This is a story any blogger should find outrageous:
For the past three years, Marilyn Bess has operated MS Philly Organic, a small, low-traffic blog that features occasional posts about green living, out of her Manayunk home. Between her blog and infrequent contributions to ehow.com, over the last few years she says she’s made about $50. To Bess, her website is a hobby. To the city of Philadelphia, it’s a potential moneymaker, and the city wants its cut.
In May, the city sent Bess a letter demanding that she pay $300, the price of a business privilege license.
“The real kick in the pants is that I don’t even have a full-time job, so for the city to tell me to pony up $300 for a business privilege license, pay wage tax, business privilege tax, net profits tax on a handful of money is outrageous,” Bess says.
This story doesn’t include the angle of politicians using these tools to silence opponents, but that potential is clearly there, as well. What we have here is simply government greed.
I’ve never been a fan of licensing laws, and will continue to proudly flaunt my status as an unlicensed blogger. This issue goes beyond just blogging, however. Licensing laws of all kinds are antithetical to the American spirit. Owning a business is not a privilege granted by government, and should never be treated as such. If I found myself living in the jurisdiction of any local government that so aggressive claimed otherwise, I’d pack up and move. Flee these tyrannical jurisdictions as soon as possible, and then we’ll see what happens to their tax revenues.
Leave a comment
Print This Post
My latest post on Big Government wishes you a Happy Cost of Government Day:
Leave a commentFor the last 7 1/2 months your labor has belonged to someone else – the state. You have slaved away for the majority of the year to pay for the bailouts, subsidies, vote buying, earmarks and redistribution schemes that make up the majority of spending by governments at all levels, in addition to the price of burdensome regulations. Today, August 19, is the day you have finally payed off your share of the cost of big government.
Every year, Americans for Tax Reform calculates Cost of Government Day, or how long it takes the average American to earn enough to pay off the financial burdens imposed by government. In 2010, it took 231 days of work. That’s 8 more than last year, and more than an extra month from 2008, before Obama took office…
Print This Post
Thanks to laws enacted by the government on behalf of the funeral lobby, Monks can’t sell simple caskets:
Leave a comment Print This Post
While the public is rightly skeptical of granting our government overlords unlimited power – which they are busy gathering for themselves nonetheless – there’s one group of people who think it would be just dandy to grant limitless power to the Political Class: the Political Class.
By a 54% to 43% margin, the Political Class believes the federal government should be allowed to do most anything. Mainstream voters reject that view by a 94% to three percent (3%) margin.
At a July 24 Town Hall meeting, Democratic Congressman Pete Stark of California may have inadvertently articulated the Political Class view. In responding to questions about whether or not the recently passed health care law is unconstitutional, Stark said, “I think that there are very few constitutional limits that would prevent the federal government from rules that could affect your private life.” In response to a follow-up, he added, “The federal government, yes, can do most anything in this country.”
…The gap between the Political Class and Mainstream voters is seen in other data as well. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of Political Class voters believe the United States is generally heading in the right direction. However, among Mainstream Voters, 84% say the country has gotten off on the wrong track.
The ruling elites are becoming increasingly out of touch from the rest of society. That their primary objective seems to be the acquisition and exercise of power is all the more reason not to entrust elites with any in the first place, especially over things as important as our retirement savings and health care.
Leave a comment Print This Post
As I predicted back in December, the fight over Obamacare has moved to the states. Several big developments have hit recently which do not bode well for supporters of unconstitutionally government-run health care.
First, a Federal District Court Judge Henry Hudson rejected the government’s attempt to dismiss Virginia’s lawsuit against Obamacare (full decision here). The establishment line was that legal challenges to Obamacare were just partisan grandstanding, and that of course government has the power to tax a non-economic non-activity through the Commerce Clause. They were wrong as Judge Hudson noted that Obamacare’s constitutional argument “literally forges new ground and extends Commerce Clause powers beyond its current high watermark.” Whether or not the court eventually reaches the right conclusion and declares Obamacare’s individual mandate to be unconstitutional remains to be seen, but this is an important first step.
On top of this, the voters in Missouri turned out yesterday to give Obamacare their disapproval.
Tuesday’s 71 to 29 percent blowout vote on Proposition C left no doubt where voters stand as they handed President Obama’s health care law a stunning rejection.
The proposition attempts to protect Missourians from the new federal mandate to buy insurance.
It also tries overturning the new federal prohibitions on insurance companies selling insurance directly to people.
This is just the beginning of the long fight against massive government expansion and government-run healthcare. But so far, the battles are being won by the side of smart policy and Constitutional governance.
Leave a comment Print This Post
Florida Senator Bill Nelson is seizing on the BP oil spill as an excuse to pass federal “price-gouging” legislation. It’s certainly nothing new to see anti-market politicians stirring up populist rage with these so-called “price gouging” laws. Many states already have them on the books, and politicians are quick to warn greedy capitalists against “exploiting” disasters by raising prices. But these laws are really nothing more than price controls and, like all price controls, they distort markets and harm consumers.
“Price-gouging” laws generally prohibit “excessive” or “unconscionable” prices – both unconstitutionally vague concepts – immediately following disaster declarations. Prosecutions typically follow hurricanes, floods or other major events that knock out power and stress the availability of goods like ice and power generators.
Under normal circumstances, sudden increases in demand result in similarly sudden spikes in prices. As prices go up, entrepreneurs in nearby areas are motivated to buy goods at their cheaper local prices, transport them into the disaster area, and then sell them for a handsome profit. This is how price signals work to indicate where goods are most needed. The entrepreneurs make enough money to justify their efforts, and people in the disaster area are able to get the extra supplies they need. Yet despite the fact that everyone wins, many politicians have criminalized this behavior. Rather than cheering the entrepreneurs for bringing relief supplies that would not otherwise arrive to post-disaster areas, state government officials often prosecute, fine and even jail them.
Not satisfied with the fact that a majority of states already have these misguided price controls on the books, federal politicians have repeatedly tried to have them enacted nationally. A bill that would have criminalized charging market prices for needed goods passed the House in 2007, but failed to get the 2/3rd votes necessary to override President Bush’s threatened veto. Now, with a more sympathetic President Obama in office, such legislation could potentially return, and pass.
Bill Nelson’s state of Florida already unnecessarily perpetuates shortages after hurricanes and other disasters with misguided price controls. He shouldn’t force similar pain on the 20 or so states without price gouging laws.
Leave a comment Print This Post
I’ve heard a few economic whoppers in my time, especially from the mouths of politicians, but this statement by Speaker Pelosi has got to be one of the most foolish yet.
Talking to reporters, the House speaker was defending a jobless benefits extension against those who say it gives recipients little incentive to work. By her reasoning, those checks are helping give somebody a job.
“It injects demand into the economy,” Pelosi said, arguing that when families have money to spend it keeps the economy churning. “It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name.”
This is the same Keynesian clap-trap that claims you can “stimulate” the economy through government spending. It’s the same theory that created a “lost decade” in Japan as they tried one Keynesian stimulus after another throughout the 1990’s. It’s the same theory behind the 2008 Bush rebate checks, which did not spur growth, and the Obama stimulus, which did not spur growth.
You don’t have to be completely against some degree of unemployment insurance, as a cushion against economic hardship, to recognize that there has to be a balance between safety nets and the danger of creating a disincentive for work. When you subsidize something, you get more of it. When you pay people not to work, you’re going to have more people not working. Jobless benefits have to be finite; they can’t simply go on forever.
The length of the unemployment benefits granted so far is already unprecedented, so it’s not surprising that we’ve seen evidence that people are choosing to stay on the dole rather than to take work. It is ludicrous for Speaker Pelosi to now argue that further encouraging such mooching is actually creating jobs. The only real job she’s interested in creating (or saving in this case) is her own. She clearly thinks that continuing to handout other people’s money is the best way for her and her party to stay in power. Only time well tell whether she is right on that account.
Leave a comment Print This Post
When big accidents like the BP oil spill occur, there is predictably a call for “more regulation” as a solution. “If only government had required more robust/redundant safety mechanisms!” This reasoning is easy, but also sloppy.
Government safety regulations are capable of being harmful as well as helpful. Once regulators set safety standards, for instance, they are less likely or capable of keeping up with the latest and newest measures as time goes by compared to industry. Moreover, meeting government regulations provides businesses an easy excuse for not having done more if something goes wrong.
In my last post on the spill I identified other government policies that might have contributed to the situation, such as the cap on liability a company faces for a spill. And now Jonathan Finegold Catalán of Economic Thought has articulated the economic argument much better than I am capable.
The White House, meanwhile, is proposing to raise the liability cap, along with a host of other measures, in response to the spill. Some of the other proposals look dubious, but I think raising the liability cap is a positive policy response.
Leave a comment Print This Post
The nannies have set their sights on another target: salt.
The Food and Drug Administration is planning an unprecedented effort to gradually reduce the salt consumed each day by Americans, saying that less sodium in everything from soup to nuts would prevent thousands of deaths from hypertension and heart disease. The initiative, to be launched this year, would eventually lead to the first legal limits on the amount of salt allowed in food products.
…Officials have not determined the salt limits. In a complicated undertaking, the FDA would analyze the salt in spaghetti sauces, breads and thousands of other products that make up the $600 billion food and beverage market, sources said. Working with food manufacturers, the government would set limits for salt in these categories, designed to gradually ratchet down sodium consumption. The changes would be calibrated so that consumers barely notice the modification.
The legal limits would be open to public comment, but administration officials do not think they need additional authority from Congress.
Not only has the conventional wisdom on salt flip-flopped repeatedly over the decades, but even the most recent research is entirely ambiguous.
It’s also disturbing that the FDA thinks they can do this without additional Congressional authority. It’s even more disturbing in that they may be right according to modern Constitutional understanding.
Remember, Obamacare has only given them more excuse to regulate your choices regarding anything that might plausibly be said to affect your health.
Leave a comment Print This Post
Creative people take note, Hot Air has responded to the EPA contest with one of its own. They want examples of federal regulations run amok. Should be easy to find, right?
Hot Air video contest: Tell us your story of federal regulation
Leave a comment Print This Post
Sorry, no posts matched your criteria.
I am a libertarian-conservative blogger living in the DC area. I have a Master's degree in Political Science and work in public policy, but please don't hold that against me.
