Anyone bothered by this?

A Los Angeles Times story notes the following:

With no warning one weekday morning, investigators entered an organic grocery with a search warrant and ordered the hemp-clad workers to put down their buckets of mashed coconut cream and to step away from the nuts. Then, guns drawn, four officers fanned out across Rawesome Foods in Venice. Skirting past the arugula and peering under crates of zucchini, they found the raid’s target inside a walk-in refrigerator: unmarked jugs of raw milk.

The raid was reportedly a coordination among several government agencies: the county’s Department of Public Health and district attorney’s office, the state Department of Food and Agriculture, the FDA, and the federal Department of Agriculture. What concern motivated them to barge in with guns aimed: raw food. The thought! A video of the raid is also posted on the LA Times website.

The regulators justify such clearly overboard behavior on ensuring the public safety. Just what exactly is safe about aiming a gun at people in a grocery store for the audacity of selling food without a proper permit is not clear.

In addition to the safety rationale, government officials also claimed their extreme measures were aimed at ‘fairness.’ By fairness they mean protecting the privileged place of established, larger producers and retailers.

So, they kill two birds with one stone. They protect special interests (a common practice of overreaching government) while at the same time treating individuals in a rather paternalistic manner — incapable of making their own decisions about what to buy, sell or consume.

That’s the subject of a recent Wall Street Journal report. The story notes the following:

… the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters is seeking paid demonstrators to march and chant in its current picket line outside the McPherson Building, an office complex here where the council says work is being done with nonunion labor. “For a lot of our members, it’s really difficult to have them come out, either because of parking or something else,” explains Vincente Garcia, a union representative who is supervising the picketing. So instead, the union hires unemployed people at the minimum wage—$8.25 an hour—to walk picket lines.

The story noted that Garcia didn’t see a problem with “a union that insists on union labor hiring nonunion people to protest the hiring of nonunion labor.” Go figure.

If the leaders of this union started their own business, do you think they’d be supportive of their employees unionizing to raise their wages? Questionable. Funny how things change when the roles are reversed.

Previous posts on government pay and compensation can be viewed here, here and here.

Notably, one Democratic candidate, Dan Gelber, asserted the following on the matter:

Health care should be a right, not a privilege.

Note the verb “should be.” Gelber didn’t claim it “was” a right. Such phrasing seems to deny that rights are fundamental to all individuals (e.g.; “endowed by their Creator“) and not determined by the whims of popular opinion or government decree. He is suggesting, at least in his wording, that rights become rights after being acknowledged by government.

Florida AG candidate Dan Gelber

Government creation of rights is anathema to the framers’ understanding of rights. Rights, to them, were innate to being human. They were only to be protected by government, not dependent on government for their existence.

‘Rights’ like the ‘right’ to health care are not rights; they are more accurately defined as “goods” or “services” — things to be allocated based on the ability to pay. Health care may be an important and critical good/service, but to define it as a ‘right’ is a confusion of terms that needs to be avoided if political debates are to be meaningful.

To argue that taxpayers should pay for the health care of others is a legitimate point of debate, but don’t confuse things by claiming it should be a government-granted ‘right.’ Such ‘rights’ aren’t rights.

* The preceding was originally posted on the Young Americans for Liberty blog.

The plan was to use part of the money to buy up foreclosed homes and sell them to preferred buyers (low-income and first-time). Renovating rental units was also on the list.

The argument is, naturally, that such activity will ‘stimulate’ the economy. The Times report paraphrased the head of a non-profit who would benefit from the funds:

[Sara Romeo] says the project will create 237 construction jobs, two permanent full-time jobs, and take advantage of the latest green building techniques to save residents energy and transportation costs.

The obvious questions rarely asked in these type of well-intentioned government spending plans are where did the money come from and what would it have been spent on without government direction? Given that the federal government is in debt, that means the money adds to our debt. The only way to pay for it is to borrow or print more money.

That money is money that will eventually come from taxpayers, through future taxes to pay it off, or from anyone who uses the American dollar, through eventual inflation. That represents money taken from the private sector and directed by government toward ends it believes are worthy. But that means it is money no longer available for people to spend as they see fit.

Here’s an idea for what Tampa can do with the money: Give it back. It may not be politically popular or guarantee that it will be spent wiser (using it to pay down the federal debt or pay back taxpayers), but at least the city’s collective conscience would be clear.

* I recently posted a similar post on the Young Americans for Liberty blog.

http://randallparker.blogspot.com/2010/07/whats-wrong-with-deflation-let-me-count.html

http://www.cnbc.com/id/38126526

Bogged down by budget cuts on behalf of citizens and businesses alike, the recovery from this “double- bubble” will be like molasses running downhill in January.

The main unease is unemployment (9.5% -June) as well as the current health-care reform. Economists are worried with the restraints being put onto lenders, making credit harder to come by.

– Keeping an eye on inflation is another task for the Federal Reserve, as it is the main player in slowing growth. To help maintain a steady process of recovery, the Federal Reserve has paused any interest rate increase. Though slow and painful, the economy is still growing (2.75-3%).

In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states could extend rights beyond that of the U.S. Constitution so long as doing so does not violate rights protected by the Constitution. The case dealt with the California Supreme Court ruling that their constitution’s protection of free speech allowed for individuals to exercise their free-speech rights in a private shopping mall, despite the wishes of the mall owners. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the California Supreme Court that this did not violate the mall owner’s property rights under the fifth and fourteenth amendments.

Legally, such a situation is allowed under the current precedent. In California, individual speech rights apparently can trump property rights in certain cases, with some exceptions (example). It’s in a way similar to the “public accommodation” approach in U.S. law that forbids businesses from not serving customers based on race. It transforms private property into something more — a public space.

The question then becomes whether this is an appropriate balance struck between these two rights. The framers of the U.S. Constitution would have likely thought it not to be. The wording of the First Amendment was clear that it was government that was the enemy of free speech, not private individuals exercising the right to use their property as they saw fit. The First Amendment’s wording stated that “Congress” should make no law, it did not forbid private individuals from prohibiting others to use their property for such speech. The California Constitution contains wording allowing a more expansive interpretation:

Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.

The founding fathers were very attuned to the importance of private property rights. Under a system where property rights prevailed, the owners of shopping malls could cater to their customers’ preferences by choosing to allow or not allow controversial political or religious speech. Those supportive of such speech while they are shopping could voice their support by frequenting malls that allow the speech and avoiding those that do not. Similarly, those opposed could also vote with their feet.

But, under the California system, that choice is denied to individuals. Not having that choice has naturally led to frustration from mall owners and many of their customers.

… anyone [from] ever sharing their faith or political views with anyone else in the shopping mall at any time if they did not know that person prior to entering the shopping mall.

The story also reported that the mall had rules banning individuals from “wearing any clothing that displays religious or political messages.”

The problem with this argument is that the First Amendment, coupled with the Fourteenth Amendment applying much of the Bill of Rights to the states, prohibits the federal and state governments from abridging political speech or prohibiting religious freedom. It says nothing of private individuals or mall owners who have their own ground rules for individuals wishing to enter their property.

Americans have every right to express their political or religious views, but we don’t have a right to demand others allow us on their property to do so. This principle also applies to other freedoms.

This common misunderstanding of the freedoms we hold as Americans reminds of me of a rather humorous incident I experienced on the job a few years back. After informing one of my employees that our company had a rule about what beverages could be consumed in front of customers, she responded, “That’s unconstitutional or something!” Sadly, she is not alone in such a misinformed mindset.

* The preceding was originally posted on the Young Americans for Liberty here and has fostered a lively comments thread.

^^ Barack Obama.. Meet Herbert Hoover ^^

The highly criticized austerity plan Chancellor Merkel has set into place provides good example and possible benchmark applications for what the U.S. intends to do with our own deficit.

- 80 billion Euros are expected to be saved during the 4 years of the savings plan. A chunk of the savings comes from cuts to welfare and unemployment benefits as well as a large number of government jobs.

British Prime Minister David Cameron added, “I think at this point, that for some Countries, consolidation is not an alternative to growth. It is actually the basis of getting the confidence that would make that growth sustainable. That point has been well and truly understood.”

With a deficit that amounts close to 12% of its GDP, the U.S. has quite a ways to go before we see the beginnings of improvement; not to mention possibilities of added spending such as universal health care and additional stimulus packages.

- Much of the plans so far from the Obama administration deal with increased taxes. Letting tax cuts expire, making the top two tax brackets 33 and 35 percent. Other increases come from mortgage and capital gains. Furthermore, $353B worth of tax hikes imposed on business.

As anticipated, exporter countries look down on budget cuts from more-advanced countries. The invisible hand would suggest a negative effect on their economies.

Global deficits are expected to be cut in half by 2013. President Obama, specifically, stated his interest in added stimulus and increase of U.S. exports.

- Some of the major countries, including Britain, Germany, and China, all came away satisfied knowing that the plans to tighten budgets and cut expenses were mutual. There seems to be a growing feeling that there is no way to spend yourself into recovery.

Currently, the U.S. has acquired $1.4T worth of deficit. $860B has been spent in stimulus. Unemployment lingers close to 10%.

- For there to be growth at this stage in our global economic time, deficits need to be cut; we all know this. Different paths are available to hopefully achieve this.

The current bill involves regulating big bank power as well as the amount of their assets & money. The bill also includes the possibility of government takeover if operations slide, providing the option of company liquidation.

Some feel the bill will better insure customers’ financial protection, while others say though the bill will help prevent large government bailouts; the tightened leash for banks will result in lower customer credit access.

Consequently, there will be added government overseeing as well as the creation of consumer financial protection agencies; much like *TARP or RFC.

– Having to restrict their own money, banks will have less investment options meaning less money available to loan. None-the-less, if the bill becomes law, added stability will inevitably be brought to the financial system.

?? High inflation-cheap borrowing OR Controlled inflation/ possible deflation- higher interest rates ??

*Interesting fact.. $25billion were loaned to Automotive Industry Financing Program – i.e. government directly intervening even with car loans.

Conservatives are in an uproar that she would imply that illegal immigrants have a right to be paid fairly when they are in the country illegally. But somehow lost in this uproar are more fundamental questions. What does “fair” mean? Who gets to decide what “fair” pay is? And, what does it mean for someone to have a right to “fair” pay?

Invariably, when a government official speaks of fair pay that is code for some sort of government-mandated minimum or living wage.  That is what is meant by the phrase, “We can help.” In truth, the answer to an employee who does not like the wage their employer offers for their work is to find another employer. When government gets involved, the rights of individuals to freely choose are abridged.

The idea that someone has a “right” to some rate of pay or benefits not proposed by their employer is a misuse of the term “right.” No one has a right to someone else’s property. The wage an employer pays is their property.

It is only when the employer agrees that an employee’s work will be worth a certain wage that the employee obtains the wage. This agreement is a voluntary transaction between two individuals: the employer and the employee. When the government gets involved, it represents force: forcing one person to give money to another against their will and without a mutual trade.

Imagine if employers went to the government and demanded that it set up minimum-work laws, requiring individual employees to increase their productivity for the same pay against their will? There would naturally be an outcry.

Unfortunately, the outcry over the notion of illegal immigrants having a “right” to “fair” pay misses the point. Legal or illegal, no one has the right to use government force to inflate their pay.

* The preceding was originally posted on the Young Americans for Liberty blog.

Naturally, the socialists and unions are decrying the move. But, fortunately for the financial strength of that country, more sane minds have apparently prevailed.

Now, if only the United States could learn from this move and, barring real and comprehensive reform, at least seek to raise the Social Security retirement age. But that’s not likely given the outcry politicians would likely here.

Meanwhile, our country’s fiscal health continues to be threatened by our bloated entitlement programs.

However, given the track record of state government spending, it’s hard to feel sorry for struggling states. What fuels this lack of sympathy for the states? Perhaps it is this post, this post, this post and this post.

These problems with state and local government employment practices are largely responsible for the fiscal trouble they now find themselves in. If they want sympathy, they need to get their fiscal houses in order instead of relying on a federal government bailout or raising taxes. The federal government is out of money and taxpayers can’t afford higher taxes in a time when the economy is trying to recover from a recession.

An analysis noted in this story from Forbes shows that the wealthier are apparently attracted to areas with lower tax burdens, which often happen to be in the South. Go figure. Here is an interactive map showing the migration patterns.

In sum, the unintended consequence of “soaking the rich” is that you may eventually run out of rich people to soak.

The president’s use of the word “emergency” to characterize the need for these “additional measures to spur job creation” is the typical rallying cry of all government intervention. That job creation, however appears to be mostly in government — much to the detriment of the majority of taxpayers working in the private sector.

He proposed all of this under the guise of referring to increased government spending as what many politicians are guilty of calling it: “investments.” We aren’t spending more money we don’t have, thereby either increasing our debt or spurring inflation through money printing; we are “investing” in our country’s economic recovery and “[fulfilling] our economic potential.”

Just how such Keynesian-minded spending is beneficial in the long-run is not clear. Government taking money from the private sector and spending it on government isn’t exactly the correct way to spur an economy already saddled with the meddlesome load of too much government intervention and spending.

It seems, according to the study, that taking classes in economics also correlates with party affiliation. It found, among other things, the following:

… those who took more economics classes or who majored in economics or business were more likely to be members of the Republican party and less likely to join the Democratic party. Those findings hold even after controlling for the higher salary, higher equity in real estate holdings, and earning a graduate degree.

One question to ask would be if the political beliefs were pre-existant to the choice of classes. That might indicate that political beliefs influence choice in majors.

It would also be interesting to see a study looking at the party affiliation of political science majors. I’d imagine the results would be rather different.

* The preceding was originally posted on the Young Americans for Liberty blog.