Voice For Liberty

Tag: Regulation

  • Regulation supports business, not capitalism and free markets

    There are many examples of how the conventional wisdom regarding regulation is wrong: Republicans and conservatives are in bed with government, seeking to unshackle business from the burden of government regulation. Democrats and liberals, on the other hand, are busy crafting regulations to protect the common man from the evils of big business. As it turns out, both Democrats and Republicans love creating regulations, and big business loves these regulations.

    For example, in 2005 Walmart came out in favor of raising the national minimum wage. The company’s CEO said that he was concerned for the plight of working families, and that he thought the minimum wage level of $5.15 per hour was too low. If Walmart — a company the political left loves to hate as much as any other — can be in favor of increased regulation of the workplace, can regulation be a good thing? Had Walmart discovered the joys of big government?

    The answer is yes. Walmart discovered a way of using government regulation as a competitive weapon. This is often the motivation for business support of regulation. In the case of Walmart, it was already paying its employees well over the current minimum wage. At the time, some sources thought that the minimum wage could be raised as much as 50 percent and not cause Walmart any additional cost — its employees already made that much.

    But its competitors didn’t pay wages that high. If the minimum wage rose very much, these competitors to Walmart would be forced to increase their wages. Their costs would rise. Their ability to compete with Walmart would be harmed.

    In short, Walmart supported government regulation as a way to impose higher costs on its competitors. It found a way to compete outside the marketplace. It abandoned principles of free markets and capitalism, and provided a lesson as to the difference between capitalism and business. Many, particularly liberals, make no distinction between business and capitalism. But we need to learn to recognize the difference if we are to have a thriving economy based on free-wheeling, competitive markets that foster innovation, or continue our decline into unproductive crony capitalism.

    In the following excerpt from his book The Big Ripoff: How Big Business and Big Government Steal Your Money, author Timothy P. Carney explains that big business is able to use regulation as a blunt and powerful tool against competitors, and also as a way to improve its image.

    How does regulation help big business?

    Excerpt from The Big Ripoff: How Big Business and Big Government Steal Your Money, by Timothy P. Carney

    If regulation is costly, why would big business favor it? Precisely because it is costly.

    Regulation adds to the basic cost of doing business, thus heightening barriers to entry and reducing the number of competitors. Thinning out the competition allows surviving firms to charge higher prices to customers and demand lower prices from suppliers. Overall regulation adds to overhead and is a net boon to those who can afford it — big business.

    Put another way, regulation can stultify the market. If you’re already at the top, stultification is better than the robust dynamism of the free market. And according to Nobel Laureate economist Milton Friedman:

    The great virtue of free enterprise is that it forces existing businesses to meet the test of the market continuously, to produce products that meet consumer demands at lowest cost, or else be driven from the market. It is a profit-and-loss system. Naturally, existing businesses prefer to keep out competitors in other ways. That is why the business community, despite its rhetoric, has so often been a major enemy of truly free enterprise.

    There is an additional systemic reason why regulation will help big business. Congress passes the laws that order new regulations, and executive branch agencies actually construct the regulations. The politicians and government lawyers who write these rules rarely do so without input. Often the rule makers ask for advice and information from labor unions, consumer groups, environmental groups, and industry itself. Among industry the stakeholders (beltway parlance to describe affected parties) who have the most input are those who can hire the most effective and most connective lobbyists. You can guess this isn’t Mom and Pop.

    As a result, the details of the regulation are often carefully crafted to benefit, or at least not hurt, big business. If something does not hurt you, or hurts you a little while seriously hindering your competition, it is a boon, on balance.

    Another reason big business often cries “regulate me!” is the goodwill factor. If a politician or bureaucrat wants to play a role in some industry, and some executive says, “get lost,” he runs the risk of offending this powerful person. That’s bad diplomacy. Bureaucrats, by their nature, do not like to be told to mind their own business. Supporting the idea of regulation but lobbying for particular details is usually better politics.

  • Speculators, by profiting, provide a service

    Speculators are selfish people, acting only to make as much profit as possible for themselves without concern for the welfare of others. By doing so, they provide a valuable public service.

    That’s not what we hear when oil and gasoline prices — to take a recent example — go up. News commentators from across the political spectrum condemn speculators, blaming them for rising gasoline prices.

    The mechanism of the speculator is to buy something like oil when prices are low, then to sell it when prices are high. By doing so he earns a profit. (An alternative is to sell things he does not yet own when prices are high, and then buy to fulfill his obligation when prices are low.)

    The speculator, in this definition, does not hope to profit by processing and distributing the commodity he is buying and selling, as does an oil company or flour miller. He simply hopes to make a profit based on the changing prices — up or down — of oil or wheat.

    It is said that speculators are buying oil now and therefore driving up the price. That’s probably true, and it illustrates one of the beneficial services that speculators provide: they reduce volatility in prices. If speculators are correct and the price of oil spikes sometime soon, the present buying by speculators makes the spike less steep. It also induces consumers to conserve.

    Writing about speculation in food markets, Walter Block explains the beneficial effects:

    First, the speculator lessens the effects of famine by storing food in times of plenty, through a motive of personal profit. He buys and stores food against the day when it might be scarce, enabling him to sell at a higher price. The consequences of his activity are far-reaching. They act as a signal to other people in the society, who are encouraged by the speculator’s activity to do likewise. Consumers are encouraged to eat less and save more, importers to import more, farmers to improve their crop yields, builders to erect more storage facilities, and merchants to store more food. Thus, fulfilling the doctrine of the “invisible hand,” the speculator, by his profit-seeking activity, causes more food to be stored during years of plenty than otherwise would have been the case, thereby lessening the effects of the lean years to come.

    If the spike in prices does occur, what will speculators do? They will sell their oil, and that action will drive down prices, making the spike less steep. Here the speculator makes a profit by providing the service of making the oil shortage less severe. His hoarding of oil, bought when prices were low, makes it available in times of need, and less expensive, too. The speculator is rarely given credit for that in public, although this is how the speculator earns a profit.

    It is possible for speculators to do harm, however. If the speculator buys, he drives up prices. Then suppose the price of oil falls, and the speculator is forced to sell. His actions have increased the volatility of oil prices and have sent false price signals to the market. Citing again Block’s food example: “What if he is wrong? What if he predicts years of plenty — and by selling, encourages others to do likewise — and lean years follow? In this case, wouldn’t he be responsible for increasing the severity of the famine? Yes. If the speculator is wrong, he would be responsible for a great deal of harm.”

    In these cases, the speculator has suffered financial losses. These loses are a powerful market force that drives “bad” speculators — meaning those who guess wrong about future prices — out of the market.

    The real danger is when government attempts to speculate. That’s a possibility at the current moment, as many are recommending that the U.S. government sell oil from the strategic petroleum reserve in an effort to lower the cost of oil. That’s speculation — the oil was bought at a time when the price was lower, and is now contemplated being sold at a higher price.

    The problem with government speculation is that government does not face the market discipline that private-sector speculators face. When they are wrong, they lose their capital. They go out of business. Government faces no such discipline. When government is wrong, it goes on.

    Government attempts at regulating speculators are certain to fail, too. Almost any such regulation will seek to reduce the profit potential of speculation. But that is what drives the speculators and makes the system work. Without the potential for profits, speculators will not take the risk of losses, and they will not perform their beneficial function.

  • Kansas and Wichita quick takes: Wednesday June 29, 2011

    We have tried that before. Burt Folsom, who has written a book on Franklin Roosevelt’s economic policies and spoke in Wichita on that topic, warns us of the folly of government spending as a means to economic recovery. Henry Morgenthau, Secretary of the Treasury to FDR, said this seven years into the New Deal: “Now, gentlemen, we have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.” … Some have charged that this quotation is a fabrication, but Folsom has the proof in his article We Have Tried Spending Money. … The quotation by Morganthau continues with: “And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot.”

    How can the Fed be so clueless? Investor’s Business Daily: “Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke says he’s puzzled by the failure of the economy to respond to our government’s many ministrations. Which explains much of why our economy is such a mess. … Not to be rude, but can the nation’s top banker really be so clueless? Anyone with half a lick of common sense looking at our economy knows what’s wrong: We’ve spent the better part of three years with government making the most extraordinary interventions in the economy in our nation’s history. Government spending, as a share of the economy, has soared 25%. Regulations, many of them arbitrary and foolish, such as the ban on incandescent light bulbs, have never been more numerous.” … The piece goes on to list many of the unwise policies the government has followed: ARRA stimulus, TARP, GM and Chrysler, Dodd-Frank, etc. In conclusion: “A handful of bureaucrats can never set prices or allocate goods or decide what should be made as efficiently as millions of people acting in their own interest through a free and open market. Our policymakers seem to have forgotten this. They make statements that indicate they don’t know the damage their policies are doing or they are willfully oblivious to them.”

    Deficit is probably worse than thought. “We should be prepared for upward revisions in official deficit projections in the years ahead — even if a deal is struck,” writes Lawrence B. Lindsey in The Wall Street Journal. The reasons why projects of deficits are too optimistic are three: The interest rates being contemplated for Treasury borrowing are probably too low, the growth rates for the economy are too large, and the long-run costs of ObamaCare are way too low. Writes Lindsey: “There is no way to raise taxes enough to cover these problems. The tax-the-rich proposals of the Obama administration raise about $700 billion, less than a fifth of the budgetary consequences of the excess economic growth projected in their forecast. The whole $700 billion collected over 10 years would not even cover the difference in interest costs in any one year at the end of the decade between current rates and the average cost of Treasury borrowing over the last 20 years.” He recommends long-term reduction in entitlement spending as the only cure. See The deficit is worse than we think: Normal interest rates would raise debt-service costs by $4.9 trillion over 10 years, dwarfing the savings from any currently contemplated budget deal..

    Blue pill or red pill? “Great expectations” are placed on the hope of Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) as a way to save money on health care costs, both in the private and public sector. Now a report published by Manhattan Institute finds that this technique, despite its appealing name and promise, may not be the magic pill that President Obama is relying on: “This result seems counterintuitive: How can it be that, when a CER study shows no difference between two drugs, limiting coverage for the more expensive drug could actually increase costs?” The report explains that individuals are different, and what applies to the “average” patient may not be right for a large number of other patients. A second reason is “variance in dependence in patient responses across therapies.” The report provides illustrations of where CER-based policies cost more. … Concluding, the executive summary states: “Our results suggest that CER will not fulfill its promise unless it is implemented differently by researchers and understood differently by policymakers. Simply put, seeking the treatment that is most effective on average will not improve health or save money. However, CER can be conducted in a way that takes difference and dependence into account and measures their effect. If CER is applied in this way — as a tool for matching individual patients to the best treatments for those individuals — it will realize its potential to reduce costs without inhibiting freedom of choice for doctors and patients.” … The report is Blue Pill or Red Pill: The Limits of Comparative Effectiveness Research

    Even quicker. “For the roughly four million homeowners who have fallen behind on their mortgage payments, the federal government is offering yet another remedy: free money to catch up on their loans.” See SmartMoney: More Money for Struggling Homeowners. … The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) has issued a boil water advisory for the city of Waterville, which is located in Marshall County. I guess there’s no water in Waterville today. … Strong public support found for “Cut, cap, and balance,” a program to bring the federal budget under control. See National Taxpayer Union: New Poll Highlights Public Support for Cut, Cap and Balance. … Rasmussen: “Most voters continue to feel America needs to do more to develop domestic gas and oil resources. They also still give the edge to finding new sources of oil over reducing gas and oil consumption.” … Becker on Speculators: “Put differently, speculation tends to be stabilizing when speculators are making money because they have correct expectations about price movements, and destabilizing when they are losing money because their expectations turn out to be wrong. Given that the fundamentals imply large price movements from rather small shocks to supply and demand, and that successful speculation tends to moderate price movements, it is hard to believe that speculation has played a major role in causing the large swings in oil prices.” Do you hear that, Bill O’Reilly?

  • Stossel: The state against blacks

    John Stossel’s most recent television program was titled The State Against Blacks, and it dealt with the topics of affirmative action, welfare, and the minimum wage.

    A featured guest on the show was Dr. Walter E. Williams, an economist at George Mason University. His most recent book is on this topic, and it’s titled Race and Economics: How Much Can Be Blamed on Discrimination? A preview of the book is available at that link.

    On welfare, Williams told Stossel: “The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery could not have done, the harshest Jim Crow laws and racism could not have done — namely, break up the black family. Today, just slightly over 30 percent of black kids live in two-parent families.” He contrasted this with much higher numbers of intact families in the past. A video clip is below.

    In another clip from the show, Williams discusses the war on poverty and how the minimum wage is harmful to those it is meant to help.

    Summarizing at the end of the show, Stossel told the audience that limited government — not an expansive welfare state — is best for everyone, including the poor, immigrants, and minorities:

    There’s no question that in America that blacks, on average, are economically behind whites. Average black household income is about 40 percent less than for whites. Why? Other minorities were once that far behind, but they prospered. In 1910 Chinese immigrants were 10 percent poorer than other Americans. Their grandkids, in 1985, were 35 percent richer than other Americans.

    Other minorities rose out of poverty: Italians, Hungarians, the Irish, and so on. So why not most blacks? Because just at the time that blacks like Walter Williams were lifting themselves out of poverty, President Johnson created a government war on poverty. Trillions of your dollars were spent on welfare programs that unintentionally reward dependency.

    And then came more regulation like licensing rules and minimum wage rules that stifle entrepreneurship. Politicians like Jessie Jackson say racism is why blacks still struggle today. But Walter Williams taught me that’s just nonsense. There is still racism today. But if that’s such an obstacle, explain the success of black immigrants in America. Their skin is just as dark, but they knew well they’d proposer. Immigrants from Jamaica are poorer than the average American, but a few years later their kids are one percent richer than the average American.

    Why? For one reason, it’s harder for immigrants to get government assistance. They don’t grow up in a culture of handouts, so they’re forced to make it on their own. And that makes all the difference. What helps poor people most is limited government, simple rules that everyone understands, that leave newcomers free to braid hair, for example, or drive taxis, or start companies.

    If the state keeps the peace but then gets out of our way, people prosper. I didn’t understand that until Walter Williams taught me. And many Americans still don’t get it.

    Stossel’s column on this topic is Is Government Aid Helping or Hurting Blacks? Video from Williams’ 1985 PBS documentary “State Against Blacks” is available here. Video from the “Good Intentions” series is here.

  • Kansas and Wichita quick takes: Monday May 9, 2011

    Airfares down in Wichita. A city press release announces: “Wichita Mid-Continent Airport had the country’s 11th largest airline fare decrease since 2000 and now ranks 43rd in average fare of the 100 busiest airports, according to research by the federal Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS).” The program’s major source of funding is $5 million per year from the state. Currently, it is not known whether this funding will be in the budget the legislature is working on. … The program is controversial for claims of economic benefit that appear overstated. There is a way to pay for the program that shouldn’t be controversial. When government provides services that benefit everyone, such as police protection, most people agree that taxes to pay for these services should be broad-based. But we can precisely identify the people who benefit from cheap airfares: the people who buy tickets. Wichita could easily add a charge to tickets for this purpose. The mechanism is already in place.

    Wichita City Council this week. A speaker on the public agenda will speak about restoring Joyland. Undoubtedly, the goal of the speaker will be to obtain public funds for this project. … City staff is recommending that the council deny a request for Industrial Revenue Bond financing by Pixius Communications LLC. As always, the benefit of the IRB financing to the applicant is the property tax and possible sales tax abatements that accompany the program. The city does not lend money, and does not guarantee that the applicant will repay the bonds. The reason staff is recommending not to approve the application is that Pixius is a service business, and under current policy, a service business must generate a majority of its revenues from outside the Wichita area. Pixius does not, and is asking the city to waive this policy for their benefit. … Separately, Pixius is applying for low-cost financing of renovations to the same building though the facade improvement program. The city has performed its “gap” analysis and has “determined a financial need for incentives based on the current market rates for economic rents.” This is another example of government investing in money-losing businesses. … Then The Golf Warehouse in northeast Wichita asks for a forgivable loan from the city as part of a larger package of incentives and subsidy. This item will prove to be a test for several council members who campaigned against these loans. … Council members will receive a quarterly financial report and view an “artistic concept” for WaterWalk.

    Joyland topic of British tabloid. The British tabloid newspaper Daily Mail, in its online version, has a story and video about Wichita’s closed Joyland amusement park. For those who remember the park in its heyday, this is a fascinating — if not bittersweet — look at the park’s current condition. The headline of the article (“New images of an abandoned theme park reveal desolation in America’s heartland”) makes a connection between the deterioration of Joyland and the economic condition of America, a false impression which several comment writers corrected. … I don’t think the closing of Joyland has anything to do with public policy. Businesses come and go all the time as tastes and generations change.

    Educational freedom to be discussed in Wichita. This week Kansas Policy Institute and The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice will be discussing what other states have done to increase student achievement through reforms based on educational freedom and creating a student-centric focus. KPI and FFEC recently launched the “Why Not Kansas” initiative to educate Kansans on the need to reform the state’s K-12 educational system to allow Kansas schools to continue to improve. Speakers at the event will be Dave Trabert, president of Kansas Policy Institute, and Leslie Hiner, vice president of programs and state relations at The Foundation for Educational Choice. The event is Thursday, May 12 at 10:30 am, at the Central Wichita Public Library Auditorium. RSVP is requested by email to James Franko or by calling 316-634-0218.

    Do you want to live in the world of Atlas Shrugged? From LearnLiberty.org, a project of Institute for Humane Studies: “In her masterpiece of fiction, Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand emphasizes three key classical liberal themes: individualism, suspicion of centralized power, and the importance of free markets. In this video, Prof. Jennifer Burns shows how Rand’s plot and characters demonstrate these themes, principally through innovative entrepreneurs who are stifled by laws and regulations instituted by their competitors. In the world of Atlas Shrugged, free markets and individual liberty have been traded away for equality and security enforced by the government. Burns ends by reviving Rand’s critical question: do you want to live in this kind of world?” … The video is six minutes in length.

    Who are the real robber barons? In summarizing a chapter from his book How Capitalism Saved America: The Untold History of Our Country, From the Pilgrims to the Present, Thomas J. DiLorenzo explains the false lessons of capitalism and government that we have been taught:

    “The lesson here is that most historians are hopelessly confused about the rise of capitalism in America. They usually fail to adequately appreciate the entrepreneurial genius of men like James J. Hill, John D. Rockefeller, and Cornelius Vanderbilt, and more often than not they lump these men (and other market entrepreneurs) in with genuine “robber barons” or political entrepreneurs.

    Most historians also uncritically repeat the claim that government subsidies were necessary to building America’s transcontinental railroad industry, steamship industry, steel industry, and other industries. But while clinging to this “market failure” argument, they ignore (or at least are unaware of) the fact that market entrepreneurs performed quite well without government subsidies. They also ignore the fact that the subsidies themselves were a great source of inefficiency and business failure, even though they enriched the direct recipients of the subsidies and advanced the political careers of those who dished them out.

    Political entrepreneurs and their governmental patrons are the real villains of American business history and should be portrayed as such. They are the real robber barons.

    At the same time, the market entrepreneurs who practiced genuine capitalism, whose genius and energy fueled extraordinary economic achievement and also brought tremendous benefits to Americans, should be recognized for their achievements rather than demonized, as they so often are. Men like James J. Hill, John D. Rockefeller, and Cornelius Vanderbilt were heroes who improved the lives of millions of consumers; employed thousands and enabled them to support their families and educate their children; created entire cities because of the success of their enterprises (for example, Scranton, Pennsylvania); pioneered efficient management techniques that are still employed today; and donated hundreds of millions of dollars to charities and nonprofit organizations of all kinds, from libraries to hospitals to symphonies, public parks, and zoos. It is absolutely perverse that historians usually look at these men as crooks or cheaters while praising and advocating “business/government partnerships,” which can only lead to corruption and economic decline.

  • Stossel: Follow-up to ‘Freeloaders’

    Earlier this year 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. This week Stossel’s show had some of the people he criticized on the show making appearances to defend themselves.

    One of the most notable segments was about Al Pires, an attorney who helped black farmers (and other minorities) receive payments for alleged discrimination at the hands of government loan programs. Stossel and others uncovered evidence that thousands of people who simply said they were farmers got payments, too. Having flowers in pots or fertilizing one’s lawn was enough to count as a farmer. When Stossel brought on Andrew Breitbart to talk about the abuse of the program by Pires, the attorney became agitated, telling Stossel and Bretibart they didn’t know what they were talking about. He attacked Breitbart savagely, calling him a “sad, sad person” and repeatedly advising him to get a job. Video of this segment is available here.

    Through his books, columns, lectures (see John Stossel urges reliance on freedom, not government, in Wichita), and television shows, Stossel is the popular voice of limited government and economic freedom in America. Here’s how he closed this week’s show:

    “And most unfair is that now government is so big and generous with your money, it’s killing the innovation that makes America great. If you run a company, you can say to yourself ‘How am I going to make money?’ I could invest in researching a new product, or I could hire lobbyists to manipulate Congress and get money from government. Investing in research: That’s tricky and we might not discover anything. And if we do, we’ll be regulated and taxed so much. Lobbyists — they have a high rate of return. And sure enough, this week the Wall Street Journal ran two interesting stories. Look at this one: ‘GM revs up its lobbying.’ Since we bailed GM out, GM doubled spending on lobbying. And then here, on the same page: a story on the company that makes Lipitor. Sadly, it’s going to cut its research spending — cut it from $8.1 billion to $6.5 billion. This is a terrible thing. Lipitor may be what’s keeping me alive. I want drug companies to do more drug research, not less. But I can’t blame Pfizer. If they did discover something, today big government might prevent them from selling. I can’t even blame GM for its freeloading. When government’s very big and investing lots of your money on politically-favored industries, then it’s prudent for companies to invest in lobbying. I blame big government. $3.8 trillion in spending rewards freeloading. Let’s cut government in half. And then, let’s cut it again. Then, there would be much less freeloading, and much more prosperity.”

  • The promises politicians make

    Recently John Stossel produced a television show titled Politicians’ Top 10 Promises Gone Wrong. The show features segments on government programs and why they’ve gone wrong, with a focus on the unintended consequences of the programs. Particularly illuminating are the attempts by programs’ supporters to justify their worth.

    Now the program is available to view on the free hulu service by clicking on Politicians’ Top 10 Promises Gone Wrong.

    One of the segments on the show explained the harm of Cash for Clunkers, in which serviceable cars were destroyed so that new cars could be sold. The program simply stole sales from the months before and after the program. The mistaken idea that destruction can be a way to create new wealth is held by many who should know better, and Stossel reminds us of the New York Times’ Paul Krugman, who wrote that the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 “could even do some economic good” as rebuilding will increase business spending. It’s the seen vs. unseen problem, Stossel and David Boaz of the Cato Institute explain. It’s easy to see people buying new cars. It was reported on television. But it’s more difficult to see all the dispersed economic activity that didn’t take place because of the programs.

    “Living wage” laws, in which people would be paid enough to live on — whatever that means — is next. While increasing wages of low-paid workers is a noble goal, increasing the cost of labor results in an entirely predictable result: less labor is demanded. Fewer people will have jobs. The Grand Canyon National Park, for example, switched to automated ticket machines. Christian Dorsey of the Economic Policy Institute, said that elimination of minimum wage laws would leave employers free to drive down wages as low as possible. But Stossel noted businesses hire employees in a competitive market, and it is that market that sets wages. Only about five percent of workers earn the minimum wage. Why do the others earn more than that? Competitive markets force employers to pay more, not laws.

    A segment on “fancy stadiums” boosting the economy holds a lesson for Wichita and the Intrust Bank Arena in its downtown. The claimed benefits of these venues rarely appear, and the unseen costs are large — “at the local bar there’s one less bartender, there was one less waitress hired at a restaurant, a movie theater that had one less theaterfull. It’s handing money from your right hand to your left and declaring I’m rich.” While Wichita’s arena seems to be doing well, it’s still well within its honeymoon period. Even then, there was a month where no events took place at the arena.

    A segment on the new credit card regulations, intended to protect consumers, shows that the regulations resulted in fewer people being able to get credit cards. Now these people have to go to payday lenders or pawn shops, which are much more expensive than credit cards. Arkansas once capped credit card interest at ten percent. The result was that few people in Arkansas could get a credit card, and the state became known as the pawn shop capital of America.

    Ethanol is the topic of a segment. Promised as a way to solve our energy problem, many politicians of both parties support ethanol. But we’ve come to realize the problems with government support of ethanol: rising price of food, excessive use of fertilizer and fuel to produce corn, and an awareness that ethanol is more harmful to the environment than gasoline. “But it makes us feel good,” Stossel says. In Kansas, Governor Sam Brownback is firmly in favor of government support of ethanol, which Boaz called “pound-for-pound, the dumbest program ever.”

    On the role of government in causing the housing bubble, Howard Husock said “Government exaggerates, rather than minimizes, the age-old impulse to greed. The government made it harder for bankers who wanted to do the right thing.” Stossel explained that bankers who wanted to stay with safe home loans lost out on profits they could earn selling high risk loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored agencies.

    At the end, Stossel said: “And that’s the number one promise gone wrong. These guys say they’ll be fiscally responsible. And then we elect them, and they spend more. They’re spending us into bankruptcy. There must be 10,000 harmful programs, and yet they keep creating more. Why can’t we cut them?” Boaz explained: “Every one of those 10,000 programs has a lobbyist in Washington. … They always know when the bill is up before Congress, and they send political contributions, they send people to Washington to lobby. The rest of us don’t do that. … People should be more engaged, people should be better citizens. But the fact is we have lives, and there’s no way that any normal person can know about the 10,000 programs that make up the $3.5 trillion federal budget.”

    And so the programs keep growing, Stossel said, and we must pay their costs and unintended consequences forever — “Unless, there’s a new wind blowing in America. A new attitude, a new expectation that maybe Washington should do less. I hear there is. I sure hope so.”

  • Kansas and Wichita quick takes: Wednesday May 4, 2011

    Stripper bill III Ric Anderson of the Topeka Capital-Journal looks at some of the issues surrounding the “Community Defense Act,” which applies broad regulation to strip clubs. This year the serious issue of human trafficking has been used to promote this bill as necessary. Anderson pokes some large holes in that argument, most notably: “But if authorities know the problem [underage girls stripping] is happening and also know where it’s taking place, why haven’t they been able to stop it?” … The bill has passed the House but not the Senate. … Beside regulation of behavior inside strip clubs, the bill regulates everyone in a way that is unacceptable: “No person shall establish a sexually oriented business within 1,000 feet of any preexisting accredited public or private elementary or secondary school, house of worship, state-licensed day care facility, public library, public park, residence or other sexually oriented business.” These entities don’t have, and should not be given, the right to choose their neighbors. … House Republicans bucking leadership and voting — correctly — against this bill include Clay Aurand, Mike Burgess, Lana Gordon, Willie Prescott, Charles Roth, Sharon Schwartz, Tom Sloan, Kay Wolf, and Ron Worley.

    Arts Commission funding in. It appears that funding for the Kansas Arts Commission will make its way into the budget that will be presented to Kansas Governor Sam Brownback. Now the governor faces a test: will he use his line-item veto power to cancel this funding? Brownback issued an Executive Reorganization Order that would have killed the commission, but the Kansas Senate, using its power to do so, overrode the order. But with the veto pen, the governor can still accomplish the same effect. See Kansas governor should veto arts commission funding.

    Sunshine needed on public pensions and benefits. Investor’s Business Daily: As debates heat up in states across the country over budget shortfalls, more and more focus is being placed upon the runaway growth in health and pension benefits for state and local government workers. These excessive benefits are a major factor behind the exploding costs of government in many states. It is time to bring these costs under control before they completely overwhelm state and local budgets. … negotiations between governments and public sector unions lack transparency and accountability. Taxpayers are rarely made aware of the costly promises that public-sector unions are able to extract from state and local governments. Politicians often find it easier to reward unions with deferred payments for pensions and health care instead of offering salary or wage increases that appear immediately on the budget. Thus they are able to buy peace today by selling out the future.” … In Kansas, news media and editorial writers don’t help citizens learn the full magnitude of the problem, as few refer to the actual unfunded balance in KPERS, the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System.

    Beyond the debt ceiling headlines. Will the country default on its debt if its ability to borrow more is not extended? Bankrupting America looks at the issue in the video Beyond the debt ceiling headlines. … Cutting spending is the key to avoiding default.

  • Kansas Office of the Repealer now open

    Shortly after taking office, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback announced the “Office of the Repealer” which would look for unnecessary laws and regulations that should be repealed. Now the office has a website and is ready for business.

    In the press release announcing the availability of the website that citizens can use to make suggestions, Brownback said: “The top priorities of my administration are to grow the state’s economy and get the more than 110,000 unemployed Kansans back to work. With the help of Kansans, the Office of the Repealer is working to identify laws and regulations that are out of date, unreasonable, and burdensome. State laws and regulations shouldn’t hinder opportunities for Kansans and Kansas businesses.”

    Kansas Department of Administration Secretary Dennis Taylor is the Repealer. He said “My staff and I will run a cost-benefit analysis on each law or regulation that is submitted for review. The focus of the review will be on consumer protection. Laws picked for repeal will be sent to the originating body.”

    It is promised that Taylor and his staff will send a status update within 30 days of receiving a recommendation.

    The website for making suggestions is at Office of the Repealer. I’ve already made a suggestion, based on my article Kansas auto dealers have anti-competitive law on their side.