Saving traditon... or stuck in the past.

In Wisconsin, in several regions near towns, there are owners of family farms who are "struggling" to maintain their "way of life."

The problem is that they cannot buy or rent new cropland. The cost of land in the area around these farms is prohibitively high.

Using economic reasoning to examine the situation,I would conclude that the reason the cost of land on the outskirts of these towns is sky rocketing is because there is a greater numer of highly valued uses. More and more people are bidding the land up.

If the goods and services offered by these small family farms were highly valued, they would be profitable. If they were profitable, then they ould be able to afford more land for expansion.

In short, these family farms are not valued because there are more efficient ways of producing food. There desire for a preserving of their way of life I equate to a sliderule maker wishing to maintain his way of life. It is the same as the postal sevice wishing the internet and email had not taken a lot of its business.

On the surface it may seem tragic, but it is not. Things come and things go. New, better ways of doing things are devised and champions of the old ways find themselves with skill sets that are now obsolete, in this case running a small farm.

These farmers would probably be best to cash out, sell their valuable for the top dollar for which it would undoubtably sell and retire, living luxuriously.

Sometimescertain ways of life go out of style or a very small sub sect of the economy for the benefit of the whole. Fighting to preseve them is usually not for the economic value, but for the novelty value of preserving these relics. It is an uphill battle. Sorry family farm, it might be time to join your friends in the buggywhip business.

Credit Card Debt,

IHS Essay Contest

The Institute for Humane Studies has an essay contest you might be interested in. You can find the information on the contest here. The topic is: What factors lead to prosperity, progress, and human flourishing?

Congress funds more unprofitable business

Great news from the Wall Street Journal. Our wonderful leaders in Congress have decided to provide more funding for Amtrak, the wonderful rail line we all use quite regularly. The reason: Why, to stop global warming of course. We Americans, with our horrible use of cars and pollution of mother earth need to be using the rail more. We need to sacrifice our precious time to take long commutes on a rail system that allows the environment to 'green up'.

I won't even question the 'sincerity' of our leaders. They are all politicians. Enough said.

But I do question the funding of a business that if allowed to run in the real world would be OUT of business because it is unprofitable and caters to a virtually non-existent demand.

We all know our Congressional leaders lack the skills to carefully think about something like this. Obviously, or they would have cut the program once they figured out it had LOST money, let's see, EVERY YEAR since its inception in 1997. But a few things about this bill are incredibly moronic and thus worth noting.
First, part of the $12 billion, 6 year project (1.8 billion) would be devoted to paying off the debts of the unprofitable business. Wonderful. Is it just me, or does it seem pointless to try to reduce a debt that is constantly growing (and will be as long as we Americans prefer driving)? By financing this sort of debt, the government is diverting tax-payer's hard earned money to what boils down to a pointless exercise in 'debt management.'

Next, the project grants $1.4 billion to NEW RAIL PROJECTS run by the individual states. Great, we now know that the government wants to fund MORE losing businesses.
Let me explain why I think this is bad (I know you all agree with that premise...). The government is funding losing businesses. Businesses that otherwise would fail (if run on a scale as large as Amtrak-perhaps smaller scoped rail lines would be run efficiently) in a free market society accumulate debt, and if that debt is financed by the gov’t, it comes from taxpayers. Taxpayers are thus incurring costs that most of them are not receiving the corresponding benefits for, and thus there is a distorted (and unfair) diversion of funds.
Now, one thing about the bill is somewhat reasonable. In the past, the government has financed Amtrak with the goal of making it financially self-sufficient. Since it hasn’t been able to do that, it is trying something else with most of the funds: Make the trains better. Improve service, quality, speed, and overall efficiency. That, in my mind, is at least a better use of funds than trying to pay off debt that will continue to accumulate for all time…

But you cannot change people’s preferences (at least not ethically), and that is the crux of the matter. The government is attempting to stem global warming by making us all want to use a rail service that it finances. I would argue, though, that if Americans truly valued train service over cars, train services would have developed prior to Amtrak, because somebody could have made some money. Clearly, Americans don’t value rails, and this applies even more directly to Amtrak: Government goods and services are, quite honestly, shoddy at best and hardly as good as free-market driven goods (in most instances). I think that unless the people’s preferences change to reflect greater demand for rail, the funding of Amtrak is inefficient (because it artificially creates something for which there is a relatively small demand) and unfair (because it takes our money and allocates it to something that I, for one, do not use). Theoretically, money could be allocated much more efficiently if we were allowed to have it, but obviously the government thinks we are too stupid to know what’s best for ourselves and use our resources accordingly.

Bush Is A Baby Killer

An article in the Gazette titled, “Bush Goes After Democrats on Health Care” (Oct31) is a perfect example of political rhetoric masking an economic debate. The article should have been titled, “Bush Attempts to Harm America’s Children!” The AP focused on the President’s veto of a House Bill that increased the number of children on the Federal Payroll to 6 million. This would increase the budget of that particular health cost from bellow 5 billion to over 35 billion dollars.

Making President Bush’s remarks seem politically motivated, crass, and unsympathetic toward dying children, the AP suggested that his speech was directed toward Hillary Clinton. The article ended with a quote from chairman of the Democratic Caucus Rahm Emanuel, “"At 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, President Bush is having what he calls SCHIP Halloween - it's all trick no treat. He's preventing health care for millions of kids."

This AP article has missed the President’s reasoning for vetoing the bill altogether. A step toward Federalized Health Care in America would cost taxpayers too much money. In an American society where the national budget has run a deficit almost every year for the past 40 years, it seems unintelligible why this discussion is even occurring. A state owned enterprise (ie, government health care) has little incentive to be forward thinking, is often a loss making enterprise, costs the state a substantial amount of capital and financing, and not to mention the lack of quality that will eventually arise in the system! It is no surprise that the former Soviet Union was not known for its efficient use of resources and the manufacturing of high quality goods.

Before the AP runs an article bashing the President for his baby killing vetoes, maybe the discussion should be more economic in nature. The American budget will soon not be able to support its own social security system and the House of Representatives wants to increase spending on health care by 30 billion dollars! The intelligence of the federal government is again beyond anything we lesser plebes can ever hope to understand.

City of Colorado Springs Budget Cuts

The City of Colorado Springs Colorado has recently gone on the record stating they have a budget shortfall for 2007. As part of this budget shortfall, the city government are looking to adjust the bus routes within the city. This will in turn cut the budget for mass transit. This adjustment is to be made through fare increases along with service route cutbacks. The bus routes are the only form of mass transit within the city of Colorado Springs.

Transportation costs, in specific fuel costs have increased over the last two years. I can understand fare increases as a method of cutting costs. Although, the price elasticity for a 10 percent increase is only 3.3% decrease in ridership, for many individuals bus travel is their only means of public transportation. It does not make sense to cut the routes currently offered by the city. In the past year ridership on the bus routes has increased every month. As this is the only means of mass transit in the city it will greatly effect this primary source of transportation to work, schools, medical appointments and travel in general.

I don't belive that a fare increase will reduce ridership due to price elasticity. People understand that transportation costs have risen over the last year. It is being proposed that routes to newly emerging economic growth areas, such as Fort Carson and Fountain are slated to be cut. This makes little sense as these growth areas require transit for workers to these areas along with other areas that have a need for workers. The bottom-line is that I propose fare increases, yet don't propose cutting bus routes as a budget cutting method. It may be a good time to explore deregulation of this city service and allow private enterprise to more efficiently provide this valuable service to the Colorado Springs market.

The Unnoticed Link Between Trick-R-Treating and Urban Sprawl

This blog posting is going to discuss how urban sprawl and trick-r-treating are related. Based on the trick-r-treater’s dilemma, “where to go trick-r-treating to maximize candy collection while minimizing walking distance”. This is a question that I’m sure we can all remember asking our selves or our friends before heading out on that spooky night. When we were thinking that as kids, we were limited to where our parents would take us and once we were old enough to drive, we were too old to trick-r-treat. But were would have been the ideal place, the inner city, the suburbs or a “smart growth” community?

Let’s start with the inner city. This is where walking distance will be minimized. In the inner city, most of the residents are located in tall apartment buildings. This presents a situation with a high door count to square mile. The door count to square mile ratio should mean more treats but another equation also needs to be taken into account. Answers to doors knocked, this ratio, from personal experience, seems to be exceptionally low in apartments. So while the door count to square mile is high, the answers to doors knocked is low, resulting in an ineffective night of trick-r-treating.

So if the inner city isn’t the best place to go, how bout the suburbs? The suburbs seem to be the opposite of the inner city, a low door count to square mile, but a high answers to doors knocked. The reason for the difference in the door count to square mile ratio is simple, suburbs have a tendency to be a sprawling community, as people require more space for the kids to play in the yard while having a bigger driveway and garage to park their cars, they tend to move farther away from each other. The higher answers to doors knocked ratio is a little harder to pin down, while they do need a little more research to confirm, I will offer my personal experience. Most of the inhabitants of the inner city are D.I.N.K.s (Dual Income No Kids) and poor families. The first usually don’t have the time or desire to devote to decorating and passing out candy while the former usually don’t have discretionary income required for the same activities. Out in the suburbs though, there are a greater number of young families that enjoy the experience of Halloween and taking their kids out on that night. So they decorate their oversized front yard and one parent stays home to pass out candy to all the neighbors while the other goes out with the kids to keep them safe and make sure they don’t get lost. All of these factors will lead to more walking but will also return more candy.

So is there a place where we can find the ultimate mix? It could be in a “Smart Growth” community. While these communities focus on everything being closer and easier to walk to, they also try to attract young families. The effect of this returns the high answers to doors knocked ratio that we see in the suburbs while only slightly increasing the doors to square mile ratio seen in the inner city, giving us the best of both worlds.

The problem with this is there is not an abundance of “Smart Growth” communities to trick-r-treat in. This could be leading to families with kids from the inner city traveling out to the suburbs to go trick-r-treating and over time we may actually be seeing people moving out to the suburbs due to the lack of trick-r-treating opportunities found in the inner cities. The solution to this “problem” could be to require inner city citizens to participate in the Halloween tradition until there are enough “Smart Growth” communities… but I would suggest we just let the economy take its course without more regulations.

Is it time to rethink California fire policy?

Professor Minnich, a professor of earth science at the University of California, wonders when California will admit a policy failure when faced with the fact that 1.4 million acres have burned within the last four years. The idea is that when comparing San Diego County and Baja California in Mexico we see that Mexico's fires are smaller and burn out by themselves and that this occurrence clears out the brush and overgrowth that perpetuate the super-fires that plague California. Fire policy north of the border emphasises fire suppression and, in turn, keeps fires from their natural cycle for clearing out the overgrowth.
Furthermore, the rapid growth of the San Diego area endangers more people and developments. If the recent fires had occurred in 1980 only 61,000 homes would have been within close proximity to the fires. Today the number is around 125,000 according to analysis by the University of Wisconsin.

California State Fire Marshall Kate Dargan claims that discussions have begun at the highest levels of Californian government on how to address the issue but action is between 5 to 10 years away due to the size of the endeavor. There are currently some actions in effect to prevent these problems. In 2004 laws were made to enforce strict building code in fire prone areas. These new rules mandate that new homes locate attic vents away from the forest and decks with overhangs are regulated as well. Voluntary standards include fire-resistant building materials, sprinkler systems, and fire-resistant vegetation controls. These voluntary standards seem to be working as housing projects built under voluntary standards have all survived the fires.

Even with these new laws the fact remains that California experiences these fires because of its unwillingness to follow the effective methods of Mexico in it's Californian Baja. Building codes do little to clear the hillsides of the large amount of brush that the natural fire cycle would consume. Californian cities will continue to sprawl/grow and the threat of these super-fires will not subside without changing fire policy.

A city in turmoil

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal talked about Houston and the affects of not having zoning laws. Houston, is the fourth largest city, and happens to be the only U.S. city that does not have zoning. Because it does not have these regulations you get a lot of strange combinations in the city. Condo towers are next to schools and there is even a pay-by-the hour motel near a Baptist church. The residents of a well to do neighborhood are angry because there is a development group that wants to build a 23-story condominium tower among the million dollar homes. The residents have hired a lawyer to help them fight their cause. The issue now is because there are no zoning regulations they cannot stop this project. The developers have done everything the city has required of them from sewer upgrades to impact fees, and do not plan on scaling down the project. Since there are no zoning laws in the city you can bet the price they paid for that land was quite high considering were the land is located. From an efficiency standpoint, the land went to the most valued user since the neighbors did not see it in their best interest to buy the land before the developers. Is it a negative externality? To answer this question I would have to ask my self if who would we tax? I do not think there is any party to tax; therefore, it is not a negative externality. The residents who oppose this transaction can sell their property. The developers obviously see an opportunity in building these condos or they would not be willing to pay such a high price for the land and the development.

Preparing for the next time

"Yes, fires are a part of life in California. No, that's no excuse for bad zoning, sprawl and a lack of preparedness." This was heading of an article titled, "Preparing for next time" in the Los Angeles times, published on October 27th.
Cities in California, like San-Diego, have sprawled out into remote, inaccessible, fire-prone canyons and forests. Bad zoning practises are to blame, the article says. As a result, there is a lack of protection for these residents. Cities like San-Diego do not have enough money to pay for the fire protection they require. The Cities are simply too sprawled out. The limited number of fire fighters and fire engines cannot cover the entire area of the sprawled out cities.
The article then mentions that residents in these areas commute farther, increasing carbon emissions, contributing to global warming, and worsening drought.
Personally, I would blame the southern California's climate rather than the residents that live in sprawl. I think anyone who lives in southern California needs to be aware that their house may some day end up in a fire, just like those in Florida or Louisiana may end up in a hurricane. The people who live in these fire prone areas take the risk of fire in exchange for the luxury of living on the edge of the city. I don't think any zoning practices would have prevented the wild fires and even if I had lost my house in the fire, changing zoning regulations would most likely not be on my mind when it comes to preventing wild fires in the future.

The new phase of "new urbanism"

A recent article in the New York Times mentioned how many suburban ares are turning old malls into life-style centers. Where people live just above the mall or as they would like to call it. Upscale retailers, condos, and restaurants are built around what looks like a city street. One company in Boston is spending $370 million to turn an old mall in to a life- style center. They say that people will be excited about these developments because it is like living in the city but you are still in the suburbs. Are these kinds of developments really what people are looking for where down town is down stairs? It's almost as if they are building a downtown for older people who still want to live in the suburbs. As I continued to read the article I thought sure these places are nice but are they worth it? My initial guess would be no, people are not willing to give up their homes just to move into a condo above a mall. The article went on to mention that only 15% of the units had been sold since March. So, this also says to me that people are not willing to move into these "new urban" yet suburban developments. Sure the center is just being built so people are a little hesitant because they are not sure what it is going to look like; however, the price tag for these condos are quite steep. These condos start at $425,000 and go up to $1.6 million. I think that people would much rather get a house with some land starting at that price. Also, I think that the developers will see that the mall does well because people are driving from surrounding areas to shop but they are not in a hurry to move in above the mall. Will this new phase of new urbanism turn out just to be a phase? Guess we will have to let the market decide on that.

Clean Energy, Dirty Money

In a release from Gov. Ritter's office on Tuesday, a proposal was made to put $3.5 of the $7 million dollars for the Clean Energy Fund towards economic development. The senate bill 246 was passed by Senate and signed by Gov. Ritter in 2007. Already, the governor is trying to redirect these funds elsewhere.

According to the proposal, up to a million dollars will be made available to companies seeking funding assistance from state grants. As we have seen in the past, companies that need this kind of funding are generally high risk investments, the kind that apparently only our government will invest in. I agree that this funding will help bring new businesses and more jobs into Colo., but will they stay. Generally high risk businesses are just that, high risk. Many of these types of "schemes" do not succeed. In bringing these kinds of businesses here, the Governor is trying to make or economy even more unstable. I'll agree that we need more and better-paying jobs (my bank account can vouch for that), but why should we count on the government to boost our economy. It is a proven method, leave the market alone and it will correct itself.

I'd like to see a renewable source of energy sometime soon, but lets be realistic, big oil definitely won't let that happen until we have used up all there is of our dinosaur companions. Plus if you ask me the oil companies already have whatever it is our cars will run off in 20 years, they are just waiting for the right time to strike (but that's just a little of my conspiracy theorist coming out.

I don't think we are in Kansas anymore, Mark Funkhouser

According to the Kansas City Star, mayor Mark Funkhouser, is holding a conference of editorial writers to devise new ways of pressuring federal policy makers to take an active stance in Creating policy to help and encourage economic growth in urban areas. That is, he wants the central government to take a more active stance on the microcosmic economies of cities. He beleives this would encourage more sustainable.

This sounds like a very bad idea. First of all, situations, people and preferences change from city to city. The idea of federal policies and regulations is that when a law is made on the FEDERAL level, it is a blanket regulation for all of the land. If a regulation is going to help a specific region (and that is a big "if") it would need to be tailored to that specific region. There is no place for federal government here. Not only states have the power to play on their own state-specific strengths, but,by virtue of being localized, they most likely have better information about the region which they are regulating.


Beyond this initial absurdity that leaders in Washington should make better decisions about a region as opposed to the leaders within that region, we have the added concern of greater market regulations. These things are done for the stated purpose of "increasing economic growth" which usually involved governmental subsidies to allow for greater production of selected industries and firms. Not only is this rife with rent-seeking implications, where lobbyists will try to get their specific industry "stimulated" with a subsidy, but there is the looming chance and likelihood of these stimulating the wrong sectors, creating surplus goods that are not demanded by consumers. So, instead of leaving the money in the hands of customers wo can stimulate whichever sector they want by merely buying it, they are taxed and there money is spent on other items they do not want.

The best means for economic growth is less regulations, not more regulations that are misplaced, since they come from the federal government.

'Business-friendly' tax plan mat not have intended effects

On September 25, 2007, Governor Bill Ritter proposed a change in the corporate tax code that would allegedly boost the Colorado economy by encouraging “export” businesses to locate in Colorado. The current tax code makes it unattractive for multi-state businesses to locate here because it taxes based on the amount of capital investment and the size of the payroll, instead of instate sales. Ritter’s plan would simply change this so that instate sales were the tax base.

So, from what I can make of it, the plan would change the tax base from capital and operating costs to gross income. Ritter claims this plan would bring in more businesses and boost the Colorado economy by creating more jobs. But it seems to me that Ritter’s plan may not have the effect it intends to: that is, create jobs. True it will encourage businesses that do most of their sales out of state to move to Colorado. I’m sure Colorado has some lack of such businesses, because of its current tax code, so undoubtedly it will bring more of these types in.

But what about the businesses who do most of their sales in state? These companies, I imagine, rather enjoy the current tax code. After this tax plan passes, as Ritter claims it certainly will, these businesses might see a rise in tax payments because the source of those payments will change to a base of larger volume. They’ll probably try to weather the new costs by increasing their prices, so the Colorado consumer will ultimately be affected.

Of course, I’m sure Ritter thinks (if he has considered it, that is) this decrease in business activity will be more than offset by the forthcoming ‘boost’ in jobs from the ‘export’ companies. But they may not move in immediately. Furthermore, they will probably bring in quite a few out-of-state employees, because it is easier for multi-state businesses to draw employment this way. I would say there will be no significant increase in jobs, at least in the short run, because so many new employees will come from out-of-state that original Colorado residents won’t see much change. Furthermore, the increase in taxes will raise prices, which will affect quantity demanded and thus eat into in-state sales, which may possibly cause job cuts in those businesses currently favored by the tax code. This is a good example of politically motivated public policy that is made without careful consideration for its actual economic effects.

Is Colorado Springs one of the Best Cities ti live in?

In 2006 Colorado Springs was voted one of the top cities in America to live in by Money Magazine, however many people who live in Colorado Springs are complaining that it is not. Recently in the gazette several locals claimed that they do not make nearly enough money to support themselves and their families. So why do people choose to live in Colorado Springs? Is it the scenery; the job market perhaps? Common sense seems to reason that if someone is unhappy with where they live, they should move. Generally people will try to better their economic situation. However according to the gazette rather than let market forces determine where someone should live the government should step in and aid these people that cannot make it in the city in which they reside. Is this a case of government failure? Is it the government’s job to protect families whose average income lies above the national rate of poverty, but are still unable to live comfortably?

As a result Colorado is trying to elevate the current poverty line to a higher more ‘’realistic’’ level. The gazette states the following: “The Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute in 2004 issued a report identifying the income required for self-sufficiency in each Colorado County. For a one-person household in El Paso County, the institute said income of $16,475 is required to be self-sufficient. For a household with two adults and two children, self-sufficient income is $42,145, the institute said.’’ (The Gazette 9/30/07)

The people interviewed in this article are suffering from the unfortunate consequences of their actions. That begs the question as to whether the people profiled should and/or are able to move to a cheaper location. It seems to be a catch twenty-two; if they are not able to adequately provide for themselves, they most likely will not have the resources to move to a more economical location. The article argues that the local government should be doing more to help these individuals. Providing economic assistance to help these people afford to live in a comparatively expensive area seems a bit absurd. The ultimate question here seems to be why these people are staying in an economic situation that is not allowing them to live how they wish. Increasing the poverty rate and allocating more food stamps may be a quick fix, but generally people will live where they can prosper. When the city in which you reside is simply to expensive to maintain a comfortable live style, maybe the question that one needs to ask themselves is whether a cheaper location will provide a more favorable circumstance.

www.gazette.com/topstories

Green Mountain Falls vs. Evil Sprawl

The metropolis that is Green Mountain Falls boasts a population of 915 full-time residents and is located on U.S. highway 24 between Colorado Springs and Woodland Park. Mayor Pro Tem Dick Bratton stated that “In the past, the town hasn’t looked outside its boundaries. We haven’t been concerned about what’s happening around us.” Now residents are looking to prevent growth and are willing to go to great means to do so. The threat of sprawl is a battle to be fought on two frontiers as Woodland Park and Colorado Springs threaten to grow in Green Mountain Falls direction at any moment. Woodland Park has a planning area extending three miles south into Crystola where it has annexed land. Colorado Springs is currently attempting to expand up the mountain pass as developers are planning to build 55 homes near Chipita Park and 67 in Cascade, both just south east of Green Mountain Falls on Highway 24.

Town officials are looking into ways in which they can stop sprawl before it starts. They have hired a planning consultant to help them deal with the problem and are looking into annexing land surrounding the town in order to establish growth boundaries. Another method being considered is an intergovernmental agreement with El Paso County and other nearby towns to address the problems with a group effort.

Green Mountain Falls needs to annex nearby land and establish growth boundaries if they want to win the war on sprawl. Woodland Park and Colorado Springs are both embracing their growth and even planning for more in the future. The Mayor and town board seem to believe that growth or sprawl (or whatever you’d like to call it) is not inevitable and that no one will ever take notice of their peaceful mountain dwelling. I would assert that there is a certain group of people that don’t want one of the numerous tract homes that cover the eastern side of Colorado Springs. Some individuals won’t want a house that is identical to every other on the block and will be intrigued by the mountain living so close to Colorado Springs. These individuals will look up the pass to Cascade, Woodland Park and even Green Mountain Falls. Growth is inevitable and sprawl is coming.

Jordan Ford

Colorado Springs - Highway 24 Redevelopment

The City of Colorado Springs has recently been addressing the issue of widening Highway 24, heading west from downtown Colorado Springs to Manitou Springs. This area is the gateway to the mountains, attractions, Old Colorado City and Manitou Springs. The project is deemed necessary due to the increased traffic congestion along with areas along this roadway being in a 100-year flood plain. I have paid some attention to this issue through the local newspapers, however I attended a meeting last week and realized the apparant reason behind this project.

The widening of the highway will require in the exact words of the planners "taking" of land along the current roadway for redevelopment. The road will be widened and bridges and drainage improved to accomodate the current flood plain issues. The redeveloped land will then be parceled off and sold to the highest bidder. This will assist the local government in the costs of this project. I question what happens to the current property owners who are having their land "taken". Will be paid market value for their property as-is or as redeveloped? The answer is as-is as the redeveloped land will be further developed to accomodate strip centers, restaurants and potential for chain stores. I personally feel this is against what "west-siders" want with the redeveloped land. This redeveloped land will be more densely zoned to generate a higher tax base for the City of Colorado Springs in the future. It will not allow some current "mom and pop" businesses to relocate to this area as land rent and property values will increase with the property improvements.

I feel the highway project is necessary for future growth in this area, however some businesses and property owners will be driven from this area. I asked the question at this meeting - "What do you mean by redeveloped"? he answer I was provided said that new business or developers would come in to oversee this portion. I can only hope that the West-Side and Manitou Springs will push to keep their unique nature and not allow large box stores or retail to overtake this "redeveloped" land. The west-side is an area where people live who don't want this type of business in their backyard. I don't look at this as economic growth, rather reallocation of tax base to this area, when they can shop 3 miles away on 8th Street. I realize it is a process of change, yet sometimes change is not a good thing.

Bicycle Tax Fund

The 2007 Colorado Springs budget outlines a 115,000 dollar budget for "providing a funding source for bikeway improvements throughout the city." The source of revenue is a sales tax on the purchase of all new and used bicycles.

This is a good example of a continual distortion of local knowledge because of intervention. I have no doubt that the group of morons that came up with a bicycle tax thought it would be a great idea BIKES ARE SUPERDUPER AFTER ALL!!! but what it really demonstrates is an almost repulsive ignorance of basic human interaction. Furthermore, these oh-so sagacious legislators expose their flippant attitude to an individuals liberty.

What is the optimal amount of bikeways in a city? Most people with an IQ north of Quasimodo realize you cant answer the question in a concrete quantifiable number of units. Apparently though, there happens to be an optimal amount. The idea is that we can maintain more bikeways (a good thing) with this source of revenue (bike tax). However, what it does it create a change in the price of bikes and bikeways. People who previously owned bikes now get this bikeway for a reduced price since they don't burden the bike tax. Because of these manipulations in prices, prices lack the same "knowledge communicating" efficacy they previously had in a natural system. Ergo, distortions in the use of bikes, bikeways, their substitutes, inputs, complements; in a word, everything in the economy, is shifted ever so slightly away from efficient (in the proper sense of the word) allocation.

Furthermore, what a simple minded "tax and allocate" and its nonchalant use shows is a lack of respect for other persons property on the part of its advocates. What it means is that, the government of Colorado Springs knows how to use the money of people who buy and sell bikes than the people themselves. Taking money to pay for unwanted projects is no less theft.

How to Help Skinny Ethiopians

An article in the Denver Post, written on September 29, 2007, is titled: Hunger to do good helps Ethiopian kids. During this interview Noel Cunningham, a local entrepreneur and restaurant business owner, helped buzz his own program that aims at helping the "unfortunate" of Ethiopia. Cunningham's program,"Quarters for kids", collects money from high school students and donates them to needy Africans. The program also attempts to impress the value of the US dollar and their own economic "fortune" into their minds. I find this article to be inconsistent with an effective means of helping "unfortunate" Ethiopians.

Cunningham says, "In Ethiopia, here's the significance of a dollar: A quarter will buy breakfast, a quarter will buy lunch, a quarter will help pay for education, and a quarter will help to pay for a school uniform and shoes." Giving for the sake of giving, with no expectation of return or gain, is fine. Nevertheless, I suggest that this seemingly harmless act of giving money to Ethiopians is the wrong way to create positive economic improvement. Two specific arguments support this thesis: First, giving money or food to African countries does nothing to solve the most basic economic problem in the region: corrupt/predatory government. Second, charitable donations do more than quench hunger pain, they also quench the fire for change that is needed for African economic and political upheaval. If hungry Ethiopians want change badly enough, THEY must fight it themselves.

Instead of promoting programs that mask instead of create real change, the American people are perpetuating a growing problem. Government should allow economic freedom for the success of all African entrepreneurs. If young risk-taking Africans feel as though their investments will be left to the guns of militant militia, there will be little growth! Allowing Africans to feel the pains of hunger, help fight predatory governments, and providing economic and business education, will allow a country with an abundance of resources to drastically increase its GDP and quality of life.

It may seem harsh to promote an idea that says, "Don't give!" Yet, giving a hand "up" is always better than a hand "out".

A City Within the Springs

A city within the Springs
A huge new subdivision kicks off growth on Colorado Springs' east side


This article highlights the debut of Colorado Springs' newest community and prominant example of sprawl: Banning Lewis Ranch, located on the northeast side of Colorado Springs. After years and years of awaiting zoning approvals, the 24,000 acre property is finally breaking ground. The developers are promoting a picture perfect reality.

"That's why you'll find things like tree-lined streets and open-rail fences. Natural green spaces and feathery wild grasses. A new community center complete with pools and ball fields. The new Banning Lewis Ranch Academy, a K-8 charter school. And beautiful new homes in a variety of architectural styles, displaying rich character and neighborhood crafting. All interconnected by a network of trails and footpaths. It's the kind of place you just don't find much anymore. (banninglewisranch.com)"

This new community is promising much more than just a place to live, potential buyers are paying for small town living in the midst of city chaos. With a high emphasis being placed on 'small', prepare to pay for schools, parks and other commuity features like coffee schops and movie theaters; all within walking distance from home. Local trails and exercise centers that invite the community to come and get to know each other; enjoy a fresh breath of Colorado air, as long as you dont mind sharing that fresh breath with the dozen otehr neighbors scrambling for that same 'Leave it to Beaver' lifestyle. The houses will also follow suit with the small scene, the average size home for this community will be 2,400 sq ft. According to Colorado-Springs-realestate.com, the average size home for this area is closer to 3,200 sq. ft; however, at a starting price of about $220,000 are you really getting the most bang for your buck or are you being swept away by sprawl?

America’s Addiction to Cheap Money and the Resulting Effects on Sprawl

America seems undoubtedly addicted to cheap money, since 1984 the Federal Funds rates has not gone above 10% and has spent the majority of that time below 6%. The current rate, 4.75, is still lower then LIBOR, which is the rate that most of the rest of the developed world borrows at. There has also been a trend developing, the spread between the Fed Funds rate and the LIBOR rate has been widening. Although there has recently been a small correction down in the LIBOR rate, the spread and the trend still exist. This means that most every other developed country realizes that this rate is too low to sustain without dramatic inflation and other consequences.

In a supply and demand world, however, these low rates have been a blessing to our economy and real estate. Being one of the primary drivers of our economy, real estate values have seen large appreciation values in the past 20 years. This is due in part to people making more money then they were 20 years ago and wanting to have a bigger house, but with such low interest rates it is possible for people to demand more expensive houses then they could have otherwise afforded. This has not only caused an increase in property values inside the city, but also in the suburbs, leading to some people moving even farther away from the center of the city.

Sprawl is, among other things, the outward expansion instead of the upward growth of a city. This is undoubtedly being caused by our addiction to cheap money. Since 1984, rates have dropped from their highs and stayed relatively low, this is where we get into the supply and demand issue. Since price of money had been falling people have been spending more (Americans on average spend more then they make) and with a house being the most expensive good that most people buy, home prices have been greatly effected by this increase in demand. With the low price of money more people have been demanding newer, bigger, nicer houses, resulting in higher prices and greater appreciation of house values. This higher demand has lead to people moving to where they could build the same house for cheaper, the suburbs. People will even move out to a small town just outside the city and commute in to work (i.e. Monument, CO). But now, as the two cities have grown together, even they have a small suburb developing, Flying Horse. Good or bad, sprawl is happening and is due, in part, to the low interest rates.

The demand supply equation is out of balance in this case, although the housing supply has reacted accordingly to demand, the money supply has not. It is being kept at low levels to feed our addiction. This is not just one person’s opinion, but the majority of the world also agrees with me. This can be seen from exchange rates (found at finance.yahoo.com) and the dollar’s weakening value compared to other stable currencies. For example one US dollar is now worth one Canadian dollar, where as just five years ago, it was worth almost 1.6 Canadian dollars. There has also been a steady trend in this direction, not just in Canadian dollars but also in Euros, Yen and other major currencies. This shows that other people around the world see the inflationary potential that keeping a borrowing rate this low has.

Blogging Assignment Illustrated

If you want to see a couple of examples of what I'm looking for with your blogging assignments, then you might take a look at this post of mine as well as this post by a former student.

Hitler youth buttons

Last Thursday U.S District Judge Joseph A. Greenaway Jr. sided with two kids from New Jersey saying the kids can wear buttons featuring a picture of the Hitler youth to protest a school uniform policy.
The students had been threatened with suspension last fall for wearing the buttons and the students parents then proceeded to file a federal lawsuit claiming the district violated the children's free speech rights. The Judge also added that the students could not distribute the buttons.
When deciding this case the Judge cited a 1969 case in Iowa involving students who wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam war, saying students have the right to express themselves as long as it is not disruptive to the work and discipline of the school.
This case seems to be a classic example of organizations that possess a little bit of power going crazy. I am thrilled the kids won. I don't agree with the hitler youth, but threatening to suspend students because they were wearing buttons is a clear violation of the 1st amendment.
This case also shows how the students parents were useing the coercive power of government to get what they wanted. Normall I am aginst people trying to use government to get their way but in this case the parents were just protecting their kids right to free speech.
It is good to see that the judges in Washington don't screw up all the time.

Goofiness Sweepstakes

You might be interested in "health zoning."

Stormwater bills are public, after all

I have paid my storm water bill. Is it a tax? Well, I'm not sure. Many think it is and if it turns out it is, then we should vote on it. The city says no, but this article tells how a lien can be put on your house if the bill is not paid. Now, when I received my bill, I was suspicious. Here I am, paying my property taxes, when I get a bill out of nowhere. The bill says that if I do not pay the bill, the city will put a lien on my house. So, using the knowledge I did in class, I analyze the bill.

If I enter into a contract with a lender, such as my mortgage company, then they can use government's coercive force to enforce the contract. But what contract did I enter into with the city concerning storm water runoff? This is a classic case of governments coercive power. I agree with those who see this as a tax. In Colorado, we have to vote on new taxes- we didn't vote.

My next question is why didn't we vote on it. The city says it doesn't have the money to do the projects concerning storm water and runoff. My first question is why? Is this a new problem that has surfaced? Why hasn't the city been planing for this for years, why such the urgency. The answer, I believe, is the city does not know how to budget. Can the city really tell us this came as a surprise?

The city has not taken into account if there is any actual runoff form the property to the city drains. There is no mention in the bill I received to contest if I were saving any run off of rain. And another thing, what if there is a drought and there is no run off, then what are we being charged for. Probably the reason it was not introduced as a tax might be because there is not a efficient amount of run off. If this goes to the Colorado Supreme Court (if challenged), I would hope that they have a corrective state of mind in deciding the case.

I also think this issue will coincide with the issue before the state right now concerning the new education bill- many think it is a new tax, supporters (like the storm water bill) disagree. I suppose the courts will decide.

Burrowing increases. fed out of touch?

And article on Yahoo recently posted that comsumer borrowing in the month of march rose at an annual rate of 6.7 percent. this shows good growth after a slight slump in the first quarter this year.

This sounds to me like the fed is out of touch, after a year of holding the target rate constant, they recently announced that they are continuing to hold the target rate constant. This seems out of touch with the economy.

The article in Yahoo claimed that the high consumer borrowing is remarkable, due to high prices and rates. For this reason and the fact that the first quarter had been week, (growth around 1.3 percent) the fed should have been lowering the rate. It would have helped last quarter and strengthened the consumer spending that had been strong in march, making it potentially even stronger.

Senate Panel approves higher required feul economy

The nationwide fleet fuel economy required for cars and truck has been increased by the Senate Commerce Science and transporation rom 25 to 35 miles per gallon.

"This is not a perfect bill, but I think we have reached a stage where most parties would say this is fair," said Sen. Daniel Inouye. My problem with this is that if "most parties" involved would be ok with this, and I am assuming that "most parties" he means businesses and firms who are in the transportation industry. If this is true and if businesses could easily comply with these standards then competition would have already induced them to have done this already.

If this bill is to improve the industry, then it is just a regulation that will do more harm than good, reducing the number of cars that can be sold, since, now we have both fuel efficient and non- fuel efficient cars in the market. The higher requirments won't dramatically increase the number of efficient cars, just dramatically reduce the number of innefficient cars.


The only way this bill would work is if it is INTENDED to reduce the number of cars one the road. this however does not seem to be what the bill's intended consequence is. It seems like they are trying to turn the innefficient cars being produced, into efficient ones, but if all cars could be efficient already, then they already would be.

Imus suing CBS

As many of us may remember Don Imus was somewhat recently fired for his comments about the Rutgers basketball team. Well now Don Imus is suing CBS for 40 million dollars which was the amount of his contract that he was left unpaid due to him being fired. Imus and his lawyer are filing a breach of contract, citing a specific part of his contract, "Imus' services were "unique, extraordinary, irreverent, intellectual, topical, controversial." Now I must make clear that I do not agree with what Imus did but the 1st amendment does guarantee freedom of speech and even if what he says does offend others, this was acknowledged in his contract. So again, although I do not agree with what Imus has done, after looking at his contract and the 1st amendment I would side with Imus in a court case and would award him his 40 million.

On a side note. Personally I think contriversial topics are the best to discuss and need to be addresed and I beleive that everybody is offended by something and as long as you market your talk to show to be offensive you should be able to discuss these topics. Look at the howard stern show, he was donig all sorts of crazy things, but that was expected becasuse it was the howard stern show. Personally I would not have fired Imus.

Senate Discusses Overhauling PDUFA Act; Disincentive to Investment.

The Senate has been recently debating the possibility of overhauling the FDA. It would do this by amending and extending the Prescription Drug User Fee Act created in 1992. The Act was originally created to defray the costs the FDA incurred while reviewing prescription drugs. The FDA's proposal to Congress would have the drug industry pay $393 million in annual fees (Bridges, Associated Press). This spending would go to new drug and food safety measures. It would include provisions to ensure the safety of child drugs and devices as well as the safety and effectiveness of drugs currently on the market. The renewal of the Act also promises to make the approval process of drugs more quick and predictable. The provisions set forward however, do not allow for the importation of drugs nor generic drug approvals (all facts, from attached link, Andrew Bridges, the Associated Press).

This is sort of a grey area of market failure. There is market failure, but it may protect consumers to an extent. It creates a barrier to entry through government licensing, therefore violating perfect competition. It also violates the PC model by heterogeneous products and asymmetrical information. Generic drug companies and foreign companies have been left out of the new provisions so far. This renewal and amendment to the PDUFA Act was brought to the Senate by the FDA itself. There may be rent seeking on the part of the FDA and possibly the large drug corporations. The FDA can not act efficiently, so it seeks legislative coercion for additional aid. The larger drug corporations may not necessarily be too adversely affected by the increased costs, but may benefit from reduced competition. Although the Act promises to cut costs the FDA incurs by reviewing drugs, the Act is still economically inefficient. It seems to limit competition in the prescription drug market. It also promises to make the approval process faster by introducing more legislation into the drug industry.

High-Speed Police Craziness

In a case dated April 30, 2007 the Supreme Court decided that police are now able to use force in a high-speed pursuit to stop an individual that is driving recklessly from harming others. The 8-1 decision in Scott v. Harris No. 05-1631 that gives police extended powers during high speed pursuits was not found to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. This amendment gives an individual the right to be free from unreasonable searches. Justice Scalia said that this decision by the court holds true “even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death.” Deputy Scott had hit the car that the 19-year-old Harris was driving. Harris lost control of his vehicle. He is now paralyzed and has attempted to sue. Since the Fourth Amendment was not violated he cannot sue for damages.

Harris was being chased because he was speeding. I know that the job of the police is supposed to be to protect all people. I wonder though, how well are they protecting all people if they are including themselves in the high-speed chase over speeding tickets? Could more people possibly be harmed from police forcing drivers off of the road for crimes such as a speeding ticket? Could the outcome not have been perhaps an extra fine of some sort for Harris? I’m kind of torn over this case. I want the police to be able to protect me, but at the same time I want my rights protected and not to see a police chase every time someone goes speeding down the highway. The courts have decided to give the police force more police power in order to “protect the people.” I just wonder where it ends. Hopefully it won’t go beyond this point.

Large Acres of Land Selling to the Rich

For the very rich billionaires and the millionaires there is a new fad of buying up open land in the US. Brad Kelley has almost 800,000 acres of land that he is purchasing for ranching. There are others, like Roxanne Quimby, who buy forest landfrom logging companies and open land used for ATV trails, and plan to use it as conservation land. It seems the rich are beginning to do the opposite of what Americans were doing in the early 19th century, of preserving the land and maintaining it not selling.

It seems that most of the private property owners are protecting the land from development, not preparing it to be sold to developers. If we consider economic prosperity of this effort, it clearly support the right of private property. It is also a good example of the corrective state involving preservation of land and natural resources. Maybe this fad will catch on.

As James Madison stated in his Essay on Property in 1792, "Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own". So how is the Government going to react to these land purchases? Will they press for more eminent domain to take over the land to sell and make a profit, keep it as a public use? Even though it seems most of the private landowners will protect it. How will the Supreme Court react when faced with a case for the Takings Clause that has no grounds? Will they redefine takings and public use language again to come up with a public purpose policy? Or will they agree with common sense and let the private property remain private without government intervention?

Hmmmm Can she do that?!

In early April of 2007 House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went over to the Middle East to conduct foreign policy. The concern that myself as well as author Frank Salvato has is that the Constitution does not authorize the Speaker of the House to conduct foreign policy in the manner in which Pelosi did. That power is strictly delegated to the Executive Branch of government. As Salvato writes “this isn’t to say that Congress doesn’t have any authority over the formulation of US foreign policy, it certainly does.” Article 2, section 8 is the part of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, States, and Indian Tribes. However, Salvato notes that it is Article 3, Section 2 that authorizes the President to make treaties, appoint Ambassadors, Judges of the Supreme Court, etc. Congress has the power to regulate business in the US and foreign nations and the President has the ability to appoint individuals to represent the US in foreign affairs.

Knowing all of the information presented above leads me to ask why the Speaker of the House thought it was appropriate for her to go over to the Middle East. She took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. So why, then would she even take this step? Some have suggested that this is an attempt by Congress to undermine President Bush or for Congress to overpower the Executive Branch period. I guess that it doesn’t really matter why she chose to do it. The point is that the Constitution clearly leaves that area of foreign policy to the Executive Branch. It is the choice of the Secretary of the State to go to foreign countries for diplomatic reasons, not the choice of Nancy Pelosi. I agree with author Frank Salvato that this situation has created a constiutional crisis.

Abortion battle...Again.

The supreme court has recently upheld the 2003 partial birth abortion ban act. The decision was 5-4 in favor of the laws constitutionality. The Democrats are appalled, the Republicans applaud. Several people are arguing that the decision would have gone the other way if O'Connor will still on the bench. The dissent argued that the main problem with the law was that it does not allow any exceptions for medical reasons. President Bush said the prohibition "represents a commitment to building a culture of life in America. Today's decision affirms that the Constitution does not stand in the way of the people's representatives enacting laws reflecting the compassion and humanity of America," The article also seems to take offense to the conservative nature of the court and repeatedly points out that two members of the majority were nominated by Bush.

Personal feelings aside I believe that the court has made the wrong decision. The court has turned over Roe v. Wade. Obviously, as it has proven several times, the court has no respect for precedent. The country is founded on the principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Of course there is the age old argument, does a fetus have a right to life? Are they people until they are born? At what point do they become people. Either way there is no statement in the constitution that can be used to justify banning abortion.

For me personally I am in favor of banning partial birth abortion. I would support a medical stipulation to the ban. Still, I am not sure that there would be no awareness of health risks that far along in a pregnancy. This is causing a paradox for me between liberty and morals. Who's to say that anyone has the right to tell someone whether or not they can have an abortion. I do not know if one could say that an abortion causes negative externalities and therefor justifies government interference. If we could say that it was a negative externality to the fetus then the solution would be to tax abortion, it seems like a strange solution but maybe it is the correct one. There seems to be no concrete answeres to these questions. It seems that whoever has the power of the White House determines which way this law will go. We will continue to see laws on abortion change.

Slacking of the ropes

A recent article in the New York Times said that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was leaving many of its regulations to be regulated by the industry. This article was about workers that worked in a microwave popcorn plant who started getting sick after the popcorn manufactures added and additive that gave the popcorn a more buttery taste. The workers were complain about the action not being taken saying someone needs to be monitoring the health and safety of the workers basically that if OSHA does not do it than no one will, since the beginning of the Bush administration OSHA has issued the fewest standards in its history. While reading this article I could not stop thinking about a case we talked about in class Holden v. Hardy. In this case the Court dealt with the unhealthy working conditions in the mine. The miners did not like the new regulations that were placed on them, so they filed suit. The only thing different about this is that government is not using its coercive power to regulate--some people are asking them to regulate it. To me the government is doing the right thing. Letting not only the industry control the regulations but also the market. The industry is not being coercive by forcing people to work in such conditions that it endangers their health. The workers have entered into a contract voluntarily. I also do not see any externalities. The workers received higher wages for working in the part of the factory that mixed the additives together. Though they did not know the risk associated with this type of work the manufacturers did not either. The workers were part of a market transaction with the higher pay.
I also believe their is some rent seeking behavior on behalf of the industry. Some of the biggest industries that OSHA regulates gave more than $630 million in political contributions since 2000, with more than half going to Republicans.

Cablevision appeals network DVR ruling

Cablevision appealed a case recently that prohibited the company from rolling out their next-generation digital video recorder in NY. The new recorder would dramatically increase the rate at which the company could distribute DVR capabilities. Essentially, the new system would allow any household with a cable box to record their favorite show and play it on their computer later. The system would allow any cable subscriber access to DVR technology without expensive equipment installations. The Hollywood studios that successfully sued Cablevision claimed that they filed the suit in order to prevent additional broadcasts of their programs. However, the real reason probably lies in the fact that DVR owners can fast forward through commercials when watching their recorded programs. Obviously, if subscribers can fast forward through commercials then the companies that buy spots during shows will be less inclined to spend top dollar on commercials that people aren’t going to watch. Hollywood studios would lose money and therefore are probably trying to protect their pockets.

Legally, Cablevision should be able to rollout their new product without any interference from the New York government. That is, NY should not be able to prohibit the production and selling of any product. The only question is whether the new recorder violates the liberties of any specific person or group. For the most part, I think not. I believe that 99% of the people who use the system will just be watching the shows that they missed or re-watching the shows that they enjoyed the most. However, since the new system would allow people to put the programs on their computer, there is a significant probability that the television shows could end up on a website (You-Tube?). Again though, this is not the major concern for Hollywood studios. They don’t make their profits from individual consumers. Rather, they make their billions from the companies who buy commercial time. So, while the case and the ruling seem correct, there seems to be a case of rent-seeking involved. Either way, I think that the courts decided correctly in protecting the television studios that could possibly go out of business if a system like that was provided to such a large number of consumers.

Automakers challenge Vermont emission law

This article concerns the emissions law that congress told the Bush administration to rethink. Vermont as well as ten other states wants to cut the carbon dioxide emitted by automobiles by 30%. However, Vermont is the first state that will take their case to trial against the auto industry. The auto companies (GM and DaimlerChrysler) claim that the 10 individual states pushing for the law are overstepping their boundaries in trying to regulate vehicle emissions. Charles Territo, A spokesperson for the auto manufacturers states; “This trial is about whether or not states have the authority to set their own fuel-economy standards. And we will argue that they don't."

The Constitution doesn’t give congress the power to regulate production (Although in many cases The Supreme Court has granted congress this very power). The new law would involve individual states regulating the production of cars in their respective state in order to lower carbon dioxide emissions. As long as the state government doesn’t create a monopoly or a market failure, they should be able to regulate (not prohibit) the production of automobiles. As far as I can see, there is no market failure of any sort involved. Nor do I see any infringement on the liberties of the auto manufacturers. All that Vermont and the other nine states are asking is for manufacturers to lessen the emissions that their cars produce. Under the constitution and using my general understanding of liberty, I see no reason why any court would rule in favor of the auto companies.

Jailed journalist to be freed

Joshua Wolf spent more than seven months in a federal prison after refusing to obey a subpoena to turn over his videotape of a chaotic 2005 San Francisco street protest during the G-8 summit. The Government had been investigating how a police officer's skull was fractured during the incident and who set a police car on fire. Wolf's lawyer argued that the First amendment gave him the right to refuse the subpoena for the unaired video. U.S District Judge William Alsup cited a 1972 supreme court ruling that the U.S. constitution does not entitle reporters, or anybody else, to withhold confidential sources or unpublished material from a grand jury during an investigation in a criminal trial. Wolf refused to hand over the video tape and was jailed. After 226 days later the unaired video tape was posted online and it had been decided the Wolf had complied with the subpoena and was released.

After reading this article I am confused as to what exactly our government thinks it is doing. We have already learned about all the great things congress has the power to regulate, like global warming for example. Now it seems that pretty much anything we own is actually congresses. Apparently they can take our private property for whatever use they please and if we refuse we can be thrown in jail. It was believed that this video tape had some evidence on it of some sort and I guess that was the reasoning behind the taking. In the article it mentions that it turned out the video tape did not even show what investigators were looking for. So why exactly was Joshua Wolf jailed for over seven months? Well, I guess I can't say. I never read anything that says if you don't surrender your private property to the government you can be thrown in jail. I understand the concept of takings for public use with just compensation but this case doesn't seem to make any sense. Apparently the government has a lot more power than what has been specifically given to it by the constitution.

Global Warming and the Courts

Last Monday the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) has the power to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) and that they could not neglect the right for regulating greenhouse gases unless they could provide scientific basis for not regulating. The explanation from E.P.A. on why they had not regulated greenhouse gases was because the emissions from American cars were insignificant in the big picture. The court dismissed this explanation as inadequate. The decision does not force the E.P.A. to regulate CO2, but would most likely face more legal action if it does not. The dissent delivered by Chief Justice Roberts said that the Court should have never given the plaintiffs standing to sue and that it lowers the requirements for standing.
I agree with Chief Justice Roberts. I am not sure how the plaintiffs passed the three prong standing test. To be granted standing you must prove: first that injury was sustained; second that the injury was caused by the action in question; and third it is likely that the outcome will favor the injured party. How did the state of Massachusetts prove that injury was sustained? Justice Stevens said it met the requirements because global warming was raising the see level along its coast, if the government did something then harm would be reduced. I don't believe this is enough to prove the first two parts of the test. It sounds ridiculous to me that justice Stevens and the other five in the majority would agree with him. The rising sea level could be because of other countries failing to regulate greenhouse gases. I also don't think that the Clean Air Act that was passed in 1963 had anything to do with regulating CO2 from cars, but rather combating smog in cities. I think that the Court has overstepped its constitutional boundaries. The President and congress should be passing legislation to combat the effects of greenhouse gases not the Court. Even at a state level Massachusetts could better control how much CO2 they want to emit with harder emissions test. The E.P.A. can not hold full responsibility. California, for instance, has stricter emissions for regulating CO2 than the federal government. Massachusetts could do the same if they were really worried about their rising coast line.

No legal obligation to shareholders, or protection from over regulation?

The supreme court is set to hear debates between the bush administration and shareholders of fiber-optic company Tellabs. The Bush administration is claiming that there should be a limit in lawsuits for corporate scandals, like the ones in 2002 involving companies like Enron. Their reasoning behind this is that too many lawsuits will “bog down” business and make Financial firms less competitive and less productive.The argument presented by the shareholders is that The “lost millions” when then CEO made false statements.Essentially, since 2002 regulatory laws on financial firms since 2002 have allowed shareholders to sue extensive class action lawsuits.This seems like a case of Rent-Seeking big corporations are looking to “ease” there business practices by making them unaccountable for their own actions. Sure competition should be encouraged in business, because it HELPS the economy. If, however, it is a kind of competition that comes from hurting shareholders, than it seems to be HURTING the economy.I see no justification for violating the personal liberty of share holders, making themselves unable to legally defend themselves, just to increase production.It seems like rent-seeking o the part of the financial businesses, to lower costs by taking away legal barrier

Court Packing Cartoons

You might be interested in checking out a number of cartoons that were published around FDR's court packing scheme.

RULES MORE IMPORTANT THAN PERSONALITIES

I think the thoughts that Walter E. Williams has are brilliant, must be way I read him a lot.

This article has to deal with the role the Supreme Court has in making laws. In particular, the role lobbyists play in our government. Williams essentially boils down the role of congress to a football team, and of course (as he does in all of his articles it seems), economics.

His conclusion of the role the Supreme Court now plays fits perfectly with our recent discussions involving FDR and how he stacked the court. Professor Eubanks discussion of jurisprudence also comes into play. If we had a Court which held previous decisions true and did not "flip flop" on decisions, then stacking the court would not be an issue. Then, if Congress wanted to impose a law that favored a group (such as farmers (see "Economics & Government" blog) or sugar beet farmers), they would have to add an amendment to the Constitution. Thus, putting earmarks in budget bills favoring one group over another, might stop. Of course, what then would our Congressmen and women do all day?

Should price floors always be illegal?

A retailer in Texas ( Kay's Kloset) was selling products from Leegin Creative Leather Products in their store. To maintain competitive pricing with other larger retailers they discounted the products 20%. Leegin demanded that they and other retailers offering the discount prices put the prices back up or leegin would no longer ship them products. All of the retailers but Kay's Kloset raised the prices. Leegin, as promised discontinued sending them products. Kay's Kloset lost half of their business. The lower court ruled in favor of Kay's Kloset and awarded them $3.6 million. Kay's Kloset was suing for price fixing. Leegin holds that the prices were pro-competitive because they fostered competition with other brands. The Bush administration holds that it is inappropriate to automatically prohibit price floor agreements when they are not necessarily anti competitive. The case is now before the supreme court.

There are several things that I take issue with in this case. First lets look at the seller buyer relationship. Leegin was unhappy with the market for their products. They seem to feel that their products are worth more. The retailers seemed to disagree. Once the retailers have bought the goods they are theirs and should be allowed to resell them as they see fit. If the manufacturer wants the goods to sell for more they should make their selling prices higher forcing the prices that they want to be charged. After the retailer has possession of the goods I do not believe that the seller should hare anything further to do with the transaction. Furthermore, The retailer opted not to charge the higher prices and so no longer received shipments. Certainly, a manufacturer has the right to their goods and who they sell them to. The retailer opted not to fit into that criteria they have no right to compensation. If the prices that the seller wanted to charge were too high then people would not have bought them and the seller would lose money and change its prices. All indications of this case seem to suggest that the market should be allowed to correct itself.

Now we need to consider if the government is correcting a market failure? Price floors and price ceilings seem to go along with monopoly power. Is the regulation of this particular price floor within the scope of governments power? It does not seem to me that the manufacturer is trying to create a monopoly. If their claims are true and they are just trying to stay competitive in the market then there are substitutes for their goods. Entry into the leather market is not particularly difficult. the retailer claims to have lost half its business so it would seem that perhaps the prices asked for are in fact the market prices. No other retailers had a problem charging the higher prices. Perhaps I am mistaken but it seems to me that there is no cause here for government intervention. The actors made market choices and they should be allowed to play out. I cannot see that this price floor is of the kind referenced in the Sherman Anti Trust Act. People may chose to buy other leather products.

Is a DVR Recording Copyright Infringement?

Cablevision developed a new way to use DVR systems by providing remote storage instead of hard drive storage on the system itself, one storage unit per person. This remote storage would allow for easy access and probably more storage space than current DVR systems. The problem is that the pseudo-monopolized market, which includes studios and cable networks, believe that this DVR storage is causing infringement issues. To try and downplay the havoc being created by the studios and cable networks, Cablevision is going out of its way to prove that they are not infringing on current copyright laws. Cablevision is using the Supreme Courts decision in 1984 regarding VCR's, that the VCR recordings were legal media. This new system is no different than current DVR's like TiVo that record media and store it on the hard drives, only these hard drives are remote. The studios and cable networks disagree, and state that the process allows the recording to be re-played for free and without approval for those transmissions, referring to them as video-on-demand services. They are still fighting for revenues lost to other competition such as Netflix, Podcast, etc. that is downloadable by consumers and can be replayed after paying only once, not several times.

This has rent-seeking written all over it! The studios and cable networks had a monopoly in this market for years and it has been crumbling because of new technology. So they are fighting this DVR market, Podcast, satellite television, downloadable movies and Internet movie rentals. This is causing a limitation to competition. Because of rent-seeking the Government could intervene and cause this new technology to withdraw, or push license or fees on it so much that it may not survive. It goes against Mancur Olson's economic prosperity system and causes an inefficient economy.

High Court tests limits of student speach rights

As the Olympic torched passed through Juneau, Alaska, in 2002, a high school senior Joseph Frederick along with some friends unveiled a banner which read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" as an attempt to get on TV. The principal of the school (Deborah Morse) tore down the banner and suspended Frederick for 10 days saying that because the word "bong" was a reference to marijuana, the sign violated the school's anti-drug policy. On March 19th the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the arguments in Morse V. Frederick. Similar school policies, many inspired by Colorado's Columbine incident, have banned students from wearing clothing or posting signs that focus on drugs, guns or incendiary topics such as homosexuality, abortion and religion.

In a similar case in 1969 three Iowa students who wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War were suspend and went to court saying their first amendment rights had been violated. The Supreme court ruled in favor of the teenagers, saying, " it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th circuit ruled in favor of Frederick last year in the Juneau case it cited the "Newsom decision" saying, "our sister circuits have similarly held that student speech that is neither plainly offensive nor school-sponsored can be prohibited only where the school district demonstrated a risk of substantial disruption."

I believe the Court of Appeals was correct and just because we enter a school building we do not loose our Constitutional rights. I would hope the supreme courts finds in favor of Frederick, because if we give up our first amendments rights in school, whats next?

O'Malley Endorses State Ban On Smoking

In Maryland, the state government is attempting to pass a law that would ban smoking in public establishments. Most people would agree that this law is not only beneficial to non-smoking customers, but also to the businesses that have allowed smoking in the past. Obviously, non-smokers would no longer have to suffer foggy smoke clouds that most bars and many restaurants have become accustomed to, and business owners are likely to see a boost in overall sales since non-smokers will no longer be avoiding their establishment due to smokey conditions.

Some have said that non-smoking laws will lose businesses money because the smokers wont want to go to the establishments their accustomed to if they cant smoke inside. A bogus argument i think. Smokers aren't going to boycott public establishments all together because of a minor inconvenience. Colorado passed the same law not to long ago. The restaurant that I bar tend for saw an obvious increase in sales. Our smoker regulars still came in just as frequently as they had before except they were smoking outside. And new customers also came in clearly stating that they had come in because they didn't have to worry about the smoke anymore.

While this law may infringe on the liberty of some people, its better for society as a whole to adopt this. Not only will public establishments make more money through higher sales, but people will be able to enjoy cleaner places to go blow all their money. And as we know, the more money that people spend, the more money businesses make, the better the economy becomes.

Supreme Court denies Writ of Habeas Corpus and Constitutional rights.

Mathew Musladin was denied the petition of habeas corpus by the Supreme Court earlier this month. He was convicted for the murder of Tom Struder in the case of Carey v. Musladin. Musladin thought he was denied a fair trial because family members of Struder wore buttons bearing the victims picture. He had asked the judge to have the family remove their buttons, but the judge would not comply. According to the article (link attached); One could argue, on the one hand , that when jurors observe the grief and solidarity of a victim's family members- evident in the buttons they wear- each day of the trial, the jurors are likely to feel obligated to do something to acknowledge and ameliorate the grief (Colb, 1).

The Supreme Court stood by the judge. It felt that the actions of the family were not within the control of the court system. The only way to effectively petition the court for writ of habeas corpus is to prove state action. The state action doctrine says that a person must be acting on behalf of the government to compel bias towards a defendant. As the families were not under the employ of the state, their actions did not violate Musladin's constitutional rights. This distinction, however, should not carry much force in the context of a trial... A judge controls a courtroom, so once a defendant has specifically asked the judge to order that some display be stopped, the judge's refusal to grant the defendant's request qualifies as state action (Colb, 2).

The Supreme Court failed to protect Mathew Musladin's Constitutional rights. It could be argued that his right to due process of law was violated under the fourteenth and possibly fifth amendments. One may not speak out of turn in court, as this could lead to a contempt charge. The same follows for the actions and attire of the courtroom audience. The Judge could have made the family remove the buttons. Once the judge opts to act in any way which effects the court, the state has intervened. State intervention is almost implied when a person stands trial. If a person such as Musladin must face punishment by the state, the state must have the responsibility to make sure that punishment is meted appropriately.

Religion or Liberty?

Peter Schwartz wrote an article on February 20, 2007 on the website for Capitalism Magazine titled Religion vs. Liberty. In that article he listed a condition needed for individual freedom and the direction to which our government is currently going with each religion and liberty. Schwartz believes that secularism is a condition that must be present in society in order for freedom to exist. The Constitution seems to agree with his belief, as do I. Freedom includes the right of an individual to control their own lives and to pursue their own means of happiness. Many individuals would be upset if rule by religion was able to take this away. I would be one of them.

While it doesn’t seem so clear to me to say that there can be no religion in government, it seems logical to think that if our government ruled by protecting our rights, instead of making decisions based upon religion, that liberty would be better protected. However, does this mean that we wouldn’t be better off overall with a faith based government to guide us? I imagine some might think so. The true question is do we believe that we have to be at one extreme end or another, or can we find a place in the middle to meet.

Merck Suspends Lobbying for HPV Vaccine to Become Law

What a great idea this was!!! When I first heard about this initiative, I heard it was being introduced by a Texas lawmaker. My first thought was an obvious case of rent seeking. Merck was the first to develop the vaccine, therefore, by requiring it to be law, Merck's sales would be through the roof. My immediate second thought was the implications on liberty and freedom. Could this law be Constitutionally correct?

When there is a public concern for health, such as the flu, which is transmitted by casual contact, then there can be a case for mandatory vaccines, even those subsidised by the government. However, in this instance, this is a vaccine for HPV which is contracted through sexual contact. This is immediately recognizable as a controllable type of disease- abstinence works best. There would be absolutely no instance for the government to force parents of girls, as young as 9, to get this vaccine. One of the arguments against this is that it could promote sexual activity among young girls. I think this follows the same logic as distributing condoms in public school.

I don't think it is the job of the state to police sexual activity of our children. It was wise for the government to prepare for the bird flu, but we did not get mandatory vaccines for it and, as it turns out, there have been few, if any, cases here in the U.S. (It just so happens that the market actually worked in getting the bird flu under control- economic pressure was put on states (et. China) to get control of the situation, otherwise business and commerce would stop coming to that part of the world). HPV can be prevented by abstinence, testing of partner, use of protection.

Since this was a blatant attempt by Merck to gain profits. it was wise for them to back down. No, if only the lawmakers can see their errors and back down as well.

The government and their power of eminent domain.

In his article Taking Away Your Property on MSNBC.com author Dan Caplinger discusses the different aspects of eminent domain in the United States. He explains that while the power of eminent domain is very old and is supposed to allow the government to take private property from individuals for the benefit of the public with just compensation, this doesn’t always happen. Sometimes they take the land so that it can be used to build bridges, roads or schools on, which is okay for the public. But in other instances the government takes ownership of a private parcel of land from an individual and gives it to a contractor to develop. In this situation many people believe that the land was taken for private use and that they were wronged.

The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that “no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”(1, l.10) Our government should not be going beyond what is deemed to be their constitutional right. Infringing upon individual’s rights by taking land for private use is wrong. It will be interesting to see how the signing of a bill by President Bush to limit takings to where they only benefit the general public affects future takings. The hope is that future takings by the government will be minimal and only out of necessity for public use.

Eminent Domain Abuse Issues in WA

The author of this article Mr. William Maurer, is the Executive Director of the Institute for Justice, Washington chapter. Mr. Maurer also recently wrote a book regarding eminent domain issues that the nation is facing as a result of the decision from the Supreme Court ruling in the Kelo case. That ruling prevents Federal courts from interfering with local governments regarding the condemning of private property for economic development. In this article Mr. Maurer discusses the effects of the Kelo case on Washington state.

The Kelo case regarding private property issues in the state of Washington (and other states) are really more of abuse of police and state powers. For example, an old statute called Washington's Community Renewal Act has been used to condemn whole neighborhoods and transfer the property rights to the city development contractor. The city planners simply describe that a particular neighborhood is one that is "blighted" -a word which has a very vague meaning but leads one to believe that the neighborhood is in desperate need of repair- and they have the power to remove the neighborhood and replace it entirely. Because of the Kelo case decision the Supreme Court cannot intervene regarding this city enforced "blight" issue. Although in the Kelo ruling the Supreme Court stated that the local governments could provide more protection from such abuses of private property if it deemed appropriate. The biggest issue now is that citizens cannot sue the city or state for breach of the Constitution in order to protect their property. There is no chance for the citizen to win. Mr. Maurer believes that if cities and states were more responsible and if the courts enforced the local government constitution, there would not be such an abuse of power.

Constitutionally, this is a blatant abuse of police power. It is perplexing to me as to how can a state allow this to happen. Maybe the people of the cities and states in WA and other areas affected are not doing enough to raise this issue. Where is the city getting its approval to begin these developments or re-developments? Economically, the city is negatively affecting the ability for its own future growth. These "blighted" neighborhoods may be in an area that, if left alone, could become larger and provide more housing and economic growth. The economy of the real estate market could take a very large downturn if the city decided not replace the neighborhoods it removed, preventing more people from moving to the city.

Philip Morris

Jessie Williams a chain smoker died at age 67 of lung cancer after smoking three packs of Marlboro cigarettes a day. His widow sued Philip Morris, the maker of Marlboro cigarettes, accusing them of misinforming of the dangers of smoking. A jury awarded the widow $821,485.50 in compensatory damages and $79 million in punitive damages. The case was eventually brought before the Supreme Court on October 1, 2006 and decided February 20, 2007. In a 5 to4 decision the Supreme Court overturned the $79.5 million an Oregon jury awarded the widow because they thought the jury over calculated the harm smoking caused to other individuals other than the widow who brought the case.

The case's constitutionality was based on the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and how it imposes the states from imposing grossly excessive punishments (BMW v. Gore and State Farm v. Campbell)

I agree with the decision; however, I do not read this in the Fourteenth Amendment. I read that "nor shall any State deprive any persons of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law." I don't see anywhere where states can impose fines or punishments. I see that they can not deprive these things without due process of law. The damages were excessive to say the least. This case seems ridiculous to me that a jury would award so much money to a widow because her husband died from smoking cigarettes. Smoking was his choice! Philip Morris did not send a representative to sit there with a gun to his head making him smoke three packs a day. He could have quit when reports came out the smoking may not be that good for you.

"Issue Ads"

The supreme court is deciding a case that deals with campaign ads and their rules. In the 2004 campaign there were three ads run by "Wisconsin right to Life" that did not adhere to funding rules. Ads funded by businesses, labor unions, and other groups -- can be banned 60 days before a general election, and 30 days before a primary. Issue ads cannot mention any candidates or party affiliations. The ads asked people to call specific senators and support certain ideas. The basis for these rules is the campaign finance reform laws from congress.

The appellate court acknowledged the entities first right amendment to free speech, but maintained that the Campaign Finance Reform laws were constitutional. the supreme court will rule whether or not these specific ads apply to the rules. I do not believe that they will overturn the laws set forth by congress.

My reading of the powers of Congress does not suggest to me that they have the power to make laws relating to campaign finance reform. The organization used its right to free speech and spent the money on the ads. The message of the ads are not directly causing harm to anyone. The government is attempting to regulate trade in this industry. The organization is willing to buy the ad space and the tv/radio companies are willing to sell it. The government is not protecting the liberties of these individuals.

Wal-Mart Discrimination Case

The article refers to a lawsuit by women that claim discrimination against Wal-Mart of salaries and promotion eligibility. Initially there were 6 women with the claim, but through the appeals processes at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, there is the potential for up to 1.5M women to be part of the now class action lawsuit. They claim that from 1998 forward, the women's salaries were 5-15% lower than that of their male counterparts, and the women were overlooked for promotions that they had the qualifications and requirements to fill, but were not considered. Since the Court of Appeals in San Francisco decided that the number of plaintiffs could increase by up to 1.5M women, Wal-Mart is now considering an appeals hearing at the US Supreme Court level.

This is more of a protective state appeal if it does end up going to the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs could affirm that since it is concerning individual liberty under Amendment XIV in the "privileges or immunities" clause would apply. Whereas Wal-Mart could appeal to the same Amendment, but use the "due process of law" clause.