Conservative Political Action Committee Guidance

Posted on March 31st, 2009

I have received several emails asking for information on how to start a political action committee, also known as a PAC. The first thing you must do is get a copy of the Rules on Political Action Committees. Read, reread, then read those rules one more time. Here is a link to the Arkansas Ethics Commission’s Guidance for Political Actions Committees.

To qualify as an approved political action committee, the committee is required to register with the Secretary of State within fifteen (15) days after accepting contributions during a calendar year that exceed five hundred dollars ($500) in the aggregate. Here is a link to the Political Action Committee (PAC) Registration Form.

Within fifteen (15) calendar days after the end of each calendar quarter, approved political action committees are required to file a quarterly report with the Secretary of State. This is a serious requirement, don’t fail to file your reports. Here is a link to the Political Action Committee (PAC) Quarterly Reporting Form.

Don’t forget that a credit of up to $50.00 per taxpayer ($100.00 for a joint return) is allowed against your Arkansas Individual Income Tax liability. Here is a link to my former post on that subject.

If you have any questions about this topic, please post them here. I will try to find and link to the answer on the Ethics Commission, refer the question to the Arkansas Ethic Commission, or refer you to the proper legal authority.

If you have or have recently started a conservative PAC and are currently soliciting contributions, please post your information here. I will gladly republish the information on a periodic basis here on this blog.

Filed under Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

A Conservative’s Guide to Contacting Elected Officials

Posted on March 30th, 2009

The first thing for conservatives to remember when contacting elected officials is that quality is as, if not more, important than volume. Quality here takes two forms, the reputation of the person making contact and the reliablity of the information given by that contact.

While a large number of form letters may catch the attention of a legislator, fewer, personal emails, letters, or phone calls can be even more effective. The first element of quality, the reputation of the person making contact, is sometimes consciously but most often subconsciously evaluated. The questions legislators ask themselves when considering the quality of the contact is:

• ●   Do I know this person? Does this person live in my district?
• ●   Is this person a registered voter? Do they regularly vote?
• ●   Does this person have professional expertise on the topic they have contacted me about?
• ●   Do they volunteer in the local community and therefore hold influence over others in the community?
• ●   Does this person regularly volunteer or contribute to political candidates?
• ●   Has this person been rude or disrespectful to me or my collegues in the past?
• ●   Does this person contact me every other day about an apocalyptic crisis?

The second element of quality is the reliablity of the information provided and the professionalism in which it is presented. Presenting information in an unbusinesslike/unprofessional manner will probably cause the legislator to ignore the information altogether. Providing poorly thought out or shaky information may cause the legislator to seek advice from other sources, possibly from an organization with very non-conservative positions.

Hit-and-run contacts with an elected official is not the most effective method for conservatives to accomplish their goals. After initial contact with an elected official has been accomplished, it is necessary to foster a business-like working relationship that extends beyond the particular issue that you originally contacted the official about.

The schedule of every elected official is quite full, so a well-defined set of talking points on the most important issues is paramount. This is true for emails contacts, letters, or face-to-face meetings. The cliche about “sound bites” became cliche for a reason. Unless you have fostered the relationship to a very high degree over a long period of time (approaching friendship), you can forget about “educating” the legislator on every historical detail and nuance of conservative policy. Don’t even bother.

Here are some ways to improve the effectiveness of your communications with elected officials:

1. If you wouldn’t write / color / format it in a business letter, then it is probably a bad idea for legislative correspondence. Keep a positive, friendly tone. Confrontational attitudes will only hurt your cause.
2. Include all of your contact information -your full name, address with zip code, email address, and phone number.
3. State both the bill name and the bill number and then your position on the issue in the first paragraph of a letter/email or at the beginning of the phone call. If you fail to use the bill name, then the legislator will probably have no idea which bill you are talking about, they have thousands to track and usually know and use the bill title. If you fail to use the number, then the legislator will not be able to easily look it up for further information.
4. Give three, absolutely no more than five, one sentence talking points on the issue. In emails, occasional links to very specific information (i.e. statistics, facts, quotes, names, historical summary of the issue) is fine but don’t depend on them to make the point because it probably won’t be viewed.
5. Either state how the issue affects you personally, or state your qualifications depending upon the subject matter. Most people are not subject matter experts, therefore an appeal to qualifications is not usually recommended. Your legislator wants to make decisions that are beneficial to or pleases their constituents, the personal story is probably the most impactful statement.
6. End by asking your elected official to take specific action. “Vote for HB????” or “Vote against SB???”
7. Stick with one issue per letter, email, or phone call. This allows the legislator to file and follow-up on your correspondence efficiently.
8. Draft, edit, and rewrite the letter, email, or talking points you want to make in a face-to-face meeting. Have a copy of the talking points to give to the legislator if you get to meet them face-to-face. Improper grammar, incorrect spelling, and poor style can hurt your chances of making an effective argument. Therefore, always ask one or two people you trust to review your letter for these points. Then come back an hour later and reread it yourself, rewrite it if necessary. Never submit a first draft. Ever. No exceptions. No kidding.

Filed under Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Arkansas Legislative Update – 3/27/2009

Posted on March 27th, 2009

Date: March 27, 2009
Contact: House Information Office, 501-682-7771
For Immediate Release

Lottery is now law, new revenue report throws slight kink in session

      LITTLE ROCK – The first state lottery tickets could be sold this fall now that legislation implementing the games has been approved by the 87th General Assembly and signed into law. The first scholarships funded by lottery revenues will be awarded for the fall semester of 2010.

      The final passage and signing of identical lottery bills – House Bill 1002 by Speaker of the House Robbie Wills of Conway and Senate Bill 26 by Sen. Terry Smith of Hot Springs – were among the highlights of the 11th week of the session. Within the next two weeks, Gov. Mike Beebe, Speaker Wills, and Sen. Bob Johnson, the Senate president pro tempore, each will have appointed

      The commission’s responsibilities include hiring a lottery director and deciding what games the lottery will involve. Those and other duties will determine when Arkansas has its first sales and joins 42 other states with a lottery, including neighboring Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas. Legislative leaders also will appoint a legislative oversight committee in the coming days.

      Estimates on yearly revenues from the lottery range from $55 million to $100 million. Because of that uncertainty, the dollar amounts of the scholarships funded by lottery proceeds have been set on a sliding scale, depending on revenue generated and whether a particular award is for attendance at a two-year state college or university (from $1,250 a year to $3,000) or at the more expensive four-year schools (from $2,500 a year to $6,000 a year). Lawmakers hope to set specific amounts next February during their budget session, with the first scholarships good for the 2010-2011 school year.

      Also during the week, the Joint Budget Committee received a revised revenue forecast for the fiscal year that starts July 1. The new forecast is more clouded than one received early in the year by lawmakers and used by them to approve tax cuts and other appropriation bills the past several weeks. The main effect of the revised forecast could be to move another $40 million, for a total of $100 million, from the state surplus to plug holes in the budget and establish a “rainy day fund” for the governor. The state has a surplus of about $300 million this year. The $200 million left in the surplus could go into the General Improvement Fund, to help rural fire departments, senior citizen centers, sewer and water projects, and community centers throughout the state.

      Members of the committee also learned that the recent tax increases on tobacco will bring in nearly $15 million less than expected – from $86 million a year to $71 million. The administration had offered the tobacco tax increase, plus federal money, as a way to pay for a state trauma network, a new medical campus in Northwest Arkansas and about two dozen other health initiatives. State finance officials told skeptical lawmakers that a federal tax increase on tobacco brought about the lower numbers.

      Meanwhile, meeting separately, the House and Senate State Agencies and Governmental Affairs committees have sent out their preferences for proposed constitutional amendments that could be referred to voters during the 2010 general election. Twenty-four proposed amendments were filed; the two committees sent out 10 recommendations. They will meet jointly to decide which ones to send to the House and Senate floors. The General Assembly can refer up to three proposed amendments on general topics every two years.

      Also during the week, the House approved:

•    HB 1985, by Rep. Rick Saunders of Hot Springs, to have the state pay for the costs of holding the general elections now being borne by counties. The bill also requires each county to hire an election coordinator. The bill goes to the Senate.
•    HB 1929, by Rep. Bruce Maloch of Magnolia, requiring signed, and witnessed, parental consent for those younger than 18 to use a tanning bed at apartment buildings, tanning salons or spas. There is no penalty for a violation, according to the bill’s sponsor, who said the measure was more of an effort to raise awareness about the dangers of skin cancer. The bill goes to the Senate.
•    Senate Bill 192 to make it a felony for a person to possess more than 10 absentee ballots issued to another person or to assist more than six voters in marking and casting ballots. Only a poll worker, county clerk or deputy clerk can provide such assistance. A violation is a Class D felony, punishable by up to six years in prison and up to a $10,000 fine. The bill goes to the governor. Saunders, of Hot Springs, presented the bill in the House.
•    HB 1860, by Rep. Bill Sample of Hot Springs, to ensure that a driver’s license or official I.D. card issued by the state to a person who is not a U.S. citizen expires on or before the date that person is to leave the country. The bill goes to the Senate.
•    HB 1895, by Rep. Allen Kerr of Little Rock, to prohibit “crash taxes,” a nickname given to invoices seeking hundreds of dollars from motorists involved in traffic accidents. The invoices are sent by private vendors seeking money – plus a cut — to pay the costs of officers and other rescue personnel who respond to the accident scene. While there’s only been anecdotal evidence of such incidents in Arkansas, supporters say they want to make sure it doesn’t happen anymore. Cash-strapped cities and counties in at least 15 states have entered into such collection practices, aimed primarily at out-of-town motorists who pay no taxes to support the emergency response. The bill prohibits Arkansas counties and municipalities from entering into agreements with those vendors. The bill goes to the Senate.
•    HB 1894, by Rep. Nancy Duffy Blount of Marianna, to allow the state to contract with private entities and colleges and universities to provide an education to prison inmates. Inmates or their families will pay for the service, just as they already do in existing education programs. The bill goes to the Senate.
•    SB 493 and SB 494 requiring the state Department of Human Services to place a notice on its Web site within three days of a report of a death or near death of a child in state custody. The agency also would have to make available to the public non-identifying information from child abuse hotline reports and children’s death reports, and release regular reports on deaths, near deaths and abuse of children in state care. Rep. Steve Harrelson of Texarkana presented the bills in the House. The bills go to the governor.
•    SB 780 to prohibit public servants convicted of a felony related to their job from holding a position in government again. Sample, of Hot Springs, presented the bill. It goes to the governor.
•    HB 2251, by Rep. John Lowery of El Dorado, to give cities and counties the power of eminent domain over industrial plants in limited circumstances, giving local authorities to market the property to other industrial prospects. The bill goes to the Senate.
•    Approved Senate amendments to HB 1451, by Rep. Johnny Hoyt of Morrilton, which aims to help struggling dairy farmers by imposing a wholesale fee of 30 cents per 12 gallons of milk sold. The bill goes to the governor. A related bill, SB 934, sets up a subsidy program to help Arkansas dairies. It goes back to the Senate for concurrence on a House amendment.
•    Approved HB 2086, by Rep. Butch Wilkins of Bono, to make committing identity fraud to gain employment a felony. The bill goes to the Senate.
•    Approved HB 2004, by Rep. Karen Hopper of Mountain Home, to eliminate the requirement that members of the National Guard or Army Reserves who also are teachers or school administrators pay the cost of hiring a substitute when the teacher-soldier is on military leave. The bill goes to the Senate.
•    Approved HB 1378, by Rep. Allen Maxwell of Monticello, to give income-tax relief to head-of-household taxpayers with two or more dependents. Those taxpayers were inadvertently left out the last two times lawmakers approved tax relief. The bill goes to the Senate.

Tags: legislative update
Filed under Uncategorized | Comments Off

Question Everything, Especially Authority

Posted on March 26th, 2009

There has been a tremendous amount of self reflection and pontificating in the newspaper industry lately about why there is decline in readership. There has also been politically motivated opinions expressing that this paper or that paper is too conservative or too liberal. Others have suggested that “creative-destructive technology” (i.e. radio, then television, now the internet) is to blame.

Societies or companies that expect a glorious past to shield them from the forces of change driven by advancing technology will fail and fall. – Rupert Murdoch

It is true that society has become more and more polarized, therefore an editorial staff risks alienating fifty percent of the population depending upon whatever editorial bias they have. You might think that “objectivity” is the answer, but that is far too simplistic. While an honorable reporter may strive for objectivity, it may well be nearly impossible to achieve in modern society. Our entire way of thinking is shaped by the society and influences within which we mature. Because the society in which our worldviews are shaped is more polarized than in the past, so then is the difficulty in being objective. Consider the following quote:

So much for Objective Journalism. Don’t bother to look for it here—not under any byline of mine; or anyone else I can think of. With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms. – Hunter S. Thompson

However, while “bias” might divide readerships, it does not explain why newspapers are in decline on both ends of the political spectrum. The polarization of society and bias of editorial boards should instead cause there to be at least two competing papers in a given market each serving their particular demographic with no gross decline in readership. Furthermore, as a reader of newspapers and the internet, listener to news radio, and watcher of news television – both left and right in fairly equal proportions – my ultimate consumption of these products is probably increased by the existence of competing worldviews. For me at least, bias is not the cause in my shift to the internet away from newspapers, radio, and television, I doubt it is for others either.

Perhaps it is because I am a member of the generation that bridges the computer revolution that causes me to both love the internet while at the same time think that there is nothing better than sitting down with that good old printed page to read well written and informative articles. In fact, my preference for an actual printed paper is so strong that I wondered why I always ultimately chose to get my news from the internet instead. It certainly isn’t a desire to use technology for technologies sake.

Here is my theory.

In the 40s and 50s, Rudolph Flesch and Robert Gunning worked with newspapers and wire services to improve readability. Flesch worked with the Associated Press and Gunning with United Press. Their objective was to increase market share by making newspapers more “accessible” to a wider audience. They did this by dumbing down the reading level, a process that has progressively been taken to the extreme.

Conversely, today reporters and newswriters in particular should seek to raise their readers up, becoming teachers in some ways. As a typical engineer, I am particularly weak in spelling and grammer. One of the ways that I think I have improved in those areas is by reading challenging texts. I love it when I have to drag out the dictionary or encyclopedia to understand a news article. It means that the writer forced me to learn. It means the writer had an expectation that even if I was ignorant on a particular item, I would not be too lazy to find out what I needed to know to understand. I rarely have to look anything up that I have read in the newspaper, but often have to “go researching” to sufficiently understand some of my favorite bloggers. This process is much easier on the internet where google, online encyclopedias, and online dictionaries abound. Additionally, a reporter who uses an uncommon word in an article on the internet can simply “link” the word to an online dictionary.

Furthermore, exactly because of the polarization and bias in society, I don’t want “gatekeepers” for objective and verifiable information. I can do that myself, thank you very much. Aside from arrogance, what makes a reporter believe that he can discern the truth better than me or anyone else? With the internet, it is easy to find the various viewpoints and the nuances in between. The diligent and honest online reporter may even decide to provide a link to the “verifiable information” and allow me to see the unfiltered source. Also, many online news stories provide immediate and unfiltered comments that permit the writer’s credibility to be challenged.
Why is the internet winning?

• It is because readers want the writer to assume they are smart enough to understand or can find out the meaning of complex words that communicate the nuances of a topic far better than an elementary vocabulary permit.
• It is because readers can pull up several articles covering the same subject from authors with varying worldviews, then discern the truth; which is probably somewhere between the spectrum presented.
• It is because readers want to be able to “fact check” the source documentation for themselves. They have discovered that reporters too often clip and edit the source in a manner that either fails to portray the nuance of the source or alters the meaning entirely.

Those same journalists who taught my generation to “question everything” and “question authority” are now uncomfortable with the fact that they are themselves being questioned and their authority is being challenged. We do question everything, including journalists, and that is a good thing.

Tags: the press
Filed under Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

How to Write a Conservative Activist Email

Posted on March 23rd, 2009

Tags: political how-to
Filed under Uncategorized | 6 Comments »

Arkansas Legislative Update – 3/20/2009

Posted on March 21st, 2009

Date: March 20, 2009
Contact: House Information Office, 501-682-7771
For Immediate Release

Lawmakers nearly done with lottery, ring up grocery-tax cut

      LITTLE ROCK –Both chambers are nearly done with their work to set up the state lottery and the college scholarship program that will be funded by lottery revenues, and another 1 percent cut in the state sales tax on groceries has been signed into law.

      In closing out the 10th week of the session, the House also gave final approval to House Bill 1111, by Rep. Tracy Pennartz of Fort Smith, to cut the 1-cent-per-card tax on bingo games operated by charity to three-tenths of a cent. The original bill sought to eliminate the tax, but the amendment for the three-tenths of a cent will retain enough revenue to pay the expenses of the state Department of Finance and Administration in regulating the games. The bill goes to the governor.

      On the lottery front, the House is one step from approving the Senate’s bill, and the Senate is one step from approving the House’s bill, filed by Speaker Robbie Wills of Conway. Passage is certain for both, as is the governor’s signature. The sale of lottery tickets could begin before the end of the year, and the first scholarship could be awarded for the fall semester of 2010.

      In the meantime, a nine-member lottery commission will be established, with the governor, the Speaker of the House, and the Senate president pro tempore each selecting three members. That commission will hire a lottery director. Together, they’ll decide what sort of games the Arkansas lottery will consist of, including multi-state games such as Powerball. A legislative oversight committee also will be formed.

      The size of the scholarships will be determined by how much revenue is generated by the lottery. Those estimates range from $55 million a year to more than $100 million. As we stand now, the scholarships will range from $2,500 a year to $6,000 a year to attend a four-year university. For two-year schools, the scholarship range will be from $1,250 a year to $3,000. Eligibility requirements include a 2.5 grade point average to get – and then retain – a scholarship. They also will be made available to nontraditional students.

      The legislation also sets a two-year ban on former lottery commissioners from becoming lobbyists for the lottery industry and sets an ethics code for commissioners and employees. Voters approved the lottery in November, and lawmakers have been working on lottery legislation ever since.

      The House also gave final approval to Senate Bill 875 to reduce the sales tax on energy consumed by manufacturers by three-fourths of a cent. Rep. Mike Burris of Malvern presented the bill in the House as a way to save Arkansans jobs. It now goes to the governor. The identical HB 1624, by Rep. David Dunn of Forrest City, has cleared the House but remains in the Senate. The bill will save manufacturers up to $9 million a year.

      All 100 members of the House were co-sponsors of the bill to cut the state sales tax on groceries from 3 percent to 2 percent, leaving no suspense on the outcome of the vote on SB 88. Rep. R.D. “Rick” Saunders of Hot Springs presented the bill in the House. Now signed into law, the cut takes effect July 1 and reduces state general revenue by about $30 million a year. Lawmakers two years ago cut the tax from 6 percent to 3 percent as part of the largest tax cut in Arkansas history.

      Also during the week, the House:

•     Approved HB 2007, by Rep. Barry Hyde of North Little Rock, to require state colleges and universities to go smoke-free by August 1, 2010. About half of the taxpayer-supported schools have already gone smoke-free, and the others have no objections and wanted the legislature’s stamp of approval, according to supporters.
•     Approved SB 38 to raise from 14 years old to 16 the minimum age for operating a personal watercraft, maybe better known as jet-skis. Rep. Steve Harrelson of Texarkana presented the bill in the House. It goes to the governor
•     Approved HB 1256, by Rep. Dan Greenberg of Little Rock, to make it a misdemeanor to be an active and intentional spectator at illegal street races. Those who “promote and assist” the race could face Class B misdemeanor charges, punishable by up to 90 days in jail and a fine of up to $500. The bill had been amended so that an “accidental” observer isn’t punished. The bill goes to the Senate.
•     Approved HB 1578, by Rep. Dawn Creekmore, setting restrictions on sex offenders whose crimes involved computers. The bill allows judges to restrict or even forbid computer usage by those offenders and limits those offenders to one e-mail address or one screen name. There’s an exception for computer usage required at work, and if the computer is provided by the employer.
•     Approved HB 1473, also by Creekmore, requiring the collection of a DNA sample from those who are arrested or charged with capital murder, first-degree murder, kidnapping or first- and second-degree assault. Current law requires a DNA sample only after a person is convicted of a felony.
•     Approved SB 312 to provide defibrillators to public schools, for the resuscitation of heart attack victims. The bill is in honor of a Little Rock youth who collapsed and died during a high school basketball game. The devices will be paid for by the recent increase in tobacco taxes. The bill goes to the governor.
•     Approved HB 1978, by Robert S. Moore Jr. of Arkansas City, to provide a tax rebate for rehabilitating historic structures in Arkansas. The rebate amounts to 25 percent of a project’s cost up to the first $500,000 on income-producing property and up to the first $100,000 on non-income-producing property. There’s a cap of $4 million on total rebates awarded in a fiscal year. The bill goes to the Senate.

Lawmakers on the House and Senate State Agencies and Governmental Affairs committees also have begun their study of proposed constitutional amendments. Up to three proposed amendments on general topics can be referred to a vote of the people each general election. The next general election is in November 2010.

Tags: legislative update
Filed under Uncategorized | Comments Off

How to Read a Bill

Posted on March 19th, 2009

I often receive emails and calls from constituents concerned, often almost panicked, about the contents of a bill being considered by the Arkansas legislature. As often as not, their concerns are due to a misunderstanding about what the bill, in and of itself, actually does. Usually, the misunderstanding comes from reading what is currently already part of Arkansas law in the text of the bill and interpreting it to mean that is what the bill does.

When a bill is drafted, it pulls the content from the current EXISTING “code” then marks out and/or adds to that code. The term code means the actual written Arkansas law. You can read it here: Arkansas Code Only the Arkansas legislature can “write” or “edit” the Arkansas code.

When you are reading a bill, if the text is not underlined or struck, then the bill is not changing that section of the existing code. If text is underlined, then those words have been added to that particular code section by the bill. If text is struck, then those words are being removed by the bill. Consider the following totally made-up SB666 example:

25   BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS:
26
27         SECTION 1. Arkansas Code § 66-6-666(a)(1), regarding the barbecuing
28   of cur puppies, is amended to read as follows:
29         (a)(1) The Governor shall have power to permit the cafeterias and restaurants
30   of the state for such a period, to such extent, and in such manner as he may
31   deem necessary, to barbeque cur puppies:
32               (A) in In case of invasion, disaster, insurrection, riot,
33   breach of the peace, or imminent danger thereof , ; or
34               (B) to To preserve the public health and security and
35   maintain law and order , ; or
36               (C) For the purpose of working with other state cafeterias
37   in the planning and training for emergencies or disasters and to respond to
38   emergencies or disasters to permit the cafeterias and restaurants
39   of the state for such a period, to such extent, and in such manner as he may
40   deem necessary, to barbeque cur puppies.

Carefully notice that the Governor already had the power to authorize that cur puppies could be barbequed, even if this bill were not passed. At first -when you look at the bill- it seems that lines 29 through 31 grant that permission that did not exist before, but notice that those lines were already in the code in lines 38 through 40. Also, notice that because line 32 was already in existing code it was already permissible for the governor to allow barbequing puppies in the event of insurrection.

The only thing that the bill above does is to allow the Governor to permit the barbequing of cur puppies in the case described on lines 36 and 37.

Now be informed, I personally don’t believe the governor should be allowed to permit the barbequing of cur puppies during an insurrection, but I am fine with it being done in the planning and training for emergencies or disasters and to respond to emergencies or disasters,. It would make a great future bill to stop the Governor from barbequing cur puppies in the case of insurrection, I would in fact support it. But in consideration of this bill, I support barbequing them in the case of emergencies and disasters. Therefore the logical vote for me is “Yes” for SB666.

By the way, I have it on good authority that Senator Mue Sadison intends to file a bill in the next legislative session that prohibits the Governor from barbequing cur puppies in all circumstances. That damn tree hugging liberal ought to go hungry during an emergency or disaster just once, I bet that would change her mind.

Tags: political how-to
Filed under Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

10,043 and Counting…

Posted on March 19th, 2009

The following chart is a continuation of a record of the growth in the number of state employees as the session progresses.

Tags: government growth
Filed under Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

AGAINST State Investment in Private Tech Companies

Posted on March 17th, 2009

I realize that there are times when governments invest in or provide investment subsidies to private enterprises for reasons of national security or in times of national emergency. Although I personally think there is far too little debate or evaluation about the merits of when this can or should be done, few people doubt that there are times when it is necessary.

A case, albeit weaker, can also be made for government ownership of a commercial “monopoly” in the beginning stages of a area’s economic development to ensure the creation of a basic economic infrastructure. This governmental investment is made available to ALL citizens and businesses. Past examples of this are local telephone service, natural gas pipelines, and rural electrical distribution grids. A future example might be high-speed internet. Even when there is a good case to be made for such, a legislature should very seriously consider a sunset and eventual end to government ownership once the original purpose has been achieved.

A very weak case can also be made for the government to provide investment incentives such as grants or tax exemptions to particular companies due to competition with other states and regions that are providing those benefits to companies that locate there. I have come to have more and more doubt about the wisdom of doing this, but still recognize there is a weak case to be made for the practice.

However, there is a very big and serious difference between private companies / investors “shopping” states for incentives for investment that would happen even without government assistance as opposed to those that would not happen without governmental investment. The former investments would happen “somewhere” regardless of government assistance because they have favorable expected returns relative to the risk involved. The latter are just bad investments for anyone involved.

Even so, it appears that we are now faced with the desire of some in our state government to establish ongoing programs to invest in private enterprises and/or create/participate in venture capital pools with private sector investors. While the intention to create jobs, diversify the economy, and increase regional income are all good, the method should horrify even the most ambitious “economic developer”.

For the moment, let’s set aside the arguments that government should not be involved in private enterprise as a matter of principle, or even that government should not be involved in “picking winners and losers”, and we might even forget the argument that the results of such have traditionally been abysmal. Let’s discuss whether individuals should willingly pay taxes and/or give up services to finance government investment in private enterprise. Don’t you think that if government could consistently find good investment opportunities better than the private sector, wouldn’t investors be lined up around the block to seek my and other legislator’s advice on how they should invest. I don’t see that happening. That is a wise decision on their part, I think.

The problem is not a market failure due to the lack of willing private capital for investments with favorable risk-return ratios, but instead, a lack of willing private capital for investments with unfavorable risk-return ratios. This means that if the government is to make these investments, then the taxpayers were being forced into bad or poor investments that they would not ordinarily make.

This ultimately boils down to the fact that the funds given to government sponsored venture capital pools or by direct investment in specific businesses are paid for through some combination of higher taxes or lower spending on other programs such as highways, education, or other government programs. The most direct beneficiaries of government investment in private companies are the special class of private investors who have the power to lobby for the special favors and perhaps the employees of these “favored” companies. It is clearly not going to benefit the general public directly, and any indirect benefits are marginal at best and oppressive at worst.

Taxpayers deserve for the government to treat them fairly, act in their best interest, and not to behave irresponsibly with their hard-earned dollars. In this case, government investment in private companies mostly benefits only a few but the costs and risk is distributed among all taxpayers.

If given the choice, would citizens, particularly lower income ones, willingly pay higher taxes and/or forgo services for the government to finance these activities? If not, then how is this the right thing to do?

How can it be fair to force citizens as taxpayers into investments that they have rejected as individuals? How can it be in their best interests?

Furthermore, if the state is invested in a particular company, would other competitive companies avoid Arkansas because the state has a vested interest in helping one succeed and the other fail? Would those companies believe that they would be treated fairly and equally before the law when stake, salience, certainty, immediacy, and self-efficacy can ALL be reasonably established?

It would be more fair for our state government to create a good investment potential in Arkansas by removing undesirable obstructions to private investment. We can best, more fairly, and more responsibly do this by funding a good public infrastructure, provide responsibly and competitively low levels of general taxation, an unobtrusive and fair regulatory environment, and a highly educated and skilled labor force.

The healthy investment climate described above is one where government supports, rather than substitutes for private investors. Not only is that a fairer public policy, it is a better one.

The heros of old, Democrats all, knew this when they crafted our State Constitution to say in Section 7, Article 12: “Except as herein provided, the state shall never become a stockholder in, or subscribe to, or be interested in the stock of any corporation or association.” That is a fine piece of wisdom, one that we should not meddle with without fear of extreme peril and regret.

An angry constituent asks, “Are you going to put a cap on the exective salaries of those companies we invest in? How many corporate jets will our tax dollars be buying? How much in campaign contributions do I need to make to get any action in this sweetheart deal? How many swanky parties at exclusive country clubs will I be paying for but not invited to? Are you going to prevent bonuses from being paid out to executives of these companies that we invested in, but are not paying dividends? If you support this, why don’t you follow the Japanese model . . . resign, or go commit suicide?”

No siree, Rob. There ain’t no way I’m gonna’ touch this, even with a ten foot pole. The American people are rightfully mad as hornets about this very thing. I learnt as a kid, the hard way mind you, that it didn’t make no sense to be poking at a hornet’s nest, no matter how long of a stick you foundt.

Tags: economic policy
Filed under Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Natural Law

Posted on March 17th, 2009

I recently used the term “natural liberty” in a post, which generated a private email asking why is a “natural liberty” is so very important versus any other kind of liberty. That series of email exchanges, between myself and an ally to preserve home educators’ liberty, revealed how very little most people today understand the very foundations of the political philosophy upon which this country and most of western civilization is built. There is a fundamental lack of understanding in America today about natural law.

Natural rights are rights that do not depend on the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or political system. In contrast, legal rights are rights given by the government (known as positive law), put in place by legislatures or kings, and depend upon local mores, customs, or beliefs especially when enacted by a democratic or republican form of governance.

Therefore, natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights (or positive law) are culturally and politically relative. Natural rights are therefore superior to legal rights, which is why I said that if I do not defend natural liberties, I have no logical justification to defend civil liberties.

Those who hold to natural law theory believe there exists of a rational and purposeful order to the universe and that a rational being may derive precepts for personal and civil governance from both inherent rational necessity to avoid self-contradiction and observations drawn from a rational study of the universe (nature). No where in this is the direct application of laws from the sacred documents of any religion, it is purely the application of man’s rational mind (however flawed) to discover those self-evident truths found in nature.

Under this view, all secular governments (the U.S.A. is a secular government) exists to protect natural rights based on natural law, and only to protect those natural rights. This is the view of the founding fathers, where a diverse group of Christians, deists, and atheists agreed upon the following words:

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them…

The first article of the Virginia Declaration of Rights adopted unanimously by the Virginia Convention of Delegates on June 12, 1776 and written by George Mason, is:

That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Even the United Nations, for which there is much room for contempt, has in one of its foundational documents a clear appeal to natural law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The first line of the preamble says:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

While the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not without error due to obvious logical / rational inconsistencies [Note the contradiction between Articles 4 and 17 in contrast to Articles 22 and 25.], it does present a tremendous amount of truth about those precepts derived from natural law. The point of all this is to make clear that I am intentionally avoiding making a religious appeal to the right to home education. Found in the truths of the above document, secular from beginning to end, I want to point out Article 26 Part 3:

Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

With that, I have said all I intend to say about the topic of “home schooling”, however, that of “natural law” is a topic I can promise more articles on in the future.

Tags: political philosophy
Filed under Uncategorized | 3 Comments »