Beta
Skip to main content

Author: Jose Nino

FBI Uses “Cute” Propaganda Campaign to Justify Civil Asset Forfeiture

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Property Rights. 2 Comments on FBI Uses “Cute” Propaganda Campaign to Justify Civil Asset Forfeiture

You can’t make this up. The FBI is normalizing the concept of civil asset forfeiture by using videos with cute puppies. On June 25, 2019, the FBI tweeted a video of cute puppies to sell people on the idea of draconian civil asset forfeiture laws. In the tweet it stated, “civil forfeiture laws are helping the FBI and its partners get dogs rescued from dogfighting rings positioned to be treated, rehabilitated, and moved into better situations.” Such cute imagery may make people have second thoughts about civil asset forfeiture, but when we dig deep into this practice, we realize that it’s legalized theft by another name. Missouri It’s no secret that civil asset forfeiture is one of the most polemical issues in America. In sum, it’s “a process by which the government can take and sell your property without ever convicting, or even charging, you with a crime.” Because civil asset forfeiture is a strictly civil matter, defendants do not have the same protections as criminal defendants. Even if an individual is not found guilty of a crime, this does not guarantee that the government will return their property. Indeed, no one likes high taxes, so municipal governments and their law enforcement counterparts will get crafty in finding ways to raise revenue for the government. Civil asset forfeiture is the go-to strategy for cash-strapped municipalities to collective revenue when conventional tax-raising methods may not be politically convenient. This has been a lucrative endeavor for law enforcement agencies, who’ve pocketed a cool $4.5 billion from this practice in 2014. Under civil asset forfeiture, the state can seize items such as cars, cash, and real estate are all fair game. These items can be confiscated merely on the suspicion that an individual used them while committing a criminal act. Due process is not respected because of the fact that criminal convictions are not necessary for property to not be seized. The FBI’s publication of this video may appear cute, but it’s nothing but propaganda. It ultimately gives a blatantly unconstitutional practice a rosy image. We must see through this ruse and understand that civil asset forfeiture must be put to an end if we want to live in a truly free society. 

Is the US Now Closer To Enacting a $15 Minimum Wage?

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Business and Economy. No Comments on Is the US Now Closer To Enacting a $15 Minimum Wage?

On July 19, 2019 the U.S House voted to pass a $15 per hour minimum wage at the federal level. This new policy, if signed into law, would go into effect in 2025. The $15 wage is one of the hottest policy proposals among progressives and is a priority for many 2020 presidential hopefuls in the Democratic Party. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, “this is about workers, it’s about their economic and financial security, and today is a bright day because it affects so many people in our country.”
Image credit: The All-Nite Images (https://bit.ly/2xLTPH1)
The Raise the Wage Act was rolled out by Congressman Bobby Scott of Virginia and passed by a 231-199 vote. The bill enacts a gradual increase in the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 per hour. The federal minimum wage has not witnessed an increase since 2009. A similar minimum wage bill from March was scuttled when lawmakers hailing from rural and Republican-leaning districts had misgivings about the hike policy. They believed it would be too burdensome for certain small businesses, above all, in places where the cost of living is lower than large urban areas.   This latest bill will unlikely pass the Republican-controlled Senate, as GOP leadership views this measure as a job killer that would disproportionately hurt working class families. House Minority Whip Steve Scalise declared that this minimum wage would “eviscerate millions of American jobs” based on a July report from the Congressional Budget Office which found that 3.7 million Americans would be out of work if this measure is enacted. Scalise said, “there’s more opportunity than we’ve ever seen. There are more job openings than there are people looking for work. And at that time, you would think the Democrats would want to be working with us to build on that economic success, and instead you see Speaker Pelosi bringing this bill to the floor that would eviscerate millions of American jobs.” Although this bill will meet its death in the Senate, the fact that this idea is gaining traction shows that economic illiteracy abounds. Government cannot legislate higher wages, but it sure can increase unemployment by mandating wages that employers would not be able to provide under normal circumstances. Most small business cannot handle these kinds of wage hikes, so they’ll either start laying off people or at the very least, reduce employee hours. Bigger corporations can possibly handle these increased costs, but they’ll likely just accelerate their transition towards automation. There’s no denying the high cost of living and economic prospects in many areas—especially in most of America’s largest urban centers—which make economic life precarious for most Americans. However, the $15 minimum wage is not the way to handle it. Instead, policymakers would be better served by overhauling our tax system, dismantling the administrative state, and making housing affordable via zoning reform. An increased minimum wage only guarantees increased unemployment. Not exactly a good recipe for low-skilled workers and disadvantaged minorities in urban centers.   Policymakers should think outside of the box for once.

New York Becomes Next State to Pass Statewide Rent Control

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Economics. No Comments on New York Becomes Next State to Pass Statewide Rent Control

On June 14, 2019, the state of New York passed a comprehensive rent control law which makes it the second state this year, after Oregon, to enact statewide rent control. According to an article from The New York Times, this legislation would directly affect approximately one million rent-regulated apartments in New York City. These rent-controlled apartments represent more than 40 percent of the city’s overall rental stock. Under this rent control package, municipalities across the state of New York will also have the power to design their own rent control policies, however, the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 also limits landlords’ ability to raise rents and gives tenants other protections. Governor Andrew Cuomo declared the new rule to be “the most sweeping, aggressive protections in state history.” Some of the provisions include caps on rent increases, strong protections against evictions, and removing landlords’ ability to deregulate certain housing units. But what is particularly noteworthy about this law is the restrictions on a landowner’s ability to raise a tenant’s rent. Under New York’s current rent stabilization laws, landlords can raise the rent by an additional 6 percent to make property renovations that benefit tenants in some shape or form. But a New York Times report reveals that these kinds of rent increases are out of the picture under the new rent control law. Specifically, landlords can now only raise by 2 percent. In the long run, this rule will disincentivize property owners to renovate their housing units, therefore reducing the overall quality of housing. By the same token, when vacancies emerge, landlords could have raised the rent for said unit by as much as 20 percent under the previous law. Thanks to changes, many landlords will reduce the overall housing stock as they get out of the housing business altogether. Some will not even bother to make upgrades because it’s no longer economical to invest in these units. Those with a strong business acumen will likely pivot towards converting their current units into luxury housing or office space so that they can actually make ends meet. At the end of the day, individuals looking for affordable, quality housing end up losing out under rent control. New York passing this ordinance is par for the course when we look at New York’s overall policy track record. The state has implemented the whole gamut of anti-growth legislation from high taxation to reckless spending. Bringing rent control into the mix, will only cement New York’s status as one of the least economically free states in the country. And the numbers back it up, with New York ranking 46th place in land-use regulations according to Cato’s Freedom in the 50 States index. Instead, New York should look at the example of cities like Houston, who have broken the mold by embracing less central planning in its housing sector. Free-markets, not bureaucratic mandates nor well intentioned laws will fix New York’s current housing problems.   

The IRS Isn’t Playing Games with the Latest Jeopardy Winner

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Taxes. No Comments on The IRS Isn’t Playing Games with the Latest Jeopardy Winner

All winners of the “Jeopardy” game show end up as losers in the eyes of the Internal Revenue Service. Jeopardy contestant James Holzhauer will be no exception to this trend. The IRS is now set to take a substantial portion of the Jeopardy champion’s winnings. After losing in his 33rd appearance on the game show, Holzhauer finished $58,484 shy of breaking the record for all-time earnings.
Image credit:
Steve Jurvetson (https://bit.ly/2ynjLcD)
Nevertheless, Holzhauer won himself a cool $2,462,216 in 33 show appearances. This number includes the $2,000 prize Holzhauer won for coming in second place during his most recent appearance on June 3, 2019. Only Ken Jennings earned more money in his Jeopardy career, where he holds the record for earnings that total $2,520,700 and for 74 appearances on the show. But there’s another winner in this equation, our lovely friend the IRS. The IRS treats the winnings that contestants accumulate as regular income and then proceeds to tax them at 37 percent. We should also not forget that most states have their own income taxes as well. This is relevant because the game show Holzhauer participated in took place in California. Interestingly enough, Holzhauer is a Nevada resident. After factoring federal and California state taxes, Holzhauer’s total winnings stand at $1.29 million. The Jeopardy winner is getting a raw taste of how convoluted America’s tax system is. It’s no secret that the federal income tax punishes success. And to add insult to injury, the public services that are provided through tax revenues aren’t much to write home about either. One way or the other, America’s most successful are getting fleeced. Unlike Jeopardy, government overreach is not a game. It’s a very nasty reality that most Americans have to cope with on a daily basis. The only winners in these situation are the government and its bureaucratic class. 

No, Universal Basic Income Is Not the Secret to Economic Growth

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Economics. No Comments on No, Universal Basic Income Is Not the Secret to Economic Growth

A new study on the universal basic income contends that giving every American adult a $1,000 cash stipend per month would grow the economy by 2.5 trillion by 2025. The study came from the left-leaning Roosevelt Institute. Three proposals were analyzed during this study: a full UBI where every adult gets $1,000 per month ($12,000 per year), a partial basic income where every adult receives $500 monthly ($6,000 a year), and a child allowance where parents received a monthly stipend of $250 per month ($3,000 a year). The report argues that the larger the UBI, the more the economy would benefit. This study found that a $1,000 no-strings attached handout to all adults would increase GDP by 12.56 percent after 8 years. According to Congressional Budget Office figures, GDP is around $19.8 trillion. In effect, the UBI stipend would increase GDP by $2.48 trillion based on research that Vox conducted. On the other hand, the $250 allowance would promote GDP growth of 0.79 percent and the $500 monthly payment would grow GDP by 6.5 percent. These estimates are based on the assumption that the federal government will be increasing the deficit. This same study calculated the economic impact of a UBI when it is financed through higher taxes. In this case, the report did not find any positive effects on economic growth. The report stated “When paying for the policy by increasing taxes on households rather than paying for the policy with debt, the policy is not expansionary.” It added, “In effect, it is giving to households with one hand what it is taking away with the other. There is no net effect.” Claims about UBI’s potential for economic growth should be taken with a grain of salt. At the end of the day, the UBI is a redistributionist scheme that takes resources from one class of people and gives them to another. No wealth is effectively created in this process, as it runs contrary to the way wealth is created, which is done through the accumulation of capital. As a result of this increase in the overall capital stock, worker productivity is boosted. That is how societies ultimately become wealthier. On the other hand, financing a UBI program through deficit spending is the economic equivalent of kicking the can down the road. Large deficits will either lead to taxation of future generations or the use of easy money policies to stave off the increased debt. In both cases, citizens end up being taxed and future generations are left with precarious economic prospects. Instead of the UBI, let’s look at other bold policy proposals. Say for example, scrapping our federal tax system, phasing out central banking, or scaling back federal bureaucracy. These are actual reforms that liberate entrepreneurs from the shackles of government control and let them invest, save, and create businesses. However, today’s political climate only makes policymakers think in terms of redistributionism or fiscal changes around the margin. The days of beating around the bush are over. The road to prosperity is paved with bold reforms, not half-measures. 

Barack Obama Gets Gun Policy Wrong in a Speech in Brazil

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Gun Rights. No Comments on Barack Obama Gets Gun Policy Wrong in a Speech in Brazil

Although he’s out of office, former President Barack Obama has not stopped voicing his political opinions. With gun control constantly being one of the most polarizing issues in America, it makes sense that Obama would offer his two cents on the matter, even while out of office. Recently, Obama did just that, taking advantage of a trip to Brazil to lament to his audience about the horrors of American gun control laws.  At the VTEX Day digital conference hosted in Sao Paulo, Brazil, the former president recounted the emotional distress he felt after the Sandy Hook massacre. Obama expressed his sorrow: “The most difficult day that I’ve had, was the day where there was a shooting at a school. Uh, where, 20 small children were shot, as well as some teachers.” He added, “I had to go and comfort the parents.” However, this speech was not just filled with sorrow. Obama went on to score anti-gun talking points. The 44th president claimed that anyone can purchase a gun without having to go through much regulation. Plus, he stated that machine guns can be purchased online.  Obama told his Brazilian audience:  “Some of you may be aware our gun laws in the United States don’t make much sense. Anybody can buy any weapon any time — without much if any regulation, they can buy it over the Internet, they can buy machine guns.” Obama’s assertions throughout this speech are not only misleading, but some are flat out wrong. For starters, every gun owner in America must go through a federal background check in order to acquire a firearm. Further, machine guns have been subject to stringent federal regulations since the National Firearms Act was enacted in 1934, as the federal government didn’t stop regulating machine guns from there. From 1986 and onward, civilians could only acquire machine guns that were “lawfully registered and possessed before May 19, 1986,” according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The Hughes Amendment of the Firearm Owners Protection Act included this provision and has made the possession of machine guns overwhelmingly cost prohibitive for the average gun owner.  Obama’s talk in Brazil is rather ironic given the South American country’s high crime rates and draconian gun control laws. Brazil had a homicide rate of 30.8 homicides per 100,000 people in 2017 and ranks among the most violent countries in the world. Gun ownership is not a right in Brazil and the average resident must jump through a complex maze of regulatory hoops such as registration and extensive background checks. As a result of such restrictions, only 3.5 percent of Brazilians owned firearms before 2004.  If anything, Brazilians should be lectured on the benefits having looser gun control policies. The good news is that the recent election of President Jair Bolsonaro has seen Brazil’s gun policy shift towards a more pro-gun direction with Bolsonaro signing an executive order that would loosen restrictions on gun ownership. Gun policy might be a touchy subject, but policymakers and commentators would be wise to discard loaded soundbites and instead do more thorough research on the matter. A proper firearms policy of freedom would be a life-saver for many individuals.
green new deal alexandria ocasio-cortez green new deal epic fail

AOC’s Attempt to Legalize Research on Mushrooms gets Derailed in Congress

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Drugs. No Comments on AOC’s Attempt to Legalize Research on Mushrooms gets Derailed in Congress

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s provision to research the effects of psychedelic drugs such as mushrooms was shot down by House colleagues on Thursday, June 13, 2019. The legislation in question would have made it easier for researchers to analyze the medical and therapeutic benefits of certain psychedelic drugs, and it was a provision tied to a large appropriations bill. If it had passed in its modified form, it would have lifted the ban on federal funds being spent on “any activity that promotes the legalization of any drug or other substance in Schedule I” of the Controlled Substances Act.
green new deal alexandria ocasio-cortez green new deal epic fail
Photo credit: Dimitri Rodriguez (https://www.flickr.com/photos/98346767@N04/32087493347)
Although Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez has built a reputation for being on the wrong side of issues such as economics and gun rights, she’s on the mark this time. If there is anything to criticize about this legislative provision, is its use of public money to carry out drug research. Instead, the private sector should be leading the way in discovering the benefits of these substances. Nonetheless, this marks a positive first step in the normalization of drug policy. Our culture has made the topic far too taboo, and the instinctive response to criminalize drug activities misses the mark. It’s no shock why the Drug War has played a significant role in America’s mass incarceration tragedy of the past few decades. Not to mention, drug war policies have created an artificial black market that cartels have exploited for decades. All in all, this is a failed set of policies that has to be scrapped if we want to move forward. The good news is that the past few months have yielded some positive developments for drug reform advocates. First, we had Denver decriminalizing psilocybin mushrooms, then various urban counties in Texas have seen District Attorneys pursue policies of non-enforcement of certain drug possession cases. More recently, the Oakland City Council passed a resolution that decriminalized psychedelic mushrooms. With municipalities and states legalizing and decriminalizing drugs left and right, it’s only a matter of time before the federal government gets its act together and passes comprehensive drug reform. 
gun

Representative Ron Hood Wants to Make Ohio the Next Constitutional Carry State

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Gun Rights. 2 Comments on Representative Ron Hood Wants to Make Ohio the Next Constitutional Carry State

Ron Hood, a long time champion for gun rights in the Ohio House of Representatives, believes that Ohio will be the 18th Constitutional Carry state. Hood declared on May 30, 2019, “it’s just a matter of time where we will have this law.” With Republicans in control of all branches of the Ohio government, this is a strong possibility. Hood’s support for Constitutional Carry dates back to the 1990s. The Ohio state representatives’ current bill, HB 178, allows law-abiding citizens to carry a handgun without having to obtain a permit. As expected, this bill has drawn criticism from law enforcement groups and gun control advocacy groups. The former argue that this kind of bill would make their jobs more dangerous. gun Gun control groups like Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America have led the way in their opposition to this legislation. They turned to the cliché, “I support the Second Amendment, but” canard to dismiss this legislation. A spokesperson from the central Ohio chapter, Richele O’Connor stated that she thinks “we all want the same thing. I think we all want to be safe.” She stressed the importance of finding common ground on this issue. Unfazed by the criticism, Hood stood his ground and maintained that gun control laws are not effective in stopping crime. The state representative asserted, “Gun laws only hurt law-abiding citizens; criminals don’t obey gun laws of any kind.” On the issue of gun rights, Ohio is a middling state for gun owners, ranking 28th in Guns & Ammo magazine’s rankings for gun-friendly states. Hood’s constitutional carry bill would put Ohio’s gun laws on the correct path and give law-abiding Ohioans more options for personal defense. Constitutional carry is one of the hottest issues of 2019. Three states — Kentucky, Oklahoma, and South Dakota — have already passed this law halfway into the year. Should Ohio make constitutional carry law of the land, it will be the most populous Constitutional Carry state in the nation. 
cities

Japan Gives Us a Few Lessons on Affordable Housing

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Property Rights. 1 Comment on Japan Gives Us a Few Lessons on Affordable Housing

Japan is leading the way in affordable housing. Anthony Breach of the Centre for Cities did a report on Japan and its housing policies. The British based think tank found that Japan still maintains affordable housing despite its robust economic growth. London’s average mean rent is quite steep at around £2,000. On the other hand, average rents in Tokyo are at about £1,300. How such a large city like Tokyo maintains relatively affordable housing isn’t necessarily because it has more public housing nor because of population shrinkage. For example, danchi (public housing) makes up less than 5 percent of housing in Japan, while in England they make up 17 percent of housing. Japan’s population isn’t shrinking either, Tokyo’s population has still witnessed growth due to migrants coming from other parts of Japan and abroad. cities The Centre for Cities article notes that instead Tokyo has taken a more hands-off approach to how housing is built in the city. For example, 194,000 houses were constructed in the U.K. last year, whereas Japan had 942,000 housing units built. Alex Tabarrok also highlights how Tokyo had a very robust growth in its housing sector despite having no empty land. Tokyo, a city of 13.3 million people in 2014, had 142,417 housing units built, whereas California (population of 38.7 million) had 83,657 housing permits issued and England (population 54.3 million) had only 137,010 houses started. Tokyo’s zoning framework operates under a simple zoning system that enables by-right development, instead of the traditional model where each individual site relies on planning permission. Japan’s zoning regime consists of 12 zones, which are defined by the maximum nuisance level they allow. This ranges from residential areas to polluting industrial uses. The point to consider is that there is tremendous flexibility in building homes in Tokyo provided that they do not exceed the zones’ nuisance levels. In other words, areas in zones designed for high street usages can have houses converted into a hotel and vice versa. Anthony Breach of the Centre for Cities notes how markets, not city planners, still determine how houses in Tokyo are built under these zoning schemes. This allows market supply to respond quickly as market demand changes and ensures development and density is driven by land values. If the demand to live in a city grows, older houses can be knocked down by landowners to provide more and better quality homes. In the case of apartment buildings, 80 per cent of the apartment owners need to agree to demolition and redevelopment. This is why Japan’s higher rate of demolition isn’t wasteful, as it enables an efficient supply of more and better-quality housing. The laws of economics know no boundaries. They apply everywhere. When housing supply is restricted by central planners, do not be shocked when prices remain high and other unintended consequences that negatively affect the quality of housing start to surface. At a more fundamental level, what we see in the current housing dilemma across the globe is a matter of property freedom. Land developers should be free to build their housing units, without any form of government restriction, so long as they don’t infringe on the rights of others. Expensive urban centers in America like San Francisco and New York could also learn a lesson or two from Tokyo’s housing experience. What these places need is more freedom to build housing and less bureaucratic rigmarole getting in the way. 

Ron Paul Slams Central Banking, Praises Cryptocurrencies

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Audit the Fed, Economics. No Comments on Ron Paul Slams Central Banking, Praises Cryptocurrencies

At CoinDesk’s 2019 Consensus conference, former Congressman Ron Paul heavily criticized the Federal Reserve. He specifically noted that money comes from the market, not from central banks. Paul also recognized that governments have a vested interest in tampering with the money supply. He stated, “no matter what system they have, the government comes in to get control because that is where the power is.” The rise of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies has caught the attention of many elected officials and bureaucrats. For good reason, they’re watching closely as this technology develops. The former Congressman expanded on this: “They are always watching because If you look at monetary history, governments always want and work for monopoly control of the monetary system, whether is gold, silver or peanut. And they’ll not give cryptocurrencies free ride.” Throughout his career in Congress, Paul championed the idea of creating competing currencies to counter the Fed’s negative influence on the economy. He was also one of the few elected officials to understand that easy money is the lifeblood of government growth. As a devout proponent of free market money, Paul understands that there will be many controlling politicians in Congress who would want to ban Bitcoin and its cryptocurrency counterparts. Congressman Brad Sherman is one of them. Sherman gained notoriety for calling to ban cryptocurrencies in a speech in Congress on May 9, 2019. The California congressman argued that cryptocurrencies would undermine American financial hegemony — demands for banning certain activities are the calling card of would be authoritarians. The creation of the Federal Reserve coincided in an era that brought us income taxation and perpetual wars. The arrival of Bitcoin in 2019 represents a glimmer of hope for those who believe in free market money. Indeed, there are commodities like gold, with a proven track record as a viable currency for thousands of years. However, the whole point of a free market monetary system is to allow for individuals to freely choose which money they would prefer to use in their everyday lives. The key point is that this activity emerges voluntarily. Sound money is a concept that billions of people around the world have been deprived of since central banking became adopted on a global scale during the 20th century. The rise of Bitcoin represents a rare opportunity to correct the many political errors of the 20th century. Whether they succeed or fail, cryptocurrencies are at least getting people to realize that central banking is not as sacrosanct as political elites would like you think.

Virginia County Stands Up to Gun Control

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Gun Rights. 2 Comments on Virginia County Stands Up to Gun Control

Talk about gun control has been non-stop in Virginia since the Virginia Beach municipal massacre took place on Friday June 1, 2019. Although the perpetrator of this atrocity went through the gun control hoops that all law-abiding gun owners must go through, this was not enough to stop him from committing the heinous act of killing 12 people. Nevertheless, many have still called for stiffer firearms restrictions. Gun control proponents nearly got their wish when Virginia Governor Ralph Northam called a special session of General Assembly to address the topic of gun control. Thankfully, grassroots gun rights activists were able to stop these gun control schemes in their tracks as Republican leadership discarded these proposals. Virginia gun owners can breathe a sigh of relief — for now. But other gun owners in Virginia did not take their chances during the Special Session. Instead, Carroll County in Southwest Virginia decided to declare itself a gun rights sanctuary. According to a report from The Roanoke Times, Carroll County supervisor approved a resolution in April condemning the “slippery slope of restrictions on … Second Amendment rights” in both Virginia and the United States. The resolution declared the county a “Second Amendment Sanctuary.” Gun rights sanctuaries have become one of the most interesting national trends in the aftermath of the Parkland shooting in 2018. Many blue states were victims to the deluge of gun control that followed this shooting. In response, gun rights activists turned to unconventional tactics at the local level to thwart future gun control efforts. The Roanoke Times highlighted the western portion of this new gun rights sanctuary trend: Most gun-rights “sanctuaries” are in the Midwest or West. The states of Kansas, Idaho, Wyoming and Alaska are gun-rights “sanctuaries.” So are a majority of counties in Illinois, New Mexico and Washington, with Colorado not far behind. Additionally, this movement has spread eastward. Besides Carroll County, only a handful of localities east of the Mississippi — in North Carolina, Maryland, Tennessee, Rhode Island, Maine and New York — have declared themselves gun-rights sanctuaries. For advocates of localism, this nascent gun rights sanctuary push is a breath of fresh air. Conventional activist tactics have yielded lackluster results for pro-gun activists, and in some cases, traditional activist models don’t work in rabidly anti-gun states like California. So, it’s a matter of mixing things up and pursuing different avenues for political change. When the federal government and state governments won’t respond to activist pressure, setting your sights on municipal governments is a must. 

Even The Washington Post Recognizes that Bureaucratic De-Regulation is a Good Thing

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Economics. No Comments on Even The Washington Post Recognizes that Bureaucratic De-Regulation is a Good Thing

One of the more unheralded facets of the Donald Trump administration has been deregulation. Even mainstream outlets like the Washington Post are acknowledging this. The White House released a new report that demonstrates the negative effects of regulations on economic activity. It correctly states that excessive regulatory costs are passed on to consumers through the form of higher prices or lower wages for workers. Many advocates of a strong administrative state argue that we need regulations to protect consumers from so-called market failures such as pollution and consumer fraud. They also think that deregulation disproportionately benefits lobbyists and industry groups. However, this line of reasoning is fallacious. “Market failures” can still be addressed by civil society and even market innovations. When regulations are now in the equation, unintended consequences begin to creep in. In fact, one of them is increased barriers to entry for small businesses. Large businesses can handle the compliance costs of handling regulations, whereas small businesses often have to close their doors simply because the burdens are too much. The White House’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) confirmed the massive costs of certain regulations. It specifically studied 20 regulations that the administration opposed or repealed. These included access to the Internet and certain labor rules. Put together, the total costs of these 20 regulations are about $235 billion. The study from the CEA claims that after three to five years after the deregulation sets in, families could receive windfall benefits of $3,100 per household. This is just scratching the surface, however. The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) estimates that federal regulations cost $1.9 trillion for the entire American economy. This regulatory maze is a major hindrance to economic growth. One could only imagine the type of economic benefits American households would receive if even half of that regulatory apparatus was picked apart. Indeed, it is fashionable to talk about American tax policy these days. After all, the U.S. tax code is cumbersome and a clear infringement on the property rights of peaceful individuals and business owners. However, direct taxation only scratches the surface of economic infringements. The state has become so massive and all-encompassing, that there are multiple layers of government control. The regulatory state represents one of the most notable ways that government tries to micromanage our lives. One of the silver linings of the Trump administration has been its recognition of the bureaucratic rigmarole that most Americans must put up with. For that reason, Trump should be commended for his Executive Order to reverse Obama-era regulations. However, our work is far from over. The Trump administration should take more radical steps in defunding bureaucracies and repealing bad bureaucratic ordinances. All in all, Trump should avoid the complacent nature of previous generations of Republicans that pass marginal or incremental reforms, and then stop working to reduce the size of government once comfortably in power. The best defense is to continue going on offense.