America Ranks Only 14th in Property Rights Index

In an interesting new report, the Property Rights Alliance has published the first index measuring property rights. Not surprisingly, the report finds that nations with stronger protections of property rights also have more prosperous economies. It was discouraging to read, though, that America is tied for 14th place, behind welfare states such as Denmark, Sweden, and Germany (though the U.S. beat France):

…countries in the higher rankings of the IPRI are primarily advanced industrialized economies, particularly Western Europe (Scandinavia) and North America. Countries that show a weak performance with respect to property rights protection are African and Latin American nations, in addition to the Central European nations. … better performing countries (1st Quartile in ranking) enjoy, on average, a GDP per capita income of more than eight times their counterparts at the lower quartile of the Index. … citizens of countries in the top quartile in the IPRI ranking enjoy a per capita income that is more than seven times that of their counterparts in the bottom quartile. … the correlation between the IPRI rating and GDP per capita amounts to a value of eighty-nine percent.

Democratic Budget Threatens Repeal of Bush Tax Cuts and Adoption of Dorgan and Levin Anti-Tax Competition Bills

In a discouraging development, the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee has crafted a budget that does not make the Bush tax cuts permanent. He implies that the tax cuts can be extended if other taxes are raised, and he specifically suggests that legislation attacking so-called tax havens could provide offsetting revenue. But these punitive and discriminatory bills would raise very little money (especially since they would force many American companies and entrepreneurs to reduce their efforts to compete in global markets). As the Wall Street Journal explains, Senator Conrad’s real goal is repealing the Bush tax cuts and imposing a huge tax hike on the productive sector of America’s economy:

Mr. Conrad has no intention of extending the Bush tax cuts… But Senate Democrats don’t want anyone to know this, at least not before the 2008 election. So Mr. Conrad says his budget revenue estimates “assume that Congress will take steps to counter the effects of the expiration of tax cuts in 2010 in a manner that does not add to the nation’s debt burden.” How so? Well, “this additional revenue can be achieved without raising taxes by closing the tax gap, shutting down illegal tax shelters, addressing tax havens, and simplifying the tax code,” he avers. …The 10-year revenue increase from repealing the Bush tax cuts is something like $2 trillion, according to Congress’s static-revenue models. Mr. Conrad is claiming that Congress will make up for all of that lost revenue by chasing down such illusions as the “tax gap,” which the IRS claims is the difference between the taxes people owe and what they pay. …All of this is really sleight-of-hand to disguise that Democrats are intent on repealing the Bush tax cuts. This would raise the tax on capital gains to 20% from 15%, more than double the tax rate on dividends to 39.6% from 15%, and sharply increase marginal tax rates at all levels of income. …The market fell 200 points on the day Mr. Conrad unveiled his magic act last week.

Why Won’t Al Gore Debate?

Former vice president and Oscar winner Al Gore is scheduled to testify to both House and Senate committees today about global warming. For the past few years Gore has traveled across America speaking to audiences that range from friendly to worshipful, from journalists in New York and Washington to actors in Hollywood. If he has ever faced skeptical questions, it hasn’t been reported.

We have several times invited the former vice president to present his famous slide show at the Cato Institute, in conjunction with a slide show prepared by Patrick J. Michaels, who takes a more benign view of climate change. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia. He is the state climatologist of Virginia, a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and an author of the 2003 climate science “Paper of the Year” selected by the Association of American Geographers. His research has been published in major scientific journals, including Climate Research, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, Nature, and Science. He received his Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1979. His most recent book is Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media, which has been number one on Amazon’s global warming bestseller list for months at a time and has been reprinted twice this year.

Gore’s office has declined our invitations. If Vice President Gore is committed to public understanding of climate change, why will he not demonstrate to a Washington audience composed of both supporters and skeptics that his ideas can carry the day in a dialogue with a leading critic? He wiped the floor with Ross Perot; does he fear that the case for catastrophic climate change is not as strong as the case for NAFTA?

The invitation is still open. Mr. Vice President, please come to the Cato Institute and present your slide show to an audience of journalists and scholars with a knowledgeable climate scientist also on the dais.

K for Korruption

The Washington Post has been running a series on its website (Citizen K Street) on the life of Gerald Cassidy, the preeminent entrepreneur of federal budget earmarking since the 1970s. Here are a few thoughts:

- Cassidy is a liberal Democrat, but a much more important aspect of his character seems to be his insatiable quest for money, money, money.

- Rather than adding to the nation’s gross domestic product, Cassidy earned his fortune of about $125 million as the middleman in the forced transfer of wealth from taxpayers to state and local recipient groups willing to play the Washington game.  

- Annual revenues of registered lobbyists in Washington have increased from $100 million in 1975 to $2.5 billion by 2006.

- The word “conservative” doesn’t have any meaning when it comes to big government spending. The Post describes former Rep. Jamie Whitten as a “conservative Mississippi Democrat,” yet Whitten was a famous pork barrel spender. The Post story also captures a smiling Tom Delay and Roy Blunt–supposedly staunch Republican conservatives– at a party in honor of Cassidy and Associates’ 30-year record of lobbying for pork.   

- Cassidy pioneered earmarking for universities and other state and local institutions. His firm provides a very high return on investment for his clients. One client paid Cassidy $1.3 million in fees and was rewarded with a $29 million taxpayer-funded earmark. Another client paid Cassidy $15 million and received $106 million in earmarks. And in another case, a client paid Cassidy $1.2 million and received a $15 million earmark.

- Washington tends to attract sharp, aggressive, amibitious people like Cassidy, who want to become rich, and don’t seem to care about limited government, constitutional government, good government, or the broad public interest. 

- When you combine democracy with the tremendous entrepreneurial abilities of folks like Cassidy, and some of the members of Congress he serves, the result is a federal government that will spend about $3 trillion this year.   

DHS Privacy Committee Meeting Tomorrow

The DHS Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee meets tomorrow (Mar. 21) at the Crowne Plaza Washington National Airport in Arlington. 

The morning agenda is heavy on REAL ID, and we’ll hear from Jonathan Frenkel, a Senior Policy Advisor at DHS who was one of the key officials responsible for writing the recently issued regulations.

More on Libertarians and Democrats

In a blog post yesterday, my colleague John Samples tried to pour cold water on my idea of libertarian outreach to the left. Specifically, he cites depressing polling data that show strong support among Democratic voters for increased government spending. Alas, the appetite for free ice cream from Washington isn’t restricted to Democrats, as I point out in an essay for this month’s issue of Cato Unbound. I’ll concede, though, that Democratic voters are especially unlikely to pressure their representatives to show spending restraint.

Does that mean libertarians have no business seeking common ground with liberals? Let me make just a couple of quick points.

First, polls aren’t everything. After all, as Cato’s Stephen Slivinski has written, real federal spending increased at an annual rate of only 1.5 percent under Bill Clinton, as compared to a 5.6 percent rate of growth during George W. Bush’s first term. So Democratic politicians can run and win on a record of fiscal prudence. Yes, it’s true that Clinton’s good spending record was due in significant part to the fact that he faced a GOP Congress for most of his time in office. But this just shows that people who care about controlling spending would do better to rely on divided government than on Republicans’ small-government rhetoric. And you can’t have divided government without electing some Democrats!

Second, spending isn’t everything. The cause of limited government has many other dimensions besides the degree of budget bloat. How, I wonder, do Democratic voters compare to Republicans in their attitudes on getting out of Iraq? Getting into Iran? Torture? Warrantless wiretapping? Immigration? The drug war? Whatever voters tell pollsters, it’s clear that Democratic politicians are more likely than their GOP counterparts to resist government overreaching in these vital areas.

The sad fact is that libertarians have few allies today in either political party. Why on earth then should we refuse to seek common ground with those Democrats who hold relatively pro-market attitudes?

Just like Ohio’s Children, Gov. Strickland Needs a Good Education

Ryan Boots over at Edspresso hits Ohio’s new Governor Ted Strickland  for claiming that vouchers are “inherently undemocratic.”  Strickland thinks that vouchers are “inherently undemocratic” because “they allow public dollars to be used in ways and in settings where the public has little or no oversight,” and “those who are paying those tax dollars have no ability to vote for a board of education or to make determinations regarding curriculum, or discipline or admission policies or a whole range of things.”

As Ryan points out, this just isn’t the case with the highly (over)regulated EdChoice program, which encumbers participating schools with an array of restrictions that ensure no real market in education services will arise to serve the needs of the neediest children.

Even if Strickland’s fantasy voucher program did exist, however, the current system of government schooling is less democratic and more prone to corruption.  The profligate spending, waste and outright fraud that characterize the government education system hardly suggest that it is subject to effective public oversight.

And for good reason … it is controlled by the education-industrial complex, aka “Big Ed,” which short-circuits all political attempts to direct it for the public good.  Big Ed controls board of education elections as well as “determinations regarding curriculum, or discipline or admission policies or a whole range of things.”  That’s why exasperated policy experts with no love of the free market are calling for parental choice in education and why parents are desperate to escape a system they pay for but can’t control.

But Strickland does hit on one good point, buried though it may be beneath a pile of misconceptions and delusions.  “Those who are paying those tax dollars” for education should be able to direct their money to the kind of education that they support.  Agreed.

Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for kids to learn about condoms in the 3rd grade or abstinence-only in the 12th grade. Forcing all parents to educate their children in the same way is a recipe for irresolvable value conflicts and civic strife.   Disbursing general revenues for education forces some people to pay for education with which they disagree.

Education tax credits allow every taxpayer to support the kind of education they want to and force no one to pay for education to which they object.  Tax credits create a public education system where schools are accountable to the parents who choose them and the people who pay for them … not through a corrupt political process beholden to Big Ed, but directly accountable to the people themselves.

That is true oversight. That is a democratic system of education.  If Strickland can’t support vouchers, he certainly has no reason to oppose education tax credits.  Other than fealty to Big Ed over our children.