Category: moral hazard

Categories
Accountability folly general freedom moral hazard porkbarrel politics property rights responsibility tax policy too much government

No Rich No More

Connecticut, taxes, revenue, budget, tax and spend, wealth, common sense

Connecticut has a budget problem. There’s not enough money to spend.

WTNH-TV in New Haven paraphrased the situation along with the response of Connecticut’s very progressive governor: “Income tax revenue collapses; Malloy says taxing the rich doesn’t work.”

The news story explains, “Connecticut’s state budget woes are compounding with collections from the state income tax collapsing, despite two high-end tax hikes in the past six years.”

Hmmm. Despite the tax increases? Or . . . “because the state of Connecticut depends too much on its wealthy residents,” as the report continued, “and wealthy residents are leaving . . .”

A Yankee Institute report notes that “the exodus of wealth from the state as top earners and businesses relocate to more tax-friendly states” is a major problem. Institute President Carol Platt Liebau calls it a “terrible cycle of tax increases followed by deficits followed by even more tax increases.”

Yet, state legislative Democrats are back pushing more tax hikes on “the rich.” Senate legislation would jack up the tax rate — retroactively — on those with income of $500,000 or more. House legislation would slap a 19 percent surcharge on some hedge fund earnings. In response, the head of the Connecticut Hedge Fund Association testified that his “industry is populated by exactly that type of person that will move based on tax policy.”*

A song by Ten Years After comes to mind:  

Tax the rich, feed the poor
Till there are no rich no more

Doesn’t sound like a good idea even in song.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* It’s worth noting that Gov. Malloy is now “against raising taxes again to fill the deficits and is instead focusing on spending cuts . . .”

Printable PDF

 

Categories
Accountability folly general freedom ideological culture media and media people moral hazard nannyism political challengers responsibility too much government

French Beacon

France, French, election, Macron, Le Pen, democracy, press, freedom, right, left, centrist

“Since the French Revolution,” the New York Times pontificated online, “the nation has often been viewed as a beacon of democratic ideals.”

Really? Can a nation of constitutional turnovers — kings and republics and revolutions and foreign occupation — be a beacon? Most often we in America compare our Revolution to France’s, focusing on The Terror: mob rule and proto-totalitarianism.

On Friday, “the staff of the centrist candidate Emmanuel Macron said… that the campaign had been targeted by a ‘massive and coordinated’ hacking operation, one with the potential to destabilize the nation’s democracy before voters go to the polls on Sunday.” A few minutes later, the campaigns fell under the country’s election gag rule, unable to debate immediately prior to the voting. The government told the media not to look at what was dug up in the “hack” (which everybody said was by Russians). Though Macron’s putative Islamization plan is worth looking at, surely.

Much talk (at the Times and elsewhere) of how the hack destabilized democracy. No talk, for some reason, about how the election regulation gag rule did.

The idea that information might destabilize democracy? Awkward.

Still, we can see how an info-dump’s timing might destabilize an election.

But since Macron won by a large margin, the Late Exposure Strategy may have backfired, Russians or no.

The most obvious oddity in reportage? The continued reference to former Socialist Party hack Macron as “centrist” while Le Pen is called “far right” ad nauseam. Macron is pro-EU; Le Pen is nationalist. Neither are reliably for freedom. The fact that Macron packaged his En Marche ! Party as centrist doesn’t make it so.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

 

Categories
Accountability general freedom insider corruption local leaders moral hazard national politics & policies too much government U.S. Constitution

Separation of Senators

separation of power, conflict of interest, politician, interests, balance of power, civil asset forfeiture, legislative, executive, judicial

The separation of powers doctrine has been a bedrock principle of small-r republican government. Each branch — legislative, executive, judicial — should be independent, and check the power of the other branches.

This requires that no person hold positions simultaneously in more than one branch of government.

Which brings us to Nevada State Senator Heidi Gansert. In addition to being a legislator, she’s currently employed by the University of Nevada-Reno as executive director for external relations . . . an executive branch position.

One can certainly understand why she wants to keep her prestigious legislative perch, while maintaining her annual $203,000 from the university. But those pesky folks at the Nevada Policy Research Institute’s Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation insist Gansert adhere to the constitution.

They’ve filed a lawsuit.

As if to dramatize why “separation of powers” matters, consider Senate Bill 358, which sought to reform civil asset forfeiture in Nevada. The legislation couldn’t get out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, where State Senator Nicole Cannizzaro is vice-chair. She also holds a $99,000 position as a Clark County deputy district attorney.

“Senator Cannizzaro’s presence on the Senate Judiciary Committee, as it pertains to forfeiture legislation, begs for a lesson on separation of powers,” the Nevada Policy Research Institute’s Daniel Honchariw wrote in the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

“Reform would’ve meant less money for district attorneys,” Honchariw explained, “which, in addition to police departments, directly profit from forfeitures.”

Nevada’s legal precedent on separation of powers is less clear-cut regarding Cannizzaro’s conflicting role in local government, than for Gansert’s state position. But the potential for mischief is the same — and obvious.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

Printable PDF

 

Categories
Accountability free trade & free markets initiative, referendum, and recall insider corruption moral hazard national politics & policies porkbarrel politics too much government

A Wall of Separation

cronyism, pork, stadium, Tom Hanks, ballot initiative, welfare

Whatever you think of Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, wherein he celebrated the First Amendment for “building a wall of separation between Church & State,” let’s agree that it would have been nice had he penned another letter — to the Waterbury Methodists or someone — urging a wall of separation between Sports and State.

Last week, actor Tom Hanks became another brick in my hoped-for wall. “It’s a billion-dollar industry,” Hanks said of the National Football League.

[T]hey have billion-dollar TV contracts. All the owners are billionaires. And yet when they want to build a stadium they’re going to use for 10 weeks out of the year, they expect the city taxpayers to buy the building.

Hanks is livid. The recent “deal” that lured his beloved Oakland Raiders to Las Vegas included $750 million in public funds to build a $1.9 billion stadium. The Raiders are planning to stay in Oakland for the 2017 and 2018 seasons, while that new stadium is built. “When the Raiders leave,” the beloved star declared, “I am going on an NFL moratorium for two years.”

Unfortunately, Hanks appears more angry that his team is leaving (eventually), than with the principle that taxpayers ought not be ripped off.

Subsidizing businesses is cronyism, not capitalism. It’s even more outrageous when the poor must pay for the rich.

But how to stop it? In every city where citizens can propose ballot initiatives, let’s petition and pass measures requiring a public vote before any such subsidy.

It may not be the great wall I’d prefer, but it’s a high hurdle providing taxpayers some important protection.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

Printable PDF

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment folly general freedom moral hazard nannyism Regulating Protest too much government

The Oregon Fail

Oregon, traffic light, license, licensing, government, regulations, engineer

My children used to play “The Oregon Trail,” an early computer game where one navigated the amazingly dangerous wagon trip out west — often dying of dysentery or drowning while crossing a river.

Oregon remains treacherous.

Yesterday, we bemoaned the cancellation of a parade because a Republican Party group’s participation elicited threats of violence. Now, we find that writing a thoughtful letter to public officials about problematic traffic lights garners a $500 fine.

Mats Järlström, a Swedish electronics engineer, made the mistake of moving to Beaverton, Oregon, and then compounded his error by sending an email to Oregon’s engineering board alerting them to a traffic light problem that put “the public at risk.”

The Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying responded by informing him that statute “672.020(1) prohibits the practice of engineering in Oregon without registration . . . at a minimum, your use of the title ‘electronics engineer’ and the statement ‘I’m an engineer’ . . . create violations.”

Mr. Järlström expressed shock at the bizarre response. “I’m not practicing engineering, I’m just using basic mathematics and physics, Newtonian laws of motion, to make calculations and talk about what I found.”

After a red-light camera ticketed his wife, Järlström investigated and discovered that the yellow light didn’t give drivers slowing down to turn at the intersection enough time.

He wasn’t disputing the ticket, just attempting to right a wrong. Which is apparently against the law, when bureaucrats are committing the wrong.

The Institute for Justice accuses the licensing board of “trying to suppress speech.” Thankfully, they’re helping Järlström sue in federal court.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

 

Photograph by Tom Godber on Flickr

 

Categories
crime and punishment First Amendment rights general freedom ideological culture moral hazard national politics & policies Regulating Protest U.S. Constitution

Thorns in the Parade

Portland, rose, parade, protest, violence, AntiFa, BAMN, free speech, censorship

Portland, Oregon, styles itself as “The City of Roses.” For over a century, this Pacific Northwest city has held an annual Rose Festival, complete with multiple parades.

This year, there will be at least one parade less.

“The annual 82nd Avenue Rose Parade and Carnival scheduled for Saturday have been canceled because of threats against the Multnomah County Republican Party, a longtime participant in the parade,” we learn from the Portland Tribune. “In a Tuesday afternoon email, the 82 Avenue Business Association, which sponsors the Rose Festival-sanctioned event, said it canceled the entire event because [it] could not guarantee the safety of the community.”

KOIN-6 News reported that the threats came from the Direct Action Alliance, an “antifa”-styled group that “created a Facebook event called ‘Defend Portland from Fascists at the Avenue of Roses Parade.’ The group wanted to disrupt the march because of ‘Nazis and fascists’ participating.”

Now, what you regard as “white supremacist” and what young pseudo-antifascists think of as “white supremacy” are probably very different. I doubt that many real Nazis and fascists would have marched on Saturday.

But the identification issue is irrelevant. If fascists want to peacefully parade, let them.

What is objectionable? Those who engage in violence to suppress views of which they disapprove.

Also objectionable? The organizers and the City of Roses police, who, by caving in, let free speech and assembly be squelched.

Spontaneous marches did occur on parade day, corralled to the left and right sides of the street. Literally and figuratively. Three violent activists were arrested but not identified by affiliation.

Portlanders used to worry that the clouds would rain on their parades. Now, it is ideological violence casting a dark shadow.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

 

Categories
Accountability folly free trade & free markets moral hazard national politics & policies porkbarrel politics

Super-Subsidize Me

welfare, taxes, charity, subsidy, subsidize, shrimp, stadium, Tesla

“In American political discourse, those on the side of the sick, poor, and underprivileged tend to favor more federal government intervention,” writes Heartland Institute policy advisor David D’Amato at The Hill. He explains that many “see government as . . . rather like a charity . . .”

Sure, government can act charitably, except that its money isn’t given voluntarily, and the recipients are often not so needy.

Earlier this month, the stock price of electric car company Tesla, Inc. rose high enough to overshadow General Motors. That’s great news for billionaire Elon Musk, Tesla’s CEO. But an Investor’s Business Daily editorial noted, “[T]he company is heavily reliant on taxpayer support.”

Who benefits (in addition to Musk)? “A study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that 90% of electric car subsidies go to the top 20% of households,” the editorial stated. IBD added that it was “a lot of welfare-for-the-rich for very little environmental benefit.”

In addition to funding advanced technology, American taxpayers have spent $6.7 billion over the last few decades to subsidize stadiums for wealthy sports team owners. The latest? In Clark County, Nevada, taxpayers forked over $750 million ($354 for every resident) to bribe — er, bring — the Oakland Raiders to Las Vegas.

The ridiculous Minnesota legislation to feed $5 million in state funds to start two shrimp farms almost seems reasonable in comparison. Almost.

“Maybe growing shrimp in Minnesota is a great idea,” admits John Hinderaker of the Center of the American Experiment. “If so, the owners should do what other small businessmen do: either find investors, or get a bank loan.”

Government’s crony capitalism taxes the poor to give to the rich.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

 

Categories
Accountability moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies responsibility term limits too much government

Ida-Heave-Ho

Gov. Butch Otter, Idaho, veto, asset forfeiture, term limits,

“Is there any chance the vetoes can be overridden?” asked a reader in response to yesterday’s commentary on Idaho Gov. Butch Otter’s veto of two pieces of common-sense legislation.

It’s a good question, because the bill reforming civil asset forfeiture and the bill easing regulations that block employment in cosmetology both passed by wide margins. Unfortunately, the answer is NO. 

According to the Gem State’s constitution, the governor has ten days after legislation reaches his desk or, at the session’s end, ten days after the legislature adjourns to decide whether to sign or veto a bill. If he vetoes after adjournment, it cannot be overridden — unless the legislature comes back into session.*

Only the governor can call legislators back into session, which is exceedingly unlikely if a new session would entail a veto override.

It turns out that Idaho is one of only six states where legislators are unable after adjournment to override a veto. Still, the problem’s simple enough to solve: legislators could propose a constitutional amendment changing the process.

Senator Steve Vick did just that, in 2014 and again in 2016. But though his amendment garnered the two-thirds majority needed in the Senate, the House never took it up. He plans to reintroduce it next year.

There’s another constitutional change needed: term limits for the governor. A 2015 poll found a whopping 84 percent of Idahoans favor such limits. Yet, legislators may be squeamish, knowing that those same voters (by that same margin) also want legislators term-limited.

“Sometimes it is amazing,” Idaho Politics Weekly’s Bob Bernick explained, “how elected officials can just ignore the will of voters.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* Gov. Otter also vetoed the legislature’s repeal of the state sales tax on groceries, the timing of which legislators are challenging in court.

Printable PDF

 

Categories
Accountability general freedom local leaders moral hazard national politics & policies property rights responsibility too much government U.S. Constitution

A Bad Haircut

Gov. Butch Otter, Idaho, asset forfeiture, licensing, veto

Eric Boehm over at Reason excoriated Idaho Gov. Butch Otter for giving libertarians “the double bird salute.” Boehm wondered if the governor, in vetoing two bills earlier this month, had been merely “trying to make libertarians mad.”

That’s not exactly fair.

The two blocked bills, one reforming unjust civil asset forfeiture and the other easing pernicious regulation of cosmetology, did certainly appeal to libertarians. But they also appealed to conservatives and liberals. And both passed with bipartisan support.

House Bill 139 would have reduced the number of training hours for a cosmetology license and allowed folks to fix hair at special events like weddings without a license, etc. “The fact that many lawmakers, Republicans and Democrats, liberals, moderates and conservatives, are working together to advance legislation in the interest of economic opportunity and prosperity,” argued Wayne Hoffman of the Idaho Freedom Foundation, “is a thing of beauty for a profession that’s all about beauty.”

But beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Those who run cosmetology schools probably like more mandated hours and folks in the profession might wish for less competition. Governor Otter said as much, complaining that HB 139 was written “without input from interested parties or due regard for the health, safety and welfare of the public.”

Just how dangerous is a bad haircut?

Putting safety in context, Hoffman explained that the current mandated hours of training for a cosmetology license “is more than is required to become an EMT in Idaho.”

Gov. Otter vetoed HB 202, the civil asset forfeiture reform, at the behest of “law enforcement” — the very interested parties who gain from taking people’s stuff without bothering to charge or convict them of a crime.

That makes no sense . . . according to Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

 

Categories
Accountability general freedom moral hazard responsibility term limits

Trouble Over Term Limits

Paraguay, term limits, democracy, General Alfredo Stroessner, Cartes’s Colorado Party

Americans are hardly alone in strongly supporting term limits. All over the world, people who care about limited government also care about limited terms for officials wielding government power.

Especially the people of Paraguay, who remember all too well the dictatorship of General Alfredo Stroessner. He seized power in 1954, securing it with fraudulent elections and the arrest, torture and murder of thousands of political opponents, until being removed by a 1989 military coup.

After that ugly 35-year episode, strict term limits were established in the Paraguayan Constitution: one five-year term for the president — no re-election possible.

Fast-forward to the last few weeks, when the country’s Senate violated its own rules by holding a secret session — of which even the head of the Senate was unaware — and approved a constitutional amendment allowing re-election of the president. Under Paraguay’s constitution, amendments can be enacted by the House and Senate — without a vote of the people.

Before the House could vote, however, protests erupted against the deeply unpopular term limits change. (A recent poll showed 77 percent of Paraguayans opposed the amendment.) Angry crowds battled police on the streets of Asunción, the capital, after trashing and setting fires in the National Congress building. Meanwhile, police killed one demonstrator when they attacked the Liberal Party headquarters, prompting Pope Francis to urge dialogue in this 90 percent Roman Catholic country.

Yesterday, President Horacio Cartes announced he would not seek re-election in 2018, whether the constitution is changed or not.

The head of Cartes’s Colorado Party, which was associated with Stroessner decades ago, told Reuters that any change is now “practically impossible.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF