Tag Archives: freedom

Rule of Law and Prosperity

Posted on by
Reply

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R, VA) has issued a report that discusses, among other things, the relationship between rule of law and national prosperity and freedom.  Some excerpts follow.

From

Less noticed, but perhaps even more important—especially to the over 20 million Americans currently out of work or underemployed—is the link between a breakdown in the rule of law and reduced economic growth and individual prosperity.

Property rights and rule of law are essential for the proper and efficient functioning of society and the economy.  Unambiguous laws and procedures provide a framework by which free people agree on the scope and reach of their government’s actions, whereas unclear laws or arbitrary enforcement undermine individual liberty and the notion of popular sovereignty.  Clear, transparent, predictable rules that are applied without preference or prejudice allow individuals to invest, build businesses, and create jobs.  When there is a breakdown in the rule of law, increased uncertainty leads to reduced investment and less growth.

Numerous economic studies have documented the relationship between a strong rule of law and economic growth. In 2008, The Economist published the following chart alongside a story entitled “Order in the Jungle.”

The chart aptly illustrates the strong relationship between adherence to the rule of law and economic growth.  As economist Hernando de Soto—a leader in the field of the impact of property rights and rule of law on economic growth succinctly stated: “So the origin of the rule of law— which will allow a modern nation to grow and so bring peace, stability, and prosperity to the world—is property rights.  And the rule of law will actually generate prosperity.”

And

In the United States, the ultimate law is the Constitution, which specifically provides how laws are to be enacted and requires the President to take care that the laws that are enacted are faithfully executed.  The laws of the United States establish the process whereby individuals can enforce their property rights and private contracts and provide the framework by which executive agencies are to conduct rulemakings and the other regulatory activities.

When “laws” are created without going through Congress; when laws are selectively executed; when an administration intervenes into the normal judicial process and diminishes an individual’s property rights; and when the normal regulatory process is circumvented, the rule of law is eroded.

All of this increases uncertainty.  Individuals, families, and businesses now not only face uncertainty with respect to the policy decisions made by government, but they face uncertainty as to how those decisions will even be made.  Numerous economic studies and surveys indicate that uncertainty itself (which is certainly increased with the breakdown in the rule of law) also hinders economic growth.

While Administrations of both political parties have been known to test the bounds of the limits of their power, the breadth of the breakdown in the rule of law in recent years has reached new levels.  In the Heritage Foundation and Wall Street Journal‘s annual Index of Economic Freedom, the United States scores lower today on the rule of law than it did in 2008.  As the 2012 report notes, “Corruption is a growing concern as the cronyism and economic rent-seeking associated with the growth of government have undermined institutional integrity.”  Individuals and businesses are increasingly forced to rely on the courts to enforce their most basic substantive and procedural rights.

To

There is no excuse for this continuous disregard of legislative authority and the Constitutionally-required separation of powers.  In some instances, President Obama attempted to garner legislative authority, failed and then acted unilaterally in defiance.  In other instances, the President never even sought to find consensus and instead ignored Congress and its authority from the outset.  In speeches, the President has proudly acknowledged that he has acted without Congress, contending that he has no other alternative.

This is no way to govern.  The President has set a precedent that even his supporters should find troubling.  After all, what would now prevent a subsequent President, with opposite policy predilections, from bypassing the checks on his own authority and enacting his own policies in this same manner?  The Founding Fathers wisely gave the President many powers, but making law was not one of them.  They understood that laws should not be made by one individual acting alone, but rather through elected representatives working to achieve consensus.

House Republicans have acted to prevent and overturn the President’s harmful actions in order to return economic growth, opportunity and certainty to the American people and American job creators.  However, the majority of the bills the House has passed are sitting idly in the Democrat-led Senate, without any action on the part of Democratic Leader Harry Reid or President Obama.

Throughout our nation’s history, presidents have sought common ground and achieved legislative success with opposing party leaders.  Many of the laws circumvented in this report were achieved in that manner.  Congressional authority must not be disregarded to suit political interests, create unpopular regulations and to avoid the hard work of bipartisan negotiation that has been a hallmark of our Republic since its inception.

Note that such measures as are required by the erosion/breakdown of the rule of law as bringing legal cases to court only adds to business’ and individual’s current costs and increases their uncertainty, since court outcomes are largely unpredictable.

RTWT.  It’s a long-ish read, but it also includes a list of current examples.

 

h/t Grim’s Hall

Welfare and Economic Mobility

Posted on by
1

I’ve written elsewhere of the trap for Americans that is welfare in  the form of handouts. The CBO’s Nov 2012 report, Effective Marginal Tax Rates for Low- and Moderate-Income Workers, makes this explicit.  Here are two examples from the report:

[T]he single parent who moved from not working to working part-time would face a marginal tax rate of 36 percent because even a modest level of earnings would result in the reduction or loss of several transfer benefits [the tax].  Earnings from part-time work would result in a loss of eligibility for assistance through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, some reduction in the housing voucher, and a decrease in benefits available through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

And

The marginal tax rate associated with moving from part-time to full-time employment…would be higher—47 percent.  Earnings from full-time work would place the single parent in the EITC’s plateau range and would allow him or her to claim the maximum EITC [Earned Income Tax Credit] amount ($3,169 in 2012).  However, because moving from part-time work to full-time work does not increase the EITC as much as does moving from not working to working part-time, marginal tax rates in this scenario would be higher than in the first scenario.

The disincentive to get work is large, but by remaining in her current situation, the single mother (yes, I’m assuming) is foregoing opportunity to improve her economic situation: there is potential for advancement, pay raises, and so on with a paying job.  Remaining on the government’s dole leaves this woman dependent on her government for her livelihood.  And doing so makes it even harder for her child(ren) to move up the economic ladder in his own time.  Upward mobility is severely handicapped, if not foreclosed altogether.

Opportunity Inequality and Outcome Inequality

Posted on by
Reply

From The Federalist No 10:

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

…

But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise.  As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed.  As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other….  The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests.  The protection of these faculties is the first object of government.

Whence the modern Liberals’ (in stark contrast to this view, typical of 18th Century Liberals) disdain for the equality of opportunity that allows each man to show the best that there is in him—and so necessarily leads to unequal outcomes?  Whence the drive of our modern Liberals to render unequal our access to opportunity that, aside from being at the foundation of our country are central to our society’s overall prosperity, by capping every man’s final success and driving us to equal (and impoverished) outcomes?

Hmm….

Federal Control(s)

Posted on by
Reply

This is how the central government gets its subordinate states ensnared in the Federal power trap.  Much has been written already on the entrapment of the states in the Medicaid, education, and so on honeypots, with the Feds having gotten the states dependent on Federal monies for those programs, and then using that addiction to control the states’ behavior vis-à-vis those programs—and other useful state considerations—lest those funds have something happen to them (albeit descriptions have not been this blunt).

Here’s an explicit example, this time aimed at New Orleans and through this city the state of Louisiana.

Engineers consider it a Rolls Royce of flood protection—comparable to systems in seaside European cities such as St. Petersburg, Venice, Rotterdam and Amsterdam.  Whether the infrastructure can hold is less in question than whether New Orleans can be trusted with the keys.

The Army Corps estimates it will take $38 million a year to pay for upkeep, maintenance and operational costs after it’s turned over to local officials.

Local flood-control chief Robert Turner said he has questions about where that money will come from.  At current funding levels, the region will run out of money to properly operate the high-powered system within a decade unless a new revenue source is found.

“That’s been the eternal problem with flood-protection systems,” said Thomas Wolff, an engineer at Michigan State University.  “You build something very good and then give it to local interests who are not as well-funded.”

However, the Feds will blame the locals for the failure:

Congressional investigations found the old Orleans Levee Board more interested in managing a casino license and two marinas than looking after levees.  Though the Army Corps of Engineers had responsibility for annual levee inspections, the local levee boards were responsible for maintenance.  Still, the boards spent millions of dollars on a fountain and overpasses rather than on levee protection.

Never mind that the locals have a local economy that needs looking after, else there’s nothing for a (Cadillac) Federal program to…protect.

As Richard Fernandez notes in his post,

The problem with free stuff is that someone has to pay for it.

And when the Federal government sighs and says, “OK, we’ll pay,” it then also exerts control over the program being centrally funded and over the entity “benefiting” from that program.  And so the entity and its citizens also “pay for it,” with their freedom of action.

So much for federalism.

An Obamacare Outcome

Posted on by
Reply

Dr Peter Weiss, a practicing physician, describes one.

I have now posted a notice in my office and each exam room stating exactly what Obamacare will cover for those yearly visits.  Remember Obama promised this as a free exam—no co-pay, no deductible, no charge.  That’s fine and dandy if you are healthy and have no complaints.  However, we are obligated by law to code specifically for the reason of the visit.  An annual exam is one specific code; you can not mix this with another code, say, for rectal bleeding.  This annual visit covers the exam and “discussion about the status of previously diagnosed stable conditions.” That’s the exact wording under that code—insurance will not cover any new ailment under that code.

What this means:

If you are here for that annual exam, you will not be covered if you want to discuss any new ailment or unstable condition.  I cannot bait and switch to another code—that’s illegal.  We, the physicians, are audited all the time and can lose our license for insurance fraud.

Yeah.  A separate appointment, separately scheduled for your new ailment.  Further, during your scheduled annual, note that bit above: “discussion about the status of previously diagnosed stable conditions.” That’s the exact wording under that code….  Your doctor’s discussion concerning your annual’s results are largely scripted by Uncle Sugar.  Talk about snake oil.

Oh, and good luck scheduling that separate appointment.  Keep in mind that your doctor, if you get to keep him at all, is part of a shrinking collection of doctors, and their work loads are exploding from all the new patients Obamacare is foisting off on them.  There are only so many hours in a day.

 

RTWT