BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

Author Archive

Thursday

22

December 2011

0

COMMENTS

Forget the 99%, Occupiers Representing Just the One: 'Me'

Written by , Posted in Culture & Society

The Frontier Lab conducted an in-depth look at the motivations of Occupiers. The investigation looked at the values behind their protest, and what they found was almost universal selfishness:

While their rhetoric might decry crony capitalism and bank bailouts, their values reveal self-centered and fear-based motivation.

…their values focus on their own individual fears and desires, rather than on those of others.

…Many in the media and political worlds have made inaccurate conclusions about the Occupy movement because their assessments, so far, have been based on the movement’s superficial attributes – its signs and its slogans – rather than its participants’ values.

By concentrating solely on the surface level pronouncements of the Occupy movement, one can easily be fooled, as the core Occupiers’ motivation hinges less on the political ends than on emotional, self-directed fulfillment.

This would certainly explain what happens in this video from Accuracy in Media, as donations for the real homeless are solicited from an Occupy camp (Hat-tip: Big Government):

“We take.” Indeed.

Thursday

22

December 2011

1

COMMENTS

Wednesday

21

December 2011

0

COMMENTS

United Judicial Fiefdoms of America

Written by , Posted in Education, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

It is hard to square the American ideal of representative government with this sort of news:

Denver District Court Judge Sheila Rappaport ruled in Lobato v. Colorado that the state’s funding system fails to provide the “thorough and uniform” education required by the constitution. She called the system “significantly underfunded,” even though Colorado now spends $3.2 billion, or about 45 percent of the $7 billion annual state budget, on K-12 education.

“There is not enough money in the system to permit school districts across the state to properly implement standards-based education and to meet the requirements of state law and regulation,” Judge Rappaport wrote in her Dec. 9 opinion. “There is not one school district that is sufficiently funded. This is an obvious hallmark of an irrational system.”

That’s funny, as I consider a singular, unelected judge determining it is her sole responsibility to set budget priorities as the hallmark of an irrational system.

I have 3 fundamental problems with this ruling: 1) It’s not the judge’s place to make such a determination, 2) Colorado education spending per pupil is in fact increasing, and 3) more spending has not worked in the past to improve education, and it won’t today.

While it can certainly be said that it was stupid of Colorado to include something as vague and meaningless in their Constitution as a requirement for “thorough and uniform” education, the responsibility to fulfill such a requirement is still necessarily legislative. Under what authority does this local judge imagine that her policy preferences outweigh those as expressed by the voters of Colorado, whom have already voiced their preferences for the spending of scarce resources? Consider the madness that would erupt if her petulant demands were actually carried out, and then tell me again what part of all this is irrational:

How much would it take to fund the state education system? The judge declined to name a dollar figure, but in her 189-page decision she cited a study introduced by the plaintiffs that called for an additional $2 billion to $4 billion per year.

That would require the state to devote 89 percent of the general fund to K-12 education, according to estimates by the attorney general’s office…

“I suppose you could basically shut down every other discretionary thing in the state budget,” said Independence Institute research director David Kopel on Friday’s edition of “Colorado Inside Out” on Colorado Public Television.

“We could get rid of higher education, get rid of the Colorado state patrol, get rid of every social service program we have in order to throw money into this sinkhole that Judge Rappaport pretends is mandatory under the constitution,” he said.

Unfortunately, this sort spontaneous judicial excitement is becoming increasingly common, hence the title of this post.

As you can see below, Colorado’s education spending, like that of the rest of the country, has been increasing steadily over time, even after being adjusted for inflation.

Will additional increases in spending actually help improve the quality of education? If history is anything to go by, the answer is a resounding no:

If this judge were actually serious about accomplishing her goal, she’d order the immediate abolition of the government’s monopoly on education.

Monday

19

December 2011

0

COMMENTS

Another Government Social Experiment Crashes Into Reality

Written by , Posted in Education, Government Meddling

Kids may not be the smartest eaters, but they’re not dumb, either.

It’s lunchtime at Van Nuys High School and students stream into the cafeteria to check out the day’s fare: black bean burgers, tostada salad, fresh pears and other items on a new healthful menu introduced this year by the Los Angeles Unified School District.

But Iraides Renteria and Mayra Gutierrez don’t even bother to line up. Iraides said the school food previously made her throw up, and Mayra calls it “nasty, rotty stuff.” So what do they eat? The juniors pull three bags of Flamin’ Hot Cheetos and soda from their backpacks.

“This is our daily lunch,” Iraides says. “We’re eating more junk food now than last year.”

Consider this their first lesson in the law of unintended consequences. More on the head-smacking failure:

For many students, L.A. Unified’s trailblazing introduction of healthful school lunches has been a flop. Earlier this year, the district got rid of chocolate and strawberry milk, chicken nuggets, corn dogs, nachos and other food high in fat, sugar and sodium. Instead, district chefs concocted such healthful alternatives as vegetarian curries and tamales, quinoa salads and pad Thai noodles.

There’s just one problem: Many of the meals are being rejected en masse. Participation in the school lunch program has dropped by thousands of students. Principals report massive waste, with unopened milk cartons and uneaten entrees being thrown away. Students are ditching lunch, and some say they’re suffering from headaches, stomach pains and even anemia. At many campuses, an underground market for chips, candy, fast-food burgers and other taboo fare is thriving.

They can’t even serve a reasonably healthy lunch that doesn’t leave children retching, and we expect them to deliver a quality education?

Wednesday

14

December 2011

3

COMMENTS

Amazon Target of Weird Nostalgic Attack

Written by , Posted in Free Markets

Attacks on big business are commonplace. Providing a valuable good or service is, apparently, cause for derision and hatred. The latest example is the completely unhinged reaction to a fairly innocuous Amazon promotion that involved using an application to capture the prices of goods in other stores:

An Amazon.com promotion, which offered customers a discount if they let Amazon know the prices of items for sale in traditional shops, has provoked widespread anger, drawing a rebuke from a senator and seeing it compared to Dr Seuss’s Christmas-stealing Grinch.

The deal, which ran on Saturday, gave customers a 5% discount (up to $5) off Amazon.com’s price on up to three products if they used the retailer’s price check app while shopping in physical stores. Although books were not included – the eligible categories were DVDs, electronics, toys, music and sporting goods – the promotion prompted a furious response from beleaguered independent bookshops and from the American Booksellers Association, as well as from senator Olympia Snowe, who called it “an attack on Main Street businesses [and] anti-competitive behaviour that could shutter the doors of America’s small businesses”.

“Small businesses are fighting everyday to compete with giant retailers, such as Amazon, and incentivising consumers to spy on local shops is a bridge too far,” said Snowe, a Republican and member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, in a statement.

What a ridiculous overreaction. How in the world can this be construed as “anti-competitive”? Olympia Snowe, like a lot of statists who don’t really believe in free markets, conflates being better for being anti-competitive. Being successful is not anti-competitive, it’s just winning the competition.

But how is this different in substance than the very common practice of price-matching? Most major retailers will do it, and they require you to show the price of the good in the other store before they will match it. How is this even “spying” at all? Prices are not hidden; they are public information.

This is a creative use of technology on Amazon’s part to bring greater efficiency to the market. The more pricing information available to participants, the better decisions they will ultimately make. This is not anti-competitive; it is hyper-competitive.

I also don’t understand the weird fetishism for businesses presumed to be uncompetitive. What is the purpose of rhetorically protecting businesses that are losing to a stronger, more innovative competitor? It’s not to protect the consumer, whose collective choices are being fought against. It’s not to protect the economy, which thrives on creative destruction and the triumph of better business models over less efficient ones. It strikes me as little more than a sort of nostalgia, or belief that the world must remain the same as it is in whatever period of time the person found most desirable. In that sense, such anti-free market sentiment is the true form conservatism, and those who believe in a dynamic market place are the real advocates for progress and change.

Tuesday

13

December 2011

0

COMMENTS

Winning the Argument

Written by , Posted in Big Government

One of the great frustrations for proponents of limited government is the illusionary nature of so many Americans’ apparent support for the concept. That is, many Americans say they believe in small government in general, but when asked about specific government programs also voice their support for them. This is why even politicians elected with strong conservative majorities are still vulnerable to demagoguery on Social Security, Medicare and the like. Most Americans simply don’t have a single, coherent ideology. They take issues one at a time. When they do, what emerges is a preference for bigger government, despite expressions to the contrary.

Despite this depressing state of affairs, I take heart in this finding by Gallup (Hat-tip: George Scoville) that a full 2/3rds of Americans identify big government as a greater threat to the future of the country than big business (or big labor).

Americans’ concerns about the threat of big government continue to dwarf those about big business and big labor, and by an even larger margin now than in March 2009. The 64% of Americans who say big government will be the biggest threat to the country is just one percentage point shy of the record high, while the 26% who say big business is down from the 32% recorded during the recession. Relatively few name big labor as the greatest threat.

Yes, it is another generalized question, but it also provides a blue print for winning the argument. People are afraid of big government, as they should be given its unique threat to human liberty, but it’s not always clear how one specific program represents big government. That is the connection that has to be made. To win the argument we have to both draw that connection and explain it. We have to explain how there is nothing more permanent than a temporary government program, how bureaucratic interests will always have the strongest incentives, and thus apply the greatest pressure on appropriators, as they work to grow their missions and further entrench their power.

As much as I love theory, it is simply not effective enough to talk about big government merely in the abstract. It is, in essence, necessary to give big government a face.

Friday

9

December 2011

0

COMMENTS

NLRB Drops Boeing Complaint, Damage Done

Written by , Posted in Labor Unions

The National Labor Relations Board, which once targeted a dead CEO for union infractions, has dropped its frivolous challenge against Boeing’s plan to open a plant in South Carolina, a right-to-work state. All’s well that ends well, right? Unfortunately, no. Despite the withdrawn complaint, the damage has been done.

The NLRB only dropped its case after Boeing reached an agreement with the union, which ought to leave a bad taste in anyone’s mouth who believes in free enterprise and honest government. Essentially, the NLRB used their frivolous case as leverage on behalf of the union, which meant that their demands carried with them a thuggish threat of abusive government power should Boeing not cave.

U.S. Chamber Senior Vice President Randy Johnson describes just how perverse was the whole arrangement to Bloomberg:

“The union brings a complaint, the NLRB brings the charge, and once the union works things out, like a good foot soldier, the NLRB withdraws its complaint,” said Randy Johnson, who handles labor policy at the Washington-based Chamber. The possibility of similar action by the NLRB leaves “a cloud of uncertainty hanging over the business community.”

The precedent here is simply chilling, and the message to businesses is clear: you will surrender to union demands without resistance, or face the full force of a US government that has been captured and corrupted by unions. Thankfully, Rep. Issa is continuing his inquiry into this rogue agency and its out of control actions on behalf of narrow, special, labor-union interests at the expense of the US economy.

Thursday

8

December 2011

0

COMMENTS

Sunday

4

December 2011

0

COMMENTS

Friday

2

December 2011

0

COMMENTS

Government Policy, Not Laziness, Responsible for Scaring Away Foreign Investors

Written by , Posted in Taxes

President Obama recently told a group of CEO’s that America had “been a little bit lazy” about “selling America and trying to attract new businesses into America.” Is this the case, or has the quality of the product simply declined? America’s descent in the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom would certainly tend to suggest that it’s the latter. The reality is that laziness is not to blame for any increasing unattractiveness to foreign investors; government policy is.

There are two looming policies, in particular, that are threatening foreign investment in the US. One of those is the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), passed in 2010 in an effort to raise revenue for the HIRE Act through greater tax enforcement. The other is an IRS proposed regulation which would require reporting of interest payment information on foreign depositor accounts, despite the fact that the US has no use for the information. Both policies are misguided, counterproductive, and will drive investment out of the US.

FATCA is designed to compel foreign financial institutions to become deputy tax collectors for the IRS. By 2014, these institutions will be expected to have implemented expensive new data collection and reporting systems, and those that have not complied will face a 30% withholding tax on US source payments to the institution. As if those costs aren’t enough, FATCA also conflicts with local privacy laws in many countries, placing FFIs in an impossible position. Already, institutions are deciding that it makes more sense to simply drop their US clients and disinvest in US markets than to continue jumping through IRS hoops. The result is billions in lost foreign investment, and there is only more to come.

As I recently co-wrote in a piece with Dan Mitchell:

The FATCA legislation is the product of a misguided school of thought within the US political class which believes that there are vast sums of unpaid taxes which the IRS would be able to collect if only the rest of the world would stop hiding it from them.

…The rationale behind FATCA is simple in its destructiveness. Even though the US has a very high compliance rate for tax laws compared to the rest of the world, US politicians decided that more enforcement was needed to get more money to fund more spending and bigger budgets in Washington. Throwing aside any semblance of cost-benefit analysis, they then decided to spare no expense to capture every last dollar of potential tax revenue. Unfortunately, FATCA was not a wise approach. Ordinary Americans will suffer from the ensuing damage to the economy. Foreign financial institutions will endure higher regulatory burdens and compliance costs. And the FATCA law creates a powerful disincentive for foreign investment in the US. FATCA thus has the net impact of potentially reducing both economic prosperity and government tax revenues.

The other policy disaster on the horizon is a regulation proposed by the IRS which would require domestic banks to collect information and report on the interest payments made to foreign depositor accounts. The IRS would then share this information with foreign regimes. They assure us that sharing would only take place with countries that have tax treaties with the US, but that list is not only capable of changing at any time, but already includes the dictatorship in Venezuela, and crime and corruption plagued Mexico. What’s more, these payments are not taxable under the US tax code – a policy which Congress has explicitly chosen in order to foster foreign investment in the US – and so the rule serves no direct domestic interest.

recent Congressional hearing I attended on the issue covered a variety of arguments against the regulation. Members were concerned about the human rights implications for foreign depositors, particularly from Latin America, who face kidnapping and extortion threats back home, but most importantly the capital flight this concern would cause should the rule pass. Years ago, the Mercatus Center did a study estimating $88 billion in lost foreign investment. That was on a rule more limited in scope, so today’s proposal would be even more destructive.

The tax bureaucrats seem intent on plowing forward, even as Congress is mobilizing against the IRS on the issue (bills to prevent the rule from being implemented have been introduced in both the House and Senate – thanks to the leadership of Florida Rep. Bill Posey and Sen. Rubio, as well as Texas Senators Hutchison and Cornyn – and have a combined 28 co-sponsors). The IRS’s objective quite likely is to please foreign tax collectors who are complaining loudly about the burdens we are demanding their institutions take on with regard to FATCA.

President Obama thinks we have been lazy in selling America. But his administration has been anything but lazy in making America a harder sell to foreign investors. Rather than compound the mistake of FATCA with another one, while simultaneously driving out much needed foreign investment, we should revisit the initial legislation and look instead at making the tax code less complex and more economically competitive. Then we should tell the IRS that their job is only to enforce US tax laws, not to take it upon themselves to decide that America’s interests are outweighed by the tax information demands of the likes of Hugo Chavez.

Cross-posted at Big Government.