Misrepresenting the Green Economy

In Tilting at Green Windmills, George Will shows how the Obama administration is either irrational or dishonest in promoting a “green jobs” initiative as making the US economy stronger.

[Spanish Professor] Calzada says Spain's torrential spending -- no other nation has so aggressively supported production of electricity from renewable sources -- on wind farms and other forms of alternative energy has indeed created jobs. But Calzada's report concludes that they often are temporary and have received $752,000 to $800,000 each in subsidies -- wind industry jobs cost even more, $1.4 million each. And each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation -- sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency -- of capital. …Calzada says the creation of jobs in alternative energy has subtracted about 110,000 jobs from elsewhere in Spain's economy.

It would be more accurate and honest to just admit the facts:

Indeed, environmentalists with the courage of their convictions should argue that the point of such investments is to subordinate market rationality to the higher agenda of planetary salvation.

With that, voters and policy makers could better trade off the cost-benefit parameters and determine a balanced and reasonable plan for the environment and economy to coexist.

Union Tyranny

If workers have the right to form a union, then don't corporate shareholders have the right to reject the union? It seems like a huge violation of property rights to force business owners to deal with workers collectively (i.e., with socialistic force) rather than as individuals (i.e., with individual liberty).

The US should be a meritocracy, not a land of entitlement. If unions behave and work to improve sales, then companies will want to deal with them. Otherwise, unions will make all companies end up like GM and Chrysler.

California's Progressive Tax Problem

Part of California's tax revenue problem is due to the highly progressive nature of its tax code. When the economy slows or shrinks, high-income taxpayers get little or no income from bonuses, commissions, and capital gains on stocks and real estate. Tax revenues sink accordingly. Almost no one cries for the rich, and I'm not saying we should, but a tax system based on soaking the rich leaves you high and dry during economic downturns.

It would be more equitable and stable if all California workers paid a similar percentage of income tax, with capital gains taxed at the same rate. In addition to providing a more stable tax base, it would be fairer to have voters share the burden of any tax increases or rewards of any tax cuts. You shouldn't be able to vote for a tax increase on others unless you're willing to pay a proportional share yourself.

A proportional (i.e., "flat") tax is a reasonable compromise between what is fair and what is practical. However, a person's "fair share" would ideally be based on an average individual's burden / impact to society. There would be a head tax (i.e., per person), plus some taxation based on how much impact you have on roads, schools, public safety, etc.

That's what I'd call a "fair share" of the tax burden, although I make no claim such a tax system is practical. Poor people are unable to pay their "fair share." I just don't think it's "fair" to blame middle class and rich people for that; nor is it "fair" to say middle class and rich people must subsidize the poor through highly progressive tax schemes.

The Moderate Path to Liberty

A moderate, mainstream, approach is needed to influence Republicans and transform the GOP into a party of limited government.  Below is my contribution to a co-authored article posted on the national Republican Liberty Caucus website. 

“Keeping it mainstream” by David Johnson and Bob Giramma

Our core principle is limited government, as opposed to big government social conservatism or other forms of big government Republicanism. The limited government part seems pretty mainstream, if presented properly. Not so with social conservatism, which is controversial and divisive. Big government Republicanism is pretty much mimicking Democrats with a different (e.g., “kinder, gentler”) set of moral values.

Another aspect of getting mainstream support is presenting limited government solutions to the problems of greatest interest, rather than running off into the weeds that no one cares about. While advocates of limited government might obsess on gun rights, drug decriminalization, etc, it’s better to focus on a small set of issues that are of greatest interest to mainstream voters.

Recent polls show those issues are (in order): the economy, the federal budget, health care, the wars, education, terrorism, and energy policy. Those are mainstream issues for which we have limited government solutions that should appeal to mainstream voters.

Recent polls show self-described “conservatives” are the biggest voting block, exceeding self-described “liberals” by a huge margin and self-described “moderates” by a small margin. At the same time, self-described “Democrats” and “independents” are the biggest voting blocks, exceeding self-described “Republicans” by huge margins.

Something is seriously wrong when conservatives have turned against Republicans like that.