Congress has the power to prohibit states from giving special incentives to specific businesses.

The Des Moines Register recently published an editorial that showed how out-of control Iowa and other states are in giving incentives to businesses to locate in their state.  To help reverse this situation, Congress should exercise its Constitutional power to “…regulate commerce… among the several states…” and should limit states’ ability to bribe companies to locate in their state.  States should be prohibited from giving custom incentives to specific businesses to locate in their state.  They should only be allowed to use schemes that provide uniform incentives to all companies that locate their business or otherwise create new jobs in that state.

Link to Register editorial:  https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/editorials/2018/11/20/amazon-apple-corporate-iowa-workers-education-environment-bribing-business-workforce-jobs-money-tax/2061418002/

Advertisements

Free Iowa Car Dealers!

 

It is not surprising that the Iowa Automobile Dealers Association has registered its opposition to Iowa Senate Study Bill 3139 which would allow RV dealers to sell RVs on Sundays.  (See Register link below.)  I’m sure they think if RV sales are allowed Sundays, then car sales might be next.  It would be nice if that were true.  The only reason that it remains a crime to sell RVs or cars on Sundays in Iowa is because of the lobbying power of the dealers.  If RV and car sales were allowed on Sundays in Iowa, it would not require any dealer to be open for business on Sundays.  The decision would be left up to the owner, just like every other business.  I urge Iowans to let there elected representatives know that Iowa should stop making it a crime for RV and auto dealers to be open for business on Sundays.

Link ro Register article:  https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/business/2018/02/07/its-illegal-buy-car-rv-sunday-iowa-new-law-might-change/315016002/

Some discrimination should be allowed.

The Des Moines Register recently published a nice essay by a gay couple who got married in Iowa without any discrimination issues to deal with. (See link to Register essay below.) It is fair and reasonable for government to prohibit discrimination against gay couples and others in the selling of standard goods and services that are offered to the public, like most products retail stores, rooms at hotels and motels, and meals at restaurants. But when the product or services needs to be customized or personalized by the seller, then discrimination by the seller should be allowed, and the buyer should not be able to enlist the force of government to require the seller to provide the product or service. So, for example, cake bakers should required to sell what is what is on their shelves and available for sale without discrimination, but they should not be required to create custom cakes against their will.  At the same time buyers are free to choose other sellers and to organize peaceful protests and boycotts against such discriminating sellers.  This way, everyone’s liberty is preserved, and no force needs to be used, by government or anyone else.
As readers of this blog may know, I am and atheist libertarian and support gay marriage.

Many Iowa licenses protect existing businesses more than public safety

In today’s Des Moines Register, the guest opinion by Kollan Kolthoff was very vague in his call for “common sense reform” of the licensing of cosmetologists.  (See link below.)  He wrote, “…leaders from within the industry are uniquely aware that there are problems that need to be addressed.”   I presume the industry leaders he refers to are existing licensed cosmetologists and  licensed schools of cosmetology.  After a person has completed the 2,100 required hours of education and paid as much as $20,000, it is very understandable that they would not want to see license requirements significantly lowered – thereby indirectly lowering the value of what they have already paid for.  Similarly, licensed schools of cosmetology have a very strong financial incentive to maximize the number or hours of schooling required for a license.
He also wrote Iowa needs reform that, “…protects consumers against the deregulation of licensed beauty professionals.”  Deregulation does not and should not mean a lessening of regulation to keep consumers safe.  Deregulation should focus on removing regulations that have the primary purpose of protecting the income of existing cosmetologists and schools of cosmetology.
The same issues apply to a large number of occupations that require a license from the state.  Most calls for licensing, and opposition to deregulation, come from existing businesses and licensees, not from the general public.  Our elective representatives should establish a process to review and reduce licensing requirements in Iowa so that only public safety is is taken into account when requiring Iowans to get a license from the state before being able to work in any particular job.

Tariffs on imports from Mexico are a tax on U.S. citizens.

If President Trump wants Mexico to pay for The Wall, he can not do it by putting a tariff on imports from Mexico to the U.S.  A tariff on imports is a tax paid for by U.S. consumers in the form of higher prices.  If the tariff stops the imports, it will allow the higher prices to be charged for U.S. made products.  It will be a “win” for the company and its workers who get the protection, but it will be paid for by U.S. citizens, not Mexico.

Farmers are not special, and shouldn’t be given special preferential treatment.

The Des Moines Register recently recently ran an editorial advising us to not buy into the idea that Iowa farmers “feed the world”.  As the Register documented, “Only half of one percent of U.S. agricultural exports went to a group of 19 undernourished countries that includes Haiti, Yemen and Ethiopia.”  Some farmers and their supporters have a vested  interest in making sure that fellow citizens hold them in a special position because they produce the food we eat.  They perpetuate that meme in order to get special treatment by our government, for example by not having to either stop or pay for polluting our waters,  and by receiving a 60% subsidy on their crop/revenue insurance premiums, among many others.

Every week, most of us buy food from all over the world at our local grocery stores. It may be wonderful to be able to buy local fresh food, but it is not a necessity. International voluntary free trade is what has allowed us, and much of the rest of the world, to avoid starvation when local producers fail for any reason.  Farmers should be given no more credit than other producers of all kinds of products. As Adam Smith wrote in 1776 in his book, The Wealth of Nations, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”

Link to Register editorial:  http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/editorials/2016/10/09/editorial-dont-expect-iowa-farmers-feed-world/91735242/

Crop insurance is essential, but no taxpayer subsidy is needed.

Craig Hill’s editorial explaining the importance of crop insurance to farmers made a lot of sense. (“This much is certain – For farmers, crop insurance is essential” 10/5/2016)   Most business and individuals buy insurance to reduce risk, and, as Mr. Hill explained, farmers have plenty of risk.  What he did not explain is why taxpayers need to subsidize about 60% of the premium.  Contrary to his opinion, it definitely is a handout.  Farmers, on average, have much more wealth than the average person.  It doesn’t matter that much of the wealth is tied up in land values.  Land can be sold for cash just like any other asset.  Crop insurance is a good idea, it just should not be subsidized by taxpayers.  In the next farm bill, a couple of years from now, we need to eliminate the taxpayer subsidy for crop insurance.

Link to Register article: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/iowa-view/2016/10/04/much-certain-farmers-crop-insurance-essential/91551614/