Beta
Skip to main content

Author: Jose Nino

Nancy Pelosi’s Drug Price Control Bill is a Terrible Idea

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Elections and Politics, Healthcare, Liberator Online, News You Can Use. No Comments on Nancy Pelosi’s Drug Price Control Bill is a Terrible Idea

Healthcare is no laughing matter in America. According to Mike Holly of Americans Against Monopolies, U.S. healthcare spending rose from 6 percent of GDP in 1965 to 18 percent ($3 trillion) in 2013. In response, politicians have turned to their usual way of offering legislative proposals to solve this problem. One of those proposals is the Lower Drug Costs Now Act of 2019 (H.R. 3), which has received House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s full support. Doug Badger of the Heritage Foundation argues that H.R. 3 would “double down on the failures of existing government policies that have distorted prescription drug prices and contributed to higher health care costs.” In effect, H.R. 3 sets up a price system where the U.S. government bases prices for state-of-the-art drug treatments on the prices fixed by other foreign governments. Badger explains that “the measure would set an upper price limit at 1.2 times a drug’s average price in six other countries (Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom).” Under this legislation, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is given the power to negotiate prices below that ceiling for at least 25 drugs per year. Overall, a maximum of 250 drugs could be subject to those negotiations. A manufacturer who declines to negotiate the price of any of its drugs would have an excise tax of up to 95 percent slapped on its revenues generated from the said product during the previous year. Badger correctly observes that “the bill represents an unprecedented exercise of raw government power.” As it stands, the government already mandates price ceilings across a wide array of programs, requiring manufacturers to pay the government rebates. Badger notes one important distinction in what this new bill would do: “It’s one thing for the government to dictate the prices it pays in programs it finances. It is quite another for the government to impose a price for a product’s private sale and to extract money from a company on a long-ago settled transaction.” Further, Badger mentions a very valid point about the price controls present in the six countries that Pelosi’s bill seeks to emulate. Thanks to the lack of price controls in the U.S. at the moment, there is greater access to new drugs than in countries with price controls. Lower levels of drug access are no joke. An IHS Markit study found that Americans gained 201,700 life-years thanks to the increased access to new medicines. Moreover, countries with price controls also witness reductions in overall pharmaceutical research and development. Back in 1986, European firms surpassed America in R&D spending by 24 percent. After price controls were implemented, these companies ended up lagging. In fact, by 2015, they trailed American firms by 40 percent. According to the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, price controls do save some money in the short term. However, they end up costing more money in the long term. It concluded that price controls make “better health care costlier in the future by curtailing innovation.” Pelosi’s legislation brings back the debate on price controls, which have a long track record of failure, from Roman times to contemporary Venezuela. When governments try to disrupt the price system by setting price ceilings, they create massive distortions in the market. In the case of the pharmaceutical industry, artificially restricting the prices that companies can charge will reduce R&D and, in turn, lower the number of drugs they can bring to the market, as economist Dan Mitchell argued. This is not merely a consumer inconvenience we are potentially facing, it can be a matter of life or death for some people.

Surprise: Bernie Sanders Stands Up Against Gun Confiscation

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Gun Rights, Liberator Online, News You Can Use, Personal Liberty. 6 Comments on Surprise: Bernie Sanders Stands Up Against Gun Confiscation

A broken clock is right twice a day. No one epitomizes this more than presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. At a rally in early November, Bernie Sanders told a crowd that forcing law-abiding Americans to turn in their firearms is unconstitutional. During the rally in Iowa, Sanders stated, “A mandatory buyback is essentially confiscation, which I think is unconstitutional. It means that I’m going to walk into your house and take something whether you like it or not. I don’t think that stands up to constitutional scrutiny.” This stands in stark contrast to former Congressman Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke who exclaimed “Hell yes!” when asked in a  Democratic Party debate if his presidential administration would confiscate firearms. O’Rourke explained his stance by proposing that police officers would drop by the homes of law-abiding citizens to confiscate their (prior) legally owned arms in the case that a gun ban passes. Additionally, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, support legislation that would send Americans to jail if they’re caught with an “assault weapon.” “We should have a law that bans these weapons, and we should have a reasonable period in which people can turn in these weapons. Right now we have a nation that allows in streets and communities like mine these weapons that should not exist,” Booker declared. Sanders’ clarity on the issue of gun confiscation is relieving. As interventionist as he may be on economic issues, here he at least tries to represent the views of his Vermont constituents, who have historically been pro-gun. After all, Vermont was the first true constitutional carry state — where all law-abiding citizens can carry a gun without a permit. Gun confiscation is the worst form of gun control. It deprives people of their right to bear arms and is the hallmark of tyrannical regimes. Even the most milquetoast of leftists should be able to understand this. However, Sanders is no pro-gun hero. He supports legislation such as “assault weapons” bans. This inconsistency is typical of our political class. Once they concede that the government can infringe on certain rights, the rabbit hole of government control will only go deeper. So it’s small wonder why his colleagues like O’Rourke and Booker are taking gun control to its logical conclusion — confiscation. Sanders’ candor on the issue of gun confiscation is laudable. Recognizing the unconstitutionality of certain policies is something that’s missing with the rest of the Democratic field of candidates. Sanders should extend that same logic to other gun control policies he supports. Let’s not hold our breath, however.

Shocker: AOC Gets Marijuana Legalization Right

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Drugs, Elections and Politics, Liberator Online, News You Can Use, Personal Liberty, Property Rights. 1 Comment on Shocker: AOC Gets Marijuana Legalization Right

As 2020 approaches, the American political class must come to grips with the inevitable reality of marijuana legalization. But for some politicians, like Joe Biden, they may be behind the times. A few weeks ago Biden was met with fierce criticism when he asserted that cannabis could be a gateway drug. Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez was the most high profile critic, describing Biden’s comment as a “Reagan-era talking point.” In this case, she was referring to then-President Ronald Reagan’s efforts to double down on the War on Drugs in the 1980s. Those policies in conjunction with former President Bill Clinton’s subsequent crime reform package (which Biden supported at the time) have cemented stiff enforcement of U.S. drug laws. Drug policy of the past few decades has been wrong-headed and unjust in its persecution of peaceful individuals for simply possessing banned substances. Further, several unconstitutional practices, such as civil asset forfeiture, have exploded in use thanks to these policies. Biden ended up walking back his comment, but the trend is clear: Marijuana legalization is coming. It’s just a matter of when – not if. Often times calls for reform come from the most unlikely places. The U.S. House answered this call on November 20, 2019, by voting for a bill that would decriminalize marijuana at the federal level. Given the partisan realities of the U.S. Senate, which is under Republican control, this bill will likely not gain much traction and die in that chamber. From a broader perspective, AOC’s vision for her marijuana legalization proposals has yet to be determined. Indeed, there is a right and a wrong way to go about this. Ideally, she should do her best to avoid ideas like the one offered by former Congressman Beto O’Rourke to create so-called “marijuana reparations.” By the same token, initiatives that facilitate massive tax grabs for the federal government and state governments are also detrimental for promoting limited government. The federal government — be it in a prohibitionist context or in a taxation context — should stay out of the way. To adequately address drug policy, a federalist approach is the most optimal course of political action. On top of that, civil society can and should play a role in giving people addiction treatment and providing information on the costs and benefits of drug use. The road to reform is not linear and it will take numerous attempts before D.C. changes its marijuana policies. On a positive note, it is good to see that there is a consensus regarding the failure of previous drug policy. 2020 Democratic candidates have caught on to this trend and are recognizing that there is a different way to treat the drug issue moving forward. It’s only a matter of time before this dark chapter of American history comes to a close. Americans of all backgrounds should be thankful for this.  

The DOJ’s New Pre-Crime Program is Straight Out of Minority Report

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Criminal Justice, Liberator Online, News You Can Use, Personal Liberty. No Comments on The DOJ’s New Pre-Crime Program is Straight Out of Minority Report

In the middle of last month, the Trump administration unveiled a “pre-crime” program that would make any lover of civil liberties shriek. Whitney Webb of MintPress News reported that U.S. Attorney General William Barr “issued a memorandum to all U.S. attorneys, law enforcement agencies and top-ranking Justice Department officials announcing the imminent implementation of a new ‘national disruption and early engagement program’ aimed at detecting potential mass shooters before they commit any crime.” Barr called for the Department of Justice and the FBI to spearhead an effort to “assess and engage potential mass shooters before they strike.” One of the most telling aspects of this memo is Barr’s candid admission that the bulk of “early engagement” tactics the new program plans to use originated from previous plans dealing with terroristic threats. Put simply, the basis of the policies implemented after 9/11 are also the pillars of the “early engagement” tactics that Barr intends to use to identify potential criminals. The keyword being “potential,” thus indicating the pre-crime nature of this program. Mass surveillance will likely play a major role in this program. Algorithms used to analyze massive amounts of data appear to be a major feature of this program. Most of this data is used to find certain patterns such as composite symptoms of “mental illness.” Back in July, Barr gave the keynote speech at the 2019 International Conference on Cyber Security (ICCS) and called on makers of consumer electronics and applications using encryption to provide a “backdoor” for government entities such as law enforcement. In Barr’s view, obtaining access to encrypted communications is an issue of public safety. Although many tech companies take pride in protecting their consumer’s privacy, Barr believes that “a major incident may occur at any time that will galvanize public opinion on these issues.” Shootings like the one in El Paso have indeed catalyzed such support for these kinds of measures. After the El Paso shooting, President Trump even floated the idea of creating a new federal agency called HARPA that would cooperate with the Department of Justice to use “breakthrough technologies with high specificity and sensitivity for early diagnosis of neuropsychiatric violence.” It specifically includes “advanced analytical tools based on artificial intelligence and machine learning.” The data analyzed under this program would be gathered from consumer electronic devices and information turned over by health-care providers on people they deem to be a threat.  In sum, many of the activities that everyday people participate in could be subject to surveillance and eventually, these people could be turned over to government authorities. Pretty scary stuff. It gets even worse when looking at the bigger picture. The FBI and other federal agencies will play a major role in these surveillance programs, and that should worry all Americans given the track record of these organizations. In an internal memo that was recently made public, so-called “conspiracy theories” were connected to domestic terror threats. Even academia has jumped in to link “conspiracy theorists” with mental illness. Mental health has generally been a tool that the state uses to justify undermining people’s rights. By tying it to conspiracy theorizing, the government is opening up a whole new avenue of encroachments. Simply questioning government narratives could leave people susceptible to being categorized as “mentally ill”, which could land them on watch lists, subjecting otherwise peaceful individuals to government snooping. To its credit, the Trump administration has resisted calls for passing specific gun control legislation, such as universal background checks or red flag gun confiscation orders, which would only add to the federal government’s already long list of gun control measures. However, undermining basic rights such as privacy and due process are unacceptable. These rights don’t exist in a vacuum and they are interconnected. Breathing a sigh of relief when an administration decides to not pass gun control, but turning a blind eye to legitimate violations of due process through Minority Report-style programs does freedom advocates no favors. Federalizing law enforcement is not the way to go either. Instead, a modest proposal is to devolve more federal power to the states and let state and local law enforcement agencies handle these issues. Similarly, mental health can also be tackled at lower levels of government. Both state government and private actors (I personally prefer the latter) should rebuild mental health institutions so that the mentally ill who actually pose a threat to others receive the treatment they need. More importantly, let’s have a frank conversation about our crumbling civil society. As political scientist Robert Putnam famously wrote, we’re “bowling alone” these days as many private organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America are shutting down their operations or are witnessing declines in membership. Many of these organizations have kept America’s adolescents from partaking in destructive social behavior. Reviving these institutions will do a lot more to curb violence than any expansion in government will ever do. Further, they’ll allow us to have safer communities while preserving our cherished civil liberties.

Civil Society Stepped Up Big Time During Teacher Union Protests

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Children's Rights, Education, Liberator Online, News You Can Use. No Comments on Civil Society Stepped Up Big Time During Teacher Union Protests

Last month, Chicago was swarmed with protestors as public school teachers went on strike. Kerry McDonald of Foundation for Economic Education wrote that 300,000 students spent “another day outside of the public school classroom,” thanks to this strike. For so much talk about public education being “for the children,” the decisions to publicly strike keeps kids from learning, while teacher unions hold out as long as possible before lawmakers gave them sweetheart benefits. To add insult to injury, these strikes are done on the taxpayer’s dime.  The topic of education tends to be sensitive in today’s polarized America. It’s no secret that education these days has substantial degrees of politicization and is treated as a universal right that the state must provide. However, some of McDonald’s observations in her piece reveal that private actors are more than capable of stepping up to the plate to provide children with a place of learning.  She noticed one interesting development in the midst of this strike, “Museums, churches, libraries, and a multitude of civic non-profits,” opened their doors to “children displaced by the teachers’ strike, and public parks and playgrounds abound.” Other organizations that provided a place for children to congregate during these strikes were the YMCA and its branches in Chicago. Per the CNN report, the YMCA helped provide programs that included “classes, swimming, math lessons, arts and crafts, and sports.” Similarly, the city’s aquarium offered “immersive exploration opportunities for the children, along with an after-school care option.” Civil society clearly made its presence felt during the strikes. Many proponents of government schools simply can’t fathom the idea of any non-state institution that is able to educate children. The Chicago teacher union protests demonstrated how quick civil society is able to fill in the void when the state becomes negligent in its duties (a common occurrence).  The freedom of association is a wonderful thing. Free people are able to craft solutions to the many problems we face. Although there are no quick fixes, free interactions in the marketplace allow people to muddle through and find existential problems they face in their daily lives. On the other hand, state coercion not only strips people of their agency as free individuals but also creates problems by removing important market mechanisms such as prices, profit & loss motive, etc. which are crucial for market innovation.  Historically speaking, America has had a rich tradition of education systems that were independent of the state — be it homeschooling, communal schooling, or private education. Such ideas of non-state education modules aren’t so radical when we look back. Understanding this history will allow us to use the tools of the 21st century to carve out freedom in the education sector. But first, we must get rid of the old dogma that the state must be in charge of education.  Big changes always start with changing foundational premises.

Foreign Aid is Not the Answer to Political Corruption

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Foreign Policy, Liberator Online, Military, News, News You Can Use. No Comments on Foreign Aid is Not the Answer to Political Corruption

The recent impeachment drama in Washington, D.C. has sparked some interesting discussions about foreign aid. The impeachment kerfuffle we are witnessing started when President Donald delayed giving a new batch of foreign aid to the Ukranian government. Now, everybody is losing their minds about this incident, throwing out any form of rational thought over this matter. On the website, The American Conservative, writer James Bovard brought some much-needed sanity to the discussion regarding foreign aid in the case of Ukraine. He eloquently likened the use of foreign aid to reduce corruption to “expecting whiskey to cure alcoholism.” Foreign aid is generally seen as a positive among political elites. Many treat it as a useful tool in trying to help other foreign countries break free from economic underdevelopment and build stable political foundations. However, a real analysis of the issue provides a different picture. According to analysis from the American Economic Review in 2002, “increases in [foreign] aid are associated with contemporaneous increases in corruption.” This same analysis noted that “corruption is positively correlated with aid received from the United States.” During that same year, President George W. Bush implemented a new foreign aid program, Millennium Challenge Account (MCA), which would allegedly fix previous errors. Interestingly, Bush said, “It makes no sense to give aid money to countries that are corrupt.” As Bovard points out, however, “the Bush administration continued delivering billions of dollars in handouts to many of the world’s most corrupt regimes.” In typical government fashion, the State Department then pivoted the MCA’s mission by declaring that it is “an incentive-based supplement to other U.S. aid programs.” Under this changed description, the Bush administration was able to rationalize doling out aid to corrupt governments worldwide. When President Barack Obama entered office, many thought that the novelty of his presidency would bring some degree of accountability to foreign policy. During a speech before the United Nations in 2010, Obama boldly declared that America was “leading a global effort to combat corruption.” Further, the Los Angeles Times reported that Obama’s aides said the United States in the past “has often seemed to just throw money at problems.” However, Obama’s bold promises fell flat as he pushed back against congressional efforts to limit wasteful aid. Then Secretary of State Hilary Clinton warned that limiting foreign aid to countries with dubious track records of governance “has the potential to affect a staggering number of needy aid recipients.” Like clockwork, the Obama administration poured billions of dollars into Afghanistan, even when its president, Ashraf Ghani, conceded in 2016 that the country was “one of the most corrupt countries on earth.” Naturally, the aid injected into Afghanistan exacerbated the corruption. John Sopko, the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction (SIGAR), noted, “We need to understand how U.S. policies and practices unintentionally aided and abetted corruption. We must recognize the danger of dealing with characters or networks of unsavory repute, tolerating contracting abuses, accepting shoddy performance and delivering unsustainable projects.” Since Ukraine broke free from its Soviet overlords, the country has become a hotspot of corruption. Transparency International detailed this in its Corruption Perceptions Index. During the late 1990s, corruption was on the uptick in Ukraine and it still remains high today. Hundreds of millions of dollars of American aid flowed into the country with little effect on corruption. Ukraine is currently in 120th place for countries with the least corruption in the world. Countries like Egypt and Pakistan are ranked higher than Ukraine when it comes to transparency. Let that sink in for a bit. The Brookings Institution, which is far from a champion of non-interventionism, pointed out that, “The history of U.S. assistance is littered with tales of corrupt foreign officials using aid to line their own pockets, support military buildups, and pursue vanity projects.” I explained in a previous article why the notion of a Marshall Plan for Central America is off-base. It ignores how foreign aid did very little to facilitate Europe’s recovery. In fact, it was actually when aid was phased out that countries like Austria and Greece were able to bounce back. The sad part about all of this is that foreign aid is one of the few very options ever entertained for conducting foreign policy. The other alternative usually consists of direct intervention, which is a boon for defense contractors, but a blight on the citizens of the countries invaded, American troops lost in the struggle, and American taxpayers. There has to be another way. Non-interventionism, as the Founding Fathers envisioned, is the way to go. If American citizens are concerned about the plight of a specific country, they should band together with other like-minded individuals to figure out a private solution. We must acknowledge that the global democratic crusades launched by the U.S. during the last century have put our country on the path to imperial overstretch and fiscal collapse. How about we consider other private alternatives instead? Our wallets and troops will thank us.

Andrew Cuomo Unveils New Gun Control Program

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Gun Rights, Liberator Online, News You Can Use, Property Rights, Second Amendment. 8 Comments on Andrew Cuomo Unveils New Gun Control Program

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has made a name for himself in gun control circles for his anti-gun policies. After the horrendous Sandy Hook shooting, Cuomo capitalized on the fallout of this tragedy by promoting and eventually signing the Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) Act into law in 2013. Under the SAFE act, New York instituted universal background checks for all gun purchases broadened the definition of assault weapons, established a database for handguns, and prohibited selling or purchasing magazines holding more than seven rounds of ammunition.   Through this law and New York’s plethora of gun control, New York has established itself as one of the most anti-gun states in the country. It is currently ranked 51st in Guns & Ammo’s 2019 rankings for the Best States for Guns Owners. Fast forward to 2019, and Cuomo is still not satisfied with the gun control he has signed into law during his gubernatorial term. This motivated him to unveil his gun control plan — “Make America Safer” campaign — to take the issue federally. Cuomo’s campaign will focus on social media engagement to spread the issue of gun control. And Cuomo has plenty of gun control muscle behind him with groups such as Everytown for Gun Safety, Moms Demand Action, and March for Our Lives endorsing his campaign. “As the federal government continues to abdicate its responsibility to protect the people in this country, by failing to take action on meaningful, common-sense gun control, it is now more important than ever to have a leader in Washington that has a plan to tackle these issues and end this violence once and for all,” Cuomo declared in a statement. “That is why I’m asking all Democrats running for president to make a simple, clear choice for the American people and sign the ‘Make America Safer Pledge.” Cuomo’s gun control plan consists of so-called “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines, a national version of red flag gun confiscation laws, universal background checks for gun purchases, and the enactment of a mental health database.  Gun control has been Cuomo’s pet issue since passing the SAFE Act. Although the intentions of some gun control advocates are in the right place, they ignore how countless other states have passed less restrictive gun laws during the last three decades without any negative fallout. Crime rates continue to fall, while gun ownership and even carry rates are on the rise in America. For the sake of New Yorkers and millions of other Americans stuck in states with stringent gun controls, Cuomo should use his platform to open up more discussion on gun policy. It would behoove the New York Governor to listen to the perspective of groups like Black Guns Matters and hear out the benefits of pro-gun policies. When countless states with laws like Constitutional Carry are not turning into shooting galleries, it’s time to rethink some of the mainstream media’s fears about gun liberalization. 
Rand Paul

Rand Paul: The Only Voice for Fiscal Sanity in the Senate?

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Business and Economy, Economic Liberty, Economics, Elections and Politics. No Comments on Rand Paul: The Only Voice for Fiscal Sanity in the Senate?

It always feels like Kentucky Senator Rand Paul is on an island in Washington, D.C. Late last month Paul introduced an amendment to a spending bill that would have cut spending by 2 percent compared to 2019 projections. The majority of the Senate voted against the bill, which was defeated in a 67-24 vote. Paul’s amendment would have applied to a larger spending package that concerns commerce, science, and transportation matters, among other things. Previously, the senator tried to push through a balanced budget proposal in June. As expected, Paul’s efforts were rejected by his big spender colleagues. With the national debt standing at $23 trillion, and the deficit projected at $984 billion for 2019, it’s becoming abundantly clear that Washington’s political leadership has no interest in exercising fiscal responsibility. The U.S. government is simply too big. For the past century, there has been a bipartisan consensus surrounding issues such as foreign policy and domestic policy. Republicans and Democrats work tirelessly to expand the size of the federal government no matter who’s in power. A lot of this largely due to the Federal Reserve’s easy money policies which help finance big spending. Income taxation also plays a substantial role in raising the revenue that spendthrift politicians need to implement their programs. It’s no coincidence why after the 1910s — the decade that both the income tax and the Federal Reserve were created — the government has grown non-stop, without any significant push to roll back these expansions. Senator Paul’s father, Ron Paul, spent most of his career fighting government overreach. Now, his son is following in his footsteps as the sole voice of reason in the U.S. Senate. From advocating for the abolition of our broken income tax system to constantly introducing fiscally conservative bills, the Kentucky senator has been a lone voice for fiscal sanity since his election in 2010. Unlike his colleagues, he’s actually willing to introduce legislation that can put the government back on the path to fiscal restraint. It’s one thing to talk about reducing the size of government with tired talking points about how “households have to balance their budget.” It’s another to put forward legislation that allows voters and citizen groups to know who is for real and who is pretending. If we want some semblance of fiscal discipline at the federal level, more politicians like Rand Paul must step up to the plate.

Recent Polls Show that Illinoisans are Leaving Because of Taxes

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Business and Economy, Economic Liberty, Economics, Liberator Online, News You Can Use. 3 Comments on Recent Polls Show that Illinoisans are Leaving Because of Taxes

Last month, ZeroHedge put out a story about Illinois residents wanting to leave the state. Specifically, it cited the motivations of those with the intention of leaving. Last year, 53 percent of Illinoisans had entertained the idea of moving out of the state. Now, in 2019, that number has increased to 61 percent, based on a new poll from NPR Illinois and the University of Illinois Springfield. Many are wondering what’s the main motivating factor behind them leaving the state. Well, according to the poll, state taxes are the number one reason for them wanting to leave the state. The poll found that 27 percent of the respondents cited taxes for their desire to move. The next reason most people decided to move was state government and policies, at around 17 percent. In third place, was better weather, in which 15 percent cited this factor as a motive for moving.  This poll serves as a warning to Governor J.B. Pritzker, who wants to eliminate the Illinois Constitution’s flat income tax provision and create a progressive income tax system. According to the poll, “Respondents reporting a household income of more than $100,000 a year (68%) are nearly ten percentage points higher than other income groups to say they’ve considered moving out of the state, with those reporting a household income lower than $45,000 (58%) being least likely.” At a glance, those with more resources appear like the ones who are most likely to leave. Tax reform attempts like the progressive income tax that Pritzker is pursuing represents another way for politicians to extract money from the private sector to finance big spending. As far as taxation is concerned, Illinois is by no means slacking on that front. The state recently passed 20 new tax and fee hikes, which included a gas tax that was doubled, all to support a large $40 billion state budget. The tax hikes that Illinois’s political class is proposing aren’t just coming out of nowhere. When we look at public employee pensions they’re already eating up a large share of Illinois’ state budget — one-fourth of it to be exact. Illinois’ pensions have exploded by 501 percent since 2000, which has put tremendous upward pressure on property taxes and has also resulted in cuts to state services. One thing to note is that Illinoisians aren’t just entertaining the idea of moving out of state. Some have already taken the initiative by moving out. During the past five years, Illinois has earned the unfortunate distinction of being one of only two states to lose population on a consecutive basis. In this time period, Illinois lost 157,000 residents.  People aren’t leaving Illinois on a whim; it’s largely because of public policy. Although Illinois got marijuana legalization right, the state still lags behind in certain aspects of economic freedom. Cato’s Freedom in the 50 States index has it in 46th place for local tax burden. Not only are taxes high at the local level, but there aren’t many jurisdictions locally that people can move to in order to reduce their tax burdens. The authors of this index gave Illinois policymakers a wise recommendation — “Reform the retirement systems of localities to reduce local taxes, which are sky-high.” By exercising some modicum of fiscal restraint with pensions, Illinois could likely stem the flow of people leaving the state.

High Income Millennials Are Afraid of Not Having Enough Money for Retirement

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Business and Economy, Economic Liberty, Economics, Liberator Online, News, News You Can Use. 1 Comment on High Income Millennials Are Afraid of Not Having Enough Money for Retirement

Bloomberg magazine covered last month some of the financial trouble that high-income millennials ages 30 to 34 fear they will face in the near future. Many are scared that they’ll have to work forever because they won’t be able to save enough to retire. The individuals surveyed in a recent study consisted of millenials of single households making at least $100,000 or $150,000 for those who are married or partnered in this age demographic. The Spectrem Group, a wealth advisory company, ran this survey and did an in-depth survey of the age demographic who entered adulthood during one of America’s most devastating economic crises. Some of these fears are natural when considering that most millenials in this age cohort graduated from college in the middle of the Great Recession when hiring opportunities were not so great. According to this study, half of high-income millennials ages 30 to 34 worry that they won’t have enough savings for retirement.  Here are several thoughts about these findings.  Due to the prevalence of many young professionals heading to work in major urban centers, they will inevitably face cost of living problems. Big cities like New York and San Francisco have become notorious for this. However, not all big cities witness this trend. When we go down to the Sun Belt, major cities like Dallas, Houston, and Phoenix tend to be quite affordable in comparison.  Why could that be? Well, land-use restrictions play a major role in artificially making housing markets more expensive. Unlike their coastal counterparts, Sun Belt cities are known for their light regulatory touch on matters ranging from housing to tax policy. As a result, the aforementioned cities have more dynamic job markets and attract more talent from across the nation. Their affordability only sweetens the deal, as many young professionals can then start families without having to worry about the financial implications of such a decision.   From a more macro perspective, there’s the impact of easy money that few talk about. Central banking creates perverse incentives by artificially lowering the market interest rate. This induces people to save less and consume more. Under normal circumstances, people would be saving more and in turn facilitating more production. As Jeff Deist, the President of the Mises Institute soundly argued, “Civilization requires accumulation and production; de-civilization happens when too many people in a society borrow, spend, and consume more than they produce.” In the meantime, millennials will have to exercise a strong degree of personal responsibility to ensure their financial health in the decades to come. All change begins with free individuals who recognize the problems in front of them. In taking control of their finances, the younger generations can build a more prosperous future for themselves and their posterity.  But it all starts with establishing a solid financial foundation at the individual level. 

Constitutional Carry Makes Progress in Michigan

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Gun Rights, Liberator Online, News You Can Use, Personal Liberty, Property Rights, Second Amendment. 3 Comments on Constitutional Carry Makes Progress in Michigan

Michigan’s Constitutional Carry bill passed a crucial committee vote on Wednesday, October 23rd, 2019. State House Bill 4770 made its way out of the House Military, Veterans and Homeland Security Committee. HB 4770 would repeal the mandate requiring a concealed carry permit for lawful citizens. “It’s time we end the restrictions put on those asserting their God-given right to self-defense,” declared the bill’s sponsor, State Representative Steve Johnson. “Constitutional Carry will reduce barriers to our most vulnerable populations and ensure they have the ability to protect themselves and their families.” Michigan’s licensing requirements are somewhat stiff. The website Gun.com notes that the state “currently requires training, a background check with fingerprints and a $100 application and licensing fee to obtain a concealed pistol license (CPL), a process that can take weeks.” Statistics from the Crime Prevention Research Center show that over half a million CPLs are active in the state. Although this Constitutional Carry bill would remove the licensing requirement, it would still keep licenses for reciprocity purposes. Truth be told, most states haven’t fully caught on to constitutional carry. Many gun owners who travel across the country are deprived of their right to carry when they enter anti-gun states. California, for example, doesn’t honor any other states’ carry permits. So keeping this aspect of licensing intact is a pragmatic compromise for gun owners who like to travel. Ideally, the entire U.S. would be a constitutional carry zone and no one would have to have a government permission slip to carry a firearm. But this is the hand we’ve been dealt. Constitutional carry is the natural progression of multiple decades of gun rights reforms. Although the licensed concealed carry movement served its purpose of liberalizing gun laws during the 1980s and onward, activist energy can now be focused on more pro-freedom legislation such as constitutional carry. 2019 has been a surprising year for constitutional carry. Kentucky, Oklahoma, and South Dakota passed their own bills to restore the right to carry. Ohio is joining Michigan by trying to pass constitutional carry as well. With a Democratic Governor and a Republican-controlled House and Senate, getting constitutional carry passed in Michigan will be an uphill struggle. No matter the outcome of the 2019 legislative session, the introduction of constitutional carry is necessary for getting the conversation started.

New Report Shows that Some States are in Terrible Financial Shape

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Business and Economy, Economic Liberty, Economics, Liberator Online, News You Can Use. No Comments on New Report Shows that Some States are in Terrible Financial Shape

Some of America’s states are not in good financial shape. A report from Truth in Accounting’s tenth annual Financial State of the States provided a comprehensive breakdown of how all 50 states fare financially. For advocates of fiscal restraint at the state level, such indices are very useful in learning about the fiscal health of their states. The report highlights that states have introduced more transparency largely due to the “Generally Accepted Accounting Principles set by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, which now require governments to disclose pension and other post-employment (OPEB) benefits on their balance sheets.” If the benefits in question do not receive full funding, they are categorized as liabilities, or debt, “because they represent money owed to government employees in their retirement.” Of note, this year’s report discovered that 40 states don’t have enough money to pay all of their bills. Worse, states have accumulated a whopping total of $1.5 trillion in unfunded state debt. The study’s Taxpayer Burden or Surplus ranks states based on how much debt each taxpayer would have to shoulder on a per capita basis. The bottom three states — Connecticut, Illinois, and New Jersey — have the highest debt burden per taxpayer. Obviously, these three states have major spending problems that will require fiscal discipline in order for them to get back on sound financial footing. However, focusing on fiscal issues exclusively gives us an incomplete picture of what’s truly going on in these jurisdictions. These states are also known for having forced unionization, sub-optimal tax policies, bad environments for starting a business, and their lack of affordable housing options thanks to heavy land-use restrictions. None of these are policy coincidences. It’s the product of state governments that believe in having a strong government presence in the way people interact with each other — whether it be social welfare or business operations. The government’s desire to either regulate or provide certain services stifles human innovation or comes at a high cost for future taxpayers. Because of the short-term nature of politics, politicians don’t understand how distinct forms of state growth — social spending and government regulation — are interconnected. To have a functioning society based on liberty, policymakers cannot simply pick and choose which freedoms citizens can have. When the rubber meets the road, there has to be a comprehensive plan that moves towards maximizing freedom. By conceding that certain aspects of state infringements are acceptable, political actors do the heavy lifting for more ambitious successors who will likely expand upon previous interventions, if not find other areas to which they can control.