Voice For Liberty

Tag: Regulation

  • An inept Kansas smoking analogy

    From last March.

    In today’s Wichita Eagle, Wichita busybody Charlie Claycomb makes another inept analogy in an attempt to press his anti-smoking agenda statewide.

    A while back he tried to compare a smoking section in a restaurant with a urinating section in a swimming pool. This is ridiculous to the extreme, as I show in the post It’s not the same as pee in the swimming pool.

    Now in today’s letter in the Eagle, Claycomb says that although the United States Constitution gives us the right to bear arms, since that right is heavily regulated, government has license to regulate smoking, as smoking isn’t mentioned at all in the Constitution.

    Here’s why this is another ridiculous analogy (without conceding whether the regulations on arms are justified or effective): A person in, say, a bar that’s carrying a gun can’t be detected as you enter the bar. You just can’t tell upon entering an establishment whether someone has a concealed gun and intends to cause harm to patrons. This is the case even if there’s a law prohibiting carrying guns into bars, and even if the bar has a “no guns” sign.

    But you sure can tell if people are smoking.

    Smoking ban supporters might argue that since there may be smoking in some establishments, my rights are being infringed since I can’t patronize those places without exposing myself to harmful smoke.

    That’s true, except about rights being violated. There’s definitely no right in the Constitution to be able to go everywhere you want on your own terms.

    “Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.” — John Stuart Mill

    “Whenever we depart from voluntary cooperation and try to do good by using force, the bad moral value of force triumphs over good intentions.” — Milton Friedman

  • Why Obama is wrong about net neutrality

    “Net neutrality” sounds like a noble concept, doesn’t it? But it’s another example of one political position co-opting language in a way that mislabels the underlying agenda.

    In this case, net neutrality is a struggle over who should control the Internet. Some describe the contest as between government and free markets, while some think it’s between two competing set of corporate interests.

    It shouldn’t be a surprise as to who President Obama believes should control the Internet.

    Other resources on this topic:

    Save the Internet
    ‘Net Neutrality’ Is Socialism, Not Freedom
    The Durable Internet: Preserving Network Neutrality without Regulation
    AT&T, Google Battle Over Web Rules
    Net Neutrality: A Brief Primer

  • It’s not the same as pee in the swimming pool

    A repeat of a column from 2008. Mark McCormick no longer writes for the Wichita Eagle. Recently that newspaper concluded that because Wichita’s smoking ban caused no economic harm, it was a good thing to do. Let’s hope this regulatory zeal doesn’t spread to other areas.

    In a column in the February 27, 2008 Wichita Eagle (“Smoking ban issue not one to negotiate”), columnist Mark McCormick quotes Charlie Claycomb, co-chair of Tobacco Free Wichita, equating a smoking section in a restaurant with “a urinating section in a swimming pool.”

    This is a ridiculous comparison. A person can’t tell upon entering a swimming pool if someone has urinated in it. But people can easily tell upon entering a restaurant or bar if people are smoking.

    Besides this, Mr. McCormick’s article seeks to explain how markets aren’t able to solve the smoking problem, and that there is no negotiating room, no middle ground. There must be a smoking ban, he concludes.

    As way of argument, McCormick claims, I think, that restaurants prepare food in sanitary kitchens only because of government regulation, not because of markets. We see, however, that food is still being prepared in unsanitary kitchens, and food recalls, even in meat processing plants where government inspectors are present every day, still manage to happen. So government regulation itself is not a failsafe measure.

    Despite the doubts of nanny-state regulators, markets — that is, consumers — exert powerful forces on businesses. If a restaurant serves food that makes people ill, which do you think the restaurant management fears most: a government fine, or the negative publicity? Restaurants live and die by their reputation. Those that serve poor quality food or food that makes people ill will suffer losses, not as much from government regulation as from the workings of markets.

    But I will grant that McCormick does have a small point here. Just by looking at food, you probably can’t tell if it’s going to make you ill. Someone’s probably going to need to get sick before the word gets out.

    But you easily can tell if someone’s smoking in the bar or restaurant you just entered.

    The problem with a smoking ban written into law — rather than reliance on markets and individual choice — is that everyone has to live by the same rules. Living by the same rules is good when the purpose is to keep people and their property safe from harm, as is the case with laws against theft and murder. But it’s different when we pass laws intended to keep people safe from harms that they themselves can easily avoid, just by staying out of those places where people are smoking.

    For the people who value being in the smoky place more than they dislike the negative effects of the smoke, they can make that decision. McCormick and Claycomb want to deny people that choice.

    This is not a middle-ground position. It is a position that respects the individual. It lets each person have what they individually prefer, rather than having a majority — no matter how lop-sided — make the same decision for everyone. Especially when that decision, as Claycomb stated in another Wichita Eagle article, will “tick off everybody.” Who benefits from a law that does that?

  • Kansas can’t afford a cigarette tax hike

    This is a repost from 2008. The issues are the same, except this time it is Kansas Governor Mark Parkinson recommending an increase in cigarette taxes, and it is $.55 per pack instead of $.75.

    Research & Commentary: Kansas Can’t Afford A Cigarette Tax Hike
    By John Nothdurft, Legislative Specialist at The Heartland Institute

    The Kansas Health Policy Authority’s recommendation to use a 75-cent cigarette tax increase to pay for health costs should be worrisome — not only to smokers, but also to non-smokers and fiscally responsible legislators as well.

    The approach may seem appealing at first, but such tax increases are notoriously unpredictable and regressive. Funding a high-profile need such as health care with a cigarette tax increase is particularly hazardous because it ties an inherently unstable tax to an increase in government spending.

    A big question mark hovers over how much revenue the proposed cigarette tax hike would actually bring into the state’s coffers. According to the Center for Policy Research of New Jersey, since that state’s cigarette tax was raised 17.5 cents two years ago, the state has actually lost $46 million in tax revenue.

    Many other states have seen lower-than-projected revenue returns after cigarette tax hikes were put in place. This is a result of the general decline in tobacco use nationwide, cross-border shopping, Internet sales, smuggling, and other factors that are causing cigarette tax revenue streams to flatten.

    If Kansas legislators were to hike cigarette taxes to fund health care programs, they soon would be stuck having to choose between rolling back the funding for health care or raising other taxes. A recent National Taxpayers Union study found legislators usually do the latter. “Taxpayers face a seven out of 10 chance of seeing another net annual tax hike within two years of a tobacco tax hike,” the group reported.

    Cigarette tax increases also unduly burden low-income taxpayers and punish local businesses.

    The following articles offer additional information on cigarette tax hikes.

    Cigarette Tax Hikes Burn Hole in State Coffers
    Gregg M. Edwards, president of the Center for Policy Research of New Jersey, an independent nonprofit organization that addresses public policy issues facing New Jersey, reports how his organization found that New Jersey brought in less revenue after its cigarette tax hike than was coming in before it was implemented.

    Debunking the “Tax Thee, But Not Me” Myth: Five Reasons Why Non-Smokers Should Oppose High Tobacco Taxes
    According to the National Taxpayers Union, “the per-capita state and local tax burden in high-tobacco tax states is 8 percent above the national average, while the general tax bill for residents of low-tobacco tax states is 15 percent below the national average.”

    Poor Smokers, Poor Quitters, and Cigarette Tax Regressivity
    Dr. Dahlia Remler, with the Department of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University, rebuts the argument that cigarette taxes are not regressive.

    Tax Hikes Often Fail to Generate Expected Revenues
    Economists warn tobacco taxes are an unpredictable source of revenue.

    Six Reasons Not to Raise Tobacco Taxes
    Economist Dr. William Anderson of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs outlines six pitfalls of higher cigarette taxes.

    Tobacco: Regulation and Taxation through Litigation
    Professor Kip Viscusi breaks down the social costs of smoking, taking into consideration a wide array of factors including health costs, sick leave, and the lower pension and nursing home care costs incurred by smokers.

    Cigarette Tax Burns the Poor
    David Tuerck, professor of economics and executive director of the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University, outlines how cigarette taxes unfairly burden low-income earners.

    Cigarette Taxes Are Fueling Organized Crime
    Patrick Fleenor, chief economist for the Tax Foundation, shows high cigarette taxes have fueled organized crime and a profitable black market in New York.

    Cigarette Tax Burnout
    Last year Maryland increased its cigarette tax to $2 a pack in order to fund health care … but now the state’s budget is facing a billion-dollar shortfall. This article outlines the budget mess that always results when states rely on cigarette tax revenues even as smoking rates decline.

  • Smoking is healthier than fascism

    There’s a Facebook group named Vote NO on Statewide Smoking Ban (Smoking is healthier than fascism). Started by Wichita activist Wendy Aylworth, the description of the group starts with the rallying cry “We must stop this tyranny of the majority!”

    Yes, we must.

    I’m tempted to tell you — like many people do when discussing matters of public policy — whether I smoke cigarettes. But does that matter?

    It shouldn’t, because if it does, we shift the basis of policy decisions from “what is right and just and promotes freedom and liberty” to “what is my personal preference.” And there’s too much of that going on.

    Smoking bans are only the start of increased government regulation of more and more aspects of our lives. These things can backfire. As government control becomes more pervasive, smoking ban busybodies may well find themselves coming under onerous regulation that they don’t like. Once started, it’s hard for government to stop.

    We ought to remember the words of C.S. Lewis: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

    For more articles from this site on smoking bans and the harm they cause, click here.

  • The myth of the smoking ban ‘miracle’

    Supporters of comprehensive bans on smoking often point to research findings that heart attacks decrease when smoking bans are implemented. But is this true? Christopher Snowdon reports in Spiked online:

    Tales of heart attacks being “slashed” by smoking bans have appeared with such regularity in recent years that it is easy to forget that there is a conspicuous lack of reliable evidence to support them. It is almost as if the sheer number of column inches is a substitute for proof.

    Later on he concludes:

    What is abundantly clear in each case is that the number of heart attack admissions has been falling for some time. Far from causing further dramatic cuts in heart attack rates, the bans had no discernible effect.

    If we’re going to cite public health as a reason for smoking bans, let’s make sure we’re working with complete and reliable scientific evidence. Snowdon’s full article is The myth of the smoking ban ‘miracle’.

  • Taxation: it’s more pervasive than you know

    Here’s John D’Aloia’s “Trackside” column for December 20, 2009. In this article, John traces through the pervasiveness of taxation in many common products, and how long we must work each year to pay these taxes. Besides taxation, regulation is growing, too.

    John D’Aloia lives in St. Marys, Kansas, where he serves on the city council.

    Have you ever thought about how many taxes you are paying when you buy a product or a service? An amount is obvious when a sales tax is tacked on, but is that the only tax included in the price you pay? You know the answer — of course it is not, but the remaining taxes are out of sight, out of mind.

    The Center For Fiscal Responsibility (www.fiscalaccountability.org), is a project of Americans for Tax Reform. As stated on its website, the mission of the Center is: “… to shed a light on government expenditures, and to promote transparency, accountability, and restraint in government finance.” It has taken on this mission in acknowledgment “… that the American people and its economy can best thrive and prosper when the role of government is limited and subject to the scrutiny of taxpayers.”

    The Center has calculated the percentage that represents the hidden taxes paid for by each dollar spent for 13 commonly purchased goods and services. The Center’s analysis included: excise taxes, “Sin” taxes, telecommunications taxes, taxes on tourists, common purchases sales taxes, corporate income taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes, capital gains taxes, unemployment insurance taxes, workmen’s compensation taxes, and other payments businesses must make to federal, state and local governments. The results of the Center’s analysis shows that taxes represent the following percentages of the price:

    Soda: 37.6%
    Cell Phones: 46.4%
    Gasoline: 51.2%
    Meals Out: 44.8%
    Hotel Stays: 50%
    Landline Phones: 51.8%
    Firearms: 45.6%
    Domestic Airfare: 55%
    Car Rentals: 60.6%
    Cable: 46.3%
    Beer: 56.2%
    Distilled Spirits: 79.6%

    And a drum-roll please for the taxes in the price of the 13th product: Cigarettes: 81.3%.

    Another Center project is to calculate the “Cost of Government Day” for the federal government and for each state. The Cost of Government Day is defined as “the date of the calendar year on which the average American worker has earned enough gross income to pay off his or her share of the spending and regulatory burden imposed by government at the federal, state and local levels.” The 47-page long 2009 Cost of Government Day Report is available for reading via a link on the Center’s website.

    The national average date to pay off governments is August 12th. Kansans have it a bit better. For Kansans, the date is August 4th. In comparison, the shortest period of indentured service is served by Alaskans who are free of working for government on July 11th. The longest period falls to citizens of the Nutmeg State — Connecticut residents work until September 7th to settle with all the government demands to which they are subjected.

    The Report shows the impact of the explosion of federal government spending in 2009. For the period 1999 through 2008, the number of days the average citizen had to work to cover federal spending increased from 79.62 days to 89.94 days; in 2009, the number of days jumped to 110.88.

    An interesting graph in the Center’s Report displayed the number of pages in the Federal Register each year from 1977 to the present. The Federal Register is published daily telling you what the Federal government is doing for you and to you. The more pages, the more regulations are being written to tell you how to live; the more pages, the larger is Leviathan’s appetite for power and your wallet. During the Reagan years, the average number of pages per year was 53,000. For the last seven years, the average number of pages has been 78,000. As of December 18th, this year’s Federal Register has 67,800 pages and counting, including 64 pages devoted to a proposed rule titled: “Nutrition Labeling of Single Ingredient Products and Ground or Chopped Meat and Poultry Products” and a 425-page notice “Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Quarterly Listing of Program Issuances — July Through September 2009.” I wonder how much these 425 pages enhanced medical care. More than likely, the principal effect was an added paperwork and compliance burden on doctors and hospitals.

    Thomas Jefferson did not foresee the Federal Register, but he foresaw its ultimate impact when he wrote in his autobiography: “Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread.”

    Get out and work hard — The Clerks are depending upon you.

    See you Trackside.

  • Wichita MAPC meeting mix of policy, politically correct

    At yesterday’s meeting of the Wichita Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, a mix of politics and policy resulted in protection of a Wichita non-profit’s market, but at the loss of convenience to Wichitans.

    The issue is about 65 red clothing recycling bins operated by American Recyclers of Tulsa. These bins are in violation of Wichita city code, which states that bins like these — called curbside recycling — can’t be used for the recycling of clothing. They may be used for the recycling of other items.

    The firm’s attorney, Bob Kaplan, had asked that the Wichita ordinance be revised to remove the prohibition on accepting clothing. Overland Park allows curbside collection of clothing under certain conditions, and after approval of a site plan.

    In his testimony, Kaplan said that there are two reasons why there is opposition to the recycling bins. One is the proliferation of the bins. There are about 65 in Wichita. The second — and perhaps the primary reason — is that sometimes the bins become full and items are left outside the bins. Other people dump all sorts of trash and junk near the bins. But about one million pounds of clothing is picked up in the course of a year.

    Kaplan said that every box is visited by the recycling company once a day, seven days a week. All items left at the bins are picked up, even if they are not items that should have been left there. Also, the company quickly responds to calls if a problem is reported.

    The operator of a Wichita recycling center spoke to answer questions about his operation. The relevance of his testimony was not clear, but several members of the MAPC were interested in details of the operation of the recycling center, such as its hours of operation, and has it considered opening other locations in Wichita.

    Representatives of Goodwill Industries spoke, and it was at this time that the crux of this issue became clear: Since the introduction of the red bins, Goodwill has seen a drop in the volume of clothing items coming to its stores. He said that the prohibition on curbside recycling of clothing protects the standard of living in our community by preventing blight. He welcomed American Recyclers to come to Wichita and open a business in a building, as does Goodwill.

    MAPC member David Dennis asked questions regarding the number and locations of the Goodwill stores, the amount of investment, jobs, and wages. But the most important question Dennis asked was this: Where do the proceeds go — charity, or profit?

    John Todd, citizen, said that the applicant’s proposal offer choice to the consumer. Competition is good for business, and the consumer wins where there is choice and competition.

    Kaplan agreed, saying “competition is not a relevant factor” in the decision the MAPC has to make.

    A question by MAPC board member Mitch Mitchell highlighted the point that it is not the boxes themselves that are illegal. It is that they are used for the recycling of clothing that makes them in violation of Wichita city code.

    A motion was made and seconded that would have left the Wichita ordinance as it presently exists, meaning that the red bins would still be illegal. A substitute motion offered by Mitchell would have accepted Kaplan’s offer to work with city staff to include the provisions of the Overland Park ordinance so that there could be curbside recycling of clothing.

    City legal staff interjected that what was being asked — directing staff to initiate an amendment to the zoning code — was beyond the authority of individual applicants, but the commission could, still, ask for this.

    But no second to Mitchell’s was forthcoming, so the motion died. The original motion passed with only Mitchell voting against it.

    After the meeting, Kaplan would not comment of the future plans of his client. The red bins are likely to be removed, he said, to comply with the decision.

    Analysis

    The prohibition of curbside recycling of clothing is a curious anomaly in the city code. The type of bins in question are allowed for the recycling of other goods. I spoke with MAPC member Mitchell, and he said that no one in the city’s planning department can tell him why the prohibition on clothing was placed in the ordinance.

    The most troubling aspect of the MAPC’s consideration of this item is the nature of the questions asked by several board members. These questions were obviously designed to show that a non-profit organization like Goodwill Industries is superior to a profit-making business. This presumption that non-profits are more virtuous and desirable because of the absence of the profit motive is common, but unfounded. It’s an example of the bias — considered to be the politically correct stance in some quarters — against profit and business.

    This is especially troubling in the case of David Dennis, who, according to his biography, has worked for non-profit government institutions (primarily the military and Wichita public schools) for most of his career.

    The ability to earn a profit means that an organization is providing goods or services that are valued by people, and if the organization is able to stay in business, it means it is doing this efficiently. Profit is evidence that capital is being used effectively.

    Additionally, profit is the source of the ability to pay taxes. That allows institutions like the military and public schools to operate and institutions like Goodwill to exist without paying many of the taxes that businesses must pay.

    Would the members of the MAPC have been willing to ask for a change of city code if the red bins were operated by a charity? We don’t know, but making the type of policy decisions that were made today is not within the scope of the MAPC’s responsibility. Mitchell said it is difficult to work on these types of issues without considering and making policy.

    As it stands, Wichitans are about to be deprived of a convenient way to recycle clothing. The Wichita city council should consider revising city code to allow curbside recycling of clothing.

    An earlier report from KWCH is Red Bins Violate City Code. Its reporting on yesterday’s meeting is at Red Bins Illegal and Must Go.

  • Jeff Fluhr updates status of downtown Wichita

    Last Friday, Jeff Fluhr, president of the Wichita Downtown Development Corporation, addressed members and guests of the Wichita Pachyderm Club. His topic was the future of downtown Wichita and its revitalization.

    “It’s very important that we have a downtown that is very clear and very concise on where it wants to go,” he said. He likened the development of downtown to the planning of an automobile trip, so that we don’t make major investments that we later regret.

    The potential of increased private investment is an important goal for downtown. Predictability will help the private sector invest, he said.

    As to the importance of downtown, he said that is where the distinctive quality of a city is found — its history, cultural arts, and other institutions that represent the community. Tourism is another goal of a revitalized downtown Wichita, along with an improved perception in the global market as a great place to do business.

    Old Town is an example of success in Wichita, he said, an example of what can be done when people are creative and purposeful. He said that Wichita’s transit center, being located near the new Intrust Bank Arena, provides the potential to use mass transit.

    As to the economics of downtown Wichita redevelopment, he showed a chart, nearly a year old, that compares public and private investment in downtown over the past ten years. The two amounts are nearly equal to each other. Fluhr said that Goody Clancy, the firm hired to to plan the revitalization of downtown Wichita, has offered the opinion that the way Wichita has measured investment in downtown — using capital investment only — is not an accurate picture. We should also take into account companies that may have moved into the downtown area because of the improvements that have been made. What types of jobs have been created, and what is the spin-off from them?

    Addressing the WaterWalk project, he said that an important event took place last November, when people started moving in to the residential building. Now we see human activity in the development. The landscaping is being installed at this time.

    Along Douglas, Fluhr said that gaps in the buildings are a problem. We need to bring storefronts back to downtown. This creates an atmosphere of walkability, which helps to bring residential back to downtown, an important thing he said we must continue to work on.

    Mentioning the Q-Line, the free trolley bus service, Fluhr said that “we’ll literally have a couple thousand people that can be on this thing in a given night.”

    Besides downtown, Fluhr said that they’re also looking at “first-ring” neighborhoods, the areas that surround downtown. In response to a question, he said we need a healthy city throughout. The first-ring neighborhoods may provide housing that is more affordable than in downtown proper.

    Analysis

    In comparing the planning of downtown Wichita to a car trip, Fluhr made the same presumption that Wichita city council member Lavonta Williams made when she compared downtown planning to planning her lessons as a schoolteacher. The planning of even a small portion of a city is an immensely more complicated task. That these two figures make such comparisons leads me to believe that we don’t understand the monumental scope of the task we’ve decided to undertake.

    Regarding predictability being important to private sector investors: the planning process right now has created huge uncertainty as to the future of downtown. Who is likely to invest in downtown at this time, when so much is up in the air?

    Further, the potential use of eminent domain to take property creates uncertainty, too. This is why it is important for the city to swear off the use of eminent domain, and even the threat of its use.

    There’s also this concern I have about the predictability Fluhr said is needed for private investment to flourish: For the future to be certain, someone has to enforce the plans that have been made. All the methods that government has to enforce or encourage human behavior lead to loss of economic freedom: incentives, grants, tax abatements, subsidies, regulation, zoning, eminent domain, preferred treatment. All are contrary to economic freedom.

    It’s also troubling that now we’re going to be measuring the economic impact of public investment in a new way, using — if I can read between the lines a bit — things like “multipliers” and other economic development jargon and devices to exaggerate the impact of public investment. It’s important to remember that when left to their own devices, Wichitans have made investments that have produced tremendous economic impact with their own multiplier effects. These investments, however, have not always been made in the politically-favored downtown area. Instead, they’re been made where people wanted them to be made, so their economic impact, in terms of creating wealth and things that people really want, has been greater than if directed by government planners.

    As to the Q-Line claim of thousands of riders in a night, I hope Fluhr meant the potential capacity of the Q-Line system, as its actual ridership is much less and very expensive on a per-rider basis. See Wichita’s Q-Line an expensive ride for ridership numbers, which have been less than 1,500 per month.

    It’s impossible not to appreciate Mr. Fluhr’s enthusiasm for his work and his genuine concern and vision for the future of downtown Wichita. I’m concerned, however, that Fluhr and the downtown Wichita revitalization boosters — let’s call them the “planners” — have fallen victim to what Randal O’Toole and others call the design fallacy.

    O’Toole explains in his book The Best-Laid Plans: How Government Planning Harms Your Quality of Life, Your Pocketbook, and Your Future:

    These planners are guilty of believing the design fallacy, the notion that architectural design is a major determinant in shaping human behavior. While design does play a role at the margins of certain things — for example, certain patterns can make housing more vulnerable to crime — the effects that planners project are often highly exaggerated.

    Later O’Toole writes:

    The worst thing about having a vision is that it confers upon the visionary a moral absolutism: only highly prescriptive regulation can ensure that the vision overcomes an uncaring populace responding to a free market that planners do not really trust. But the more prescriptive the plan, the more likely it is that the plan will be wrong, and such errors will prove extremely costly for the city or region that tries to implement the plan. … Problems such as these stem from the design fallacy that is shared by so many planners and the architects who inspire them.

    Do the Wichita planners suffer from the design fallacy? Fluhr mentioned “engagement of the river” as he has in past talks. Referring to a conversion of an old school building into residential use, he used language like “a dynamic living space in a renovated school,” “each of the units is unique,” and “taking distinctive architecture to us and bringing it to new use.”

    Referring to our Carnegie Library, he said that its architecture is unique to Wichita, and wouldn’t be found in other cities. Projects like this, along with the Broadview Hotel and Union Station, should “remain in our fabric” as part of the “distinctive qualities that make us who we are.”

    This focus on the architecture of buildings in a city is characteristic of past talks by Fluhr. So yes, I believe that he and the planners are influenced by the design fallacy. It’s something we’ll have to watch out for as we proceed with the planning process.