Voice For Liberty

Category: Capitalism

  • Mike Pompeo: We need capitalism, not cronyism

    In a guest column written for Americans for Prosperity, Kansas, U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo of Wichita explains why political cronyism, sometimes called crony capitalism, is wrong for our country. Pompeo coins a useful new term: “photo-op economics” to describe why some politicians support wasteful federal spending projects — as long as the spending is wasted in their districts. Then logrolling — the trading of legislative favors — applies, and those legislators who received votes from others to support wasteful spending must now reciprocate and support other wasteful spending.

    Pompeo touches on an important aspect of public policy that is not often mentioned: “Moreover, what about the jobs lost because everyone else’s taxes went up to pay for the subsidy and to pay for the high utility bills from wind-powered energy? There will be no ribbon-cuttings for those out-of-work families.” This describes the problem of the seen and unseen, as explained by Frederic Bastiat and Henry Hazlitt in the famous parable of the broken window.

    We Need Capitalism, not Cronyism

    By U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo

    The word “conservative” brings to mind family values, lower taxes, fiscal responsibility — and limited government. Limited government means a government limited in size, in its claim on national wealth, and — importantly — limited in the ends to which government’s power is used. It also means federal elected officials must act in the nation’s best interest and not allow their own parochial concerns to dominate their decision making. A big obstacle on the path to restoring limited government in America is cronyism.

    We all know the story. A flawed system has created incentives that make it easier for some companies to succeed by hiring a lobbyist rather than improving productivity or satisfying customers. Lobbyists for these businesses and the politicians who support them want the federal government picking winners and losers across our economy — so long as they are selected as “winners.” In my first term in Congress, we have eliminated earmarks that rewarded politically connected, rent-seeking advocates for federal largesse by tucking provisions into bills without adequate vetting or thorough review. But ever clever politicians have another tool — the tax code — to accomplish much the same outcome. This form of cronyism must stop too.

    “Tax earmarks” — be they deductions or credits — provide certain industries and businesses a means to gain financial advantage. Tax earmarks distort our free choices, waste tax dollars, and raise prices to provide goods and services that free markets provide more abundantly and more cheaply. They also force federal tax rates up, penalizing those who don’t receive them, because higher rates are required to capture the same revenue given all of the special interest tax earmarks now in effect. And, unlike standard earmarks, tax earmarks tend to be renewed year after year after year.

    One current fight against the insidious political tool of tax earmarks involves the energy sector. I am leading the charge to eliminate over two dozen energy tax credits tucked into the Internal Revenue Code. My proposed legislation would get rid of every single tax credit related to energy — ending tax favoritism that today goes to wind and solar, algae and electric vehicles and tax credits that go to the oil and gas industry as well. Tax subsidies miscast the role of the federal government. Energy sources are either viable without subsidies or else they do not make economic sense for taxpayers.

    Subsidies and giveaways redistribute wealth from productive, self-sustaining enterprises to unproductive, less efficient, albeit politically connected, ones. Although subsidies may have positive local effects, they penalize successful businesses — leading to less innovation, decreased productivity, fewer jobs, and higher prices for consumers. Cronyism also mistreats unsubsidized competitors, who wind up subsidizing their own competition to the detriment of their employees, consumers, and free-market competition.

    Together with tried-and-true conservative leaders like House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (WI), and Tea Party leaders like Sen. Jim DeMint (SC), and Sen. Mike Lee (UT), I am fighting to end this form of cronyism. Conservative groups including Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Tax Reform, Club for Growth, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, Freedom Action, Heritage Action, National Taxpayers Union, and Taxpayers for Common Sense have all rallied to the side of limited government on this issue. They understand that picking winners and losers in the energy marketplace does not create long-term economic growth, and it harms our economic and political systems.

    One example of a tax earmark that should be eliminated is the Production Tax Credit (PTC) that goes to the wind industry. Yet, some Republican and Democrat members of Congress, not surprisingly from “wind states,” are pushing for yet another multi-year extension of the PTC, a multi-billion dollar handout to Big Wind. The PTC manipulates the energy market, drives up electricity bills for consumers and businesses, and creates a dangerous economic bubble. The PTC is a huge subsidy. Applied to oil companies, it would be the equivalent of giving $30 for every barrel of oil produced, according to the Heritage Foundation. The PTC has existed for the past 20 years, but it has not succeeded yet in making unsubsidized wind competitive. Politicians who pretend that a few more years of the PTC will make wind competitive could be right, but that is not a responsible bet to make with taxpayer dollars.

    Supporters of Big Wind, like President Obama, defend these enormous, multi-decade subsidies by saying they are fighting for jobs, but the facts tell a different story. Can you say “stimulus”? The PTC’s logic is almost identical to the President’s failed stimulus spending of $750 billion — redistribute wealth from hard-working taxpayers to politically favored industries and then visit the site and tell the employees that “without me as your elected leader funneling taxpayer dollars to your company, you’d be out of work.” I call this “photo-op economics.” We know better. If the industry is viable, those jobs would likely be there even without the handout. Moreover, what about the jobs lost because everyone else’s taxes went up to pay for the subsidy and to pay for the high utility bills from wind-powered energy? There will be no ribbon-cuttings for those out-of-work families.

    Here’s the data. The “green energy” 1603 grant program has given away $4.3 billion to 36 wind farms just since 2008. All together, these farms now employ 300 people. That’s $14 million per job. This is an unconscionable return on investment, especially for your tax dollars. Given that consumers also pay higher energy prices for electricity generated from wind, one has to wonder why some in Washington continue to push for Big Wind subsidies. Often the answer is that politicians care more about making good political investments than they do about making bad financial investments.

    In this respect, the PTC handout is virtually indistinguishable from the program that led to the Solyndra debacle. The Obama Administration gave 500 million taxpayer dollars to a private solar panel company to prop up a failed business model. As soon as government money ran out, the company folded. Solyndra could not attract sufficient private capital for financing because its solar panels could not compete in the consumer market. So it turned to its lobbyists in Washington and friends in the Obama Administration for its financing. The result was a skewed consumer marketplace and the waste of taxpayer dollars. Like the earmark for the Bridge to Nowhere, political allocation of your taxpayer dollars is failed policy.

    I get the game. Elected officials in Michigan want your money for electric cars. Those from California want your money for solar panels. And those from the Midwest want your money for wind turbines. In a country that has a $15 trillion national debt, annual deficits of over $1 trillion as far as the eye can see, and a $100 trillion unfunded liability in entitlement programs, this must stop.

    I believe that American ingenuity will eventually bring new energy sources to market successfully. It may be wind or algae, it may be biomass or solar. It may be the enormous natural gas and oil reservoirs that can now be reached affordably right here in North America. I also believe that American families making good choices for themselves will lead the way in deciding which new energy source or technology succeeds. Trying to pick that next great source from Washington, D.C. — and with your money — just leads to more cronyism, more debt, more bad decisions, more dependence on the Middle East and a much less limited federal government — outcomes that none of us can afford.

    Congressman Mike Pompeo represents Kansas’ 4th Congressional District.

  • For President Obama, internet is just another job-killer

    John Hinderaker of Powerline Blog seems to understand just where President Barack Obama thoughts come from.

    Hinderaker writes: “This is one more reminder — as if we needed it — that President Obama has no understanding of the economy. He is, at heart, a Luddite. He doesn’t understand that when work is made more efficient, as by the internet, our economy becomes more productive and we are all better off.”

    Luddites were 19th-century English textile artisans who smashed mechanical looms because they felt the machines were destroying jobs. Here’s the full article, including video: Welcome to Texas!

  • Intellectuals against the people and their freedoms

    At a recent educational meeting I attended, someone asked the question: Why doesn’t everyone believe what we (most of the people attending) believe: that private property and free exchange — capitalism, in other words — are superior to government intervention and control over the economy?

    It’s question that I’ve asked at conferences I’ve attended. The most hopeful answer is ignorance. While that may seem a harsh word to use, ignorance is simply a “state of being uninformed.” That can be cured by education. This is the reason for this website. This is the reason why I and others testify in favor of free markets and against government intervention. It is the reason why John Todd gives out hundreds of copies of I, Pencil, purchased at his own expense.

    But there is another explanation, and one that is less hopeful. There is an intellectual class in our society that benefits mightily from government. This class also believes that their cause is moral, that they are anointed, as Thomas Sowell explains in The vision of the anointed: self-congratulation as a basis for social policy: “What all these highly disparate crusades have in common is their moral exaltation of the anointed above others, who are to have their very different views nullified and superseded by the views of the anointed, imposed via the power of government.”

    Murray N. Rothbard explains further the role of the intellectual class in the first chapter of For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, titled “The Libertarian Heritage: The American Revolution and Classical Liberalism.” Since most intellectuals favor government over a market economy and work towards that end, what do the intellectuals get? “In exchange for spreading this message to the public, the new breed of intellectuals was rewarded with jobs and prestige as apologists for the New Order and as planners and regulators of the newly cartelized economy and society.”

    Planners and regulators. We have plenty of these at all levels of government, and these are prime examples of the intellectual class.

    As Rothbard explains, these intellectuals have cleverly altered the very meaning of words to suit their needs:

    One of the ways that the new statist intellectuals did their work was to change the meaning of old labels, and therefore to manipulate in the minds of the public the emotional connotations attached to such labels. For example, the laissez-faire libertarians had long been known as “liberals,” and the purest and most militant of them as “radicals”; they had also been known as “progressives” because they were the ones in tune with industrial progress, the spread of liberty, and the rise in living standards of consumers. The new breed of statist academics and intellectuals appropriated to themselves the words “liberal” and “progressive,” and successfully managed to tar their laissez- faire opponents with the charge of being old-fashioned, “Neanderthal,” and “reactionary.” Even the name “conservative” was pinned on the classical liberals. And, as we have seen, the new statists were able to appropriate the concept of “reason” as well.

    We see this at work in Wichita, where those who advocate for capitalism and free markets instead of government intervention are called CAVE people, an acronym for Citizens Against Virtually Everything. Or, in the case of Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer and Wichita Eagle editorial writer Rhonda Holman, “naysayers.”

    The sad realization is that as government has extended its reach into so many areas of our lives, to advocate for liberty instead of government intervention is to oppose many things that people have accepted as commonplace or inevitable.

    Rothbard further explains the role of intellectuals in promoting what they see as the goodness of expansive government:

    Throughout the ages, the emperor has had a series of pseudo-clothes provided for him by the nation’s intellectual caste. In past centuries, the intellectuals informed the public that the State or its rulers were divine, or at least clothed in divine authority, and therefore what might look to the naive and untutored eye as despotism, mass murder, and theft on a grand scale was only the divine working its benign and mysterious ways in the body politic. In recent decades, as the divine sanction has worn a bit threadbare, the emperor’s “court intellectuals” have spun ever more sophisticated apologia: informing the public that what the government does is for the “common good” and the “public welfare,” that the process of taxation-and-spending works through the mysterious process of the “multiplier” to keep the economy on an even keel, and that, in any case, a wide variety of governmental “services” could not possibly be performed by citizens acting voluntarily on the market or in society. All of this the libertarian denies: he sees the various apologia as fraudulent means of obtaining public support for the State’s rule, and he insists that whatever services the government actually performs could be supplied far more efficiently and far more morally by private and cooperative enterprise.

    The libertarian therefore considers one of his prime educational tasks is to spread the demystification and desanctification of the State among its hapless subjects. His task is to demonstrate repeatedly and in depth that not only the emperor but even the “democratic” State has no clothes; that all governments subsist by exploitive rule over the public; and that such rule is the reverse of objective necessity. He strives to show that the very existence of taxation and the State necessarily sets up a class division between the exploiting rulers and the exploited ruled. He seeks to show that the task of the court intellectuals who have always supported the State has ever been to weave mystification in order to induce the public to accept State rule, and that these intellectuals obtain, in return, a share in the power and pelf extracted by the rulers from their deluded subjects.

    And so the alliance between state and intellectual is formed. The intellectuals are usually rewarded quite handsomely by the state for their subservience, writes Rothbard:

    The alliance is based on a quid pro quo: on the one hand, the intellectuals spread among the masses the idea that the State and its rulers are wise, good, sometimes divine, and at the very least inevitable and better than any conceivable alternatives. In return for this panoply of ideology, the State incorporates the intellectuals as part of the ruling elite, granting them power, status, prestige, and material security. Furthermore, intellectuals are needed to staff the bureaucracy and to “plan” the economy and society.

    The “material security,” measured in dollars, can be pretty good, as shown by these examples: The Wichita city manager is paid $185,000, the Sedgwick county manager is paid $175,095, and the superintendent of the Wichita school district is paid $224,910.

  • Author C. Bradley Thompson to appear in Wichita

    Next week author and scholar C. Bradley Thompson will deliver two public lectures in Wichita.

    On Thursday September 16 Thompson will speak on the topic “Two Americas: The Rise, Fall, and Rebirth of Freedom.” This lecture is sponsored by the Bill of Rights Institute and underwritten by the Fred C. and Mary R. Koch Foundation. The event begins at 5:30 pm with a complimentary reception followed by the program at 6:15 pm. Seating is limited and reservations are required no later than Friday, September 10th by phoning 316-828-5624. This event will be at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in downtown Wichita.

    “We are delighted to have one of the nation’s foremost experts on the Constitution speaking on such an important topic at our third annual public forum in Wichita,” said Dr. Jason Ross, vice president of education programs at the Bill of Rights Institute. “Constitution Day gives us the opportunity to reflect on the blessings of liberty Americans have enjoyed, and on the challenge of preserving these liberties for our children. I know Dr. Thompson’s remarks will help Wichita citizens understand and appreciate the importance of our Constitution at this pivotal time in our nation’s history.”

    “This public lecture offers a rare opportunity to interact with such an engaging and acclaimed scholar,” said Susan Addington, grants manager for the Fred C. and Mary R. Koch Foundation. “Dr. Thompson’s knowledge of history and deep understanding of our nation’s Constitution will make this an inspiring presentation.”

    In addition to the public lecture, Dr. Thompson will offer a day-long Constitutional Seminar for Wichita-area social studies teachers of grades 8-12 titled, “Liberty and the Founders: In Their Own Words,” also sponsored by the Bill of Rights Institute and funded by the Fred C. and Mary R. Koch Foundation. Teachers will participate in discussions led by Dr. Thompson and three teaching strategies sessions conducted by Bill of Rights Institute Master Teacher, Gennie Westbrook.

    On Wednesday September 15, Thompson will speak at the CAC Theater on the Wichita State University Campus on Wednesday, September 15, 2010, with this schedule:
    6:00 pm Doors open for meet and greet
    7:00 pm Lecture
    7:45 pm to 9:00 pm Questions and Answers

    The event is free for WSU students and all school age children. A donation of $10 is requested but not required of all adults to help cover the expenses.

    C. Bradley Thompson is the BB&T Research Professor at Clemson University and the Executive Director of the Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism. He has also been a visiting fellow at Princeton and Harvard universities and at the University of London.

    Professor Thompson is the author of the prize-winning book John Adams and the Spirit of Liberty. He has also edited The Revolutionary Writings of John Adams, Antislavery Political Writings, 1833-1860: A Reader and was an associate editor of the four-volume Encyclopedia of the Enlightenment. His current book project is on “The Ideological Origins of American Constitutionalism.”

  • Capitalism means freedom

    In recent years, the ideas and principles of capitalism have taken a beating. The election of President Barack Obama in 2008 was a blow to the freedom that capitalism is built on, although President George W. Bush had done a fair job trampling on the principles of capitalism.

    Locally, it was a bad year for capitalism and economic freedom in the Kansas Legislature. The Wichita Eagle editorial board seems to have the disparagement of capitalism as its primary goal, as it promotes government action at the expense of economic freedom and individual liberty at every opportunity.

    What is capitalism? Milton Friedman, in introducing his book Capitalism and Freedom, wrote this as a way of defining capitalism: “… competitive capitalism — the organization of the bulk of economic activity through private enterprise operating in a free market — as a system of economic freedom and a necessary condition for political freedom.”

    Some writers allow government no role at all in the economy, unlike Friedman’s small-state capitalism.

    The economist George Reisman writes this in his monumental book Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics:

    Capitalism is a social system based on private ownership of the means of production. It is characterized by the pursuit of material self-interest under freedom and it rests on a foundation of the cultural influence of reason. Based on its foundations and essential nature, capitalism is further characterized by saving and capital accumulation, exchange and money, financial self-interest and the profit motive, the freedoms of economic competition and economic inequality, the price system, economic progress, and a harmony of the material self-interests of all the individuals who participate in it.

    Reisman’s lecture Some Fundamental Insights Into the Benevolent Nature of Capitalism is a useful look at the principles and benefits of capitalism.

    First, capitalism and freedom are intertwined, as Friedman wrote too. Reisman writes “Individual freedom — an essential feature of capitalism — is the foundation of security. He expands on the meaning of freedom, writing “Freedom means the absence of the initiation of physical force.” This is the libertarian belief in the nonagression axiom, as asserted by Murray N. Rothbard: “The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else.”

    Being free from aggression means being free from the common criminal, but also, as Reisman explains, free from government aggression: “Even more important, of course, is that when one is free, one is free from the initiation of physical force on the part of the government, which is potentially far more deadly than that of any private criminal gang.”

    It is the recognition of government as aggressor that (partially) separates libertarian belief from conservative. As the libertarian John Stossel explained: “Increasingly, it seems that the biggest difference between conservatives and liberals is that the conservatives know government is force. But that doesn’t stop them from using it.”

    This is just the first insight into capitalism in Reisman’s lecture.

  • Stealing Capitalism: The Crime of the Century

    By Jill S. Sprik

    It’s been 105 years since a clandestine plot was hatched to purloin America’s capitalist system and replace it with socialism. Most of us were unaware of what was taking place right under our naïve noses, but recent events have now made it clear. Here’s how it happened:

    Continue reading at Stealing Capitalism: The Crime of the Century.

  • Burton Folsom, writer on capitalism, to speak in Wichita

    Here’s a message from AFP-Kansas and the Flint Hills Center for Public Policy.

    Please join Americans for Prosperity-Kansas and the Flint Hills Center for Public Policy for a policy luncheon in Wichita next week, featuring noted author Burton Folsom

    Thursday, March 26, 12 p.m.
    Wichita Country Club, 8501 East 13th Street

    The luncheon costs $25 per person, or $185 per table of eight.

    Contact the Flint Hills Center at 316-634-0218, or by visiting www.flinthills.org, to make a reservation by Tuesday, March 24.

    Folsom has written several books, including most recently New Deal or Raw Deal? FDR’s Economic Legacy for America (Thresshold Editions, 2008), and The Myth of the Robber Barons: The Rise of Big Business in America. He is a senior fellow with the Mackinac Center for Public Policy as well as the Foundation for Economic Education.

  • I, Pencil turns 50!

    The Foundation for Economic Education has a new version of I, Pencil to celebrate its 50th anniversary. Click here to view the announcement and read this short book.

    I’ve written about I, Pencil in the past.

    I, Pencil is one of the most important and influential writings that explain the necessity for limited government. A simple object that we may not give much thought to, the story of the pencil illustrates the importance of markets and the impossibility of centralized economic planning.

    The size and scope of government, both at the national and local level, has been growing. Now our country is entering a period where the possibility of even larger and more intrusive government, growing faster than it has been, is very real. Those who love liberty must keep principles like those illuminated in I, Pencil at the forefront of debate.

  • Everything you love you owe to capitalism

    This is an excellent article by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. An excerpt:

    I’m convinced that Mises was right: the most important step economists or economic institutions can take is in the direction of public education in economic logic.

    There is another important factor here. The state thrives on an economically ignorant public. This is the only way it can get away with blaming inflation or recession on consumers, or claiming that the government’s fiscal problems are due to our paying too little in taxes. It is economic ignorance that permits the regulatory agencies to claim that they are protecting us as versus denying us choice. It is only by keeping us all in the dark that it can continue to start war after war — violating rights abroad and smashing liberties at home — in the name of spreading freedom.

    There is only one force that can put an end to the successes of the state, and that is an economically and morally informed public. Otherwise, the state can continue to spread its malicious and destructive policies.

    The full article is here: Everything You Love You Owe to Capitalism.