On the anniversary of the attacks of September 11th, 2001, I remember that the United States of America stands for one thing above all else:
FREEDOM.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Monday, September 5, 2011
Why businessmen require freedom of conscience
At his new blog, Individual Rights and Government Wrongs, Brian Phillips has posted yet another dazzling analysis of the wide-ranging impact of government intervention in the economy. This time his focus is on taxi services. While I urge you to read the entire piece, I do want to note that I was struck by a passage which illustrates Ayn Rand's famous assertion that state and economics should be separate "in the same way and for the same reasons" as the separation of church and state.
The issue is "freedom of conscience" - something often cited by those who claim to uphold church/state separation. Why is freedom of conscience required to run a business? Brian cites this example:
The issue is "freedom of conscience" - something often cited by those who claim to uphold church/state separation. Why is freedom of conscience required to run a business? Brian cites this example:
Claims of “market failure” are founded on an arbitrary assertion of how the market should operate. And when the market fails to meet this arbitrary standard, it has “failed.” This is no different than running massive computer models of the NFL season and declaring that, if the Cleveland Browns do not win the Super Bowl, we have an “NFL failure.” Individuals have free will, and we often make decisions that the so-called experts don’t believe we should. The experts said that Henry Ford should not pay his workers twice the industry average. The experts were wrong. His turnover plummeted, his efficiency rose, and his profits soared. And, he cut his prices by nearly sixty percent.Any regulation which restricts a businessman's freedom to act on his own judgement interferes with his freedom of conscience, and should be rejected on that basis.
Because Ford was free to act on his own judgment, he could prove the practicality of his ideas. He was free to demonstrate the truth that he saw before others saw it. What would have happened to America’s automobile industry if Henry Ford had been prohibited from acting as he thought best? And how much better might the taxi industry be if entrepreneurs and businessmen could act on their judgment, rather than follow the dictates of politicians and bureaucrats?
Friday, September 2, 2011
Got sprawl?
Dear Ed Shadid:
A couple of suggestions regarding OKC's urban sprawl.
First: stop annexing outlying towns. You might even ask people in what used to be an outlying town if they want their town back. Seriously, isn't this how all this sprawl happened in the first place?
Second: can't afford to provide services? Simple: deregulate so we can provide our own. I'm sure there are people here who would be more than happy to provide their own "essential services" if the City would just give up its monopoly over them.
BTW, I notice the ad in the Gazette for your event says no taxpayer dollars are being spent on the event. So who IS paying for it?
Sincerely,
Rob Abiera
A couple of suggestions regarding OKC's urban sprawl.
First: stop annexing outlying towns. You might even ask people in what used to be an outlying town if they want their town back. Seriously, isn't this how all this sprawl happened in the first place?
Second: can't afford to provide services? Simple: deregulate so we can provide our own. I'm sure there are people here who would be more than happy to provide their own "essential services" if the City would just give up its monopoly over them.
BTW, I notice the ad in the Gazette for your event says no taxpayer dollars are being spent on the event. So who IS paying for it?
Sincerely,
Rob Abiera
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
For the Tea Party
I've been seeing some dangerous rhetoric floating around lately and, no, I'm not referring to the Tea Partiers who want to keep the debt ceiling from being raised. I am referring to those who say that opposition to raising the debt ceiling constitutes some kind of threat to the country and that those who oppose raising the debt ceiling should be censored. It is ironic that those who are now calling for such censorship have historically postured as defenders of the First Amendment, a la the "Free Speech Movement" and the Fairness Doctrine. While they are not yet openly calling for government restrictions on pro-Tea Party speech - which, by the way, is the only thing that qualifies as genuine censorship - they have finally revealed their true colors.
At such a time I believe it is important to be clear about where I stand.
I stand with the Tea Party.
Yes, I have been critical of the Tea Party in the past and I reserve to myself the right to continue to be so. The Tea Party movement was founded by Rick Santelli on the recognition of the fact that the growth of government was out of control. The movement has succeeded in reshaping the debate on the role of government and returning it to the goals of the Founders, who wanted to guarantee the freedom of the American people. A government with access to unlimited funds is a government with access to unlimited power, and Tea Partiers recognize that restricting the government's access to power means restricting its access to funds - not just taxpayer dollars, but the ability to borrow against those dollars. I whole-heartedly support the Tea Party when it opposes raising the debt ceiling - just one of the ways it has helped to re-focus the debate on the role of government.
Ultimately, the goal must be to reverse the growth of government and cut it back to something which poses no threat to the freedom of the American people. I hold that this can only be done by restricting government to the protection of individual rights. This is one of the reasons why I oppose evangelicals who would usurp the movement for their own religious ends, which will result not in freedom but in religious dictatorship - whether they choose to recognize that or not. I regard those evangelicals as aiding and abetting the liberals in bringing about the runaway growth of government.
The United States of America was NOT founded as a Christian nation.
The United States of America was founded as a FREE nation.
The Tea Party movement is big enough and healthy enough to withstand such criticism. I certainly do not regard the presence of factionalism in the Tea Party as grounds for censorship. I regard the fact that it has generated the kind of desperate opposition represented by those who are calling for censorship as testimony to its success, and I stand with the Tea Party in its opposition to those who would obliterate the First Amendment by forbidding media coverage of and access to information about the Movement.
At such a time I believe it is important to be clear about where I stand.
I stand with the Tea Party.
Yes, I have been critical of the Tea Party in the past and I reserve to myself the right to continue to be so. The Tea Party movement was founded by Rick Santelli on the recognition of the fact that the growth of government was out of control. The movement has succeeded in reshaping the debate on the role of government and returning it to the goals of the Founders, who wanted to guarantee the freedom of the American people. A government with access to unlimited funds is a government with access to unlimited power, and Tea Partiers recognize that restricting the government's access to power means restricting its access to funds - not just taxpayer dollars, but the ability to borrow against those dollars. I whole-heartedly support the Tea Party when it opposes raising the debt ceiling - just one of the ways it has helped to re-focus the debate on the role of government.
Ultimately, the goal must be to reverse the growth of government and cut it back to something which poses no threat to the freedom of the American people. I hold that this can only be done by restricting government to the protection of individual rights. This is one of the reasons why I oppose evangelicals who would usurp the movement for their own religious ends, which will result not in freedom but in religious dictatorship - whether they choose to recognize that or not. I regard those evangelicals as aiding and abetting the liberals in bringing about the runaway growth of government.
The United States of America was NOT founded as a Christian nation.
The United States of America was founded as a FREE nation.
The Tea Party movement is big enough and healthy enough to withstand such criticism. I certainly do not regard the presence of factionalism in the Tea Party as grounds for censorship. I regard the fact that it has generated the kind of desperate opposition represented by those who are calling for censorship as testimony to its success, and I stand with the Tea Party in its opposition to those who would obliterate the First Amendment by forbidding media coverage of and access to information about the Movement.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
The problem with taxes
. . . is: they aren't voluntary.
The classic illustration of this is the trip to McDonald's. Go to McDonald's, tell them you want a Quarter Pounder instead of a Big Mac - or, heck, you've changed your mind and you want to go to Wendy's instead! - and see if anyone points a gun at your head.
Now, tell the IRS you don't want to pay your taxes and see what happens.
This, of course, is the difference between the free market and statism, something nicely illustrated by an editorial in today's The Oklahoman - though I'm not sure that's what the editorial's writer intended:
The classic illustration of this is the trip to McDonald's. Go to McDonald's, tell them you want a Quarter Pounder instead of a Big Mac - or, heck, you've changed your mind and you want to go to Wendy's instead! - and see if anyone points a gun at your head.
Now, tell the IRS you don't want to pay your taxes and see what happens.
This, of course, is the difference between the free market and statism, something nicely illustrated by an editorial in today's The Oklahoman - though I'm not sure that's what the editorial's writer intended:
All taxpayers have something they'd like to opt out of — war, railroad subsidies, crop supports, space exploration, etc.And:
Some folks would like to opt out of paying the MAPS 3 sales tax, but their own neighbors approved it.Darn neighbors!
The Coburn-Lankford proposal on fuel taxes is appealing, but Washington isn't about to opt out of its desire to control more of our lives.Of course, the proper response is not to simply say - as The Oklahoman seems to - that that's the way things are done so why even try to do anything about it? Here's the comment I posted:
The Oklahoman's editorial writers - in their own snarky way - are actually doing a good job of illustrating one of the fundamental problems with taxes: it forces people to pay for things they don't agree with or may even oppose. The solution to this is, of course, the free market, where people who want something can pay for it themselves, and those who don't want it don't have to be bothered.
The problem with this - as the editorial illustrates - is that taxes at every level: federal, state and local, mean power and government at all levels is addicted to it. Changing this means changing the culture of power. Yes, this includes voting the so-and-so's out until we finally get the right people. But it also means going much deeper than that and addressing the issue of altruism, which is what lies at the bottom of every excuse used by every politician every time they grab for more power.
After all, we are our brother's keeper and it's for our own good and the pie is only so big and there's only so much to go around and SOMEBODY'S GOT TO DO SOMETHING!
No.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Governor Fallin's Facebook Town Hall
The Oklahoma Republican Party is kicking off a series of town hall meetings on Facebook with a session with Governor Fallin. They are asking constituents to submit questions for the Governor on Facebook or through Twitter. I submitted some questions last week but for some reason they keep disappearing. I guess Facebook is being glitchy. Or maybe it's just my computer.
Anyway, the questions I attempted to post had to do with the growth of state government, Oklahoma's casket cartel, and ObamaCare. So far the question about ObamaCare is still up, but the question I really want Governor Fallin to answer is this one:
Anyway, the questions I attempted to post had to do with the growth of state government, Oklahoma's casket cartel, and ObamaCare. So far the question about ObamaCare is still up, but the question I really want Governor Fallin to answer is this one:
Governor: In your State of the State Address, you said: "the growth of government shouldn’t outpace growth in the private sector". Why do you think government should be allowed to continue to grow? Why not actually reduce the size of government?The Governor's Town Hall starts at noon on Thursday, August 4th.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Close the agencies!
Editorial writers across Oklahoma are breathing a sigh of relief as news comes in of increased tax revenues, relieving them of the burden of facing the possibility that budget cuts might actually lead to the closing of some government agencies.
Well, good for them, I suppose. I think the Right has really dropped the ball and is wimping out on the issue of reducing government - as evidenced by Gov. Fallin's crack about "right-sizing" government in her State of the State address.
More tax revenue means more government. The government's power to restrict our freedom will not be reduced until the the size of the government is reduced. It is past time to face the fact that any genuinely structural reduction in government has to involve closing agencies. I keep getting asked: "Where would you start?" Meaning: which agencies would I close first?
Anything not directly involved in protecting the individual rights of Oklahomans to their lives, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness is fair game. This leaves just about everything outside of the legislature, courts and police.
Okay, here's my list:
Notice also that I haven't even touched health & education, both of which should ultimately be on a completely free and open market with no government involvement whatsoever.
I am, of course, aware that there is more involved in eliminating an agency than just closing offices. Agencies are created by statutes and constitutional mandates. Closing agencies will require changing - and eliminating - a lot of unjust laws. Of course, one way to start this whole process is by defunding these agencies.
But at least it's a beginning: 77 agencies (unless I've miscounted).
Let the debate begin! What agencies do you think should be closed?
Well, good for them, I suppose. I think the Right has really dropped the ball and is wimping out on the issue of reducing government - as evidenced by Gov. Fallin's crack about "right-sizing" government in her State of the State address.
More tax revenue means more government. The government's power to restrict our freedom will not be reduced until the the size of the government is reduced. It is past time to face the fact that any genuinely structural reduction in government has to involve closing agencies. I keep getting asked: "Where would you start?" Meaning: which agencies would I close first?
Anything not directly involved in protecting the individual rights of Oklahomans to their lives, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness is fair game. This leaves just about everything outside of the legislature, courts and police.
Okay, here's my list:
ABLE CommissionMind you, this is just a first draft. In going through the complete list of state agencies at www.ok.gov I notice that the state does a LOT of licensing of professionals in various fields. Eliminating that licensing would go a long way to restoring the freedom of Oklahomans to do business in the state.
ABLE Tech
Abstractors Board
Accountancy Board
Accrediting Agency, State
Aeronautics Commission
Alcohol and Drug Counselors Board
Anatomical Board
Architects Board
Arts Council
Athletic Commission, Oklahoma State
Center for Advancement of Science & Technology - OCAST
Chiropractic Examiners
Climatological Survey
Commerce Department
Commercial Pet Breeders, State Board
Commission on the Status of Women
Community Hospitals Authority
Conservation Commission
Construction Industries Board
Consumer Credit Department
Corporation Commission
Cosmetology Board
Dentistry Board
Development Finance Authority
EDGE Fund Policy Board
Energy Resources Board
Environment Secretary
Environmental Finance Authority
Faith-Based & Community Initiatives
Film and Music Office
Foresters, State Board of Registration for
Funeral Board
Geological Survey
Group Self-Insurance Association Guaranty Fund Board
Historical Society
Horse Racing Commission
Individual Self-Insured Guaranty Fund Board
Industrial Finance Authority
Interstate Oil Compact Commission
LP Gas Research, Marketing and Safety Commission
Licensed Social Workers Board
Liquefied Petroleum Gas Board
Literacy Initiatives Commission
Long Term Care Administrators Board
Lottery Commission
Marginal Well Commission
Medical Licensure and Supervision Board
Medical Technology and Research Authority of Oklahoma
Motor Vehicle Commission
Municipal Power Authority
Music Hall of Fame
Nursing, Oklahoma Board of
Oklahoma Forestry Services
Optometry Board
Osteopathic Examiners Board
Peanut Commission
Perfusionists Board of Examiners
Pharmacy Board
Physical Fitness and Sports, Governor's Council on
Physician Manpower Training Commission
Podiatric Medical Examiners Board
Private Vocational Schools Board
Professional Engineers & Land Surveyors Licensure Board
Psychologists Examiners Board
Real Estate Appraiser Board
Real Estate Commission
Santa Claus Commission
Scenic Rivers Commission
Secretary of Energy, Office of
Securities Commission
Sheep and Wool Commission
Sorghum Commission
Southern Growth Policies Board
Space Industry Development Authority
Speech-Language Pathology & Audiology Board
Wheat Commission
Notice also that I haven't even touched health & education, both of which should ultimately be on a completely free and open market with no government involvement whatsoever.
I am, of course, aware that there is more involved in eliminating an agency than just closing offices. Agencies are created by statutes and constitutional mandates. Closing agencies will require changing - and eliminating - a lot of unjust laws. Of course, one way to start this whole process is by defunding these agencies.
But at least it's a beginning: 77 agencies (unless I've miscounted).
Let the debate begin! What agencies do you think should be closed?
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Due Credit
Here's an interesting ad I noticed while perusing the website of Time Out Mumbai:
This certainly makes it appear that the poor in India have more initiative than I credited them with in my previous post - though without more information to establish a proper context I don't know just how effective this actually makes them at rising above their poverty. Obviously, some of them are trying.
Take a tour through Dharavi, Asia’s largest slum. The tour introduces you to the enterprise of the slum dwellers. You will see the various small scale industries buzzing inside the slum: from leather tanneries, to pottery, plastic recycling, cloth dyeing, cleaning and recycling of oil drums, and machine-tool making. Reality Tours and Travels.Some slum!
This certainly makes it appear that the poor in India have more initiative than I credited them with in my previous post - though without more information to establish a proper context I don't know just how effective this actually makes them at rising above their poverty. Obviously, some of them are trying.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Lessons from India
I've been fascinated for some time now with what's going on in India. Now there's a story in the New York Times that leads me to think that India is moving along even faster than I had dared hope:
And how many of these lessons can be applied to Oklahoma?
I have posted some comments on Facebook but at this point I have more questions than answers.
The article makes it seem like the poor in Gurgaon are waiting for the government to do things for them. Why aren't they taking the intitiative to solve their own problems?
Gurgaon is depicted as being close to anarchy. What does this say about "anarcho-capitalism"? The rape of the Gurgaon woman in New Delhi - which New Delhi refused to do anything about - strikes me as proof that "competing governments" don't work. Why doesn't Gurgaon sue New Delhi?
There is so much in this article that speaks to Ayn Rand's writings on the role of government. Gurgaon's "municipal corporation" seems more interested in infrastructure than protecting individual rights. Where are the courts? How are property rights protected?
The story shows why a police force is a legitimate function of a government based on individual rights, NOT just an item on a laundry list of "essential services".
Gurgaon needs 3 things: objective laws that protect individual rights, including property rights. Courts to uphold those rights by settling disagreements. Police to protect the rights of the people of Gurgaon.
When Gurgaon takes over smaller cities, it is violating the rights of the residents of those cities. That needs to stop.
Whether you think Gurgaon is the most exciting social experiment on Earth right now or not, it certainly is fascinating and I hope I will be able to follow this story as it develops.
So what do you think? Post your comments here or join the discussion on Facebook!
There is also a reader discussion of this article going on at the NYTimes.
In India, Dynamism Wrestles With DysfunctionThere is so much I could say about this article, I don't even know where to begin. Reading the article brought to mind so many points made in the writings of Ayn Rand and others about the role of government, the nature & application of rights, law and objectivity, the nature of Capitalism and so much more.
And how many of these lessons can be applied to Oklahoma?
I have posted some comments on Facebook but at this point I have more questions than answers.
The article makes it seem like the poor in Gurgaon are waiting for the government to do things for them. Why aren't they taking the intitiative to solve their own problems?
Gurgaon is depicted as being close to anarchy. What does this say about "anarcho-capitalism"? The rape of the Gurgaon woman in New Delhi - which New Delhi refused to do anything about - strikes me as proof that "competing governments" don't work. Why doesn't Gurgaon sue New Delhi?
There is so much in this article that speaks to Ayn Rand's writings on the role of government. Gurgaon's "municipal corporation" seems more interested in infrastructure than protecting individual rights. Where are the courts? How are property rights protected?
The story shows why a police force is a legitimate function of a government based on individual rights, NOT just an item on a laundry list of "essential services".
Gurgaon needs 3 things: objective laws that protect individual rights, including property rights. Courts to uphold those rights by settling disagreements. Police to protect the rights of the people of Gurgaon.
When Gurgaon takes over smaller cities, it is violating the rights of the residents of those cities. That needs to stop.
Whether you think Gurgaon is the most exciting social experiment on Earth right now or not, it certainly is fascinating and I hope I will be able to follow this story as it develops.
So what do you think? Post your comments here or join the discussion on Facebook!
There is also a reader discussion of this article going on at the NYTimes.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Catching up
I've been posting a lot more to Facebook than I have to this blog, lately. Yes, I've been lazy! So, if you really want to keep up, check out The Oklahoma Capitalist on Facebook! Don't forget to "Like" it while you're there!
Here are some of the links I've posted in the last few days:
Don't forget to follow The Oklahoma Capitalist on Twitter!
Here are some of the links I've posted in the last few days:
Government Doesn't Create JobsAlso, my opinion of health insurance exchanges drew some comment when I posted it on the Facebook page of the OKC Tea Party.
Union war brews at WinStar casino
USDA fines Missouri family $90k for selling a few rabbits without a license
Holding Mrs. Warren Accountable
The Morality War: Dear Elizabeth Warren, get out of the way!
Bethany CEO becomes first woman to lead Oklahoma Bankers Association
Banking leader backs Oklahoma native Elizabeth Warren for consumer protection agency head
Making way for MAPS 3: OKC files eminent domain lawsuits
Don't forget to follow The Oklahoma Capitalist on Twitter!
Getting government out of the way
Here's a story in the Tulsa World that makes me wonder just how much Oklahoma's economy is being held back by government intervention. At the same time it makes me think that pro-Capitalism efforts on the local level just might be able to make the most immediate impact.
"Safety code"
"Red tape"
What zoning issues should an existing business have to deal with? Why would there be any issue unless the original zoning had been changed? Why would the zoning be changed? If the zoning was changed, why wouldn't the change account for existing businesses?
These are just some of the things that everyone looking to start a business in Oklahoma has to deal with day in and day out. How many of them become discouraged by it and change their minds about opening or locating their business here?
Stories like this convince me that every effort made to reduce regulation in Oklahoma will have a positive effect on the state's economy.
Admiral Twin sets groundbreaking ceremony for rebuilding effort"Zoning issues"
Smith initially said he was aiming for a July 4 re-opening of the 60-year-old drive-in, where crews from Ark Wrecking were seen removing debris on Wednesday.
Everything from zoning issues and safety code concerns to replacing the burned-up electrical system and fabricating steel for the new tower have delayed the opening date to August.
"We tried to hit the ground running (after obtaining a Small Business Administration loan), but it hasn't happened that way," he said. "There's more red tape than the public realizes, more hoops to jump through."
As the owner of a seasonal business, no one wanted the drive-in to re-open sooner than Smith.
"Opening in August means that we've missed the best three months of the season for a drive-in," he said. "The drive-in is going to open this summer, but certainly not when I had hoped."
"Safety code"
"Red tape"
What zoning issues should an existing business have to deal with? Why would there be any issue unless the original zoning had been changed? Why would the zoning be changed? If the zoning was changed, why wouldn't the change account for existing businesses?
These are just some of the things that everyone looking to start a business in Oklahoma has to deal with day in and day out. How many of them become discouraged by it and change their minds about opening or locating their business here?
Stories like this convince me that every effort made to reduce regulation in Oklahoma will have a positive effect on the state's economy.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
You call this Independence?
If we're just going to do what Washington wants us to do anyway, how is that any kind of independence?
Today's The Oklahoman carries an op-ed by Tina Majors in support of FallinCare, Gov. Fallin's plan to create a health insurance exchange in Oklahoma. The timing is interesting considering the legislature ended its session last week.
A few excerpts:
Today's The Oklahoman carries an op-ed by Tina Majors in support of FallinCare, Gov. Fallin's plan to create a health insurance exchange in Oklahoma. The timing is interesting considering the legislature ended its session last week.
A few excerpts:
"One of the great things about Oklahoma and Oklahomans is our fierce independence from the federal government. When we see a problem, we fix it ourselves. We don't wait for the big brother of the federal government to come in and over-regulate a problem. . . . "Here's the comment I posted:
"I support efforts to repeal Obamacare, but given the makeup of our federal judiciary and their penchant for liberal rulings, I have doubts about the lawsuit to stop it being entirely successful, regardless of its merits. I want Oklahoma to create every possible barrier to a federal takeover of our health care. And building our own network is another way to do this. . . . "
"Oklahoma isn't in the habit of letting the federal government keep us from doing what is right. Today, we can't let our anger at their attempted takeover of health care stop us from reforming our own system. The right solution is in creating and controlling our own Oklahoma-centric health care network."
Romneycare.
Seriously, is Fallin still trying to push this on us? There is no difference between federal over-regulation and state over-regulation. A government run insurance exchange violates the rights of insurers, doctors and patients. We should reject a state-run exchange for the same reason we should reject the federal-run exchange. What difference is there between the state forcing people to buy health insurance and the federal government forcing people to buy health insurance? NONE.
And PLEASE stop with the scare tactics that do nothing but insult our intelligence: "Oh, we've got to do something or the feds will force it on us!" Well, of course they will if we don't STAND UP FOR OURSELVES! So why should we lay down just so you can run over us? Are you saying it's better if our own state government does it?
The ONLY way to address rising health care costs and lack of coverage is to get the government OUT OF THE WAY on EVERY level.
Set the health care industry free!
Thursday, May 19, 2011
What's going on here?
Oklahoma Watchdog reported about an hour ago on Twitter @WatchdogOK that SB264 was signed out of committee AGAIN! this morning - which means there will be another floor vote soon.
The big question is - were changes made? If so, what were they & what impact do they have on our concerns?
One thing I've seen that may be new is a time limit on "opting out" of regulations: local school boards can do this for 3 years.
My concern is that "deregulation" is great for private industry but terrible for the government: a government NOT constrained by regulations is a government that has carte-blanche to do whatever it wants, regardless of anyone's rights or freedoms - which is the whole point of having written laws in the first place, a point which seems to be lost on those pushing this "local control" idea.
Does SB264 have a mechanism for subjecting local administrators to the rule of law or does it allow them to autocratically make things up as they go along? Are local school districts required to submit a local plan or set of rules to local voters before administrators can act? What happens to local students who disagree with the majority?
I wouldn't have a problem if this only applied to private schools which should be completely free to set their own rules, anyway, but when the government is running things, that's a whole different animal.
So, what impact will this bill have on private schools? Perhaps school choice advocates should be as concerned about this as supporters of government schools.
I think the presense of Speaker Steele at these committee meetings could be significant - is SB264 a pet project of his? If so, maybe we need to start contacting him as well as our own legislators. I don't think it would be a bad idea to add Bingman to that list, either.
The big question is - were changes made? If so, what were they & what impact do they have on our concerns?
One thing I've seen that may be new is a time limit on "opting out" of regulations: local school boards can do this for 3 years.
My concern is that "deregulation" is great for private industry but terrible for the government: a government NOT constrained by regulations is a government that has carte-blanche to do whatever it wants, regardless of anyone's rights or freedoms - which is the whole point of having written laws in the first place, a point which seems to be lost on those pushing this "local control" idea.
Does SB264 have a mechanism for subjecting local administrators to the rule of law or does it allow them to autocratically make things up as they go along? Are local school districts required to submit a local plan or set of rules to local voters before administrators can act? What happens to local students who disagree with the majority?
I wouldn't have a problem if this only applied to private schools which should be completely free to set their own rules, anyway, but when the government is running things, that's a whole different animal.
So, what impact will this bill have on private schools? Perhaps school choice advocates should be as concerned about this as supporters of government schools.
I think the presense of Speaker Steele at these committee meetings could be significant - is SB264 a pet project of his? If so, maybe we need to start contacting him as well as our own legislators. I don't think it would be a bad idea to add Bingman to that list, either.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Does the Chamber of Commerce advocate Capitalism?
The Oklahoman is running yet another editorial today attacking Tea Party activists. Thanks for the free publicity!
Here's the comment I left:
Here's the comment I left:
It is an unfortunate fact that in a mixed economy such as ours, some business owners may be forced to turn to lobbying in legitimate self-defense to keep the government's hands off of their freedom to run their businesses.Just how many Oklahomans are going hungry every day? Here's The Oklahoman's editorial about last weekend's food drive.
This is not the case for the Chamber of Commerce, which all too often pursues political favoritism for one business or industry at the expense of another, under the guise of "sacrifice". This not only makes the Chamber no friend of Freedom or Capitalism, it muddies the waters - leading the average person to equate Capitalism with corporate welfare and cronyism, when - in fact - true Capitalism requires the separation of state and economy, in the same manner and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.
Remember this the next time you read about how many Oklahomans are going hungry every day. Ask yourself if that would be the case if Oklahoma had genuine economic Freedom.
Monday, May 9, 2011
Oklahoma sustainability advocates target property rights
This looks like a real smoking gun: it shows that advocates of "sustainability" in Oklahoma - including local governments - are directly targeting private property rights.
The correct response to this is: ALL Rights are Property Rights!
Will "sustainability" advocates be satisfied with just property rights or will they go after all rights? The history of the environmentalist movement suggests they won't stop there.
Private Property Ownership in Oklahoma Barrier to Sustainable DevelopmentThank you, Kaye Beach, for posting this!
Beth Schaefer Caniglia, Assistant Professor of Environmental Sociology at Oklahoma State University and member of the Board for the Oklahoma Sustainability Network gives her advice to overcoming the “long-standing sentiments regarding private property rights as symbols for democracy and freedom” held by Oklahomans.
“Many landowners resist the perceived slippery slope of conservation mandates and retreat behind constitutional takings provisions, . . .”
The correct response to this is: ALL Rights are Property Rights!
Will "sustainability" advocates be satisfied with just property rights or will they go after all rights? The history of the environmentalist movement suggests they won't stop there.
Oklahoma Attorney General joins states against NLRB
Attorney General Pruitt Joins South Carolina in Jobs Fight
EXCERPT: "Attorney General Scott Pruitt has joined South Carolina and other attorneys general in a fight against action taken by the National Labor Relations Board against The Boeing Company.
In a letter to the NLRB, attorneys general from nine states called the board’s lawsuit against Boeing “an assault on the constitutional right of free speech” and an assault on each state’s ability to attract business and create jobs."
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Oklahoma City's government needs to stay on its diet
Two examples of improper use of government in this week's Oklahoma Gazette:
Oklahoma City needs LESS government, NOT more revenue: laissez-faire Capitalism, not "crony" capitalism!
Optimistic thoughtsA police department is a legitimate function of a proper government as long as those police are restricted to protecting individual rights. Oklahoma City could afford all the police officers it needs for this purpose if it would spend its budget only on the legitimate functions of government, which do NOT include corporate welfare under the guise of "economic development". If the City would restrict itself to legitimate functions, it wouldn't need as much revenue.
Next fiscal year’s city budget might provide for the restoration of public safety positions.
The city is hoping to restore several police, fire and other city positions and services in the municipal budget set to be presented to the Oklahoma City Council at its Tuesday meeting.
While the city’s revenue has not returned to pre-recession levels, Freemen said it is making progress.
Living arrangement"Economic development" means the government picks and chooses which businesses go where. Laissez-faire Capitalism institutionalizes entrepreneurs' rights to run their businesses as they see fit - including their right to buy property where they choose and their rights to use that property as they wish. Could this be the reason why the supposedly much-desired downtown grocery store has so far failed to materialize?
The city is using incentive funding to encourage development of diverse downtown housing options.
An apartment complex currently under development in the Deep Deuce neighborhood may get $1.25 million in assistance from the city.
Oklahoma City needs LESS government, NOT more revenue: laissez-faire Capitalism, not "crony" capitalism!
Monday, April 25, 2011
Council majority 'concerned' about Alliance
WHOA. According to a story posted over the weekend at okgazette.com, a majority of the members of the Oklahoma City Council have expressed concerns over the formation of a new non-profit body to coordinate economic development for the City.
We'll find out at tomorrow's Council meeting.
. . . several council members, including Pete White, Ed Shadid, Larry McAtee, Skip Kelly and David Greenwell expressed varying levels of concern about the plan, ranging from the ethnic and geographic diversity of those serving on the board, to the openness of information from within the group.This is a stunning turnaround in view of the City's record of support for government-directed economic development via MAPS. But will "concerns" over how the new agency - let's face it, the proposed "Alliance for Economic Development of Oklahoma City Inc." will be a what amounts to a government agency, irrespective of efforts to downplay that aspect - does its job translate into a rejection of this approach to building the City's economy?
We'll find out at tomorrow's Council meeting.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
The Oklahoman likes it!
Wow! So, The Oklahoman - THE biggest promoter of corporate welfare in Oklahoma - actually likes "Atlas Shrugged Part 1", which is based on a book that promotes the idea that government intervention in the economy will never result in the kind of achievements possible under true freedom.
Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it, too!
I wonder what they will think when one of the characters actually says that in Part 2?
Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it, too!
I wonder what they will think when one of the characters actually says that in Part 2?
Rand revival, film project hope for 2012Does The Oklahoman think Oklahoma City's government is "too-big-to-fail"? I think we all know the answer to that question, LOL! Too bad Larry Nichols - as well as the other members of the soon-to-be Alliance for Economic Development - isn't more like Hank Rearden! Imagine what Oklahoma City could achieve if Nichols believed in freedom as much as Rearden!
. . . “Atlas Shrugged” remains a best seller and its keynote “Who is John Galt?” imprint is enjoying a revival in the era of too-big-to-fail government.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Make Them Pay . . . Less!
Tax Day, the day of the deadline to file your taxes, is normally on April 15th, but this year, President Obama decided to cut us all some slack and give us til the Monday after: April 18th.
Liberals, cheer led by Michael Moore, have cooked up a plan to scapegoat corporations who they claim are not paying their share of taxes, thus depriving the federal government of much needed income.
Obviously, that's only going to work if people really believe the government needs the money. The more money government takes in, the bigger it gets.
Of course, if smaller government is what you're after, then you would want it to have less money, not more. In which case, not only might you not mind corporations paying less taxes, you might weven want lower taxes for everybody!
Lower taxes means less money, so government has to make itself smaller! Well, that's the theory, anyway.
So here's the deal: on Monday, April 18th at noon, the "more money for bigger government" liberals will have a "Make Them Pay!" rally at the State Capitol - organized through MoveOn. After the rally, participants will drive to the Chase branch at NW 23rd & Western where they will "respectfully" ask Chase to pay its "fair share" of taxes.
Wouldn't it be fun if some people showed up with signs that read, "Lower Taxes for Everybody! Make Government Smaller Not Bigger!"
Just a thought.
ADDENDUM - 4/17: Mr. Moore needs to be reminded that 45% of Americans pay no income tax.
Liberals, cheer led by Michael Moore, have cooked up a plan to scapegoat corporations who they claim are not paying their share of taxes, thus depriving the federal government of much needed income.
Obviously, that's only going to work if people really believe the government needs the money. The more money government takes in, the bigger it gets.
Of course, if smaller government is what you're after, then you would want it to have less money, not more. In which case, not only might you not mind corporations paying less taxes, you might weven want lower taxes for everybody!
Lower taxes means less money, so government has to make itself smaller! Well, that's the theory, anyway.
So here's the deal: on Monday, April 18th at noon, the "more money for bigger government" liberals will have a "Make Them Pay!" rally at the State Capitol - organized through MoveOn. After the rally, participants will drive to the Chase branch at NW 23rd & Western where they will "respectfully" ask Chase to pay its "fair share" of taxes.
Wouldn't it be fun if some people showed up with signs that read, "Lower Taxes for Everybody! Make Government Smaller Not Bigger!"
Just a thought.
ADDENDUM - 4/17: Mr. Moore needs to be reminded that 45% of Americans pay no income tax.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Crisis timeline
Here's a comment that was posted by "MilksTherapist" at the NewsOK.com story on the Senate report. Somebody 'flagged' it for some reason, so it does not appear there right now, but I managed to find it on Disqus. I'm posting it here to give some context for my earlier rant.
1998Here are some additional resources from the Ayn Rand Center:
•Atty. General Janet Reno, accuses mortgage industry of “redlining.“
•HUD, under Andrew Cuomo, changes lending rules to encourage loans to the poor, for “Community development.”
•Reno threatens banks and mortgage companies with “investigations” if they don’t comply.
•Banks begin making thousands of bad loans. EX: 0 down, no documentation of income, for 120% (1998 – 2008).
•Executives at Fannie receive huge bonuses if loan asset targets are met.
1999 - 2004
•Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick from the Clinton Administration are appointed to run Fannie Mae.
•Raines earns $100 million in bonuses
•Gorelick earns $75 million in bonuses
•In 2004, Enron collapses, congress investigates, Executives Jeff Skilling & Ken Lay go to jail for fraudulent bookkeeping.
•Congress responds with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, requiring heavy regulation of corporations
2003
•President Bush proposes a new oversight committee to clean up Fannie Mae, but Democrats derail the effort.
1999 – 2005
•Fannie Mae pays millions to 354 Representatives and Senators from both parties, especially on oversight committees.
•Fannie Mae gives millions to Democratic causes, example: ACORN, now under investigation for widespread voter registration fraud.
•Who got the most money?
1.Sen. Christopher Dodd, (D-CT) Chairman of the Banking, Housing, & Urban Affairs Committee, 2006 and onward.
2.Sen. Barack Obama, (D-IL) Federal Financial Management Committee
7. Rep. Paul Kanjorski, (D-PA) Chairman of the House Financial Services Sub-Committee on Capital Markets, Insurance, & GSE’s, 2006 and onward.
26. Rep. Barney Frank, (D-MA) Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, 2006 and onward.
ARC's Response to the Financial Crisis
Scroll down the page for Yaron Brook's "The Financial Crisis: What Happened and Why"
The Financial Crisis: Causes and Possible Cures
These two lectures are just the tip of the iceberg. Much, much more is to be found at ARC's page.
Washington returns to business as usual. Run for your lives!
The Senate has issued its report on the economic crisis and found that - aside from a few minor conflicts of interest involving agencies tasked with regulating the banking industry - it's all the banking industry's fault.
In other words, the government had nothing to do with making the banks hand out all those questionable mortgages in the first place.
No, the government had nothing to do with trying to get more people to buy homes and bullying banks into lowering their standards in the name of altruism. Oh no, absolutely not. Move along. There's nothing to see here.
And altruism had nothing to do with making the banks more compliant, more eager to do the bidding of their regulatory overlords. Or getting said overlords to look the other way while bankers made riskier and riskier loans because, after all, owning your home is good for the country!
Why, no. Of course not! Why would anybody ever even think such a thing?
So now, after
So now it's safe for Washington to go back to business as usual. All we need, if anything, is more regulations.
BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!
In other words, the government had nothing to do with making the banks hand out all those questionable mortgages in the first place.
No, the government had nothing to do with trying to get more people to buy homes and bullying banks into lowering their standards in the name of altruism. Oh no, absolutely not. Move along. There's nothing to see here.
And altruism had nothing to do with making the banks more compliant, more eager to do the bidding of their regulatory overlords. Or getting said overlords to look the other way while bankers made riskier and riskier loans because, after all, owning your home is good for the country!
Why, no. Of course not! Why would anybody ever even think such a thing?
So now, after
a two-year investigation . . . that included four public hearings and the collection of hundreds of internal documents- according to the story on NewsOK.com - everything's all better now, it was all those nasty bankers' fault anyway, and if the government did do anything wrong it was only because it wasn't regulating the banking industry enough!
So now it's safe for Washington to go back to business as usual. All we need, if anything, is more regulations.
BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
First Principles: Freedom: For Whom and From What?
The second in the series of debates between Demos and the Ayn Rand Institute takes place Thursday, April 7th, and will explore the nature of freedom.
Debating for Demos will be political theorist Benjamin R. Barber and for the Ayn Rand Institute will be Objectivist philosopher Harry Binswanger.
The debate will be livestreamed starting at 5PM Oklahoma time on Facebook at the page of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights.
Notes on the event and preliminary remarks by the debaters can be found at It's A Free Country.
Debating for Demos will be political theorist Benjamin R. Barber and for the Ayn Rand Institute will be Objectivist philosopher Harry Binswanger.
The debate will be livestreamed starting at 5PM Oklahoma time on Facebook at the page of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights.
Notes on the event and preliminary remarks by the debaters can be found at It's A Free Country.
Ideas matter
One of the challenges faced by Objectivists wishing to capitalize on the Atlas Shrugged movie's release is how to explain Ayn Rand's philosophy to those who may experience only a smattering of the political implications of her philosophy while watching the movie, due to the inevitable compression Rand's novel will have undergone to render even a third of the book into a reasonable length film.
Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Institute, recently gave an excellent example of how the current political situation relates to Rand's system of ethics - showing how political ideas rest on a deeper foundation of ethical, metaphysical and epistemological assumptions - and he did it in only 30 minutes!
The event was "Ideas Matter: Ayn Rand's Message to Today's World" - a webcast streamed to several college campuses across the country, in addition to being available on the Internet. It was organized by The Undercurrent, a national newspaper published by Objectivist students for distribution on college campuses. (Not to be confused with the paper of that name at OU!)
Unfortunately the video now available of this event begins with about 15 minutes during which the camera was on but the event had not yet begun, but you can just skip right past that and get to the main event. After Brook's speech, he answered questions from the audience for another hour or so.
Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Institute, recently gave an excellent example of how the current political situation relates to Rand's system of ethics - showing how political ideas rest on a deeper foundation of ethical, metaphysical and epistemological assumptions - and he did it in only 30 minutes!
The event was "Ideas Matter: Ayn Rand's Message to Today's World" - a webcast streamed to several college campuses across the country, in addition to being available on the Internet. It was organized by The Undercurrent, a national newspaper published by Objectivist students for distribution on college campuses. (Not to be confused with the paper of that name at OU!)
Unfortunately the video now available of this event begins with about 15 minutes during which the camera was on but the event had not yet begun, but you can just skip right past that and get to the main event. After Brook's speech, he answered questions from the audience for another hour or so.
Watch live streaming video from ideasmatter at livestream.com
Monday, April 4, 2011
"Atlas Shrugged" movie coming to OKC
It's official: I received word from the folks at Harkins Theatres today that Atlas Shrugged Part 1 will be opening at the Harkins Bricktown here in Oklahoma City on April 15th.Apparently the campaign by the film's producers to motivate fans to ask for the movie at their local theaters is working. In the past few days, bookings have jumped from about a dozen to over 80 theaters nationwide, and reports are already starting to surface of sold-out showings.
I plan to be there on opening night. You're more than welcome to join me! If you're interested, let me know on Facebook at Atlas Shrugged Part 1 in OKC!
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Atlas Shrugged movie
Here's a clip showing the passage in which Dagny Taggart meets with a union rep about the John Galt Line:
This movie DEFINITELY needs to come to OKC! Do you hear me, theater owners?
This movie DEFINITELY needs to come to OKC! Do you hear me, theater owners?
Friday, March 25, 2011
"Right sizing" doesn't cut it
Here's the comment I posted at NewsOK.com this morning in response to Oklahoma state Treasurer Ken Miller's op-ed:
This does not sound to me like a commitment to smaller government. Given her recent statements regarding state-based health insurance exchanges, I fear Governor Fallin may be turning out to be another Mitt Romney. She certainly has no understanding of what a genuinely free market is.
(Here's someone who does: Michael F. Cannon - Obamacare Can't Be Fixed, and Now Is the Time to Dismantle It
Here's the basic contradiction: "When government is too small, it cannot provide basic enforcement of property rights and personal safety or the infrastructure necessary to facilitate markets."I do agree with Miller's assertion that the term "right sizing" is ambiguous, though I think Governor Fallin made her meaning clear in her State of the State address when she said that "the growth of government shouldn’t outpace growth in the private sector."
A small government can provide effective protection of individual rights if it focuses exclusively on doing ONLY that. It's way past time to cut loose the idea that infrastructure is government's responsibility. It's not. Private citizens took care of it before. They could do so again if the government would just get out of the way.
"Public sector size" IS the main problem. It is the source of "non-essential" services & agencies. It is the cause of government inefficiency.
Don't be afraid to cut too much. The federal budget was cut by two-thirds at the end of World War Two. I'm sure some people at the time were sorry to see the government let go of all those lovely tax dollars and the power that went along with it. Fortunately, they were not in the majority.
This, by the way, is one of the reasons why fiscal conservatives should reject social conservatism, which leads to more government, not less.
This does not sound to me like a commitment to smaller government. Given her recent statements regarding state-based health insurance exchanges, I fear Governor Fallin may be turning out to be another Mitt Romney. She certainly has no understanding of what a genuinely free market is.
(Here's someone who does: Michael F. Cannon - Obamacare Can't Be Fixed, and Now Is the Time to Dismantle It
Rather than beat their plowshares into swords, Obamacare opponents in most state capitols are laying the bureaucratic foundations for the law's new entitlement spending and lending it legitimacy by accepting its debt-financed federal grants.)
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
What is the proper role of Government?
Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Institute, debates Miles Rapoport, president of Demos, on the proper role of government. The debate took place at New York University on March 10, 2011.
We did it before - we CAN do it again!
There's a fantastic Forbes column by Richard Salsman which I wrote about at my other blog, The Morality War, when the column was first published.
Here's (part of) what I wrote about it:
We cut the budget by TWO-THIRDS! AND we survived!
Yes, I get that we had just ended a major war during which we were spending a lot of extra money. But too many people seem to think that an outbreak of peace is no excuse to let go of all those lovely tax dollars - and the power that goes along with them.
This is why I am so heartened by Rand Paul's proposal to cut 4 TRILLION DOLLARS (!!!!!) from the federal budget. Finally, a legislator with the guts to do something genuinely radical! THE biggest threat to American liberty right now is the runaway growth of government, and Senator Paul's proposal addresses this in a genuinely fundamental way that no one else seems willing to even hint at.
This gives me hope that maybe, just maybe, the Tea Party movement will actually amount to something, rather than merely giving social conservatives a platform to promote their tired old agenda which only gives the government more power, not less.
In fact, if Rand Paul was running for President, I'd be ready to vote for him right now!
Here's (part of) what I wrote about it:
Here's a great column by Richard Salsman who argues that, yes, there really was a time when it was possible to cut the federal budget - and by susbstantially more than the measly 2% or whatever that the Republicans are currently promising:The fact that the federal budget was cut - and the cuts were initiated by Democrats! - certainly gives the lie to complaints that too much cutting would be catastrophic.U.S. federal spending was cut by 5% in the year through July 1960 compared to the year earlier, and cut by 10% during a previous two-year period (1954-1955), but the biggest cut came with the “demobilization” after World War II. Total federal spending was slashed from a peak of $93 billion in 1945 to $55 billion in 1946, $35 billion in 1947 and $30 billion in 1948, before rising again.
The total, three-year reduction in federal outlays after World War II (1945-1948) was 68% of the prior peak spending level.
We cut the budget by TWO-THIRDS! AND we survived!
Yes, I get that we had just ended a major war during which we were spending a lot of extra money. But too many people seem to think that an outbreak of peace is no excuse to let go of all those lovely tax dollars - and the power that goes along with them.
This is why I am so heartened by Rand Paul's proposal to cut 4 TRILLION DOLLARS (!!!!!) from the federal budget. Finally, a legislator with the guts to do something genuinely radical! THE biggest threat to American liberty right now is the runaway growth of government, and Senator Paul's proposal addresses this in a genuinely fundamental way that no one else seems willing to even hint at.
This gives me hope that maybe, just maybe, the Tea Party movement will actually amount to something, rather than merely giving social conservatives a platform to promote their tired old agenda which only gives the government more power, not less.
In fact, if Rand Paul was running for President, I'd be ready to vote for him right now!
Saturday, March 19, 2011
The wrong foot
On Friday, Mary Fallin signed her very first bill into law as governor:
But still, couldn't Governor Fallin find another bill as her very first signing that didn't involve spending more money rather than less?
Argh.
Governor Mary Fallin Signs Bill Providing Additional Funds to Department of CorrectionsOkay, I get that incarcerating criminals is a legitimate function of government. I have no desire to jeapordize public safety by making it harder for the Corrections Department to do its job.
But still, couldn't Governor Fallin find another bill as her very first signing that didn't involve spending more money rather than less?
Argh.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Get out of the way!
Here's what I posted this morning in response to other commenters at "Oklahoma state government spending continues to climb":
Wow! Look at the liberals squirming! "Waaah, don't take our big government away from us! Waaaaah! The country will self destruct!"
You know, there was a time when government spending accounted for only 3% of the country's economy. There was no central bank. No income tax. A MUCH smaller government that stayed pretty much out of the way of private industry - which did so much more of what many today claim are "essential" government services. I look at India & China with their VERY mixed economies and I wonder what OUR growth rate was back then. 5%? 10%? More?
So, all you liberals, corporate welfare addicts & social conservatives: just stay out of our way.
OK?
Monday, March 7, 2011
Dear Matt Pinnell,
I'm glad you're willing to "walk the walk" when it comes to cutting taxes. But I still think "right-sizing government" is too wishy-washy. The only way to make genuine structural cuts in government that have any hope of lasting is to close agencies. That way Democrats can't come back and use the budgets of those agencies as an excuse to spend more tax dollars.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Essential government services
Here's a comment I posted this morning at a NewsOK.com column about the vote to abolish the state's income tax:
Okay, here are some questions which it is probably too late to ask since this column was posted yesterday & probably no one is paying attention anymore but I'm going to ask them anyway.This is the second comment I posted at this piece since it was published yesterday. There is a great deal more that I hope to get around to saying about this issue - the "essential government services" argument is a popular one among those who say the answer to the budget problem is to raise taxes. For now, I'll simply refer those who wish to know more to Ayn Rand's "The Nature of Government".
"services citizens want" What if I don't? Why should I have to pay for services I don't want? Why should I have to pay for services somebody else wants? Why should I have to pay the government for these services if I think somebody else can do a better job of providing them? Why shouldn't I have the option of being able to pay them instead of the government?
The government DOES NOT have to do everything. When it does try to do everything it ends up violating someone's rights. Some people think that's okay. I don't. A government that gets away with violating rights to provide these services will eventually end up violating MY rights.
I would rather have a government that held individual rights to life, liberty, property & the pursuit of happiness to be inviolable and let the free market take care of everything else.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
This morning's tweets
Follow The Oklahoma Capitalist on Twitter @ok_capitalist
OK Senate Votes To Abolish Income Tax http://bit.ly/hY7GK7
Apparently some Democrats in the Oklahoma Senate wanted to play chicken with the Republicans and it backfired on them. A Democrat attached an amendment to a Republican's bill, thinking Republicans weren't really willing to go that far. The amendment? Abolish the state's income tax. Guess what? The Republicans went there.
RT @OklahomaAFP: Deflecting Attention from Lowering Property Tax Cap Misguided and Uncalled For http://bit.ly/dNEi52
What Leonard Sullivan did to Stuart Jolly was pure viciousness. That having been said:
SJR 5 would lower the property tax cap from 5% to 3% or the rate of inflation, whichever is lower. Well, fine. Is that all?
Which leads me to my next tweet:
How about capping property tax rate increases at 0%? Or better yet, how about eliminating property taxes altogether?
Seriously, why are we even considering increases in tax rates? Shouldn't we be doing everything we can to reduce taxes and thus deprive government of revenue, forcing it to cut back?
This is a trend that has been worrying me ever since the governor's State of the State Address. Instead of talking about reducing the size of government, Fallin stated that she only wanted to restrain growth because "the growth of government shouldn’t outpace growth in the private sector." That doesn't sound like a commitment to smaller government to me, and wishy-washy proposals like SJR 5 don't, either. Could it be that it was precisely this kind of talk that lead Senate Democrats to believe Republicans would blink when they ran a truly radical statement on taxes up the pole?
Thankfully it looks like some Republicans have the nerve to be more ambitious with their cutting than that.
OK Senate Votes To Abolish Income Tax http://bit.ly/hY7GK7
Apparently some Democrats in the Oklahoma Senate wanted to play chicken with the Republicans and it backfired on them. A Democrat attached an amendment to a Republican's bill, thinking Republicans weren't really willing to go that far. The amendment? Abolish the state's income tax. Guess what? The Republicans went there.
RT @OklahomaAFP: Deflecting Attention from Lowering Property Tax Cap Misguided and Uncalled For http://bit.ly/dNEi52
What Leonard Sullivan did to Stuart Jolly was pure viciousness. That having been said:
SJR 5 would lower the property tax cap from 5% to 3% or the rate of inflation, whichever is lower. Well, fine. Is that all?
Which leads me to my next tweet:
How about capping property tax rate increases at 0%? Or better yet, how about eliminating property taxes altogether?
Seriously, why are we even considering increases in tax rates? Shouldn't we be doing everything we can to reduce taxes and thus deprive government of revenue, forcing it to cut back?
This is a trend that has been worrying me ever since the governor's State of the State Address. Instead of talking about reducing the size of government, Fallin stated that she only wanted to restrain growth because "the growth of government shouldn’t outpace growth in the private sector." That doesn't sound like a commitment to smaller government to me, and wishy-washy proposals like SJR 5 don't, either. Could it be that it was precisely this kind of talk that lead Senate Democrats to believe Republicans would blink when they ran a truly radical statement on taxes up the pole?
Thankfully it looks like some Republicans have the nerve to be more ambitious with their cutting than that.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Too much and not enough
You've heard of Oklahoma's "anti-gouging" law that punishes business owners who raise their prices "too high" during "emergencies". Well, here's a story in this morning's Oklahoman about a law that penalizes those who don't raise their prices enough:
Just one more example of regulation Oklahoma can do without.
The Oklahoma Unfair Sales Act was passed in 1949. It's designed to protect small businesses from the pricing advantages large chains have and hopefully prevent this scenario: retail giant rolls into town, sells goods super cheap, puts little guy out of business, then jacks up their prices.The story focuses on how the law - which requires stores to sell items at least 6 percent above cost - has prevented Walmart from bringing special pricing to Oklahoma that it makes available elsewhere.
Just one more example of regulation Oklahoma can do without.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
"OKC Council to vote on Remington Park’s smoking status"
Well, I don't have a subscription to the Journal Record but it looks to me - just from the title of the story - like the OKC City Council wants the power to micromanage private businesses.
How else to explain their statement supporting a state law that would give local governments sweeping new powers to regulate tobacco?
One more infringement on individual rights - well, actually several more - and one more reason to cut government down to size.
At ALL levels.
The sole moral function of government is to protect individual rights, NOT infringe them.
How else to explain their statement supporting a state law that would give local governments sweeping new powers to regulate tobacco?
One more infringement on individual rights - well, actually several more - and one more reason to cut government down to size.
At ALL levels.
The sole moral function of government is to protect individual rights, NOT infringe them.
Opportunity is knocking
The private space industry is finally getting to be serious business: today's announcement by the Southwest Research Institute about its agreement to purchase places on suborbital flights from Virgin Galactic and XCOR make it clear that the so-called "NewSpace" industry is past the giggle stage. Certainly the flurry of news reports filed in response to the announcement would seem to indicate that is the case.
Here in Oklahoma, respectability for commercial space efforts by private entrepreneurs has been held back by the Rocketplane debacle, in which state tax credits were awarded to a company that promised suborbital rides for "space tourists" launched from right here in Oklahoma. Those plans evaporated as the company seemed to do nothing but seek financing for its ever-increasing development costs before finally closing its Oklahoma office, leaving the state with no return on its investment.
But while Rocketplane never took off, Oklahoma did see a small return on its investment in another venture for the NewSpace industry: the Oklahoma Spaceport, which has been used extensively by Texas company Armadillo Aerospace for development and testing of its own privately-financed space vehicles.
Unfortunately, this has not been enough to keep Governor Fallin from announcing that the agency that oversees the Spaceport - the Oklahoma Space Industry Development Authority - will be shut down due to the state's current budget problems.
It would be a shame if this turned out to be a lost opportunity. Virgin Galactic's SpaceShip Two is designed to be flown twice a day. XCOR's Lynx is said to be shooting for twice that many flights per day. According to some reports, today's announcement by SWRI indicates that the market for suborbital research - powered by flights much cheaper than anything previously available - could ultimately be bigger than the space tourism market.
All those flights are going to need to launch from somewhere. Perhaps the Oklahoma Spaceport could be one such location. What if a private investor or investors were to purchase it - or at least take over operations, thus privatizing it? Oklahoma would thus have the foundation for its own private space industry, catering to the likes of Virgin, XCOR, Armadillo, Blue Origin & Masten Space Systems: currently representing an investment worth $1 billion, certainly not a sum to be giggled about. And it could provide a base for home-grown efforts: not just competitors but support companies, as well - just as Tinker Air Base is supported by its own network of private companies here in the state.
Is anybody looking into this? I hope so.
Here in Oklahoma, respectability for commercial space efforts by private entrepreneurs has been held back by the Rocketplane debacle, in which state tax credits were awarded to a company that promised suborbital rides for "space tourists" launched from right here in Oklahoma. Those plans evaporated as the company seemed to do nothing but seek financing for its ever-increasing development costs before finally closing its Oklahoma office, leaving the state with no return on its investment.
But while Rocketplane never took off, Oklahoma did see a small return on its investment in another venture for the NewSpace industry: the Oklahoma Spaceport, which has been used extensively by Texas company Armadillo Aerospace for development and testing of its own privately-financed space vehicles.
Unfortunately, this has not been enough to keep Governor Fallin from announcing that the agency that oversees the Spaceport - the Oklahoma Space Industry Development Authority - will be shut down due to the state's current budget problems.
It would be a shame if this turned out to be a lost opportunity. Virgin Galactic's SpaceShip Two is designed to be flown twice a day. XCOR's Lynx is said to be shooting for twice that many flights per day. According to some reports, today's announcement by SWRI indicates that the market for suborbital research - powered by flights much cheaper than anything previously available - could ultimately be bigger than the space tourism market.
All those flights are going to need to launch from somewhere. Perhaps the Oklahoma Spaceport could be one such location. What if a private investor or investors were to purchase it - or at least take over operations, thus privatizing it? Oklahoma would thus have the foundation for its own private space industry, catering to the likes of Virgin, XCOR, Armadillo, Blue Origin & Masten Space Systems: currently representing an investment worth $1 billion, certainly not a sum to be giggled about. And it could provide a base for home-grown efforts: not just competitors but support companies, as well - just as Tinker Air Base is supported by its own network of private companies here in the state.
Is anybody looking into this? I hope so.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Social conservatives are not Tea Partiers
Here's a comment I posted at the NewsOK.com story, "MAPS 3 a focus of Oklahoma City Ward 5 race":
Social conservatives are never going to get anywhere on the City Council. Restraint in city government will only come from fiscal conservatives who don't bring any other baggage with them. Social conservatives have proved time and again that they crave the power of government just as much as any liberal. They don't want smaller government and Tea Partiers should not be supporting them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)