Within libertarian circles no proposition is more controversial that California Proposition 37. The purpose of this measure is to force producers to add a label to food products if those products contain any Genetically Modified foods.
The libertarian argument against is very simple. This is an additional regulation. If people genuinely did not want GMO in their food then the free market would solve this problem. All other things being equal that is itself a good argument, and the libertarian instinct to be suspicious of every new law is a good instinct to have. But those who support Proposition 37 would be glad to say that all other things are not equal, which is why they support Proposition 37.
The reason so many libertarians support Proposition 37 is because of a perception that the free market is unable to function in this instance - not because there is no market for GMO free products, but because the federal government restricts that form of advertising. The label is not outright forbidden, but as is the case with modern American fascism, its use is restricted to the point where it is essentially unusable.
Consumers are not able to get the knowledge necessary for the free market to work. Those who have products that are GMO free are not able to advertise such, and those who have products that are not GMO free are not willing to advertise such. Therefore, to undo the mess created by the federal government at the behest of agribusiness, this ballot initiative seeks to force the opposite condition. Since "GMO free" is forbidden, therefore those protected by that ban must label their foods as containing GMOs.
It is not a perfect measure, it does indeed have exceptions. The big targets of wheat, corn, and soy are covered though. One of the major examples of the discrepancies in Proposition 37, that milk is not covered but soy milk is, is explained by the proposition covering the big three. Soy milk is made of soy while real milk is not made of soy. Restaurants are not covered, so if one buys a prepared meal there is no label. To buy the raw materials at a supermarket and to prepare that meal at home, those raw materials are covered.
Even with those exceptions, this proposition amounts to the State of California giving consumers the knowledge they need for the free market to work, knowledge that is being forcibly withheld by the federal government. This is not the case of the liberal fantasy of law being used to correct a flaw in the market, but is instead a case of law being used to correct law.
Showing posts with label California. Show all posts
Showing posts with label California. Show all posts
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Sunday, October 21, 2012
California Propositions 30 and 38
From a libertarian point of view, California Proposition 30 and California Proposition 38 are both bad ideas. They both are tax increases in what is already one of the most heavily taxed states in the country, a state that suffers more than others from Great Depression II. They both claim to do the same thing and for the same goal. But even though they are both bad ideas, one of them is clearly more of a bad idea than the other.
The supporters of Proposition 30 advertise it as a tax increase on the rich. It is true that it does increase income taxes on higher income earners, but it also increases the sales tax. The sales tax is a regressive tax that impacts everyone. The supporters of Proposition 38 advertise it as an income tax increase, which it is. Only the income tax is raised, but it is raised on everyone.
Both of these measures are supposed to be for education, to fund the schools. The monies that might be raised by Proposition 30 go into the general fund and are not dedicated to the schools. The reason school funding is impacted by Proposition 30 is because the legislature and the governor put a trigger in the budget to cut school funding if Proposition 30 is not passed. Proposition 38 dedicates all of the revenue that might be raised to the schools bypassing the general fund.
Given these differences, if someone is inclined to agree with the arguments used to sell these propositions, it makes sense that Proposition 38 would be the preferred ballot measure. While the California PTA prefers Proposition 38, the California teachers unions have come out strongly for Proposition 30.
The unions join the rest of the political classes in favor of supporting Proposition 30. Across the state, the more strongly tied to the unions or the Democratic Party a group is, the more likely it is to support Proposition 30 over 38. The arguments in favor of Proposition 30 are very disingenuous.
Both of these propositions are bad ideas, but it is quite clear that Proposition 30 is a far worse idea than Proposition 38.
The supporters of Proposition 30 advertise it as a tax increase on the rich. It is true that it does increase income taxes on higher income earners, but it also increases the sales tax. The sales tax is a regressive tax that impacts everyone. The supporters of Proposition 38 advertise it as an income tax increase, which it is. Only the income tax is raised, but it is raised on everyone.
Both of these measures are supposed to be for education, to fund the schools. The monies that might be raised by Proposition 30 go into the general fund and are not dedicated to the schools. The reason school funding is impacted by Proposition 30 is because the legislature and the governor put a trigger in the budget to cut school funding if Proposition 30 is not passed. Proposition 38 dedicates all of the revenue that might be raised to the schools bypassing the general fund.
Given these differences, if someone is inclined to agree with the arguments used to sell these propositions, it makes sense that Proposition 38 would be the preferred ballot measure. While the California PTA prefers Proposition 38, the California teachers unions have come out strongly for Proposition 30.
The unions join the rest of the political classes in favor of supporting Proposition 30. Across the state, the more strongly tied to the unions or the Democratic Party a group is, the more likely it is to support Proposition 30 over 38. The arguments in favor of Proposition 30 are very disingenuous.
Both of these propositions are bad ideas, but it is quite clear that Proposition 30 is a far worse idea than Proposition 38.
Sunday, September 09, 2012
Government by Blackmail
There is a tax initiative on the California ballot for November; Proposition 30, Sales and Tax Increase (2012), otherwise known as Jerry Brown's Tax Increase. All of the public unions support it, of course, because it backfills the pension programs for state employees. But it has other groups supporting it as well.
There is a lot of support coming from the film companies in Hollywood. At first glance that would make sense, given how strongly most people in that industry support the Democratic Party. But even so, the studios are trying to fight against films being shot in more business friendly environments. More and more films are being shot out of state and out of country. So why is there such support for a measure that would only accelerate the trend?
There are special tax exemptions for filming in California, to support the local film industry. And unlike many parts of the tax code, these exemptions are renewed annually instead of being a normal (until a new bill is passed) part of the tax code. The threat is implicit, that if the studios do not support measures supported by the permanent Democratic Party majority in the legislature, those exemptions could easily and quickly disappear simply by failing to renew them. That would not even need the 2/3 vote required by Proposition 13, passed many years ago in order to combat ever increasing taxes.
The American Beverage Association is also backing this measure, in spite of how easily it can harm their operations in California. Shortly before gaining the support of the American Beverage Association, there was much discussion among prominent Democrat politicians about how the state needs to combat obesity by putting punitive taxes on sugary drinks as is happening in other areas of the country. This discussion died down quickly after the American Beverage Association gave its backing to Proposition 30. They even donated $250,000 towards the passage of Proposition 30.
Although there is no explicit threat, at least not one where there is a written demand that could be used as proof, this is pretty clearly a case where various organizations are being threatened to support a measure that they otherwise would not, in exchange for not being harmed more directly. It is the highway man saying "your money or your life" to these groups.
There is a lot of support coming from the film companies in Hollywood. At first glance that would make sense, given how strongly most people in that industry support the Democratic Party. But even so, the studios are trying to fight against films being shot in more business friendly environments. More and more films are being shot out of state and out of country. So why is there such support for a measure that would only accelerate the trend?
There are special tax exemptions for filming in California, to support the local film industry. And unlike many parts of the tax code, these exemptions are renewed annually instead of being a normal (until a new bill is passed) part of the tax code. The threat is implicit, that if the studios do not support measures supported by the permanent Democratic Party majority in the legislature, those exemptions could easily and quickly disappear simply by failing to renew them. That would not even need the 2/3 vote required by Proposition 13, passed many years ago in order to combat ever increasing taxes.
The American Beverage Association is also backing this measure, in spite of how easily it can harm their operations in California. Shortly before gaining the support of the American Beverage Association, there was much discussion among prominent Democrat politicians about how the state needs to combat obesity by putting punitive taxes on sugary drinks as is happening in other areas of the country. This discussion died down quickly after the American Beverage Association gave its backing to Proposition 30. They even donated $250,000 towards the passage of Proposition 30.
Although there is no explicit threat, at least not one where there is a written demand that could be used as proof, this is pretty clearly a case where various organizations are being threatened to support a measure that they otherwise would not, in exchange for not being harmed more directly. It is the highway man saying "your money or your life" to these groups.
Saturday, January 07, 2012
California High Speed Rail
The California High Speed Rail project is, even by government standards, a disaster. After the rail had been approved, costs quadrupled. It appears that their ridership estimates had the entire population of some of the town riding it ever day. The first stretch of it is in the middle of nowhere instead of somewhere that might start paying dividends from the start such as a line between San Diego and Los Angeles.
Although finding wasteful government agencies is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel, there’s something particularly odious about the California High Speed Rail project. One libertarian blogger compared it to buying a car, and as soon as the contract is signed the car dealer says "Oh, by the way, we’re changing the contract to quadruple the price."
In California people apparently like to approve of any and all public transit initiatives. This isn't because they imagine themselves using the public transit, but because they imagine everyone else using public transit. The reason they have to involve the government is because they don't imagine themselves using it so there actually is no true market for the service.
The original plan would involve some money from government and also some from private investors. No private investors were interested, even with government guarantees. So far there has been more money spent on advertising than anything else, although that has been scaled back because the public has been criticizing the amount spent on advertising.
It has even been noted by some that since the plans changed after the project was initially approved, the bond that the public voted for could technically be considered null and void. Meanwhile part of the alleged profit from this rail line was supposed to come from other train services, most notably Amtrak, sharking the line and paying for the rails they use. The other rail lines then replied they had no interest in using the lines.
Although this is normal for a government boondoggle project, it is a bit of an extreme example of a government boondoggle. So what is to be done by the State of California? And how can this be remedied without costing the taxpayer a fortune?
Well, there is one way, and that is to enforce the contract that the state made with the High Speed Rail Agency. That goes against the spirit of corporatist corruption that established this boondoggle in the first place, but it fits pretty well within the letter of the law. The State of California should say to the High Speed Rail Agency "You will deliver to us the rail you promised, at the price you promised, or we will jail your leadership for fraud."
It might be just the thing to scare the many other corrupt corporatist endeavors that have been bleeding California dry with their promises of many bountiful returns but instead only receive government grants. Putting a few of their directors in jail for never giving any returns might force them to actually create business plans that go farther than the next government grant.
Although finding wasteful government agencies is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel, there’s something particularly odious about the California High Speed Rail project. One libertarian blogger compared it to buying a car, and as soon as the contract is signed the car dealer says "Oh, by the way, we’re changing the contract to quadruple the price."
In California people apparently like to approve of any and all public transit initiatives. This isn't because they imagine themselves using the public transit, but because they imagine everyone else using public transit. The reason they have to involve the government is because they don't imagine themselves using it so there actually is no true market for the service.
The original plan would involve some money from government and also some from private investors. No private investors were interested, even with government guarantees. So far there has been more money spent on advertising than anything else, although that has been scaled back because the public has been criticizing the amount spent on advertising.
It has even been noted by some that since the plans changed after the project was initially approved, the bond that the public voted for could technically be considered null and void. Meanwhile part of the alleged profit from this rail line was supposed to come from other train services, most notably Amtrak, sharking the line and paying for the rails they use. The other rail lines then replied they had no interest in using the lines.
Although this is normal for a government boondoggle project, it is a bit of an extreme example of a government boondoggle. So what is to be done by the State of California? And how can this be remedied without costing the taxpayer a fortune?
Well, there is one way, and that is to enforce the contract that the state made with the High Speed Rail Agency. That goes against the spirit of corporatist corruption that established this boondoggle in the first place, but it fits pretty well within the letter of the law. The State of California should say to the High Speed Rail Agency "You will deliver to us the rail you promised, at the price you promised, or we will jail your leadership for fraud."
It might be just the thing to scare the many other corrupt corporatist endeavors that have been bleeding California dry with their promises of many bountiful returns but instead only receive government grants. Putting a few of their directors in jail for never giving any returns might force them to actually create business plans that go farther than the next government grant.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Why the Government is out of Money
Recently the University of California has provided a microcosm of what is wrong with the government budget. The University system is cutting back programs and tuition is going up to pay for the budgetary shortfalls. Of course, that is not all there is to the story. Not all programs are being cut. The diversity programs are thriving.
The University of California San Diego is cutting its master's degree programs in computer and electrical engineering, showing that according to the leadership of that university it is not engineering that will lead to a productive and prosperous future but it is diversity training that is what students need most to succeed after graduation. Meanwhile prize faculty are being bid away to other schools, such as three professors from the biology department who were offered a 40% raise to teach elsewhere.
Already it is apparent that college education is the most recent bubble to start to go down in an economy composed almost entirely of bubbles. Due to unemployment and underemployment as well as due to the ever accelerating increase in costs, the lifetime earning differential of a college education is falling below the cost of that education. In general college education is becoming a bad investment.
This one example from the University of California San Diego combines many of the problems with government today. Diversity programs are emphasized at the expense of science programs in an education that costs more and delivers less. The political is emphasized at the expense of the economic to deliver high cost solutions that fail to solve anything and due to their cost interfere with actual efforts to solve society’s problems.
Not only have diversity sinecures been protected from budget cuts, their numbers are actually growing. The University of California at San Diego, for example, is creating a new full-time "vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion." This position would augment UC San Diego’s already massive diversity apparatus, which includes the Chancellor’s Diversity Office, the associate vice chancellor for faculty equity, the assistant vice chancellor for diversity, the faculty equity advisors, the graduate diversity coordinators, the staff diversity liaison, the undergraduate student diversity liaison, the graduate student diversity liaison, the chief diversity officer, the director of development for diversity initiatives, the Office of Academic Diversity and Equal Opportunity, the Committee on Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Issues, the Committee on the Status of Women, the Campus Council on Climate, Culture and Inclusion, the Diversity Council, and the directors of the Cross-Cultural Center, the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Resource Center, and the Women’s Center.
The University of California San Diego is cutting its master's degree programs in computer and electrical engineering, showing that according to the leadership of that university it is not engineering that will lead to a productive and prosperous future but it is diversity training that is what students need most to succeed after graduation. Meanwhile prize faculty are being bid away to other schools, such as three professors from the biology department who were offered a 40% raise to teach elsewhere.
Already it is apparent that college education is the most recent bubble to start to go down in an economy composed almost entirely of bubbles. Due to unemployment and underemployment as well as due to the ever accelerating increase in costs, the lifetime earning differential of a college education is falling below the cost of that education. In general college education is becoming a bad investment.
This one example from the University of California San Diego combines many of the problems with government today. Diversity programs are emphasized at the expense of science programs in an education that costs more and delivers less. The political is emphasized at the expense of the economic to deliver high cost solutions that fail to solve anything and due to their cost interfere with actual efforts to solve society’s problems.
Friday, July 08, 2011
California Shoots Self in Foot
Because California legislators are unable to control their urge to spend, especially their urge to spend on public employee pensions and salaries, they are always looking for new sources of revenue. There was one major stream of business not taxed, so the inevitable occurred. The government of the state of California decided to force businesses that do business over the internet to collect sales tax.
It is already law that residents of the state are supposed to pay the sales tax for all internet purchases. There is a line on the state income tax forms for that purpose - a line ignored by Californians. Frustrated by their inability to force Californians to pay yet another tax in one of the highest taxed states in the country, the idea was to “close a loophole” and force internet businesses to do the same tax collection that stores physically located in the state collect - a service they provide “free” to the state.
Already Amazon.com and Overstock.com are reacting to this new law. They are not collecting the sale taxes, though. They are pulling out of the state.
Both businesses have affiliate programs whereby people can sell their products through these major corporations. Both partners in the affiliate programs profit. The major corporations profit by getting a portion of the proceeds, and the small affiliates profit by having their products listed through major outlets where they can reach larger audiences.
These affiliate programs are all ended. The business connections have been severed. Amazon alone had 10,000 affiliates in California, and has ceased to do business with them unless they leave the state.
This law, instead of raising revenue, has created a revenue loss. Instead of increased sales tax, it has resulted in decreased income tax. It may have even resulted in increased unemployment compensation.
One would hope that the legislators and the governor would see the results and admit that a mistake has been made. One would hope that they would see the decreased revenue and the increased unemployment. Of course one would also hope that politicians are honest, capable, and intelligent, but the evidence indicates otherwise.
It is already law that residents of the state are supposed to pay the sales tax for all internet purchases. There is a line on the state income tax forms for that purpose - a line ignored by Californians. Frustrated by their inability to force Californians to pay yet another tax in one of the highest taxed states in the country, the idea was to “close a loophole” and force internet businesses to do the same tax collection that stores physically located in the state collect - a service they provide “free” to the state.
Already Amazon.com and Overstock.com are reacting to this new law. They are not collecting the sale taxes, though. They are pulling out of the state.
Both businesses have affiliate programs whereby people can sell their products through these major corporations. Both partners in the affiliate programs profit. The major corporations profit by getting a portion of the proceeds, and the small affiliates profit by having their products listed through major outlets where they can reach larger audiences.
These affiliate programs are all ended. The business connections have been severed. Amazon alone had 10,000 affiliates in California, and has ceased to do business with them unless they leave the state.
This law, instead of raising revenue, has created a revenue loss. Instead of increased sales tax, it has resulted in decreased income tax. It may have even resulted in increased unemployment compensation.
One would hope that the legislators and the governor would see the results and admit that a mistake has been made. One would hope that they would see the decreased revenue and the increased unemployment. Of course one would also hope that politicians are honest, capable, and intelligent, but the evidence indicates otherwise.
Thursday, October 07, 2010
California Proposition 19
When discussing voting, the point was made that there is a good side and a bad side to every ballot proposition. That is actually an exaggeration, as some ballot propositions are procedural and have no impact on individual liberty. Examples of this are California's 2010 propositions 20 and 27 which address redistricting, which the Libertarian Party of California has taken no position on.
Then there are complex measures, which have positive features and negative features. Those require more careful analysis, to determine whether the overall effect of the proposition is more beneficial than harmful. An example of that is Proposition 19, which has caused debate in libertarian circles.
Of course the purist argument is that "legalize it and tax it" contains three unnecessary words, that all that should be needed is "legalize it." In a perfect world a simple "legalize it" would be on the ballot, but the absence of a perfect proposition shouldn’t deter people from analyzing whether Proposition 19 is worth voting for.
So is Proposition 19 more beneficial than baleful?
According to Ballotpedia if Proposition 19 passes then the laws are greatly loosened. Persons over the age of 21 will be able to grow and possess small amounts of marijuana.
It does not address federal activities, and it is theoretically possible that local police could ignore this law by working with federal law enforcement. An unnoticed criticism of Proposition 19 is that, like 10th Amendment resolutions, it lacks teeth. Many police and district attorneys are against Proposition 19, and while they will be unable to directly act against small marijuana users they can always encourage cooperation with the DEA.
Overall though it is a step in the right direction. Not a full step, not a perfect step, but definitely in the right direction. Given how few steps there are in any good direction, this is definitely worth supporting.
Then there are complex measures, which have positive features and negative features. Those require more careful analysis, to determine whether the overall effect of the proposition is more beneficial than harmful. An example of that is Proposition 19, which has caused debate in libertarian circles.
Of course the purist argument is that "legalize it and tax it" contains three unnecessary words, that all that should be needed is "legalize it." In a perfect world a simple "legalize it" would be on the ballot, but the absence of a perfect proposition shouldn’t deter people from analyzing whether Proposition 19 is worth voting for.
So is Proposition 19 more beneficial than baleful?
According to Ballotpedia if Proposition 19 passes then the laws are greatly loosened. Persons over the age of 21 will be able to grow and possess small amounts of marijuana.
It does not address federal activities, and it is theoretically possible that local police could ignore this law by working with federal law enforcement. An unnoticed criticism of Proposition 19 is that, like 10th Amendment resolutions, it lacks teeth. Many police and district attorneys are against Proposition 19, and while they will be unable to directly act against small marijuana users they can always encourage cooperation with the DEA.
Overall though it is a step in the right direction. Not a full step, not a perfect step, but definitely in the right direction. Given how few steps there are in any good direction, this is definitely worth supporting.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
The Cities are Falling
The city of Maywood, CA, recently shut down their police department and outsourced all services. This is because their police department was so corrupt that the city could no longer afford the insurance necessary to guard against lawsuits. They outsourced their police protection to the city of Bell, CA.
The city of Bell, CA, was the next city in the news. It was discovered by the Los Angeles Times that City Manager Robert Rizzo was making $787,637 per year, Assistant City Manager Angela Spaccia was making $376,288, and Police Chief Randy Adams was making $457,000. The city has a population of 36,664 and a median income of $29,946, well below the state average.
For two weeks in a row, there has been overflow attendance at city council meetings. The first time the council immediately recessed for seven hours, not resuming business until after midnight. The second time the council reconvened earlier to meet the demands of their citizens. When the citizens of Bell demanded the resignation of the whole council, the response was that the mayor offered to work the rest of his term for no pay and the rest of the council offered to work at one-tenth their prior pay.
As it was members of the police department who allegedly tipped off the Los Angeles Times regarding the pay issue, it was thought that the city council was going to disband their police force in retaliation at that second meeting and turn security over to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. It was even reported by John and Ken that there was an agreement between Police Chief Adams and Sheriff Baca that ensured the Sheriff’s Department would not hire any of the displaced police. So far the department is still intact, although the threat of retribution is still very real.
On Monday, July 26, State Attorney General Jerry Brown issued a subpoena for all city records, giving the city officials 48 hours to comply. It is doubtful that in any case not involving government officials he would announce that the culprits have 48 hours to destroy all evidence. Eventually a police raid did occur, not led by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department or any state enforcement agency, but by Police Chief Adams who was barred from his own office.
There is obviously a lot of corruption in the city of Bell, just as there is in the city of Maywood. The mood in Bell was extremely bitter to the point where city councilmen desired police protection to simply get from their cars to the city council meeting.
These are just current events. It was California that also hosted the first city to go bankrupt as a result of the Greater Depression, the city of Vallejo. Across the state of California, and across much of the nation as well, cities are being hit hard.
Listening to John and Ken report on it, one thing became clear: the people are angrier than ever. In spite of efforts to force the Tea Party movement into picking a side and only one side, keeping the greater freedom movement divided, the people as a whole are angrier than ever before. Had it been announced that the crowd had turned violent, it would not have been surprising to any listener.
Many people are starting to see a definite possibility of a second American Revolution, probably more similar to The French Revolution than the first American Revolution. As each new scandal of each new city hits the news, each scandal worse than the one before, it gives reason to ponder if that revolution could be sparked by a particularly corrupt city and a riot that gets out of control.
The city of Bell, CA, was the next city in the news. It was discovered by the Los Angeles Times that City Manager Robert Rizzo was making $787,637 per year, Assistant City Manager Angela Spaccia was making $376,288, and Police Chief Randy Adams was making $457,000. The city has a population of 36,664 and a median income of $29,946, well below the state average.
For two weeks in a row, there has been overflow attendance at city council meetings. The first time the council immediately recessed for seven hours, not resuming business until after midnight. The second time the council reconvened earlier to meet the demands of their citizens. When the citizens of Bell demanded the resignation of the whole council, the response was that the mayor offered to work the rest of his term for no pay and the rest of the council offered to work at one-tenth their prior pay.
As it was members of the police department who allegedly tipped off the Los Angeles Times regarding the pay issue, it was thought that the city council was going to disband their police force in retaliation at that second meeting and turn security over to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. It was even reported by John and Ken that there was an agreement between Police Chief Adams and Sheriff Baca that ensured the Sheriff’s Department would not hire any of the displaced police. So far the department is still intact, although the threat of retribution is still very real.
On Monday, July 26, State Attorney General Jerry Brown issued a subpoena for all city records, giving the city officials 48 hours to comply. It is doubtful that in any case not involving government officials he would announce that the culprits have 48 hours to destroy all evidence. Eventually a police raid did occur, not led by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department or any state enforcement agency, but by Police Chief Adams who was barred from his own office.
There is obviously a lot of corruption in the city of Bell, just as there is in the city of Maywood. The mood in Bell was extremely bitter to the point where city councilmen desired police protection to simply get from their cars to the city council meeting.
These are just current events. It was California that also hosted the first city to go bankrupt as a result of the Greater Depression, the city of Vallejo. Across the state of California, and across much of the nation as well, cities are being hit hard.
Listening to John and Ken report on it, one thing became clear: the people are angrier than ever. In spite of efforts to force the Tea Party movement into picking a side and only one side, keeping the greater freedom movement divided, the people as a whole are angrier than ever before. Had it been announced that the crowd had turned violent, it would not have been surprising to any listener.
Many people are starting to see a definite possibility of a second American Revolution, probably more similar to The French Revolution than the first American Revolution. As each new scandal of each new city hits the news, each scandal worse than the one before, it gives reason to ponder if that revolution could be sparked by a particularly corrupt city and a riot that gets out of control.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Secession, or Jettison
When Bush was president, there were some hopeful signs on the subject of secession. It was when Bush was president that the Free State Project was initiated, and it was under President Bush that liberal pundits made their first, tentative explorations into the subjects of nullification and secession, subjects previously forbidden to liberals and progressives. The tentative progressive explorations all came to an abrupt halt when Obama was elected, of course, at which point conservatives started making the same explorations with regards to health care, explorations that were forbidden due to the war on terror.
But secession is not the only way to deal with irreconcilable differences between different states and regions of the country. Although there has been no noticeable exploration of this option, it should be possible to jettison a state that is more of a burden to the union than the rest of the states wish to bear.
This option is actually being discussed in the much looser federation known as the European Union, as Germans are, on average, quite displeased with the bailout of the Greek Government. Some talk about Greece withdrawing from the EU, some talk about Germany withdrawing from the EU, and some talk about kicking Greece out of the EU.
That last option could be applied to great effect in the United States.
California, for example, is a state in such severe financial disarray that it is actually in worse shape than Greece. It is practically inevitable that at some point the federal government will have to come in and rescue California from its massive structural deficits, and will have to do so more than once. Is it right that other states should have to shoulder that burden simply because California politicians are unable to resist giving the public employee union anything they desire?
Texas, where talk of secession was so notable that it made the news, is in much better shape financially. They are causing a controversy because they are getting unabashedly political in their choice of textbooks, and their decisions have an impact on the rest of the country. People in smaller states are quite displeased that their own textbook choices will be limited by manufacturers trying to please politicians in Texas.
There is no precedent for ejecting a state from the union, so every single action taken would be groundbreaking. It is possible that one could argue that under Article Five it is forbidden to eject a state on the grounds that doing so would deprive them of representation in the Senate. It is possible, but that is a weak argument given that the article is supposed to ensure that no state that is in the union lacks proper representation. Any state that is jettisoned is no longer a state.
The benefits to jettison can be immense. There is no way currently for people in one state to reject noxious politicians elected by another state. If jettison were implemented on, for example, Arizona’s new immigration bill, the result would mean the United States is permanently relieved from having John McCain taint the Senate any more.
But secession is not the only way to deal with irreconcilable differences between different states and regions of the country. Although there has been no noticeable exploration of this option, it should be possible to jettison a state that is more of a burden to the union than the rest of the states wish to bear.
This option is actually being discussed in the much looser federation known as the European Union, as Germans are, on average, quite displeased with the bailout of the Greek Government. Some talk about Greece withdrawing from the EU, some talk about Germany withdrawing from the EU, and some talk about kicking Greece out of the EU.
That last option could be applied to great effect in the United States.
California, for example, is a state in such severe financial disarray that it is actually in worse shape than Greece. It is practically inevitable that at some point the federal government will have to come in and rescue California from its massive structural deficits, and will have to do so more than once. Is it right that other states should have to shoulder that burden simply because California politicians are unable to resist giving the public employee union anything they desire?
Texas, where talk of secession was so notable that it made the news, is in much better shape financially. They are causing a controversy because they are getting unabashedly political in their choice of textbooks, and their decisions have an impact on the rest of the country. People in smaller states are quite displeased that their own textbook choices will be limited by manufacturers trying to please politicians in Texas.
There is no precedent for ejecting a state from the union, so every single action taken would be groundbreaking. It is possible that one could argue that under Article Five it is forbidden to eject a state on the grounds that doing so would deprive them of representation in the Senate. It is possible, but that is a weak argument given that the article is supposed to ensure that no state that is in the union lacks proper representation. Any state that is jettisoned is no longer a state.
The benefits to jettison can be immense. There is no way currently for people in one state to reject noxious politicians elected by another state. If jettison were implemented on, for example, Arizona’s new immigration bill, the result would mean the United States is permanently relieved from having John McCain taint the Senate any more.
Saturday, February 06, 2010
Top Two
Recently a political advertisement arrived in the mail from CAIVP - the California Independent Voter Project or California Independent Voter Network. They are an organization backing a "Top Two" initiative.
The proposal is to open the primaries to everyone, and then the two candidates who receive the most votes, regardless of party, will appear on the final election ballot. This means that in the final race the votes could be limited to just choosing between a Republican and a Democrat, or they could be limited to just choosing between two Republicans or between two Democrats.
CAIVP assures the voters that third parties will not be negatively impacted.
It is bad enough that this attacks free association, as the individuals in political parties have a right to say who they are and are not associated with, but the position put forth by CAIVP stands in stark contrast to reports by third parties in states where "top two" has been implemented. The effect has been to shut out Greens and Libertarians in the state of Washington except in races where there was no major party opposition to major party incumbents.
Even when someone claiming association with a third party did make it to the November ballot (as in the cases where there was no major party opposition) there really is a "purity of message" issue. A hard core libertarian could claim "Green" and thus dilute the message of the Green Party, and a hard core green could claim "Libertarian" and thus dilute the message of the Libertarian Party. It is bad enough that Libertarians have to deal with the No True Libertarian argument as well as other baseless accusations, this would truly make it impossible for third and minor parties to get their message out.
If reform is the goal, try attacking the obstacles to ballot access instead, or try attacking safe districts or campaign finance limits. Phony reform is not what is needed.
The proposal is to open the primaries to everyone, and then the two candidates who receive the most votes, regardless of party, will appear on the final election ballot. This means that in the final race the votes could be limited to just choosing between a Republican and a Democrat, or they could be limited to just choosing between two Republicans or between two Democrats.
CAIVP assures the voters that third parties will not be negatively impacted.
How will Top Two Candidates Open Primary impact third party candidates?
The Top Two Open Primary will level the playing field for third parties by allowing them to appeal to broader base of voters in the primary. Under the current election system, third parties have an extremely difficult time winning legislative, congressional and statewide elections. Only one third party candidate has served in the state legislature in modern California history. Under a Top Two Open Primary system, for example, a general election could conceivably pit a Democrat against a Green party candidate in San Francisco or a Republican and Libertarian candidate against each other in Orange County.
It is bad enough that this attacks free association, as the individuals in political parties have a right to say who they are and are not associated with, but the position put forth by CAIVP stands in stark contrast to reports by third parties in states where "top two" has been implemented. The effect has been to shut out Greens and Libertarians in the state of Washington except in races where there was no major party opposition to major party incumbents.
Even when someone claiming association with a third party did make it to the November ballot (as in the cases where there was no major party opposition) there really is a "purity of message" issue. A hard core libertarian could claim "Green" and thus dilute the message of the Green Party, and a hard core green could claim "Libertarian" and thus dilute the message of the Libertarian Party. It is bad enough that Libertarians have to deal with the No True Libertarian argument as well as other baseless accusations, this would truly make it impossible for third and minor parties to get their message out.
If reform is the goal, try attacking the obstacles to ballot access instead, or try attacking safe districts or campaign finance limits. Phony reform is not what is needed.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Don't Blame Proposition Thirteen
California is once again facing a budgetary shortfall, after the politicians managed to come up with a "fix" that balanced the state budget for a few more months. This has happened several times over the past year, and each time there is a predictable chorus of people blaming Proposition Thirteen for the inability of politicians to not spend more than is collected in taxes.
The first argument is that Proposition Thirteen makes it impossible to raise taxes. Given that in February of 2009 the largest state tax increase in the history of the United States was passed, that is truly an absurd argument to make. If Proposition Thirteen really did make it impossible, instead of merely more difficult, to raise taxes, the tax increase of 2009 would never have happened.
The other argument is that Proposition Thirteen somehow leads to minority rule. The problem with that argument should be obvious to everyone - two thirds is not a minority. If two thirds of politicians vote for something, a majority has voted for that something.
A more sophisticated version of that false argument is that the majority, in order to pass anything, the majority must convince part of the minority to vote with the majority, and this in a very weak way this results in minority rule. But in truth this once again is still majority rule, and if the minority under persuasion demands something the majority is unwilling to give that minority cannot pass anything - it is a minority.
The real reason there is a budget crisis is because those in government are unwilling to control their spending. The situation in California is identical to a person who continuously lives beyond his means and then blames his employer for not giving him enough money once the credit card bill is due. If an individual makes that argument, the absurdity of the claim is readily apparent.
But when a government official makes that claim, for some reason people actually take it seriously. Assemblywoman Noreen Evans made exactly that claim: "There is this mantra out there 'living within our means' and while it sound really nice it sounds really simple and it sound really responsible it's meaningless. Our means are completely within our control". It's not her fault that she approves spending far beyond what tax revenues will allow, it's the tax payers for not writing her a blank check.
She blames Proposition Thirteen for the lack of a blank check. The real reason there is no blank check is because they don't exist.
The first argument is that Proposition Thirteen makes it impossible to raise taxes. Given that in February of 2009 the largest state tax increase in the history of the United States was passed, that is truly an absurd argument to make. If Proposition Thirteen really did make it impossible, instead of merely more difficult, to raise taxes, the tax increase of 2009 would never have happened.
The other argument is that Proposition Thirteen somehow leads to minority rule. The problem with that argument should be obvious to everyone - two thirds is not a minority. If two thirds of politicians vote for something, a majority has voted for that something.
A more sophisticated version of that false argument is that the majority, in order to pass anything, the majority must convince part of the minority to vote with the majority, and this in a very weak way this results in minority rule. But in truth this once again is still majority rule, and if the minority under persuasion demands something the majority is unwilling to give that minority cannot pass anything - it is a minority.
The real reason there is a budget crisis is because those in government are unwilling to control their spending. The situation in California is identical to a person who continuously lives beyond his means and then blames his employer for not giving him enough money once the credit card bill is due. If an individual makes that argument, the absurdity of the claim is readily apparent.
But when a government official makes that claim, for some reason people actually take it seriously. Assemblywoman Noreen Evans made exactly that claim: "There is this mantra out there 'living within our means' and while it sound really nice it sounds really simple and it sound really responsible it's meaningless. Our means are completely within our control". It's not her fault that she approves spending far beyond what tax revenues will allow, it's the tax payers for not writing her a blank check.
She blames Proposition Thirteen for the lack of a blank check. The real reason there is no blank check is because they don't exist.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
California reports on excessive regulation
The Cost of California
A report was recently released by the State of California detailing the cost of regulation to the state's economy. The results are damning.
Regulation costs just under half a trillion dollars annually. It costs the state four million jobs. It costs the state twelve billion in taxes.
The cost to the state's economy is equal to what is currently one third of the state's GDP. The twelve billion in taxes would close the existing budget gap without resorting to fancy accounting. The four million jobs would put the state's unemployment rate below, instead of above, the national average.
This report was actually commissioned by the State of California. It was due in 2007, and it was submitted in 2007, but the governor, showing the well-known small-government leanings that are commonly associated with the Republican Party, sat on it for two years until forced to release it.
It is truly a damning report, especially given that it was released by an agency of the state government. Those who see the government as the solution to various problems are faced with the government saying that the government is the cause of problems.
Because the authors are professors of the social sciences at state universities, that gives them all the qualifications a statist would ever need - had this been done privately the criticism would be that because it is done privately there is an agenda that discredits the report. Because the report is printed in the Small Business Administration of the State of California, that gives the report all the credibility a statist would ever need - had this been printed privately the criticism would be that because it is done privately there is an agenda that discredits the report.
The Report
A report was recently released by the State of California detailing the cost of regulation to the state's economy. The results are damning.
Regulation costs just under half a trillion dollars annually. It costs the state four million jobs. It costs the state twelve billion in taxes.
The cost to the state's economy is equal to what is currently one third of the state's GDP. The twelve billion in taxes would close the existing budget gap without resorting to fancy accounting. The four million jobs would put the state's unemployment rate below, instead of above, the national average.
This report was actually commissioned by the State of California. It was due in 2007, and it was submitted in 2007, but the governor, showing the well-known small-government leanings that are commonly associated with the Republican Party, sat on it for two years until forced to release it.
It is truly a damning report, especially given that it was released by an agency of the state government. Those who see the government as the solution to various problems are faced with the government saying that the government is the cause of problems.
Because the authors are professors of the social sciences at state universities, that gives them all the qualifications a statist would ever need - had this been done privately the criticism would be that because it is done privately there is an agenda that discredits the report. Because the report is printed in the Small Business Administration of the State of California, that gives the report all the credibility a statist would ever need - had this been printed privately the criticism would be that because it is done privately there is an agenda that discredits the report.
The Report
CONCLUSIONS
This study measures and reports the cost of regulation to small business in the State of California. It employs an original and unique approach using a general equilibrium framework to identify and measure the cost of regulation as measured by the loss of economic output to the State’s gross product, after controlling for variables known to influence output. It also measures second order costs resulting from regulatory activity by studying the total impact – direct, indirect, and induced. The study finds that the total cost of regulation to the State of California is $492.994 billion which is almost five times the State’s general fund budget, and almost a third of the State’s gross product. The total cost of regulation results in an employment loss of 3.8 million jobs which is a tenth of the State’s population. Since small business constitute 99.2% of all employer businesses in California, and all of non-employer business, the regulatory cost is borne almost completely by small business. The general equilibrium framework yields the following results:
• The direct cost of the regulatory environment in California is $176.966 billion in lost gross state output each year. The direct cost does not account for second order costs.
• The total loss of gross state output for California each year due to direct, indirect, and induced impact of the regulatory cost is $492.994 billion.
• In terms of employment this total output loss is equivalent to the loss of 3.8 million jobs for the state each year. A loss of 3.8 million jobs represents 10% of the total population of California. In terms of labor income, the total loss to the state from the regulatory cost is $210.471 billion. Finally the indirect business taxes that would have been generated due to the output lost arising from the regulatory cost is $16.024 billion.
• The total regulatory cost of $492.994 billion is four to four and a half times the total budget for the state of California, and almost five to six times the general fund alone. Further, given the total gross state output of $1.6 trillion for California in 2007, the lost output from regulatory costs is almost a third of the gross state output.
• The indirect business taxes lost could have helped fund many of the state’s departmental budgets. As an example, the indirect business taxes lost are 60 times the budget of the Office of Emergency Services, and would have paid for almost half the budget of the Department of Education.
• The total cost of regulation was $134,122.48 per small business in California in 2007, labor income not created or lost was $57,260.15 per small business, indirect business taxes not generated or lost were $4,359.55 per small business, and finally roughly one job lost per small business.
• The total regulatory cost of $492.994 billion translates into a total cost per household of $38,446.76 per household, or $13,052.05 per resident. The total cost per household comes close to the median household income for California.
This study provides the most comprehensive and complete analysis of the total regulatory burden in California. The study and findings have implications for policymakers and those in charge of the regulatory environment. The results also suggest that future research should attempt to understand how to minimize the intended and unintended costs of regulation. Since small businesses are the lifeblood of California’s economy constituting 99.2% of all employer businesses, efforts to make the regulatory environment more attractive will make California a more attractive state for doing business. This in turn will improve the state’s output, employment, labor income, indirect business taxes, economic climate, quality of life, living standards, and growth prospects.
Friday, July 03, 2009
California issues IOUs
While everyone else in the libertarian blogosphere is writing about how the founding fathers were rebels, traitors, and secessionists, and encouraging us to live up to their examples, I decided that while they are right my own input on this is not needed at this time. So I decided to write about something a lot more current.
First the government of California passed the single largest state tax increase in the history of the United States. Then ballot propositions are sent to the voters to extend the tax increases, which the voters reject. The propositions were rejected by all groups in California; they were rejected by blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians, and "others", they were rejected by men and women, by Republicans and Democrats, by conservatives and moderates, and only broke even among liberals. They were most strongly rejected in Orange County and barely rejected in San Francisco County.
The rejection of the propositions threw the budget into unbalance again, and as time went on and the economy worsened (and the tax increases failed to provide a corresponding increase in revenue for reasons Miseans would understand but would confuse Keynesians) the need for a balanced budget grew more urgent as the state Comptroller warned repeatedly that the state was running out of money. In the time between the failures of the propositions to the deadline the deficit rose from a projected $16 billion to a projected $24 billion.
The deadline came and went, a budget was not passed, and so on July 2nd the State of California started issuing IOUs. This was largely because although the Republicans were more than willing to aid and abet the last tax increase the voter reaction was so strong that they thought it better to actually follow their election promises this time around.
The reaction from the politicians is the most interesting part.
In the Assembly Budget Committee, a Democrat on the committee opined that while he supported the new round of tax increases perhaps it was time for the state to start living within its means. Chairperson Noreen Evans disagreed saying "There is this mantra out there 'living within our means' and while it sound really nice it sounds really simple and it sound really responsible it's meaningless. Our means are completely within our control". She opposed any cutting of the budget on the grounds that the state can always raise taxes to cover any needed revenue.
In an interview Assemblywoman Karen Bass reacted to the Republican refusal to approve of any tax increases. The recall effort against Assemblyman Anthony Adams (as well as other Republicans who violated even indirectly their no-tax pledges) has scared the rest of the party straight. Assemblywoman Bass opined about those who dare oppose tax increases by saying "The Republicans were essentially threatened and terrorized against voting for revenue. Now [some] are facing recalls. They operate under a terrorist threat: 'You vote for revenue and your career is over.' I don't know why we allow that kind of terrorism to exist. I guess it's about free speech, but it's extremely unfair." Daring to hold politicians accountable is now a form of terrorism? She called the taxpayers of California "terrorists" for being over-taxed already and not wanting to be even more over-taxed.
Finally Proposition 13, the favorite scapegoat of all who believe in government instead of the people, is being blamed with any rationale that makes limited sense at the moment. Some say it works too well. Others say that it holds the majority hostage to the minority, as if requiring 2/3 to pass a tax increase means that the remaining 1/3 is actually in charge.
So after all of that the state is issuing IOUs instead of payments. There is no information yet on whether or not the banks will accept these interest bearing IOUs, although the likelihood of that increases with the proffered interest rate. If the banks decline to accept the IOUs the willingness of the public to receive them will plummet, as will the credit rating of the state. Where California goes, so does the rest of the nation.
First the government of California passed the single largest state tax increase in the history of the United States. Then ballot propositions are sent to the voters to extend the tax increases, which the voters reject. The propositions were rejected by all groups in California; they were rejected by blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians, and "others", they were rejected by men and women, by Republicans and Democrats, by conservatives and moderates, and only broke even among liberals. They were most strongly rejected in Orange County and barely rejected in San Francisco County.
The rejection of the propositions threw the budget into unbalance again, and as time went on and the economy worsened (and the tax increases failed to provide a corresponding increase in revenue for reasons Miseans would understand but would confuse Keynesians) the need for a balanced budget grew more urgent as the state Comptroller warned repeatedly that the state was running out of money. In the time between the failures of the propositions to the deadline the deficit rose from a projected $16 billion to a projected $24 billion.
The deadline came and went, a budget was not passed, and so on July 2nd the State of California started issuing IOUs. This was largely because although the Republicans were more than willing to aid and abet the last tax increase the voter reaction was so strong that they thought it better to actually follow their election promises this time around.
The reaction from the politicians is the most interesting part.
In the Assembly Budget Committee, a Democrat on the committee opined that while he supported the new round of tax increases perhaps it was time for the state to start living within its means. Chairperson Noreen Evans disagreed saying "There is this mantra out there 'living within our means' and while it sound really nice it sounds really simple and it sound really responsible it's meaningless. Our means are completely within our control". She opposed any cutting of the budget on the grounds that the state can always raise taxes to cover any needed revenue.
In an interview Assemblywoman Karen Bass reacted to the Republican refusal to approve of any tax increases. The recall effort against Assemblyman Anthony Adams (as well as other Republicans who violated even indirectly their no-tax pledges) has scared the rest of the party straight. Assemblywoman Bass opined about those who dare oppose tax increases by saying "The Republicans were essentially threatened and terrorized against voting for revenue. Now [some] are facing recalls. They operate under a terrorist threat: 'You vote for revenue and your career is over.' I don't know why we allow that kind of terrorism to exist. I guess it's about free speech, but it's extremely unfair." Daring to hold politicians accountable is now a form of terrorism? She called the taxpayers of California "terrorists" for being over-taxed already and not wanting to be even more over-taxed.
Finally Proposition 13, the favorite scapegoat of all who believe in government instead of the people, is being blamed with any rationale that makes limited sense at the moment. Some say it works too well. Others say that it holds the majority hostage to the minority, as if requiring 2/3 to pass a tax increase means that the remaining 1/3 is actually in charge.
So after all of that the state is issuing IOUs instead of payments. There is no information yet on whether or not the banks will accept these interest bearing IOUs, although the likelihood of that increases with the proffered interest rate. If the banks decline to accept the IOUs the willingness of the public to receive them will plummet, as will the credit rating of the state. Where California goes, so does the rest of the nation.
Friday, May 29, 2009
California Bleeding
The voters have spoken, and have decided that not only would they voluntarily tax themselves further, they also rejected measures that provided a quick fix to budget problems without raising taxes - raiding special purpose funds that had been "underutilized" in the time leading up to the budget failure. The only measure that passed is a hit against legislator pay - a weak hit but still a hit.
There are those with an ideological bias against any restraint on government. That the voters actually stood up to the state is considered a travesty. Economic commentator Paul Krugman blames the whole mess on Proposition 13 which made it difficult to raise property taxes and impossible to reassess upwards without a change of house ownership, and requiring a 2/3 supermajority to raise taxes, which is considered holding the majority hostage to the minority. Since the Democrats do not have a 2/3 majority they are forced to come to terms with the permanent Republican minority in order for taxes to be raised. Paul Krugman is against any form of spending cuts.
Even with the requirement for a 2/3 majority, California is already one of the most heavily taxed states in the nation, showing how little the requirement for a supermajority hampered the ability to raise taxes. It should also be noted that for all of Krugman's claims to being an economist, he completely failed to predict the recession that started unofficially in 2007 and officially in 2008 - the biggest economic news of the decade.
So Governor Schwarzenegger is striking back. When forced to cut, he made some interesting choices. Some of them make sense, such as the park closures, but he also wants to have it so that if stolen property is recovered by the police they have no requirement to notify the owner that the stolen property is recovered. This would ultimately result in a new form of civil asset forfeiture, forfeiture by default.
He's also proposing a 5 percent pay cut for state employees.
Since Chapter 9 bankruptcy is only available to municipalities the only option the state has if bailouts fail is to default. It has been many years since a state defaulted on its debts, and doing so would lead to a domino effect of state debt.
That is probably why Governor Schwarzenegger is targeting his cuts at certain services. He’s not laying off auditors, but he is closing state parks. He has proposed cutting state salaries by 5% since that would mean he doesn’t have to fire state employees, but instead of firing state employees he’s cutting funding for medical care and school busses. Granted while the state should not be in those, the cuts seem designed to inconvenience the residents of the state as much as possible.
But these programs are also the reason many people believe the state exists. This is a dangerous move for Governor Schwarzenegger because if he follows through on his threats people may discover that they do not need the state to provide these services, and will wonder where their tax dollars are actually going. This could even result in a freer California.
No wonder Peter Schiff, in a sentiment shared by all liberty lovers, advised Obama to reject any bailout of California, advice Obama is likely to reject for the very same reason that any libertarians hope he takes it.
There are those with an ideological bias against any restraint on government. That the voters actually stood up to the state is considered a travesty. Economic commentator Paul Krugman blames the whole mess on Proposition 13 which made it difficult to raise property taxes and impossible to reassess upwards without a change of house ownership, and requiring a 2/3 supermajority to raise taxes, which is considered holding the majority hostage to the minority. Since the Democrats do not have a 2/3 majority they are forced to come to terms with the permanent Republican minority in order for taxes to be raised. Paul Krugman is against any form of spending cuts.
Even with the requirement for a 2/3 majority, California is already one of the most heavily taxed states in the nation, showing how little the requirement for a supermajority hampered the ability to raise taxes. It should also be noted that for all of Krugman's claims to being an economist, he completely failed to predict the recession that started unofficially in 2007 and officially in 2008 - the biggest economic news of the decade.
So Governor Schwarzenegger is striking back. When forced to cut, he made some interesting choices. Some of them make sense, such as the park closures, but he also wants to have it so that if stolen property is recovered by the police they have no requirement to notify the owner that the stolen property is recovered. This would ultimately result in a new form of civil asset forfeiture, forfeiture by default.
He's also proposing a 5 percent pay cut for state employees.
Since Chapter 9 bankruptcy is only available to municipalities the only option the state has if bailouts fail is to default. It has been many years since a state defaulted on its debts, and doing so would lead to a domino effect of state debt.
That is probably why Governor Schwarzenegger is targeting his cuts at certain services. He’s not laying off auditors, but he is closing state parks. He has proposed cutting state salaries by 5% since that would mean he doesn’t have to fire state employees, but instead of firing state employees he’s cutting funding for medical care and school busses. Granted while the state should not be in those, the cuts seem designed to inconvenience the residents of the state as much as possible.
But these programs are also the reason many people believe the state exists. This is a dangerous move for Governor Schwarzenegger because if he follows through on his threats people may discover that they do not need the state to provide these services, and will wonder where their tax dollars are actually going. This could even result in a freer California.
No wonder Peter Schiff, in a sentiment shared by all liberty lovers, advised Obama to reject any bailout of California, advice Obama is likely to reject for the very same reason that any libertarians hope he takes it.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Analysis of the California Ballot Propositions for May 2009
Generally analysis of ballot propositions is quite simple. Any ballot proposition that advances liberty is supported, any that diminishes it is opposed, and any lateral movement is abstained. But sometimes special circumstances around a ballot proposition can force one to think tactically instead of strategically and take a position outside the normal rule. Some of the ballot propositions are clearly anti-liberty, some have the potential to be mixed, and some of them are lateral movements. Only one of them is good.
Proposition 1A is the worst that will be on the May ballot. If it is approved there will be a budget cap, but there will also be two additional years of higher taxes. The budget cap contains loopholes so that voter approved initiatives could divert money from the “rainy day fund” and any tax increase raises the budget limit. The arguments against were carefully chosen from friendly sources to ensure that they do not mention the extended taxes. If Proposition 1A fails the voters get two years of higher taxes. If Proposition 1A passes the voters get four years of higher taxes. This measure must be opposed.
Proposition 1B is simply additional spending. In the best of times libertarians oppose additional spending, and these are not the best of times. It diverts money from the rainy day fund and gives it to the schools. The catch is that Proposition 1B only passes if Proposition 1A passes, making this a bribe to the teachers to not oppose Proposition 1A. Normally the teacher’s union would oppose even a phony budget cap as offered by Proposition 1A, but if they oppose Proposition 1A they lose proposition 1B. This measure also must be opposed.
Proposition 1C allows the state to sell the proceeds from future lottery earnings. Essentially this allows the state to go into debt by borrowing against the lottery. It is by going into debt that California got into the current mess it is in. It would be simpler to just divert money from the lottery. In some respects this is a lateral move that would simply be ignored, and in some respects this is more debt that should be opposed, but if it is treated as a lateral move this is one of those exceptions about ignoring lateral moves. If this is considered lateral, it should be opposed for the tactical reason of solving the budget crisis on the backs of the taxpayers. This would nullify part of the horrendous budget deal and force the legislators back to work. Whether considered as a diminishing of liberty or a lateral movement, this measure should be opposed.
Propositions 1D and 1E are both clearly lateral movements. They divert money from special funds that libertarians opposed in the first place. Proposition 1D allows the state to divert money from a special children and families fund created in 1998 by raising taxes on cigarettes. Proposition 1E allows the state to divert money from a special mental health fund created in 2004 by raising taxes on millionares. Both of these take special fund monies and put them in the general fund. There may be a libertarian argument in favor of doing that, but because approval of these propositions would facilitate the horrible budget deal they should be opposed.
Proposition 1F is the only good measure on the ballot. It prohibits pay raises for the legislature and they governor if the budget has not passed. This one should be supported.
Source
Proposition 1A is the worst that will be on the May ballot. If it is approved there will be a budget cap, but there will also be two additional years of higher taxes. The budget cap contains loopholes so that voter approved initiatives could divert money from the “rainy day fund” and any tax increase raises the budget limit. The arguments against were carefully chosen from friendly sources to ensure that they do not mention the extended taxes. If Proposition 1A fails the voters get two years of higher taxes. If Proposition 1A passes the voters get four years of higher taxes. This measure must be opposed.
Proposition 1B is simply additional spending. In the best of times libertarians oppose additional spending, and these are not the best of times. It diverts money from the rainy day fund and gives it to the schools. The catch is that Proposition 1B only passes if Proposition 1A passes, making this a bribe to the teachers to not oppose Proposition 1A. Normally the teacher’s union would oppose even a phony budget cap as offered by Proposition 1A, but if they oppose Proposition 1A they lose proposition 1B. This measure also must be opposed.
Proposition 1C allows the state to sell the proceeds from future lottery earnings. Essentially this allows the state to go into debt by borrowing against the lottery. It is by going into debt that California got into the current mess it is in. It would be simpler to just divert money from the lottery. In some respects this is a lateral move that would simply be ignored, and in some respects this is more debt that should be opposed, but if it is treated as a lateral move this is one of those exceptions about ignoring lateral moves. If this is considered lateral, it should be opposed for the tactical reason of solving the budget crisis on the backs of the taxpayers. This would nullify part of the horrendous budget deal and force the legislators back to work. Whether considered as a diminishing of liberty or a lateral movement, this measure should be opposed.
Propositions 1D and 1E are both clearly lateral movements. They divert money from special funds that libertarians opposed in the first place. Proposition 1D allows the state to divert money from a special children and families fund created in 1998 by raising taxes on cigarettes. Proposition 1E allows the state to divert money from a special mental health fund created in 2004 by raising taxes on millionares. Both of these take special fund monies and put them in the general fund. There may be a libertarian argument in favor of doing that, but because approval of these propositions would facilitate the horrible budget deal they should be opposed.
Proposition 1F is the only good measure on the ballot. It prohibits pay raises for the legislature and they governor if the budget has not passed. This one should be supported.
Source
Friday, March 06, 2009
The California Crisis
The California government, faced with a budget deficit of unprecedented proportions, chose the only option that a politician thinks is available. The legislators voted to raise taxes instead of learning to live within their means.
Because all tax increases in California need a 2/3 majority to pass, this required that three Assembly Republicans and three Senate Repubilcans join with the Democrat majority and vote to raise taxes.
While it may be tempting to consider those six Republican legislators to be rogues who betrayed their party, that is not the case.
Radio Personalities John and Ken of KFI 640 AM have through their investigative journalism discovered that these six were not acting in opposition to their fellow legislators. Instead they were picked at caucus meetings to be the ones to take the fall because they were (most of them) on their final term and could not be re-elected anyway. Their fellow Republican legislators knew that they were going to vote to raise taxes long before they actually did, and supported them in it.
This arrangement was made so that those who did not vote to raise taxes could say to their constituents that they did not break their promise to not raise taxes. While it is true that they did not cast the votes themselves, they are guilty of "aiding and abetting" the raising of taxes.
If the person who drives a get-away car after a bank robbery is considered to be guilty in part of the robbery, these Republican legislators are guilty in part of raising taxes. They could have at any time stood up to their caucus and opposed the tax increases. They did not. They went along with the deal, and in some cases asked favors from those who were the selected fall guys to get pet projects into the budget.
Now the budget deal has been put on the ballot for the voters. There is no option to vote against this deal as a whole. Proposition 1A has two options - a "no" vote raises taxes, while a "yes" vote raises taxes for two more years but gives a phony budget cap.
Those who are aware that the budget cap is fake and that by voting for 1A tax increases are extended are against 1A. The problem is that not everyone knows that because the ballot arguments - for and against - both fail to mention that. They were selected in a corrupt deal so as to prevent the voter from knowing the facts of this deal.
Fortunately the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer's Association is filing suit. While a referendum on the budget is not possible, it is reported they are working on a ballot proposition to overturn teh budget deal. The State of California is in a death-spiral. The best option is for the state to go bankrupt and have a judge cancel contracts so the state can balance its budget.
Because all tax increases in California need a 2/3 majority to pass, this required that three Assembly Republicans and three Senate Repubilcans join with the Democrat majority and vote to raise taxes.
While it may be tempting to consider those six Republican legislators to be rogues who betrayed their party, that is not the case.
Radio Personalities John and Ken of KFI 640 AM have through their investigative journalism discovered that these six were not acting in opposition to their fellow legislators. Instead they were picked at caucus meetings to be the ones to take the fall because they were (most of them) on their final term and could not be re-elected anyway. Their fellow Republican legislators knew that they were going to vote to raise taxes long before they actually did, and supported them in it.
This arrangement was made so that those who did not vote to raise taxes could say to their constituents that they did not break their promise to not raise taxes. While it is true that they did not cast the votes themselves, they are guilty of "aiding and abetting" the raising of taxes.
If the person who drives a get-away car after a bank robbery is considered to be guilty in part of the robbery, these Republican legislators are guilty in part of raising taxes. They could have at any time stood up to their caucus and opposed the tax increases. They did not. They went along with the deal, and in some cases asked favors from those who were the selected fall guys to get pet projects into the budget.
Now the budget deal has been put on the ballot for the voters. There is no option to vote against this deal as a whole. Proposition 1A has two options - a "no" vote raises taxes, while a "yes" vote raises taxes for two more years but gives a phony budget cap.
Those who are aware that the budget cap is fake and that by voting for 1A tax increases are extended are against 1A. The problem is that not everyone knows that because the ballot arguments - for and against - both fail to mention that. They were selected in a corrupt deal so as to prevent the voter from knowing the facts of this deal.
Fortunately the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer's Association is filing suit. While a referendum on the budget is not possible, it is reported they are working on a ballot proposition to overturn teh budget deal. The State of California is in a death-spiral. The best option is for the state to go bankrupt and have a judge cancel contracts so the state can balance its budget.
Friday, February 06, 2009
The State of the State of California
California is in a dire financial condition. The state has a budget deficit of $40 billion, and the state is not supposed to have an unbalanced budget. The only reason taxes haven't gone up to pay for this is due to the work of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer's Association. Propositions sponsored by the HJTA have made it difficult to raise taxes. Any measure that increases taxes must pass with at least 2/3 of the vote. While the Democrats have a permanent majority in the State Assembly and State Senate they are short of the 2/3 necessary to pass tax increases.
The Republicans have, until now, actually stood firm against tax increases. California is already one of the most taxed states in the United States.
At one point the legislature tried to pass a tax increase by simple majority, in defiance of the law. Governor Schwarzenegger appeared as if he was going to sign it until a lawsuit made him back down.
Now negotiations are going on to try to sell a tax increase to Assembly and Senate Republicans, with the promise of a spending cap and a rollback of some environmental regulations.
The unions are furious about the spending cap, and the environmentalists are furious about the regulation rollback. Meanwhile the average Republican is against any further increase in taxes. Constituents from both parties are against this deal for different reasons.
The spending cap is an interesting proposal. It's interesting in that it is indicative of a false deal that Republicans fall for so often it is cause to wonder if they are actually fooled or merely pretend to be so in an effort to appease constituents.
At the federal level, budget balancing deals usually go like this:
The interaction is so regular and so routine it gives serious cause to wonder if the Republicans are actually fooled, or if they hope that by pretending to be fooled they can fool those who vote for them.
A better deal, if the Republicans actually support a balanced budget would be "spending cuts now, and if that's not enough tax hikes later". An even cannier move would be to conveniently forget about the tax hikes when "later" arrives.
The spending cap is just such a proposal. It will be overturned as soon as it is met unless stringent controls are put in place. These controls would need to be stronger than the 2/3 majority needed to raise taxes. It should require at least 75%, and preferably 90%, to overturn the spending cap in the face of an emergency.
Offering that sort of a spending cap will reveal just how genuine the Democrats are in their efforts to balance the budget by more than just raising taxes.
The Republicans have, until now, actually stood firm against tax increases. California is already one of the most taxed states in the United States.
At one point the legislature tried to pass a tax increase by simple majority, in defiance of the law. Governor Schwarzenegger appeared as if he was going to sign it until a lawsuit made him back down.
Now negotiations are going on to try to sell a tax increase to Assembly and Senate Republicans, with the promise of a spending cap and a rollback of some environmental regulations.
The unions are furious about the spending cap, and the environmentalists are furious about the regulation rollback. Meanwhile the average Republican is against any further increase in taxes. Constituents from both parties are against this deal for different reasons.
The spending cap is an interesting proposal. It's interesting in that it is indicative of a false deal that Republicans fall for so often it is cause to wonder if they are actually fooled or merely pretend to be so in an effort to appease constituents.
At the federal level, budget balancing deals usually go like this:
The Democrats propose to increase taxes now and in two years will implement spending cuts. The Republicans agree.
Two years later the Democrats have conveniently forgotten about the promised spending cuts, and any efforts by Republicans to remind them are met with "everything's different now."
The interaction is so regular and so routine it gives serious cause to wonder if the Republicans are actually fooled, or if they hope that by pretending to be fooled they can fool those who vote for them.
A better deal, if the Republicans actually support a balanced budget would be "spending cuts now, and if that's not enough tax hikes later". An even cannier move would be to conveniently forget about the tax hikes when "later" arrives.
The spending cap is just such a proposal. It will be overturned as soon as it is met unless stringent controls are put in place. These controls would need to be stronger than the 2/3 majority needed to raise taxes. It should require at least 75%, and preferably 90%, to overturn the spending cap in the face of an emergency.
Offering that sort of a spending cap will reveal just how genuine the Democrats are in their efforts to balance the budget by more than just raising taxes.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Why the ACLU-SC should immediately reverse its position on Proposition 98
Notice, as a result of this article my membership in the ACLU has been revoked effective approximately June 16, 2008.
Support of proposition 98 is the pro-liberty position. Opposing 98 is an anti-liberty position. The ACLU-SC (ACLU of Southern California) has taken a position against the people in favor of the government with regards to proposition 98, for three distinct reasons: Eminent Domain, Environmentalism, and Rent Control.
Starting with the easiest, the ACLU-SC’s argument about environmentalism is flawed. It is said that this is bad for the environment. There are no environmental provisions anywhere in proposition 98. It does not mention any environmental regulations anywhere in the text. The only impact this measure could possibly have on the environment is by limiting the ability of the cities and counties to seize property for the sake of environmentalism. That is an exceedingly unusual usage of eminent domain in the first place, given that the overwhelming usage is either to steal the property for public works or to steal the property to give to favored and politically connected businesses. No environmental regulations relating to the use of property are impacted in any way.
It is said that this "hurts California cities" by making planning more difficult. Well, that’s exactly why it is good for everyone else. Too often cities simply take what they want without regards for the wishes of the owners. Too often the victims of Eminent Domain are the poor and the minority populations of the city who lack the resources to get fair hearings to retain their property and, at the least, force a fair settlement.
Eminent Domain is stealing from the poor to give to the rich. There is no way a person can be an advocate for the poor and allow the government the continued ability to steal property. The ACLU itself has come out against Eminent Domain, citing Kelo versus New London as a travesty of a Supreme Court decision detrimental to the poor.
Few protested the Kelo ruling more ardently than the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. In an amicus brief filed in the case, it argued that "[t]he burden of eminent domain has and will continue to fall disproportionately upon racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly, and economically disadvantaged." Unfettered eminent domain authority, the NAACP concluded, is a "license for government to coerce individuals on behalf of society's strongest interests."
One cannot have civil liberty without sound property rights. It is not possible. All that is necessary to punish someone for behaving within the law but in ways that annoy the local government is for that local government to concoct a rationale to steal the property, and the nuisance person who embarrasses the city council no longer lives in the city. Eminent Domain is a weapon in the hands of those who desire greater government control over the public and to limit the rights of all.
All of those reasons take a back seat to the big reason the ACLU-SC opposes Proposition 98, and that is because Proposition 98 also attacks rent control.
It is said that if Proposition 98 passes, rent control will disappear and that will hurt the poor.
Anyone who has read the actual text of Proposition 98 knows that there is no merit to that argument.
First of all, rent control will not disappear. As long as the resident lives in the property, it will still be rent controlled. Someone who secures a rent controlled apartment the day before Proposition 98 goes into effect will still have a rent controlled apartment the day after it goes into effect. Every single rent controlled property is grandfathered out, not eliminated out right. This does not do a thing to weaken the situation of those in rent controlled properties.
Second, it is argued that this will eliminate federal fair housing laws. Nothing in the state government can touch a federal law.
Third, it is argued that this will make it impossible for a working or poor family to find available housing. That is the biggest fallacy of them all, as the entire history of rent control from the first time it was implemented shows that it has made housing less available and less affordable in every city that it has been tried in.
It is argued that without rent control nobody would be able to afford housing, which argues that landlords would rather allow property to sit idle than make a profit by renting out the property.
It is argued that without rent control housing landlords will throw people out of their dwellings without warning, an argument that can only be made by one who has never managed a business of any sort.
The truth is that rent control increases the cost of renting.
First, those who have rent controlled dwellings hold onto them for a very long time. If effect, they are hoarding the housing. This includes people who are middle class who secured the properties in their youth when their need for affordable housing was greater, but can easily afford better lodgings now. They remain in the properties because the cost is much lower, keeping out any and all new entrants into the housing market.
Since it is never the case that all of the housing in any city is rent controlled, this increases the demand for housing in the uncontrolled sector, pushing up the prices there. This amounts to a subsidy paid by the poor to those middle class who do not leave their dwellings.
Second, there is little incentive for investors to create more rental properties. Investors have a wide range of options to choose from when deciding where to invest. They could invest in rental properties, knowing that their returns will be low and will diminish in time. They could invest in other areas with much better returns. New rental properties are therefore not built.
Third, because rent control creates shortages, it creates the situation where poor and working families must crown into inferior sizes of housing, sometimes with two or more families in one unit, and it also exacerbates the homeless problem in the city.
The whole argument boils down to two basic economic misunderstandings. First there is ignorance of the laws of supply and demand, and the mistaken and misguided belief that the government can legislate against natural law. Just as it would be impossible for a city council to pass a law repealing the law of gravity, a city council cannot pass a law repealing the laws of supply and demand. When in an open market situation the equilibrium is close to the intersection of supply and demand. When the price is held artificially low by rent control laws, demand increases beyond the natural market state and supply drops similarly. Failure to account for such basic principles is the reasoning behind support of rent control.
Then there is the belief in market failures, that without the guiding hand of government the market is unable to function. People making this argument often say “yes, I believe in the free market, but there must be some controls.” That argument is untenable given the effectiveness record of rent control, as every control has made the situation worse, but that argument is still used all the time. Economic controls always backfire because it is impossible to repeal a natural law. Market failures are always the result government intervention, and using failures as an excuse for further interventions is recommending more poison as the cure for previous poison.
There is also the emotionally laded (but not rational in any sense) argument that by opposing rent control a person is siding with landlords against tenants, but the truth is that by opposing rent control one siding with both landlords and tenants against the government. Every time someone opposes rent control the argument is made that opposing rent control means that the person opposed to rent control hates the poor and loves the rich and wants the rich to profit off of the poor. It has to be an emotional argument because as has been demonstrated rent control actually hurts the poor. The motive for such an economically ignorant argument is "burn the rich."
Yes, proposition 98 is supported by wealthy land owners. They are looking out for their own best interests, just like everyone else. Somehow it is imagined that they should not have the right to look out for themselves. But in this case, their cause is also the cause of liberty. They have just as much of a right to security of property as everyone else. Hatred of the rich is a very base and undignified reason to support or oppose any measure. It is also supported by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer's Association, which should indicate how much this measure is for the benefit of all against the government.
Finally, this is primarily an Economic Liberty proposition, not a Civil Liberty proposition. Given the horrendous record the ACLU has on economics, and given that the focus of the ACLU is Civil Liberty, that alone should have been sufficient reason to take no position. But since the ACLU-SC decided to take action, it is imperative that economics be studied sufficiently to understand that support of Proposition 98 is the only position in line with the desire to increase liberty. It increases the liberty of the rich and the poor, it increases the opportunity of the rich and the poor, and not only does it fail to legislate against reality it instead opposes legislation that oppose reality.
Support of proposition 98 is the pro-liberty position. Opposing 98 is an anti-liberty position. The ACLU-SC (ACLU of Southern California) has taken a position against the people in favor of the government with regards to proposition 98, for three distinct reasons: Eminent Domain, Environmentalism, and Rent Control.
Starting with the easiest, the ACLU-SC’s argument about environmentalism is flawed. It is said that this is bad for the environment. There are no environmental provisions anywhere in proposition 98. It does not mention any environmental regulations anywhere in the text. The only impact this measure could possibly have on the environment is by limiting the ability of the cities and counties to seize property for the sake of environmentalism. That is an exceedingly unusual usage of eminent domain in the first place, given that the overwhelming usage is either to steal the property for public works or to steal the property to give to favored and politically connected businesses. No environmental regulations relating to the use of property are impacted in any way.
It is said that this "hurts California cities" by making planning more difficult. Well, that’s exactly why it is good for everyone else. Too often cities simply take what they want without regards for the wishes of the owners. Too often the victims of Eminent Domain are the poor and the minority populations of the city who lack the resources to get fair hearings to retain their property and, at the least, force a fair settlement.
Eminent Domain is stealing from the poor to give to the rich. There is no way a person can be an advocate for the poor and allow the government the continued ability to steal property. The ACLU itself has come out against Eminent Domain, citing Kelo versus New London as a travesty of a Supreme Court decision detrimental to the poor.
Few protested the Kelo ruling more ardently than the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. In an amicus brief filed in the case, it argued that "[t]he burden of eminent domain has and will continue to fall disproportionately upon racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly, and economically disadvantaged." Unfettered eminent domain authority, the NAACP concluded, is a "license for government to coerce individuals on behalf of society's strongest interests."
One cannot have civil liberty without sound property rights. It is not possible. All that is necessary to punish someone for behaving within the law but in ways that annoy the local government is for that local government to concoct a rationale to steal the property, and the nuisance person who embarrasses the city council no longer lives in the city. Eminent Domain is a weapon in the hands of those who desire greater government control over the public and to limit the rights of all.
All of those reasons take a back seat to the big reason the ACLU-SC opposes Proposition 98, and that is because Proposition 98 also attacks rent control.
It is said that if Proposition 98 passes, rent control will disappear and that will hurt the poor.
Anyone who has read the actual text of Proposition 98 knows that there is no merit to that argument.
First of all, rent control will not disappear. As long as the resident lives in the property, it will still be rent controlled. Someone who secures a rent controlled apartment the day before Proposition 98 goes into effect will still have a rent controlled apartment the day after it goes into effect. Every single rent controlled property is grandfathered out, not eliminated out right. This does not do a thing to weaken the situation of those in rent controlled properties.
Second, it is argued that this will eliminate federal fair housing laws. Nothing in the state government can touch a federal law.
Third, it is argued that this will make it impossible for a working or poor family to find available housing. That is the biggest fallacy of them all, as the entire history of rent control from the first time it was implemented shows that it has made housing less available and less affordable in every city that it has been tried in.
It is argued that without rent control nobody would be able to afford housing, which argues that landlords would rather allow property to sit idle than make a profit by renting out the property.
It is argued that without rent control housing landlords will throw people out of their dwellings without warning, an argument that can only be made by one who has never managed a business of any sort.
The truth is that rent control increases the cost of renting.
First, those who have rent controlled dwellings hold onto them for a very long time. If effect, they are hoarding the housing. This includes people who are middle class who secured the properties in their youth when their need for affordable housing was greater, but can easily afford better lodgings now. They remain in the properties because the cost is much lower, keeping out any and all new entrants into the housing market.
Since it is never the case that all of the housing in any city is rent controlled, this increases the demand for housing in the uncontrolled sector, pushing up the prices there. This amounts to a subsidy paid by the poor to those middle class who do not leave their dwellings.
Second, there is little incentive for investors to create more rental properties. Investors have a wide range of options to choose from when deciding where to invest. They could invest in rental properties, knowing that their returns will be low and will diminish in time. They could invest in other areas with much better returns. New rental properties are therefore not built.
Third, because rent control creates shortages, it creates the situation where poor and working families must crown into inferior sizes of housing, sometimes with two or more families in one unit, and it also exacerbates the homeless problem in the city.
The whole argument boils down to two basic economic misunderstandings. First there is ignorance of the laws of supply and demand, and the mistaken and misguided belief that the government can legislate against natural law. Just as it would be impossible for a city council to pass a law repealing the law of gravity, a city council cannot pass a law repealing the laws of supply and demand. When in an open market situation the equilibrium is close to the intersection of supply and demand. When the price is held artificially low by rent control laws, demand increases beyond the natural market state and supply drops similarly. Failure to account for such basic principles is the reasoning behind support of rent control.
Then there is the belief in market failures, that without the guiding hand of government the market is unable to function. People making this argument often say “yes, I believe in the free market, but there must be some controls.” That argument is untenable given the effectiveness record of rent control, as every control has made the situation worse, but that argument is still used all the time. Economic controls always backfire because it is impossible to repeal a natural law. Market failures are always the result government intervention, and using failures as an excuse for further interventions is recommending more poison as the cure for previous poison.
There is also the emotionally laded (but not rational in any sense) argument that by opposing rent control a person is siding with landlords against tenants, but the truth is that by opposing rent control one siding with both landlords and tenants against the government. Every time someone opposes rent control the argument is made that opposing rent control means that the person opposed to rent control hates the poor and loves the rich and wants the rich to profit off of the poor. It has to be an emotional argument because as has been demonstrated rent control actually hurts the poor. The motive for such an economically ignorant argument is "burn the rich."
Yes, proposition 98 is supported by wealthy land owners. They are looking out for their own best interests, just like everyone else. Somehow it is imagined that they should not have the right to look out for themselves. But in this case, their cause is also the cause of liberty. They have just as much of a right to security of property as everyone else. Hatred of the rich is a very base and undignified reason to support or oppose any measure. It is also supported by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer's Association, which should indicate how much this measure is for the benefit of all against the government.
Finally, this is primarily an Economic Liberty proposition, not a Civil Liberty proposition. Given the horrendous record the ACLU has on economics, and given that the focus of the ACLU is Civil Liberty, that alone should have been sufficient reason to take no position. But since the ACLU-SC decided to take action, it is imperative that economics be studied sufficiently to understand that support of Proposition 98 is the only position in line with the desire to increase liberty. It increases the liberty of the rich and the poor, it increases the opportunity of the rich and the poor, and not only does it fail to legislate against reality it instead opposes legislation that oppose reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)