Archives: 01/2007

Criminal Justice in Georgia

Here’s the problem with consensual crimes, plea bargaining, and mandatory minimum sentencing …

This guy shouldn’t be in jail at all, but he’s in a Georgia prison serving a ten year sentence.  The case of Genarlow Wilson is also a dramatic illustration of the bizarre mentality of too many prosecutors.  Which is not to say that the legislators are very far behind them.

More here and here.  

Competition among Cantons Boosting Swiss Competitiveness

Federalism is a marvelous structure, both because it allows preferences for different policies to be satisfied and because it creates competition among units of government. While federalism has been somewhat eroded in the United States, it still exists and presumably is one of the reasons why America is relatively prosperous (thanks to a less oppressive level of government). Switzerland is an even bigger success story. The central government represents less than one-third of total government (as compared to two-thirds in the US), and the concomitant competition between cantons has helped control the size of government. And as a Swiss news report indicates, this has generated big benefits for the Swiss economy:

Zurich is poised for a further influx of foreign firms and workers after the relocation of Kraft Foods’ European headquarters and the expansion of Google this year. The moves earlier this month from the two United States giants offer further evidence that the region offers prime conditions for companies, according to the Greater Zurich Area relocation service. …”The relocation of headquarters and the nice growth of Google that we have seen in the last couple of months shows that we have very good basic conditions in the region,” commented Greater Zurich Area chief executive Willi Meier. …A more controversial lure for foreign companies is the low corporate tax rates offered by many cantons in Switzerland. …The competition among cantons to set the lowest business tax was intensified at the beginning of last year when Obwalden slashed its rates to a Swiss low of just 6.6 per cent. Obwalden attracted 376 new firms in the first 11 months of 2006, three times more than in the previous year. But Meier insists the Zurich region is not afraid of the increased competition. “The tax competition among Swiss cantons makes Switzerland as a whole more competitive on an international basis. Kraft has chosen Zurich despite the fact that we don’t have the lowest tax rate in Switzerland, but on an international scale its still a very competitive rate,” he said. 

Milton Friedman Day

Milton FriedmanDr. Milton Friedman, who passed away last November at the age of 94, was perhaps the most influential economist of the 20th Century and a champion of liberty. To honor Dr. Friedman, today has been declared Milton Friedman Day – “a celebration of the economist’s positive impact on American life and business, and the spread of the benefits of free markets to nations around the globe.” At 10pm EST tonight, PBS will premiere “The Power of Choice: The Life and Ideas of Milton Friedman,” an exclusive documentary on the remarkable life and free market vision of Milton Friedman. The special, produced for PBS by Free to Choose Media, gives viewers a new understanding of the magnitude of this legendary economist’s influence on the modern world.

Lower Tax Rates Yielding More Tax Revenue

The capital gains tax should not be reduced to give more money to the government. Instead, the tax should be abolished since it is a punitive form of double-taxation on income that is invested. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that the government is collecting more money at a lower tax rate. Because there are many factors that influence economic performance, this does not necessarily mean that the lower rate is “paying for itself,” but it certainly indicates that there is a supply-side effect. As the Wall Street Journal explains, the bean-counters at the Joint Committee on Taxation failed to predict this result: 

Data released last week from the Congressional Budget Office confirm that the tax cuts of 2003 keep soaking the rich, especially on their capital gains. CBO and Congress’s Joint Tax Committee originally estimated that reducing the capital gains rate to 15% from 20% would cost the Treasury $5.4 billion from 2003-2006. Whoops. Actual revenues exceeded expectations by 68%, creating a $133 billion revenue bonanza for the feds. CBO’s original forecast for 2006 was for $57 billion in capital gains revenues, but actual receipts were $110 billion. This surprise windfall is one reason the budget deficit is also far lower than CBO predicted. The lower capital gains tax has raised stock values by raising the after-tax return on capital investment. It has also given stock owners a greater incentive to sell their shares, and then reinvest the proceeds, because the tax penalty on these transactions is lower. …The 2003 rate cut liberated hundreds of billions of dollars of capital for new investment. By the way, the National Venture Capital Association reports that venture capitalists invested $25.5 billion in 2006, the biggest burst of dealmaking since the stock market bubble burst in 2000. This is seed money for new companies and new jobs that will lift future tax revenues.

Jeb vs. W

Reading the Washington Post write-up of Gov. Jeb Bush’s speech to the National Review Conservative Summit, you have to wonder just what he’s saying. The Post reports:

Jeb Bush delivered yesterday in Washington a resounding endorsement of conservative principles, bringing his audience repeatedly to its feet.

In his lunchtime remarks to the Conservative Summit, Bush struck every conservative chord, blaming Republicans’ defeat in November on the party’s abandonment of tenets including limited government and fiscal restraint….

He added, “If the promise of pork and more programs is the way Republicans think they’ll regain the majority, then they’ve got a problem.”

Jeb said he was talking about the Republican Congress, and Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review noted that he offered

a vigorous defense of his brother. Bush, at the beginning of his lunch speech, directed comments to the press gathered, noting emphatically: “I’m not going to criticize the president of the United States.” Among other accomplishments, Bush noted, “I like Justice Roberts. I like Justice Alito…” and tax cuts. He would also go on to defend the president’s immigration policy.

But who’s he kidding? President Bush sponsored most of those “more programs,” and in six years he hasn’t vetoed a single piece of pork or a bloated entitlement bill or a new spending program. And if Jeb thinks “we lost…because we rejected the conservative philosophy in this country,” he must realize that his brother has set the agenda for Republicans over the past six years almost as firmly as Putin has set Russia’s agenda. If Republicans turned their back on limited-government conservatism, it’s because the White House told them to. Not that congressional leaders were blameless — and on Social Security reform, they did decide to resist Bush’s one good idea — but it was President Bush and his White House staff who inspired, enticed, threatened, bullied, and bully-pulpited Republicans into passing the No Child Left Behind Act, the biggest expansion of entitlements in 40 years, and other big-government schemes.

This isn’t a dynastic country, and we shouldn’t elect a president whose brother (or husband) just served in the same office. But maybe Jeb could do like royals and nobles in the Old World sometimes do — give up their title or family name and enter politics as just plain Tony. (Believe me, once voters hear Jeb discuss public policy with facts and complete sentences, they’ll quickly forget that he’s supposed to be the president’s brother.) As John Ellis, the successful two-term governor of Florida, Jeb would instantly be the mainstream-conservative candidate for president.

But actual supporters of limited government should limit their enthusiasm. Although Jeb seems to have convinced conservatives that he’s much more committed to spending restraint than W — and he did veto some $2 billion in spending over eight years — his real record is much more like his brother’s. According to the Cato Institute’s Fiscal Policy Report Card on America’s Governors (pdf), he presided over “explosive growth in state spending.” Indeed, in the latest report card, only 10 governors had worse ratings on spending restraint, though — again like his brother — Jeb scored much higher on tax cutting. Federal spending is up 50 percent in six years; Florida’s spending was up 52 percent in eight years, and Jeb wasn’t fighting two foreign wars.

But at least he gives a good speech.

Bush’s Alternative-fuel Boondoggle

A CBSnews.com column explains how huge ethanol subsidies enrich special interests like Archer Daniels Midland:

Ironically, the president’s call echoes a more severe proposal by his 2004 campaign opponent John Kerry — a recommendation that a National Center for Policy Analysis study found would not “reduce future U.S. dependence on foreign oil.” The president’s plan also proposes an expansion of the so-called Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS), which currently mandates that refineries produce 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol per year by 2012.

But, as Heritage Foundation energy analyst Ben Lieberman points out, “if ethanol were a viable fuel, you wouldn’t have to mandate it in the first place.” Indeed, ethanol — whether made from corn or trendy cellulosic sources like switchgrass — is simply not viable as an alternative for the fundamental reason that a gallon of ethanol only goes 75 percent as far as a gallon of gas.

…For the farm lobby, the renewable mandate is easier to understand. It means money. Lots of money. To make ethanol price-competitive, the federal government subsidizes its production to the tune of 51 cents a gallon, costing U.S. taxpayers $4.1 billion a year.

Fueled by the RFS, Big Ethanol producer Archer Daniels Midland rang up record 2006 profits that would make Big Oil blush. Now Bush is proposing to increase the mandate to a fanciful 35 billion gallons by 2017 (whether consumers buy it or not). And as the federal honey pot grows, it is naturally attracting more flies.

Meanwhile, a Wall Street Journal column notes how the ethanol subsidy has a big negative impact on other users of corn, and even causes harm in other nations:

What we have here is a classic political stampede rooted more in hope and self-interest than science or logic.

…[F]ederal and state subsidies for ethanol ran to about $6 billion last year, equivalent to roughly half its wholesale market price. Ethanol gets a 51-cent a gallon domestic subsidy, and there’s another 54-cent a gallon tariff applied at the border against imported ethanol. Without those subsidies, hardly anyone would make the stuff, much less buy it — despite recent high oil prices.

That’s also why the percentage of the U.S. corn crop devoted to ethanol has risen to 20% from 3% in just five years, or about 8.6 million acres of farmland. Reaching the President’s target of 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels by 2017 would, at present corn yields, require the entire U.S. corn harvest.

No wonder, then, that the price of corn rose nearly 80% in 2006 alone. Corn growers and their Congressmen love this, and naturally they are planting as much as they can.

…[F]or those of us who like our corn flakes in the morning, the higher price isn’t such good news. It’s even worse for cattle, poultry and hog farmers trying to adjust to suddenly exorbitant prices for feed corn — to pick just one industry example.

The price of corn is making America’s meat-packing industries, which are major exporters, less competitive. In Mexico, the price of corn tortillas — the dietary staple of the country’s poorest — has risen by about 30% in recent months, leading to widespread protests and price controls. …Thus is a Beltway fad translated into Third World woes.

…The scientific literature is also divided about whether the energy inputs required to produce ethanol actually exceed its energy output. It takes fertilizer to grow the corn, and fuel to ship and process it, and so forth. Even the most optimistic estimate says ethanol’s net energy output is a marginal improvement of only 1.3 to one. For purposes of comparison, energy outputs from gasoline exceed inputs by an estimated 10 to one.

And because corn-based ethanol is less efficient than ordinary gasoline, using it to fuel cars means you need more [fuel] to drive the same number of miles. This is not exactly a route to “independence” from Mideast, Venezuelan or any other tainted source of oil.

…If cellulose is going to be an energy miracle — an agricultural cold fusion — far better to let the market figure that out. Not that any of these facts are likely to make much difference in the current Washington debate. The corn and sugar lobbies have their roots deep in both parties, and now they have the mantra of “energy independence” to invoke, however illusory it is. If anything, Congress may add to Mr. Bush’s ethanol mandate requests.

NZ’s Richest Woman Escapes High Taxes

Tax competition is a marvelous liberalizing force. Every time a taxpayer leaves a high-tax jurisdiction for a low-tax jurisdiction, bad policy is punished and good policy is rewarded.

New Zealand’s richest woman is the latest tax expatriate, as reported by The Press:

Reclusive Kathmandu founder Jan Cameron has moved to Tasmania after spending more than 30 years in Christchurch, where she built a $275 million business fortune. Starting with a small shop in Linwood, Cameron turned her outdoor-clothing and equipment venture into one of the country’s best-known brands, with outlets in New Zealand, Australia and Britain.

The Press understands Cameron had looked at staying in New Zealand after selling Kathmandu last year and planned to donate a portion of her annual income from her investments to charities. But under the New Zealand tax regime, all the money she gave away over an $1800 threshold would be taxed, so she opted to move to Australia, where there is no limit.

…PricewaterhouseCoopers tax specialist John Shewan said he was not surprised by Cameron’s decision. “It does underline how careful we need to be if we want to retain high-net-worth individuals,” he said. “We need to have a tax-friendly environment. Sadly, we don’t have that at the moment.”

Shewan said Cameron would pay no tax on her overseas investments under new Australian tax rules. ”Australia has stolen a march on us in terms of attracting high-net-worth individuals,” he said.