Voice For Liberty

Tag: Role of government

  • Walter Williams: Government must stick to its limited and legitimate role

    Walter E.
    Williams

    At two events in Wichita today, economist Walter E. Williams spoke on the legitimate role of government in a free society, touching on the role of government as defined in the Constitution, the benefits of capitalism and private property, and the recent attacks on individual freedom and limited government.

    The evening lecture was held in the Mary Jane Teall Theater at Century II, and all but a handful of its 652 seats were occupied. It was presented by the Bill of Rights Institute and underwritten by the Fred and Mary Koch Foundation.

    Williams said that one of the justifications for the growth of government — far beyond the visions of the founders of America — is to promote fairness and justice. While these are worthy goals, Williams said we must ask what is the meaning of fairness and justice, referring to the legitimate role of government in a free society.

    In the Constitution, Williams said the founders specified the role of the federal government in Article 1 Section 8. This section holds a list that enumerates what Congress is authorized to do. If something is not on the list, Williams said Congress is not authorized to do it.

    The Article 8 powers that Williams mentioned are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; to borrow money on the credit of the United States; to coin money; to establish post-offices and post-roads; and to raise and support armies. It is regarding these powers, plus a few others, that Congress has taxing and spending authority. “Nowhere in the United States Constitution to we find authority for Congress to tax and spend for up to two-thirds to three-quarters of what Congress taxes and spends for today.”

    Farm subsidies, handouts to banks, and food stamps are examples Williams gave of programs that are not authorized by the Constitution. “I think that we can safely say that we’ve made a significant departure from the constitutional principles of individual freedom and limited government that made us a rich nation in the first place.”

    The institutions of private property and free enterprise are the embodiment of these principles, Williams said. But there have been many successful attacks on private property and free enterprise. Thomas Jefferson, Williams said, anticipated this when he wrote “The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground, and for liberty to yield.”

    Taxation and spending are the ways government has gained ground. Taxes represent government claims on private property.

    But an even better measure of what government has done is to look at spending. From 1787 to 1920, federal spending was only three percent of gross domestic product, except during wartime. Today, that figure is approaching 30 percent, Williams said: “The significance is that as time goes by, you and I own less and less of our most valuable property, namely ourselves and the fruits of our labor.”

    In the realm of economics, Williams said that the founders thought that free markets and capitalism was the most effective social organization for promoting freedom, with capitalism defined as a system where people are free to pursue their own objectives as long as they do not violate the property rights of others. An often-trivialized benefit of capitalism and voluntary exchange is that it minimizes the capacity of one person to coerce another, he told the audience. This applies to the government, too.

    But for the last half-century, Williams said that free enterprise has been under unrelenting attack by the American people. Whether they realize it or not, people have demonstrated a “deep and abiding contempt” for private property rights and individual liberty.

    Williams said that ironically, capitalism is threatened not because of its failure, but because of its success. Capitalism has eliminated things that plagued mankind since the beginning of time — he mentioned disease, gross hunger, and poverty — and been so successful that “all other human wants appear to us to be at once inexcusable and unbearable.”

    So now, in the name of ideals other than freedom and liberty, we pursue things like equality of income, race and sex balance, affordable housing, and medical care. “As a result of widespread control by our government in order to achieve these higher objectives, we are increasingly being subordinated to the point where personal liberty in our country is treated like dirt.”

    This ultimately leads to tyranny and totalitarianism, he said. To those who might object to this strong and blunt conclusion, Williams asked this question: “Which way are we headed, tiny steps at a time: towards more liberty, or towards more government control of our lives?” He said that the answer, unambiguously, is the latter.

    It is the tiny steps that concern Williams, as they ultimately lead to their destination. Quoting Hume, he said “It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.” Instead, Williams said it is always lost bit by bit. If anyone wanted to take away all our liberties all at once, we would rebel. But not so when liberties are taken bit by bit, which is what is currently happening.

    It is people’s desire for government to do good — helping the disadvantaged, elderly, failing businesses, college students — that leads to the attack on private property and economic freedom. But Williams explained that government has no resources of its own, meaning that for government to give one person money it must first — “through intimidation, threats, and coercion” — confiscate it from someone else.

    Williams told the audience that if a private person used coercion to take money from someone and give it to another person, that would universally be considered theft and a crime. It doesn’t matter how needy or deserving the recipient, it would still be theft. But Williams asked if there is any conceptual difference between that act and when agents of the government do the same. Williams says no, except that in the second act, where Congress takes the money, the theft is legal.

    But mere legality doesn’t not make something moral. Slavery was legal in America for many years, but not moral. The purges of Stalin and Mao were legal under the laws of those countries. So legality does not equate to morality, Williams explained, and he said he cannot find a moral case for taking what belongs to one person and giving it to another to whom it does not belong.

    Charity is “praiseworthy and laudable” when it is voluntary, but it is worthy of condemnation when government reaches into others’ pockets for charity. Those who accept the forced takings are guilty, too, he explained.

    “The essence of our relationship with government is coercion,” Williams told the audience. This, he said, represents our major problem as a nation today: We’ve come to accept the idea of government taking from one to give to another. But the blame, Williams said, does not belong with politicians — “at least not very much.” Instead, he said that the blame lies with us, the people who elect them to office in order to get things for us. A candidate who said he would do only the things that the Constitution authorizes would not have much of a chance at being elected.

    The further problem is that if Kansans don’t elect officials who will bring federal dollars to Kansas, it doesn’t mean that Kansans will pay lower federal taxes. The money, taken from Kansans, will go to other states, leading to this conundrum: “That is, once legalized theft begins, it pays for everybody to participate.”

    We face a moral dilemma, then. Williams listed several great empires that declined for doing precisely what we’re doing: “Bread and circuses,” or big government spending.

    But there is a note — only one — of optimism, Williams believes. The first two years of the Obama administration, along with the Democratic Senate and House of Representatives, has been so brazen in their activities in “running roughshod over our liberties” that people are starting to argue and debate the Constitution. State attorneys general are bringing suits against the federal government over Obama’s health care plan. State legislatures are passing tenth amendment resolutions. The tea party and other grassroots movements give him optimism, too.

    We must also ask ourselves if we are willing to give up the benefits we get from government, he said. But most people want cuts in spending on other people, not ourselves, as “ours is critical and vital to the national interest.” With all of us feeling this way, Williams said the country is in danger.

    Young people have the greatest stake in the struggle for limited government and economic freedom, as the older generations have benefited from a relatively free country and the economic mobility that accompanied it. He said he’s afraid we’re losing that: “I’m hoping that future generations will not curse us for bequeathing to them a nation far less robust, far less free, than the nation that our parents and our ancestors bequeathed us.”

    In answering a question from the audience, Williams said he would be afraid of a constitutional convention to be held today, as some are advocating. We wouldn’t be sending people like John Adams. Instead, he said we’d be sending people like Barney Frank and others who have “deep contempt” for personal freedom.

    In response to a question on regulation, Williams said that regulations like health care and uncertainty over taxation cause businesses to be afraid to commit money to long term investments. Uncertainty “collapses the time horizon” causing firms to look for investments that pay off in the short term rather than the long term. This contributes to unemployment, he said.

    Williams also talked about the economic history of America. From its beginning to 1930, there were recessions and depressions, but there were not calls for the federal government to intervene and stimulate the economy. It wasn’t until the Hoover administration and the New Deal that the federal government intervened in the economy in order to “fix” the economy. Williams said that what should have been a “sharp two or three-year downtown” was turned in to the Great Depression — which was not over until after World War II — by government intervention. The measures being taken today are similarly postponing the recovery, he said. He added that most serious economic downturns are caused by government. It’s also futile for the government to spend the country out of a recession, which he likened to taking water from the deep end of a pool to the shallow end in order to raise the level of the shallow end. Government taking money from one person, giving it to another, and expecting the economy to rise is similarly futile.

    A question about mainstream media and their representation of the issues of today brought this response: “You have to make the assumption, I believe implied in your question, that those people are ignorant, and if only they knew better, they would change their behavior. Human ignorance is somewhat optimistic, because ignorance is curable through education. I’m very sure that many of these people want government control. The elite have always wanted government control, and the media was very responsible in getting President Obama elected.”

    In an interview, I asked what President Obama should say in his jobs speech tonight. Williams recommended the president should reduce regulation and lower taxes, especially capital gains and corporate income taxes. The spending programs of the past will not help. But Obama’s constituency will not favor this approach. The spending on roads and bridges benefits labor unions, for example.

    On those who accept who accept and benefit from government spending, Williams said that “one of the tragedies of our nation” is that the growth of government has turned otherwise decent people into thieves, because they participate in the taking of what belongs to someone else. But because of the pervasiveness of government, sometimes this is unavoidable.

    I asked do we need better politicians — ones who will work to limit government — or do we need different rules such as a balanced budget amendment or spending constraints? Williams said that the bulk of the blame lies with the people, as politicians are simply doing what voters ask them to do. “The struggle is to try to convince our fellow Americans on the moral superiority of liberty and its main ingredient, limited government.” Politicians will then follow, he added.

    I asked if we’ve passed some sort of tipping point, where people look first to government rather than voluntary exchange through markets. He said perhaps so, and mentioned another problem: Close to 50 percent of Americans pay no federal income tax. These people become natural constituents for big-spending politicians. As they pay no taxes — “no stake in the game” — they don’t care if taxes are raised or lowered.

    On the issue of the subsidy being poured into downtown Wichita, Williams said the issue is an example of the “seen and unseen” problem identified by Frederic Bastiat. We easily see the things that government taxation and intervention builds, such as a convention center. But what is not easily seen is what people would have done with the money that was taken from them through taxation. While the money taken from each person may be small, it adds up.

    On government funding for arts, an issue in Kansas at this time, Williams said that it ought to be an insult to artists that their work has to be funded through government forcing people to pay, as opposed to voluntary payments.

    Born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Dr. Walter E. Williams holds a B.A. in economics from California State University, Los Angeles, and M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in economics from UCLA. He has served on the faculty of George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics, since 1980. His website is Walter Williams Home Page.

  • Sedgwick County considers a federal grant

    Remarks delivered to the Sedgwick County Commission as it considered accepting a federal grant. The terms of this grant required that the commission hold a public hearing.

    Commissioners: With regard to the wisdom of accepting this grant.

    Milton Friedman said: “Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.”

    Is this true? Or is it just rhetoric and speculation by the brilliant and freedom-loving economist?

    If we ask the question: Do federal grants cause state and/or local tax increases in the future after the government grant ends? We now have an answer.

    Economists Russell S. Sobel and George R. Crowley have examined the evidence, and they find the answer is yes.

    Their research paper is titled Do Intergovernmental Grants Create Ratchets in State and Local Taxes? Testing the Friedman-Sanford Hypothesis.

    The difference between this research and most is that Sobel and Crowley look at the impact of federal grants on state and local tax policy in future periods, not just the present period.

    This is important because, in their words, “Federal grants often result in states creating new programs and hiring new employees, and when the federal funding for that specific purpose is discontinued, these new state programs must either be discontinued or financed through increases in state own source taxes.”

    The same remarks apply to local governments like counties and cities.

    The authors caution: “Far from always being an unintended consequence, some federal grants are made with the intention that states will pick up funding the program in the future.”

    I realize that much of what is planned for the grant funds is one-time purchases of equipment. But one planned use is to hire a toxicologist to support what is described in the application as “timely investigation of criminal activity.” What will happen after the grant funds expire? Will we be unwilling to go back to the untimely investigation of criminal activity, if in fact that describes the present situation?

    And if that does not describe the present situation, why do we need the grant?

    From the conclusion to the research findings:

    Our results clearly demonstrate that grant funding to state and local governments results in higher own source revenue and taxes in the future to support the programs initiated with the federal grant monies. Our results are consistent with Friedman’s quote regarding the permanence of temporary government programs started through grant funding.

    …

    Our results suggest that the recent large increase in federal grants to state and local governments that has occurred as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) will have significant future tax implications at the state and local level as these governments raise revenue to continue these newly funded programs into the future.

    …

    Based on our estimates, future state taxes will rise by between 33 and 42 cents for every dollar in federal grants states received today, while local revenues will rise by between 23 and 46 cents for every dollar in federal (or state) grants received today.

    I realize that some have criticized arguments that I and others have made as being only theoretical, and that as commissioners you must deal with the real world.

    But what I have presented today is not just a quaint theory. It is empirical research. It’s what has actually happened. It describes the real world.

    Not only are we taxed to pay for the cost of funding federal and state grants, the units of government that receive grants are very likely to raise their own levels of taxation in response to the receipt of the grants. This is a cycle of ever-expanding government that needs to end, and right now.

    Gentlemen, we can do better. While most people think the problem of government over-spending requires a top-down solution starting in Washington, we have to do better than waiting for Washington to act.

    Right here, right now, in Sedgwick County, home to what the Weather Channel calls the fourth-hottest city in the country, we can show the rest of the country the way. We can show the country that there is a bottom-up solution to the problem of federal spending.

  • The promises politicians make

    Recently John Stossel produced a television show titled Politicians’ Top 10 Promises Gone Wrong. The show features segments on government programs and why they’ve gone wrong, with a focus on the unintended consequences of the programs. Particularly illuminating are the attempts by programs’ supporters to justify their worth.

    Now the program is available to view on the free hulu service by clicking on Politicians’ Top 10 Promises Gone Wrong.

    One of the segments on the show explained the harm of Cash for Clunkers, in which serviceable cars were destroyed so that new cars could be sold. The program simply stole sales from the months before and after the program. The mistaken idea that destruction can be a way to create new wealth is held by many who should know better, and Stossel reminds us of the New York Times’ Paul Krugman, who wrote that the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 “could even do some economic good” as rebuilding will increase business spending. It’s the seen vs. unseen problem, Stossel and David Boaz of the Cato Institute explain. It’s easy to see people buying new cars. It was reported on television. But it’s more difficult to see all the dispersed economic activity that didn’t take place because of the programs.

    “Living wage” laws, in which people would be paid enough to live on — whatever that means — is next. While increasing wages of low-paid workers is a noble goal, increasing the cost of labor results in an entirely predictable result: less labor is demanded. Fewer people will have jobs. The Grand Canyon National Park, for example, switched to automated ticket machines. Christian Dorsey of the Economic Policy Institute, said that elimination of minimum wage laws would leave employers free to drive down wages as low as possible. But Stossel noted businesses hire employees in a competitive market, and it is that market that sets wages. Only about five percent of workers earn the minimum wage. Why do the others earn more than that? Competitive markets force employers to pay more, not laws.

    A segment on “fancy stadiums” boosting the economy holds a lesson for Wichita and the Intrust Bank Arena in its downtown. The claimed benefits of these venues rarely appear, and the unseen costs are large — “at the local bar there’s one less bartender, there was one less waitress hired at a restaurant, a movie theater that had one less theaterfull. It’s handing money from your right hand to your left and declaring I’m rich.” While Wichita’s arena seems to be doing well, it’s still well within its honeymoon period. Even then, there was a month where no events took place at the arena.

    A segment on the new credit card regulations, intended to protect consumers, shows that the regulations resulted in fewer people being able to get credit cards. Now these people have to go to payday lenders or pawn shops, which are much more expensive than credit cards. Arkansas once capped credit card interest at ten percent. The result was that few people in Arkansas could get a credit card, and the state became known as the pawn shop capital of America.

    Ethanol is the topic of a segment. Promised as a way to solve our energy problem, many politicians of both parties support ethanol. But we’ve come to realize the problems with government support of ethanol: rising price of food, excessive use of fertilizer and fuel to produce corn, and an awareness that ethanol is more harmful to the environment than gasoline. “But it makes us feel good,” Stossel says. In Kansas, Governor Sam Brownback is firmly in favor of government support of ethanol, which Boaz called “pound-for-pound, the dumbest program ever.”

    On the role of government in causing the housing bubble, Howard Husock said “Government exaggerates, rather than minimizes, the age-old impulse to greed. The government made it harder for bankers who wanted to do the right thing.” Stossel explained that bankers who wanted to stay with safe home loans lost out on profits they could earn selling high risk loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored agencies.

    At the end, Stossel said: “And that’s the number one promise gone wrong. These guys say they’ll be fiscally responsible. And then we elect them, and they spend more. They’re spending us into bankruptcy. There must be 10,000 harmful programs, and yet they keep creating more. Why can’t we cut them?” Boaz explained: “Every one of those 10,000 programs has a lobbyist in Washington. … They always know when the bill is up before Congress, and they send political contributions, they send people to Washington to lobby. The rest of us don’t do that. … People should be more engaged, people should be better citizens. But the fact is we have lives, and there’s no way that any normal person can know about the 10,000 programs that make up the $3.5 trillion federal budget.”

    And so the programs keep growing, Stossel said, and we must pay their costs and unintended consequences forever — “Unless, there’s a new wind blowing in America. A new attitude, a new expectation that maybe Washington should do less. I hear there is. I sure hope so.”

  • Kansas and Wichita quick takes: Monday April 11, 2011

    Social security entitlement. In today’s Wichita Eagle Opinion Line, this comment was left: “Please stop calling my Social Security an ‘entitlement.’ I paid into it all my working life, and I just want my money back.” Two points: The writer seems to believe that just because people pay into Social Security, they’re entitled to benefits as through there was a contract in place. But there is no contract. Social Security benefits are what Congress says they are, and Congress can make changes at any time. … Second, the writer wants his money back, as though the money was paid onto some sort of investment account and has been working there earning interest. Unfortunately, the Social Security trust fund money has been spent. There’s nothing for the writer to get back except the future taxes to be paid by future workers.

    New York Times may be offended. “The New York Times is carrying out a vendetta against Charles and David Koch, two of the very few rich people who support conservative and libertarian causes. The Times is offended, apparently, that the Left does not quite have a monopoly on big money. The paper’s editorialists flat-out lied about the Koch brothers, and had to issue a retraction.” … Referring to author David Callahan and a recent op-ed: “What is most striking about Callahan’s piece is its rampant hypocrisy. He himself is an employee of a left-wing organization that prefers not to abide by the transparency standards that Callahan advocates.” From Powerline: The Times Vendetta Continues.

    Kansas Legislature website. Kansas Reporter writes: “Most hurdles now behind legislative website update.” The major problems I experience now are reliability issues, where many times clicking on a document produces the dreaded “Error 500 Internal Server Error” message. … The cost of the work, plus a new system for preparing legislative text, is some $11 million.

    General Electric tax bill. The Washington Post looks at the New York Times and its reporting on General Electric and its taxes: “Unfortunately, for all its good work, the article has created at least one major misperception: that GE paid no U.S. income taxes last year and is getting a $3.2 billion refund from the Treasury. … The company says it’s not getting any refund for 2010 — validating [accounting professor Ed] Outslay’s analysis. Its 2010 tax situation? ‘We expect to have a small U.S. income tax liability for 2010,’ said Gary Sheffer, GE’s chief spokesman. How big is small? GE declined to say. The number is unlikely to be disclosed unless GE goes public with it or is forced to do so. One reason the Times was ensnared — and that it took us a while to sort this out — is that the material is confusing. Outslay drew up 10 GE tax metrics for us and could have given us at least six more. None shows what GE’s U.S. income tax bill is for a given year.”

    Sweet deal for big sugar. Senator Dick Lugar, writing in the Washington Times, explains the harm to U.S. consumers from a tariff that benefits a few: “The collapse of communism brought an end to many of the world’s command-and-control economic systems and central planning by government bureaucrats. But a notable exception is the United States government’s sugar program. A complicated system of marketing allotments, price supports, purchase guarantees, quotas and tariffs that only a Soviet apparatchik could love, the U.S. sugar program has actually lasted longer than the Soviet Union itself.” The idea is that by keeping prices high and insulating domestic sugar produces from the world market, jobs are saved. Counters Lugar: “But in 2006, the Commerce Department calculated that for every sugar-growing job saved by artificially high prices, three manufacturing jobs in the confectionery industry are lost. Overall, from 1997 to 2009, more than 111,000 jobs were lost in the sugar-using food sector, according to Commerce data.” This is always the case with protectionist trade tariffs: a small number of highly-visible jobs are saved, at the cost of great economic harm spread across the economy, harm that is difficult to see. Sugar protectionism is only one such example. President Bush’s tax hike and Obama’s tax increase on tires are other examples.

    Williams on role of government. A short lecture by Walter E. WIlliams. “Almost every group in our country has come to feel that the government owes them a special privilege or favor.” Conservatives too, he says. Williams highlights the contradictions of conservatives, who “don’t have a moral leg to stand on,” he says. “They merely prove that it’s a matter of whose ox is being gored.” He quotes H.L. Mencken: “Government is a broker in pillage” and “Every election is an advance auction on the sale of stolen property.” Williams says not to blame the elected officials we send to Washington and local centers of government. They, he says, are doing precisely what we send them there to do: “Namely, to use the power of their office to confiscate the property of one American and bring it back to another American to whom it does not belong.” Politician who say they would not do this — of course, they do not speak so bluntly on the campaign trail — would not be elected.

  • Classical liberalism explained

    In a short video, Nigel Ashford of Institute for Humane Studies explains the tenets of classical liberalism. Not to be confused with modern American liberalism or liberal Republicans, classical liberalism places highest value on liberty and the individual. Modern American liberals, or progressives as they often prefer to be called, may value some of these principles, but most, such as free markets and limited government — and I would add individualism and toleration — are held in disdain by them.

    Here are the principles that Ashford identifies:

    Liberty is the primary political value. “When deciding what to do politically — what should the government do — classical liberals have one clear standard: Does this increase, or does it reduce the freedom of the individual?”

    Individualism. “The individual is more important than the collective.”

    Skepticism about power. “Government, for example, often claims ‘we’re forcing you to do X because it’s in your own interests to do so.’ Whereas very often, when people with power do that, it’s really because it’s good for themselves. Classical liberals believe that the individual is the best judge of their own interests.”

    Rule of law.

    Civil society. Classical liberals believe that problems can be dealt with best by voluntary associations and action.

    Spontaneous order. “Many people seem to assume that order requires some institution, some body, to manipulate and organize things. Classical liberals don’t believe that. They believe that order can arise spontaneously. People through their voluntary interaction create the rules by which people can live by.”

    Free markets. “Economic exchange should be left to voluntary activity between individuals. … We need private property to be able to do that. … History show us that leaving things to free markets rather than government planning or organization, increases prosperity, reduces poverty, increases jobs, and provides good that people want to buy.”

    Toleration. “Toleration is the belief that one should not interfere with things on which one disapproves. … It’s a question of having certain moral principles (“I think this action is wrong”), but I will not try and force my opinions — for example through government — to stop the things I disapprove of.”

    Peace. Through free movement of capital, labor, goods, services, and ideas, we can have a world based on peace rather than conflict and war.

    Limited government. “There are very few things the government should do. The goal of government is simply to protect life, liberty, and property. Anything beyond that is not justifiable.”

    This video is available on YouTube through LearnLiberty.org, a site which has many other informative videos.

  • In Wichita, start of a solution to federal spending

    At the Sedgwick County Commission, newly-elected commissioner Richard Ranzau voted three times against the county applying for grants of federal funds, showing a possible way that federal spending might be brought under control.

    During the meeting, Ranzau asked staff questions about where the funding for the grant programs was coming from, which, of course, is the federal government, sometimes routed through the Kansas Department of Commerce. Sometimes local spending is required by these grants.

    In opposing the programs, Ranzau said that federal government spending is too high. Also, our level of debt is too high, and that the cost of these spending programs is passed on to future generations. He also didn’t see where the U.S. Constitution authorizes activity like the commission — in partnership with the federal government — is considering undertaking.

    Ranzau offered an alternative: if the commission believes these projects are important to us as a community, we could pay for them ourselves and pay for them now.

    Commissioner Jim Skelton argued that if we don’t apply for and receive this money, the federal government will spend it anyway, and someone else will receive it. “I think we can end up screwing our constituency by opposing this on the philosophy that our government is too big.”

    He said he doesn’t agree with the “rampant spending of stimulus money” and would like to see it end, but he didn’t see how refusing this money would make a difference.

    Constitutional basis questioned

    During discussion, Skelton asked county counselor Richard Euson a question: “Can you tell me about the constitutionality of this issue? How on earth can this happen if it’s not constitutional?”

    Euson was flummoxed by the question, and admitted that he was not prepared to answer the question. This is not to be held against the county’s attorney, as questions like this are rarely asked — an indication of the novelty of Ranzau’s position and how infrequently elected officials and staff consider questions such as the fundamental role of government and its level of involvement.

    The job of a commissioner, according to Norton

    In discussion about one grant program, Commissioner Tim Norton asked a question designed to make sure that Ranzau knew that the project was located in his district. On a grant for a transportation plan, Norton again asked a question designed to make sure that Ranzau knew whose district this plan would serve, referring to former commissioner Kelly Parks’ support of the program.

    These questions by Norton highlight the problem with district-based representation, where representatives of districts are expected to bring as much government largess as possible back to their districts. At the federal level this problem is illustrated by the earmarking process. Locally, we see that Sedgwick County Commissioners are assumed to be in favor of any project that benefits their districts, regardless of the overall worth of the project or its cost.

    A bottom-up solution to federal spending?

    At a town hall meeting on Saturday, I asked Kansas fourth district Congressman Mike Pompeo, who represents all of Sedgwick County, about his opinion of ground-up opposition to federal spending and debt, rather than waiting for Congress and the President to solve the problem from the top down.

    Pompeo didn’t answer the question directly, but said that from now on, each law passed by Congress will have a section that states the constitutional authority for the legislation. He also said that the federal government is involved in many areas that it should not be involved in, adding “So many times the question is ‘should we reduce this agency’s budget by three percent,’ and the proper question is ‘why does this agency exist?’”

    While the new U.S. House of Representatives is full of enthusiasm for cutting spending, here we see an example of just how difficult cutting spending will be. Local governments are addicted to grants like the three discussed above. A congressman who voted to cut programs like these will hear from the affected constituents, and would also likely hear from the Sedgwick County staff who are advocates for these projects and spending. If more elected officials would vote against these programs, that would make it easier for Congress to cut off the flow of spending.

    We should also remember that Ranzau offered an alternative: fund the programs ourselves. The problem is that we are funding them ourselves, through the roundabout trip of tax dollars going to Washington, which then sends them back, in this case in the form of grants with many conditions and restrictions on the way the money can be spent. So Skelton is correct: the federal government will spend the money anyway. But to go along means that the hole is dug deeper. More crudely, the federal government says: implement this program in our way, because you’ve already paid for it, and you don’t want to piss away your taxes somewhere else.

    Perhaps a coalition of forward-thinking local government officeholders like Ranzau and U.S. Congressmen like Pompeo can join together to bring the spending under control. It will take courage, especially from the local officeholders.

  • Stossel on politicians’ promises

    Recently John Stossel produced a television show titled Politicians’ Top 10 Promises Gone Wrong. The show features segments on government programs and why they’ve gone wrong, with a focus on the unintended consequences of the programs. Particularly illuminating are the attempts by programs’ supporters to justify their worth.

    Now the program is available to view on the free hulu service by clicking on Politicians’ Top 10 Promises Gone Wrong.

    One of the segments on the show explained the harm of Cash for Clunkers, in which serviceable cars were destroyed so that new cars could be sold. The program simply stole sales from the months before and after the program. The mistaken idea that destruction can be a way to create new wealth is held by many who should know better, and Stossel reminds us of the New York Times’ Paul Krugman, who wrote that the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 “could even do some economic good” as rebuilding will increase business spending. It’s the seen vs. unseen problem, Stossel and David Boaz of the Cato Institute explain. It’s easy to see people buying new cars. It was reported on television. But it’s more difficult to see all the dispersed economic activity that didn’t take place because of the programs.

    “Living wage” laws, in which people would be paid enough to live on — whatever that means — is next. While increasing wages of low-paid workers is a noble goal, increasing the cost of labor results in an entirely predictable result: less labor is demanded. Fewer people will have jobs. The Grand Canyon National Park, for example, switched to automated ticket machines. Christian Dorsey of the Economic Policy Institute, said that elimination of minimum wage laws would leave employers free to drive down wages as low as possible. But Stossel noted businesses hire employees in a competitive market, and it is that market that sets wages. Only about five percent of workers earn the minimum wage. Why do the others earn more than that? Competitive markets force employers to pay more, not laws.

    A segment on “fancy stadiums” boosting the economy holds a lesson for Wichita and the Intrust Bank Arena in its downtown. The claimed benefits of these venues rarely appear, and the unseen costs are large — “at the local bar there’s one less bartender, there was one less waitress hired at a restaurant, a movie theater that had one less theaterfull. It’s handing money from your right hand to your left and declaring I’m rich.” While Wichita’s arena seems to be doing well, it’s still well within its honeymoon period. Even then, there was a month where no events took place at the arena.

    A segment on the new credit card regulations, intended to protect consumers, shows that the regulations resulted in fewer people being able to get credit cards. Now these people have to go to payday lenders or pawn shops, which are much more expensive than credit cards. Arkansas once capped credit card interest at ten percent. The result was that few people in Arkansas could get a credit card, and the state became known as the pawn shop capital of America.

    Ethanol is the topic of a segment. Promised as a way to solve our energy problem, many politicians of both parties support ethanol. But we’ve come to realize the problems with government support of ethanol: rising price of food, excessive use of fertilizer and fuel to produce corn, and an awareness that ethanol is more harmful to the environment than gasoline. “But it makes us feel good,” Stossel says. In Kansas, Governor Sam Brownback is firmly in favor of government support of ethanol, which Boaz called “pound-for-pound, the dumbest program ever.”

    On the role of government in causing the housing bubble, Howard Husock said “Government exaggerates, rather than minimizes, the age-old impulse to greed. The government made it harder for bankers who wanted to do the right thing.” Stossel explained that bankers who wanted to stay with safe home loans lost out on profits they could earn selling high risk loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored agencies.

    At the end, Stossel said: “And that’s the number one promise gone wrong. These guys say they’ll be fiscally responsible. And then we elect them, and they spend more. They’re spending us into bankruptcy. There must be 10,000 harmful programs, and yet they keep creating more. Why can’t we cut them?” Boaz explained: “Every one of those 10,000 programs has a lobbyist in Washington. … They always know when the bill is up before Congress, and they send political contributions, they send people to Washington to lobby. The rest of us don’t do that. … People should be more engaged, people should be better citizens. But the fact is we have lives, and there’s no way that any normal person can know about the 10,000 programs that make up the $3.5 trillion federal budget.”

    And so the programs keep growing, Stossel said, and we must pay their costs and unintended consequences forever — “Unless, there’s a new wind blowing in America. A new attitude, a new expectation that maybe Washington should do less. I hear there is. I sure hope so.”

  • Prices mean something, even life and death

    In the five years since Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans, some $15 billion has been spent rebuilding and strengthening that city’s flood defenses. The goal is to protect against the loss of life and property that happened in 2005 when the levies failed.

    Is this wise? Will it work? Mark Thornton wrote “The sad truth is that the government is only making things worse over time. Higher levies only increase the destructive force of future levy breaks.”

    But engineers say that if Katrina arrived today, the city would experience only light flooding. But what will happen in the future? The network of flood protection structures and machinery needs constant maintenance. Reporting in the Wall Street Journal cautions that “Another big question is who will pay the tens of millions of dollars in annual maintenance costs for the new structures once they are complete. Typically, the Corps hands the responsibility of upkeep to state and local authorities after completing a flood-control project. But city officials say the infrastructure is so large and complex that they don’t have the technical expertise to go it alone — or pay for it alone.”

    So there is a definite risk that the strengthening of the city’s flood defenses may make future failures even more disastrous. There’s also the risk that these structures will not be maintained as required. In the latter case, how will we know if the protections are being maintained adequately?

    The answer is we probably won’t know. That’s because the property in New Orleans is insured by the federal government’s flood insurance program. That program, unlike private insurance, doesn’t have to earn a profit, and therefore doesn’t have to price its insurance according to the risks it is covering.

    That’s different from the way fire insurance, for example, is priced. In this case, fire insurance companies have to price their product to cover their expected loses, their other costs, and return some profit. The expected loses are based on a variety of factors, such as characteristics of the home, distance from a fire hydrant, and the qualities of a city’s fire department.

    Many cities have their fire departments rated by a company called Insurance Services Office (ISO). This rating is a major factor in the insurance rates that companies will offer to customers in a city. If a city’s ISO rating declines, meaning that its fire defenses are not as good as before, insurance rates will rise. People will notice. They’ll wonder why and seek answers.

    But government does not face the discipline of profit as do private insurers. As has been noted, government will insure insane risks for very low premiums. And if it pays a loss, it will insure the same property again. Since it isn’t in the insurance business to make money, it doesn’t really have much motive to rate the risk of the property it is insuring.

    That’s the source of the problem. The New Orleans flood protection systems lacked the oversight and inquiring eyes of profit-minded companies. The result was death and destruction on a massive scale.

    So prices and their importance are not of interest only to economists and academics. They contain, as Hayek has taught us, a tremendous amount of information gathered from many sources. Prices can literally mean the difference between life and death.

    Some may object that insurance in some locations, like New Orleans, would be expensive if it was priced to reflect the actual risk faced. That’s probably true, and that’s good. When that extra cost is spread across the entire country through government insurance programs, residents of New Orleans can get cheap insurance. But as we’ve seen, the cost of the missing information that accurate prices provide is very high.

  • Private enterprise does it better

    While some believe that government is the best provider of services, John Stossel, in the following article, shows us that this is not always the case. In fact, it is rare that government is able to do a better job at lower cost than the private sector.

    One motivating factor that private business has that government does not is profit. Liberals view profit as an extra expense that must be paid to private sector businesses. They say that profit is a cost that can be avoided if government — which has no need for profit — provides a service.

    But as Stossel explains, profit is a powerful motivating factor. It makes private businesses provide products and services that people want, and efficiently, too: “Because if private companies don’t do things efficiently, they lose money and die. Unlike government, they cannot compel payment through the power to tax.”

    We hear, as we do in Wichita now, that government should be operated more like a business. Our city manager speaks of a business model he is developing. But it is folly to speak of operating government like a business. The goal of business is profit — the signal that the business is providing things that customers value.

    But government, as Mises and others have shown, has no ability to calculate profit. It can’t be guided by the same signals that guide the private sector.

    Even streets and highways could be provided in a better way than government does, as Stossel explains.

    Private Enterprise Does It Better

    Why freedom and responsibility triumph over regulation and central planning
    By John Stossel

    In Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity, I bet my readers $1,000 that they couldn’t name one thing that government does better than the private sector.

    I am yet to pay.

    Free enterprise does everything better.

    Why? Because if private companies don’t do things efficiently, they lose money and die. Unlike government, they cannot compel payment through the power to tax.

    Even when a private company operates a public facility under contract to government, it must perform. If it doesn’t, it will be “fired”—its contract won’t be renewed. Government is never fired.

    Continue reading at Reason Magazine