Category: too much government

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

Keeping Parks Open

“It is not necessary for park budgets to be threatened during state fiscal crises.”

Good news. The vast majority of states now endure tightened budgets and panicked scurrying to rescue their finances from frighteningly bloody conditions of red.

In this financial environment, cutting non-essential services sometimes seems like a no-brainer. Park funding tends to get hit hard.

A PERC Case Study by Holly L. Fretwell, Funding Parks: Political versus Private Choice — quoted above — looks into a solution that most politicians rarely consider: private management.

Not full privatization, mind you. That’s too tough for most people to take.

Private management of publicly owned parks, on the other hand, makes a kind of obvious sense.

Fretwell looks at Recreation Resource Management, the largest park management operation in the country. The company leases rights to run state and federal recreation sites, managing more than 175 such units in twelve states. In arrangements such as RRM’s, lessees pay “an annual lease, or rental fee, in addition to a percentage of the total fees earned.”

When run by businesses, parks “are not subject to the same political appropriations process” as government-run parks. By leveraging the profit motive — and its associated economies — parks can serve the public without over-taxing us at a time when we are sorely pressed for money. Contracts with private firms can avoid at least some of the problems of bureaucratic incentives.

The bottom line advantage, she insists, is “consistent, quality stewardship.”

Which is surely what we all want.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
general freedom property rights too much government

Plymouth’s Great Reform

Times too tough for much thanksgiving? Some of my readers, surely, are feeling the bracing effects (to put it mildly) of a severe economic slump — a so-called “recession” that I’ve been calling, more simply (and I think more honestly) a “depression” — and all I can say is I have some glimmering of such troubles. Things could definitely be better.

But at Thanksgiving, it might do us good to consult William Bradford’s account of the History of “Plimoth Plantation,” a document that recounts how his fellow Pilgrim settlers established, endured, barely survived, recovered, and eventually thrived in Massachusetts.

By the spring of 1623 — a little over three years after first settlement in Plymouth — things were going badly. Bradford writes of the tragic situation:

[M]any sould away their cloathes and bed coverings; others (so base were they) became servants to [the] Indeans, and would cutt them woode & fetch them water, for a cap full of corne; others fell to plaine stealing, both night & day, from [the] Indeans, of which they greevosly complained. In [the] end, they came to that misery, that some starved & dyed with could & hunger.

The problem? The colony had been engaging in something very like communism.

The experience that was had in this comone course and condition, tried sundrie years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanitie of that conceite of Platos & other ancients, applauded by some of later times; — that [the] taking away of propertie, and bringing in comunitie into a comone wealth, would make them happy and florishing; as if they were wiser then God.

Bradford relates the consequences of common property:

For this comunitie (so farr as it was) was found to breed much confusion & discontent, and retard much imploymet that would have been to their benefite and comforte. For [the] yong-men that were most able and fitte for labour & service did repine that they should spend their time & streingth to worke for other mens wives and children, with out any recompence. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in devission of victails & cloaths, then he that was weake and not able to doe a quarter [the] other could; this was thought injuestice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalised in labours, and victails, cloaths, &c., with [the] meaner & yonger sorte, thought it some indignite & disrespect unto them. And for mens wives to be commanded to doe servise for other men, as dresing their meate, washing their cloaths, &c., they deemd it a kind of slaverie, neither could many husbands well brooke it.

Yes, the s-word: Slavery. Common property was mutual slavery.

The solution? The plan for society that Bradford attributed to God. He brooked no pleading that common property didn’t work because of corruption, sin. As he put it, “seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in his wisdome saw another course fiter for them.” The course? I’ll use a word of coined by Robert Poole, one of the founders of Reason magazine: Privatization.

Basically, what the Pilgrims privatized was land, and the fruits thereof, assigning to

every family a parcell of land, according to the proportion of their number for that end, only for present use (but made no devission for inheritance), and ranged all boys & youth under some familie. This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corne was planted then other waise would have bene by any means [the] Govror any other could use, and saved him a great deall of trouble, and gave farr better contente. The women now wente willingly into [the] feild, and tooke their litle-ons with them to set corne, which before would aledg weaknes, and inabilitie; whom to have compelled would have bene thought great tiranie and oppression.

Thus began the years of bounty in Massachusetts. There’s much more in Bradford’s account worth reading, including the increasingly tragic relations with the native Americans. And, indeed, one learns from reading such first-hand accounts how imperfect a creature is man.

But it is obvious that some systems of property and governance work better than others, and, on the day that our government has set forth as a day of Thanksgiving, it is worth being thankful for living in a land that has upheld — to at least some degree — the system of private property that America’s Pilgrim’s learned to see as God’s “fitter course” for corruptible man.

Times may be tough today. On the bright side, they’ve been tougher. One reason for the progress we have seen — even as we endure a major setback, and perhaps a bigger one to come, as the international financial system implodes — is the system of private property that underlies our personal and economic liberties.

Let’s hope we can recover the best in this tradition.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
tax policy too much government

Many Thanks to Grover

Since the Super Committee failed to come up with the promised $1.2 trillion in pretend deficit reduction over the next decade, many in the nation’s capital blame Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist.

Our taxes — and even the taxes of people with the nerve to be wealthy — are not being increased. This, you must understand, is all Grover’s doing, the fault of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge he “pushed” on more than 275 members of Congress.

His pledge articulates a simple, straightforward idea: Taxes are too high and politicians should stop increasing them. Incumbent politicians appear fearful of breaking this pledge. If they go back on their word, they risk being defeated come the next election.

Last Sunday, 60 Minutes’ correspondent Steve Kroft blurted out to Norquist, “You’ve got them by the short hairs!”

Norquist responded, “The voters do, yeah.”

Are we really supposed to be sad about the system of accountability known as elections?

Former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson whined that Norquist “may well be the most powerful man in America today.”

“The tax issue is the most powerful issue in American politics going back to the Tea Party,” Norquist explained.

If you think the federal government is too small and does too little, a pledge not to raise taxes makes scant sense. But if you think, like Norquist, that government is a whole lot bigger than it should be, pledging not to make it bigger still is a no-brainer.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies too much government U.S. Constitution

The Post Office’s Future?

At some point approaching catastrophe, one has to stop offering googly sounds of uplift and hope, and just speak the truth.

Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe may understand that. The U.S. Post Office, he recently told the National Press Club, is “in a deep financial crisis because we have a business model that is tied to the past.” Deep ties to the past, indeed. Setting up a postal system was written into the Constitution.

Early in the system’s history, postal positions served as rewards to friends of successful politicians. This put a lot of bad apples into the cider; the business soured. Postage skyrocketed.

This sorry situation brought entrepreneurs into the market, delivering letters at a fraction of the government system’s prices. The politicians fought back, took the competitors to court, and won — on dubious Constitutional grounds.

But they did overhaul the system, reducing prices.

That was a long time ago. Today’s situation may be worse. As Donahoe put it, “We are expected to operate like a business but we do not have the flexibility to do so. Our business model is fundamentally inflexible.”

No surprise, Congress is inflexible. But there are competing bills rumbling around to allegedly fix the financial woes of the institution Donahoe calls “a national treasure.”

Well, if it’s a treasure, sell it off: The federal government could use the money. (Though likely not well.)

And the people could use a good privatized mail service. Or two. Or more.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

The Un-Super Committee

Surprise, surprise — the so-called Super Committee isn’t very super.

It appears that the august micro-body of solons will fail to come to an agreement to reduce the federal deficit by $1.2 trillion over the next ten years, not in any combination of new revenue or spending “cuts” by today’s effective deadline.

On the bright side, given the nature of the likeliest possible agreement this committee would conceive, its failure sounds like the best possible result.

We’re now over $15 trillion in debt, running a deficit of $1.5 trillion this year alone. Still, the Super Committee couldn’t sop up even 80 percent of the red ink they’re spilling just this year. Not even spread out over the decade.

It gets worse. “I think we need to be honest about it,” Kentucky Senator Rand Paul pointed out yesterday on CNN. “Spending is still rising under any of these plans. We’re only cutting proposed increases in spending.”

“The curve of spending in our country is going up at about 7.5 percent a year,” Sen. Paul went on to explain. “If you were to freeze spending for ten years, no cuts . . . they would call that a $9 trillion cut.”

So, as we face a debt crisis, the Super Committee couldn’t even manage to lessen their planned massive increases in spending.

Or talk straight with the American people.

Why? Perhaps because official Washington knows that spending is the real source of their power.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets insider corruption national politics & policies too much government

Self-Interest Wins Every Time

Incentives work. Because people are self-interested.

Even the seemingly altruistic protagonist played by Kevin Costner in the movie Field of Dreams exclaims, “I haven’t once asked what’s in it for me,” only to then ask, “What’s in it for me?”

That line comes to mind when I hear politicians and business folks talk about private-public partnerships, from subsidies for ethanol to billions in government loans to supposedly spur “green” technology.

The bankruptcy of the solar panel maker Solyndra cost taxpayers more than half a billion dollars. But it’s not merely that government is less than stellar at picking investment winners; it’s that the interests of politicians and businesspeople aren’t “the public interest.”

Never will be.

Sure, Energy Secretary Steven Chu told Congress yesterday, “I did not make any decision based on political considerations.” But internal company emails feature complaints about pressure from the Obama Administration to delay announcing layoffs until after the 2010 elections.

Whose interest did that serve?

Documents also uncover Solyndra executives hiding bad news the better to win additional federal funds and, alternatively, threatening that the company was about to go under hoping the potential bad press for Obama might shake down additional bucks.

Companies have an interest in the big money the federal government dangles before them. Politicians have an interest in appearing to be economic wizards creating jobs and spurring a new world with bright green hues.

Neither incentive promotes sound business behavior nor equates with the public interest.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

CreepOut-o-Meter Hits Red

If you are like me, you are not a monetary economist. I’m familiar with the main positions, I guess, and — if I dug information buried deep in memory — might be able to sound coherent on monetary policy when asked. And if given enough time to collect my thoughts. But you wouldn’t come to me to gain specific advice on specific issues relating to the Federal Reserve and money management at the rarefied level of the central bank.

Perhaps, like me, you’ve accepted or rejected positions based on analogous realms where you know much more.

And sometimes it all depends on The CreepOut-o-Meter.

My CreepOut-o-Meter just hit red.

Britain’s Business Secretary Vince Cable was recently quoted as saying, “If a monetary deal’s going to work, the central bank has to have unlimited powers to intervene to support economies, and indeed banks, to prevent collapse.”

Did he really say, “unlimited powers”?

That’s a long way from Milton Friedman’s reserved talk about a “monetary rule.” One of the biggest of Britain’s bigwigs isn’t talking about tinkering or refining. He’s pushing for an unlimited bailiwick to bail out Europe’s banks, credit, and the euro itself.

So you can see why I tend to promote old-fashioned money, money that wasn’t intimately controlled and bolstered-by-bailouts. Money like gold. Or silver. Or a set of commodities.

With that kind of money, it’s governments that are bound, limited.

It fits better with my idea of a free society.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies too much government

Clunker Flunked

When the Obama Administration hit the ground running in 2009, one of its first “hopeful” and “audacious” programs was “Cash for Clunkers,” a sort of triple-action economic stimulus, carbon-emission reduction, and automaker bailout bill. Congress got on board, a lot of trades were made, billions spent. There was much brouhaha.

Skepticism should have been the order of the day, of course. So many things could have gone wrong.

And did.

Now, with the clarity of 20-20 hindsight, a consensus emerges: Cash for Clunkers was a clunker itself. An economic analysis from Resources for the Future is just the latest (mostly negative) judgment: “[T]he program increased new vehicle sales by about 0.36 million during July and August of 2009, implying that approximately 45 percent of the spending went to consumers who would have purchased a new vehicle anyway. Our results suggest no gain in sales beyond 2009 and hence no meaningful stimulus to the economy.”

Further, fuel economy gains and pollution reductions were minuscule.

The study is far from exhaustive. A lot of old cars were scrapped, recycled. Guess what this does to the used car and parts market? It’s been devastating.

Who’s hurt by supply reductions and consequent price rises? Cash-strapped folks, the kind of people who usually buy used cars, or keep old cars running — which is a lot of people during a depression.

I bet that Cash for Clunkers served, on net, to transfer wealth from the working poor to far wealthier individuals.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture too much government

Better Late Than Never?

“Too little, too late.” I am not alone to suspect that the Occupy movement — the 99 percenters — started its protest against corporate greed and government cronyism several years too late.

Where were the Occupiers when the Tea Party protests started?

Dancing in the streets over the Obama presidency? Many Occupiers may have lagged because they thought that “their man” could and would clean up corruption and make Washington work for the everyone — or at least the “middle class.”

The “too late” charge can be directed against the Tea Party, though — and has been, repeatedly. The Tea Partyers waited to organize until a liberal Democrat was in the White House, one who saw Bush’s big government and, well, raised it.

Many would admit, later, how not “theirs” Bush was. Still, few protested Bush’s big government push.

To the Tea Party’s credit, it was first — kicked off by Rick Santelli’s CNBC “tea party rant” in early 2009, against the upsurge of bailouts for banks, car companies, home-buyers, you name it, as well as the very idea of government stimulus. (Though I ranted earlier.)

The time to protest cronyism and corruption in American government? The moment one opens one’s eyes to political reality.

Maybe the great age of protest has finally come.

I hope it’s not too late.

It always seems like citizens should have stood up to abuse of power sooner, but being late to the action is no excuse not to stand up now.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets porkbarrel politics too much government

Strings of the Puppets

It’s hard to push string. That’s something the marionette masters in Washington are finding out. They’re used to dangling money in front of people. Watch the puppets leap!

But dangling money in front of folks in turn for votes and donations, that’s one thing. Investing in business? Quite another.

You see, businesses serve customers. While government can, indeed, invest in business, that investment doesn’t ensure success.

Developing and offering products on the market that people want to buy — that makes for success.

No matter how nifty something may seem to the investor, if it’s too costly for the targeted consumer — or simply fails to spark consumer fire — the company will not make a go of it, no matter how progressive the government doing the investing.

Sunday’s bankruptcy filing by Beacon Energy, a maker of an innovative flywheel electric energy storage system — energy storage being awfully important for that dubious future where we must rely more on unreliable and uncontrollable sources of energy, like wind and solar — is just another in a long history of failed government investments. In this case, other investors failed to come through.

On the bright side, this time the $43 million in loan guarantees, similar to those pushed to now bankrupt Solyndra, came with better collateral. Thus, this failure didn’t leave quite as big a hole for taxpayers.

Politicians like investing other people’s money (ours) . . . with their own political strings attached. But they hate that those strings lead right back to them when their corporate puppets wind up dead.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.