells us most of what we need to know: “Downtown Wichita’s leading developer, David Burk, represented himself as an agent of the city — without the city’s knowledge or consent — to cut his taxes on publicly owned property he leases in the Old Town Cinema Plaza, according to court records and the city attorney.”

    Some might say it’s not surprising that Burk represented himself in the way the Eagle article reports. When a person’s been on the receiving end of so much city hall largess, it’s an occupational hazard.

    And when you’ve been the beneficiary of so much Wichita taxpayer money, you might even begin to think that you shouldn’t have to pay so much tax anymore.

    At the state level, you might seek over a million dollars of taxpayer money to help you renovate an apartment building.

    Burk has certainly laid the groundwork, at least locally. A registered Republican voter, Burk regularly stocks the campaign coffers of Wichita city council members with contributions. These contributions — at least for city council candidates — are apparently made without regard to the political leanings of the candidates. How else can we explain recent contributions made to two city council members who are decidedly left of center: Lavonta Williams and Janet Miller? Burk and his wife made contributions to their campaigns in the maximum amount allowed by law.

    This is especially puzzling in light of Burk’s contributions to campaigns at the federal level. There, a search at the Federal Election Commission shows a single contribution of $250 to Todd Tiahrt in 2005.

    It’s quite incongruous that someone would contribute to Tiahrt, Williams, and Miller. Except Williams and Miller can — and have — cast votes that directly enrich Burk. Politicians at the federal level don’t have the same ability to do that as do Wichita city council members. Well, at least not considering Wichita city business.

    So which is it: is Burk a believer in Republican principles, a believer in good government, or someone who knows where his next taxpayer handout will come from?

    Burk’s enablers — these include Wichita’s lobbyist Dale Goter, Wichita Downtown Development Corporation president Jeff Fluhr and chairman Larry Weber, Wichita City Manager Robert Layton, Wichita economic development chief Allen Bell, and most importantly Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer and various city council members — now have to decide if they want to continue in their efforts to enrich Burk. Continuing to do so will harm their reputations. The elected officials, should they run for office again, will have to explain their actions to voters.

    At the state level, the bill that will enrich Burk will likely be voted on in the Kansas Senate this week. Then, similar action may take place in the Kansas House of Representatives. Let’s hope they read the Wichita Eagle in Topeka.

  • Public-private partnerships: the problems

    As the City of Wichita undertakes the revitalization of downtown Wichita, we need to make sure we understand the many problems inherent in the “public-private partnership.” The following commentary by Fred L. Smith, Jr. President of the Competitive Enterprise Institute originally appeared on OpenMarket.org, and it does an excellent job explaining these problems. Some of these I and others have brought to the attention of the Wichita City Council.

    The Problem With Public-Private Partnerships

    by Fred Smith

    In our half-political, half-private world, there are a growing number of public-private partnerships. Almost nothing in the current world can be done without implicit or explicit permission by local, state, federal or (increasingly) global regulators. But the term, public-private is normally used to denote the joint funding and, sometimes, joint management of some “public” facility — streets, water systems, and so forth.

    The rationale for “public” investments is that they are “public” goods, whose benefits are not adequately captured by the provider. There are many problems with this concept — in practice, it means that someone wants something and nobody seems to be providing it. Note, from a Coasian/Schumpeterian free market perspective, these are exactly the “lures” that lead mankind to pursue the unexplored entrepreneurial paths to the future. Rushing in with government assistance distorts and preempts those creative forces.

    Sometimes, public-private partnerships can be a transitional step toward privatization. The concept of “corporatization” that is, reorganizing an activity now performed by some political agency so that its inherent economic realities become more understandable and transparent, may be a useful step in privatizing the activity.

    In most cases, however, public-private partnerships are simply a means of using tax breaks, regulatory easing, taxpayer support and so forth to subsidize some private activity: stadia, light and heavy rail — mass transit generally, sometimes (for God’s sake) hotels and malls, downtown development districts. Where I live in Washington, D.C., businesses are allowed to add a “special tax” to pay for services the city supposedly pays for with normal tax revenues. Such public-private partnerships suffer from the full array of government failures:

    • Log-rolling and pork-barrel politics: I’ll vote for your PPP if you vote for my PPP.
    • Weakened market tests: resources are devoted to a project not because it benefits the citizenry but rather because it benefits a powerful interest group and/or because a creative referendum entices a majority of voters to support their special interests.
    • Weaker Management: Absent market tests, managers are less motivated to find that mix of services and creative array of financing tools to ensure that it proves “profitable” (that is, a rational allocation of capital). Roads, even charter schools, etc all have suffered here immensely.
    • Lack of innovation: No institution in the private world can allow itself to stagnate – the creative forces of destruction will soon make it obsolete. PPP managers face much weaker innovative forces — if things go wrong, they can always appeal to their “public” nature for taxpayer bailouts.
    • Corruption: Crony capitalism abounds in the PPP world.
    • Faddism: Markets sometimes go on kicks — the tech boom, for example — but these soon collapse. Governments go on kicks for many decades — “renewable energy” and “mass transit” being perhaps the best examples but “magnet” investments in downtown malls, stadia and convention centers are perhaps even more persistent ones. Before Walmart became a PPP, it did more for consumers than all the PPP malls in the world.
    • Crowding Out: Capitalism plays a critical role in allocating capital — planting the seeds for our future. That is a very difficult task, one made much more difficult by the existence of PPPs. Government already seizes a disproportionate amount of our wealth and the PPP concept allows it to further distort the allocation by market forces. I’ve argued that the genius of the Progressives in the late 19th century was to preempt or push large sectors of the emerging future (the environment, schools, electromagnetic spectrum, infrastructure, welfare, the medical world) into the political world. The PPP concept simply exacerbates this tendency.

    Our challenge is to find ways to expand the private sector and only very rarely does the PPP concept do that. It allows people to be sloppy — “That would never pay for itself but it obviously has value, thus, we need some government help. Let’s not make it an honest government function, let’s make it a Public-Private partnership and get the best of all possible outcomes!!”

    This Mixed Economy model is less honest than true socialism (government acting directly) for many reasons. If as is often the case, things go wrong, it will be capitalism — not government — that will be blamed. PPP activities are less subject to consumer sovereignty (look at airports or schools). The true costs of the activity don’t appear on government budgets — making it appear that PPP arrangements are “bargains.”

  • Federal grants seen to raise future local spending

    “Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.” — Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman

    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 have examined the evidence, and they find the answer is yes.

    Their research paper is titled Do Intergovernmental Grants Create Ratchets in State and Local Taxes? Testing the Friedman-Sanford Hypothesis.

    The difference between this research and most is that Sobel and Crowley look at the impact of federal grants on state and local tax policy in future periods.

    This is important because, in their words, “Federal grants often result in states creating new programs and hiring new employees, and when the federal funding for that specific purpose is discontinued, these new state programs must either be discontinued or financed through increases in state own source taxes.”

    The authors caution: “Far from always being an unintended consequence, some federal grants are made with the intention that states will pick up funding the program in the future.”

    The conclusion to their research paper 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.

    So: Not only are we taxed to pay for the cost of funding federal and state grants, the units of government that receive grants are very likely to raise their own levels of taxation in response to the receipt of the grants. This is a cycle of ever-expanding government that needs to end, and right now.

    An introduction to the paper is Do Intergovernmental Grants Create Ratchets in State and Local Taxes?.