Category: Business and Society

…The Milton Friedman Choir:

Via the Brussels Journal

Blog author: jarmstrong
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
By

Both of our major political parties have missed what seems so obvious. One says that we need more tax cuts to strengthen the economy. This is correct. The problem is that they are not willing to also make serious budget cuts. That party has spent more than any previous administration. The other political party wants to expand federal government by spending more of our money by raising taxes. The first plan helps the economy in the short run but not in the long term. The second is an even worse disaster I think.

Look, budget deficits are not a good thing, at least not in my simplistic understanding of economics. What individual would decrease their revenue, at least for the short term, and then also increase spending, for the long term? I know, cutting tax rates generates more money in the long run and thus the government benefits. I agree with that proven principle. Ronald Reagan advanced it and to the astonishment of all his enemies it worked.

What I do not think is a proven fact is that you can keep raising government spending, so as to increase deficits, and not someday have to "pay the piper." The late Milton Friedman, a hero of mine, continually noted that the burden of government is best measured by the level of our spending, not by the level of our tax rates. John Stossel pointed this out very clearly in his syndicated column that appeared in my paper today.

Here is the bad news. Your FICA and Social Security taxes currently exceed the expenditures of these programs. But by 2017 or 2018 this will all change when the baby boomers start to retire in massive numbers and begin to drain the system. Stossel gives President Bush some credit for the falling deficit because of his tax cuts. This plan has shrunk the deficit, at least to some extent. Cutting taxes and cutting deficits are not opposites. Both can and should be done. There is enough blame to go around in Washington. I want to decrease tax rates even further but I also want to seriously decrease federal spending.

John Stossel notes that the anti-Federalist writer Melancton Smith (1787) wrote: "All governments find a use for as much money as they can raise." That is the real issue and few will admit it, whether Republicans or Democrats. One party generally does a better job with this issue than the other but the difference is more one of degree than of deep and true principle, or so it seems to this amateur. I am open to seeing this differently but I think the obvious is pretty obvious. We need to grow the economy, allow people to keep their own money so they can spend it and create new jobs, and limit the role of government in solving every social ill we face. I believe there are some pressing issues that demand federal solutions. I am not a libertarian Luddite. But I also believe that at some point we had better face this deficit issue and slow spending or we will soon face financial and social chaos like we have never imagined.

John H. Armstrong is founder and director of ACT 3, a ministry aimed at "encouraging the church, through its leadership, to pursue doctrinal and ethical reformation and to foster spiritual awakening."

Jennifer Roback Morse takes a look at The War Between the State and the Family, a book that examines some of the family unfriendly social policies of the United Kingdom. The state, she finds, is in the process of atomizing the family into a loose association of persons with easily separated relationships. “Decomposing society into nothing but a collection of unattached individuals has been destructive of individuals and society alike,” Morse writes.

Read the full commentary here.

New postal rates went into effect yesterday, but the biggest impact of the new rates and policies hasn’t yet been felt.

A new set of policies governing the delivery of magazines through the mail has been postponed until July. That’s a bit of needed good news for small magazines that will face rather hefty price increases.

The increases have even got The Nation’s Katrina vanden Heuvel complaining that “the Postal Service is a monopoly.”

Maybe it’s time for magazines that can’t afford to meet the new rates without untenable price hikes or layoffs (or both) to consider alternative delivery methods.

One option would be to go to a completely digital format, like Salon or Slate.

Another might be to partner with groups other than the Postal Service that already deliver to customer’s doors. The latter might be local delivery people who contract for daily or weekly newspapers.

It might be in the interests of both parties to partner up or combine their delivery efforts, in the same way that papers like The Wall Street Journal or the New York Times are delivered nationally.

Perhaps the local newspapers could get a boost to their profits by charging a small fee to deliver the magazines along with their daily routes.

Update: Much more on the postage increase at the Logos blog.

This week’s ACT 3 weekly essay, “Why Christians Ought to Make a Difference in the Marketplace,” by David L. Bahnsen:

I have heard it said in my life on more than one occasion that God sent his Son to save souls. Indeed, for evangelicals, that is certainly true. However, for the professing believer who talks of a deep concern for individual souls my question and answer will either be a gigantic disappointment or it may be a true experience of edification. While all Christian men and women ought to be interested in the salvation of individual souls—God is truly in the redemption business—I contend that, as Leslie Newbigin masterfully argues in his gem of a book, Foolishness to the Greeks, the souls of individuals have been spiritually ravaged as a result of our complete surrender of the key institutions and spheres within our society. Newbigin wrote this a generation ago in reference to the inexplicable surrender of modern science and advanced analytical philosophy to secular humanists. His argument actually simple—in a short-term effort to prioritize souls over spheres and people over institutions, we actually lost both. My belief is that where Newbigin was astutely right decades ago, today’s sphere of surrender from the covenant community of God has actually taken place in the marketplace of our day.

Read the whole article at the ACT 3 website here.

Jesus of Nazareth, the new book by Pope Benedict XVI, has been described as an attack on capitalism. But Rev. Robert A. Sirico offers a closer reading and finds that no such thing is true. The book, he says, “is explicitly a spiritual reflection on our own interior disposition toward those who are ‘neighbors’ to us and for whom we have some moral responsibility.”

Read the full commentary here.

…at least not yet.

Check out this disheartening AP story, “Judge: Cleaner owes me $65 million for pants; 2 years of litigation x 1 pair of trousers = headaches for family business.”

The US court system shouldn’t be a venue for the pursuit of a personal vendetta. This case clearly shows how lawsuits can be used to bring incredible expense and stress on the defendant, regardless of his or her guilt or culpability. And unless things change, like moving to a loser pays system, the plaintiff risks nothing.

All too often the real victims in these kinds of lawsuits are hardworking small business-owners, whose livelihood is threatened. And when small businesses suffer, the entire community suffers with them.

Is the neighborhood being made better off by Pearson’s lawsuit? Is Pearson protecting them from a business that engages in false advertising? If Pearson drives the Chungs back to Korea, the neighborhood will be made worse off, not better, and Pearson will have settled a petty grudge.

When business enterprise and successful entrepreneurship makes you the target of predatory lawsuits seeking only deep pockets, there’s something deeply wrong with the tort system.

In this monograph, Ronald Rychlak argues that the tort system needs to be reformed with a view toward the common good.

Let’s hope in this case Pearson doesn’t get off scot-free. It seems like that even in the absence of a formally-instituted loser pays system, the arbitrating authorities should have the power to dismiss Pearson’s case with extreme prejudice and require him to pay all the court costs and legal expenses for the defense.