Romney is lame, young Rs like Ron Paul equally, might like Gary Johnson more if he got any press

This article originally appeared in the Boulder Daily Camera on October 22, 2011.

“Unlike the incumbent, I won’t make the economy worse, I won’t keep spending us to the brink of fiscal catastrophe, and I won’t lie to you.” That’s what a Republican candidate should declare to defeat Barack Obama, writes Reason magazine’s editor-in-chief.  Can the GOP front-runner Mitt Romney assert this credibly?

Like a typical Republican politician, Romney talks a good game about effectively reforming costly fraud-ridden government dependency programs. But he opposes cuts to the military’s bloated budget. He claims to support repealing ObamaCare, but still defends the failing state-level version of Obamacare that he signed into law in Massachusetts. Worse yet, in 2007, Romney said that for national health care policy, “What you have to do is what we did in Massachusetts.”

Compare Romney’s proposals to the bold fiscal plan of candidate Ron Paul, who tied Romney for first in a Reason-Rupe survey of young Republicans. Paul’s plan would eliminate the budget deficit in three years by cutting government jobs, spending, and taxes, while eliminating foreign “aid,” corporate subsidies, burdensome regulations, five unconstitutional federal departments, and the dollar’s money monopoly.

More than Ron Paul, many young voters might prefer former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson. His fiscal policy resembles Paul’s, while he is more pro-liberty on gay marriage and immigration. But TV networks have unjustly excluded Johnson from polls and debates despite his strong polling relative to invited candidates. The “Gary Johnson rule,” says the campaign website, is to continuously shift debate eligibility criteria to exclude candidates named Gary Johnson.

Occupy Wall Street, corporate greed, income equality, and democracy

A version of this article originally appeared in the Boulder Daily Camera on October 8, 2011:

“What do we want?  We don’t know!  When do we want it? Now!” This could be the chant of the “Occupy” protests on Wall Street and in other cities.  “If protesters don’t list demands, will they get anything?,” asks a headline in the Christian Science Monitor.

Ending “corporate greed” is a likely demand. The phrase appears over 200 times on Occupywallst.org, a primary “Occupy” website that lacks clear demands. Adbusters’ “Occupy” page has posters criticizing financial services firms involved in the mortgage crisis.

Blaming “corporate greed” for the financial crisis is misguided. In a free market, greedy profit seeking requires vigilantly catering to what consumers want. But as Thomas Sowell, Johan Norberg, and Jeffrey Friedman have described, the housing and financial markets were quite unfree. Firms were not responding to true consumer demand, but to demand perversely distorted by gobs of “regulation” and politically motivated legislation.

Adbusters describes Wall Street as America’s “financial Gomorrah” and wants to end money’s influence on Washington politicians. If protesters don’t like corporations influencing politicians, they should ask politicians to stop meddling in corporations’ affairs.  As P.J. O’Rourke observes: “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” People have the right to voluntarily exchange goods and services. Protesters should demand that politicians oppose and repeal legislation that violates this right.

Income inequality is also a popular subject on Occupywallst.org. But a producer has the right to her earnings from voluntary trade, regardless of her income level relative to others.  The “democracy” advocated by self-proclaimed “we are the 99%” protesters would declare that a mob-rule majority is entitled to wealth earned by a productive minority.

* * *
See also: Occupy Wall Street: Beyond the Caricatures, Reason.com

Colorado Proposition 103: A Democratic Party fund-raiser

The Denver Post has published my op-ed in opposition to Colorado Proposition 103. It begins:

Do you want government to throw even more of your tax dollars at Colorado teachers unions and their pet politicians, or do you actually want better education for children in Colorado?

Proposition 103 is about throwing money. Sponsored by Rep. Rollie Heath, D-Boulder, and endorsed by Colorado’s largest teachers union, the initiative would increase income tax rates by 8 percent and sales tax rates by 3.4 percent — both for five years.

But decades of increasing school funding has not increased student test scores. It has created jobs for teachers and revenue for their unions that almost exclusively support Democratic politicians. These politicians sustain tax-funded schools as a monopolistic cartel that squashes competition and limits choice for parents and taxpayers.

Read the rest of the article at the Denver Post: Proposition 103 is about more money for the teachers union.

Thanks to Ben Degrow for pointing me to data sources, and to Ari Armstrong for suggesting key revisions.

For some of the references in the article, see this post: Colorado Proposition 103: More tax dollars for schools does not improve kids’ education.

 

 

Paul Krugman’s space aliens won’t create jobs, repealing health control law will

This article was printed in the Boulder Daily Camera on September 10, 2011 in response to this question:

What do you think will help decrease unemployment and underemployment? What role do you think the government can, or should, play in encouraging job growth?

Space aliens attack!  Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman says we need scientists to “fake an alien threat.”   ”A massive buildup to counter” the threat, real or not, would end the economic slump “in eighteen months,” he said. Dr. Krugman unwittingly shows how loony Keynesian economic “stimulus” schemes are.

As an EconStories rap explains: “If every worker was staffed in the army and fleet, we’d have full employment and nothing to eat. Jobs are a means, not the ends in themselves. People work to live better, to put food on the shelves. Real growth means production of what people demand. That’s entrepreneurship not your central plan.”

Repealing parts or all of last year’s health control law [HR 3590] would encourage real growth. One-third of small business owners sited the law’s requirements as the greatest or second greatest “obstacle to hiring more employees,” reports a recent U.S. Chamber of Commerce survey. Three of four business owners “somewhat agreed” that the law “makes it harder … to hire more employees.”

For example, the law compels employers to buy insurance for full-time employees.  In response, half of surveyed employers said they would “change their workforce strategy so that fewer employees work 30 hours or more a week,” reports Mercer consultants.

Is it merely coincidence that private-sector jobs growth stalled after health “reform” passed?  Economist James Sherk shows that in the fifteen months before “reform,” average monthly job growth exceeded 67,000 jobs. Since then, it has plummeted to around 6,500 jobs per month. Don’t blame alien abductions.

* * *

Thanks to Grace-Marie Turner for her article: Repealing Health Care Legislation Will Create Jobs. That’s where I first read about a few of the health care bill references above.

 

My advice to college students

This article was printed in the Boulder Daily Camera on August 27 2011 in response to the question:

What advice would you offer to today’s college freshmen, or college-aged young people? What words of advice do you wish you would have received at that age?

My friend Alex thought he wanted to be a software engineer. As a CU-Boulder student, he majored in computer science.  Since loved philosophy, he majored in that, too.

With computer science, Alex ensured he would graduate with marketable job skills. This may sounds obvious but apparently many students don’t share this view. According to economist Richard Vedder, “30 percent of the working college graduates in the U.S. … have jobs that do not require a college degree.”

By his senior year, Alex realized that instead of becoming a software engineer, he preferred a career in academia as a philosopher. He is currently completing his philosophy PhD at a top-ranked philosophy department.

So what’s my advice?  Choose an enjoyable “money” major that gives you marketable skill. If you’re most passionate about this major, great.  But if you’re more passionate about a less job-oriented field, make this your “fun” major or minor.

Pursue your “money” major as a backup, but also explore how to create a career doing what you love. Know who your heroes: people you admire, be they entrepreneurs, scholars, or artists. Learn their career paths. Talk to professors and alumni to figure out the next step toward emulating your heroes.

You might end up choosing a profession based on the “money” major while remaining a weekend amateur in your “fun” major.  But so long as it’s a conscious choice, rather than “doing what’s practical,” you won’t regret it. “Amateur” derives from the Latin “to love,” after all.

Debt ceiling & reducing deficit without raising taxes

The Daily Camera asks: Lawmakers in Washington continue to be divided about raising the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling, which faces a deadline of Aug. 2, the day the Treasury Department says it will lose borrowing authority. Meanwhile budget talks regarding possible tax increases and debt reduction continue. What do you think?

My response:

Debt ceiling? What debt ceiling?  ”In the last 10 years, Congress has raised the debt ceiling 10 times,” notes economist Veronique de Rugy.

The real problem is excessive government spending that has created the huge debt. Spending has increased more than 60% in the past ten years.  ”43 cents of every dollar spent is borrowed,” de Rugy estimates.  According to USDebtClock.org, the federal debt exceeds $46,000 per U.S. citizen.

This spending is unsustainable and hazardous. The Congressional Budget Office warns of ” lower income growth” and risk of a “sudden fiscal crisis” that requires “spending cuts or tax increases more drastic and painful than those that would have been necessary had the adjustments come sooner.”  Taxation and government borrowing crowds out investment in private capital. This diverts “resources that could be used more productively. … U.S. companies are less likely to build new plants, conduct research, and hire people,” de Rugy explains.

As a remedy, Reason magazine suggests a “19 Percent Solution,” which refers to typical levels of tax revenue relative to GDP. The plan would balance the budget without raising taxes by reducing spending by less than 4% annually for ten years.

Since entitlement programs drive much of federal spending, these cuts will be unlikely so long as people see the programs as moral. But as forced charity, these entitlement programs are immoral. Charity can be virtuous, but there’s no virtue in being forced to donate to a charity, or empowering politicians to force others to do so.

This was originally published in the Boulder Daily Camera on July 16 2011.

Red-light cameras can blame drivers for poor traffic engineering

A movement against red light traffic cameras “appears to [be] gaining traction across the country,” reported MSNBC last week. Boulder officials want to add more red light cameras. Is this a good idea?

Say an intersection has an abnormally high rate of red light violations. Using red-light cameras puts blame on the drivers. But this seems unfair, as the same drivers also use safer intersections nearby. It’s more reasonable to first look for deficiencies in signal timing, visibility of signals, signs, and lane markings.

To encourage such solutions, the National Motorists Association offers a “$10,000 Ticket Camera Challenge” for intersections with high red light violations. The NMA guarantees “a minimum 50-percent reduction in red-light violations through the application of engineering solutions” or it will “pay the community $10,000 [for] any traffic safety program or project it chooses.”

Traffic cameras are also legally questionable, as defendants cannot confront their accuser.  A California Superior Court Judge recently struck down eight cases of alleged red light running for these reasons. “Defendants here are entitled to be confronted with the testifying witness at trial,” she wrote.

As for effectiveness, data from the Boulder’s Transportation division shows decreased accidents at intersections after camera installations. But other factors could have been relevant. For example, changes in signal timing, all-red durations, and traffic volume. Further, there was no mention of how accident rates changed at intersections without cameras.

These shortcomings are typical of red light traffic camera studies showing benefits.  A report by the Transportation Research Board states: “In many cases, the flaw in the analysis was the lack of a proper control group.”  In some cities, traffic accidents increased after the addition of cameras, as the NMA’s website documents.

A version of this article was printed in the Boulder Daily Camera on July 2, 2011.

Maintaining Boulder open space trails: user fees & sponsorships should replace taxes

How Boulder County finances its trail maintenance is unjust. The county sales tax forces people to finance hiking trail maintenance, whether or not they use them. Meanwhile, people who don’t shop in Boulder County can use trails without paying.  The County should strive to replace tax-funded trails with user fees and sponsorships.

As a type of user fee, parking fees and annual parking passes for cars registered in other counties are a step in the right direction. The assumption is that a typical hiker coming from outside Boulder County pays less county sales tax than a trail user who resides in the county. The parking fee is an attempt to resolve this difference.

A drawback is that the fee makes some out-of-county hikers “pay twice.” Meanwhile, the sales  tax still forces county residents who do not use trails to fund other people’s recreation. To resolve this, the County should both decrease taxes and extend trailhead parking fees and passes to cars registered in the county.

In addition to user fees, corporate sponsorship of trails is another way to raise revenue through voluntary means. The Continental Divide Trail Alliance does this. Since 2009, REI has contributed more than $15,000, while Home Depot, Salomon, Coleman, and Smartwool have each contributed more than $1,000.  Trailhead maps and direction signs along the trail could identify sponsors: “This trail is maintained by a generous donation by …” and include the sponsor’s logo — tastefully sized of course.

A version of this article was printed in the Boulder Daily Camera on Saturday, June 18, 2011.

Boulder & Denver bike-share: boon or boondoggle?

B-cycle is Boulder’s new bike share program. Denver’s B-cycle program is a year old. Does “B” stand for boon or boondoggle?  The Boulder program’s start-up costs included half a million dollars taken from taxpayers: half collected by the City of Boulder, half from federal “stimulus” funds.  Denver B-cycle received $210,000 from the “stimulus.”  Yes, B-cycle’s bikes and technologies do sound impressive. But if it’s a true boon, then it should have been able to raise sufficient start-up funds from investors, sponsors, and donors.

Some might argue that private funding could not have built B-cycle. But as economist Henry Hazlitt would say, B-Cycle “has in fact been built by private capital – the capital that was expropriated in taxes.”  We won’t see the goods, services, and non-profit ventures that never materialize because governments took money by force from people who would have spent it differently.

Potentially expensive bike maintenance may deter private investors from investing in bike-share ventures. As law professor Steve Clowney describes: “No individual bears a significant portion of the costs if they damage a bicycle … users have little incentive to take care of the bikes.”  The New York Times reports that sustaining Paris’s bike-share requires the repairing “some 1,500 bicycles a day,” or seven percent of its fleet.

Or maybe Montreal’s experience deterred investors. Because of high start-up costs, “the non-profit agency that runs the city’s bike-rental program … is running a $31.7 million deficit,” reported the CBC.

Voluntary donations, sponsorships, and investments should fund B-cycle. It should be a revenue source for Boulder and Denver, not an expenditure of taxpayers’ money. For example, they could charge B-cycle for placing “B-stations” on city-owned land.

A version of this article was published in the Boulder Daily Camera on May 21, 2011.

Thanks to Marc Scribner at the Competitive Enterprise Institute for his post on Washington DC’s bike-share program.

The Henry Hazlitt quote is from his excellent book, Economics in One Lesson, which the Foundation for Economics Education has put on-line.

Bin Laden’s capture: should the U.S. military use “scapels” or “sledgehammers”

“Bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy,” was how Bin Laden described his goals.  [As if our elected representatives needed help bankrupting America. But unlike our politicians Bin Laden uses the term "bleeding" literally.]

In a blog post titled “Osama Won,” Reason magazine editor Radley Balko notes that Bin Laden succeeded in his related goals: “to draw the U.S. and the West into a prolonged war—an actual war in Afghanistan, and a broader global war with Islam.” Reuters reports that “the war expense topped $1 trillion in December 2009,” and CostOfWar.com keeps a running tally.

But have costly wars, a large troop presence, and nation building helped capture terrorists?  The operation to apprehend Bin Laden involved about two dozen Navy SEALs and years of surveillance and intelligence gathering.  ”A scalpel, not a sledgehammer, should be our primary counterterrorism tool,” notes Cato Institute policy analyst David Rittgers, a former Special Forces officer in Afghanistan.

The combination of intelligence and precisely-targeted force was also behind capturing 9/11 plotters Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh. “Most effective counterterrorism techniques do not rely on tens of thousands of troops stationed indefinitely in distant lands,” notes Christopher Preble, author of “The Power Problem: How American Military Dominance Makes Us Less Safe, Less Prosperous, and Less Free.”

Recent calls for pulling troops out of Afghanistan sound reasonable. The number of Al Qaeda members there is “at most … 50 to 100, maybe less,” said CIA director Leon Panetta last summer. Indiana Senator Richard Lugar argues that this does not justify “100,000 American troops and a $100 billion per year cost.”

A version of this was published in the Boulder Daily Camera on May 7, 2011.