MINNESOTA
FREE MARKET INSTITUTE

P.O. Box 120449
St. Paul, MN 55112

651 294 3593 phone
651 294 3596 fax

Kim Crockett on “Entrepreneurs and Lilliputians”

August 31st, 2010 by admin
Kim Crockett, President

Kim Crockett, President

 

Kim contributed this piece to a Center of the American Experiment Symposium entitled “How Can We Better Encourage and Reinforce the Most Entrepreneurial and Talented Among Us?” To put it succintly, Kim thinks we should just get out of the way.

 

“In 1942, Joseph Schumpeter agreed with Karl Marx that capitalism would collapse from within and be replaced by socialism, but not in the revolutionary way old Karl predicted (and not quite the way Schumpeter predicted either, but his insight is still compelling). Schumpeter described a great irony that is playing out now: Capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction.

The great, private wealth generated by a free marketplace is now used by the state to support a progressive, socialist vision. Simply put, capitalism is funding socialism and it is capitalism—not the state—that is withering on the vine. The power of the state to tax and regulate, combined with its insatiable appetite for cash and authority, is discouraging our entrepreneurial spirit and creating great uncertainty. The intellectual elite, so hostile to democratic capitalism yet dependent on its wealth and liberal spirit, campaign relentlessly against business through their domination of the media, academia, and the arts. Our dear fellow citizens, with a growing, sometimes militant, sense of entitlement, vote for candidates who promise to take the risk out of life at someone else’s expense.

Private enterprise and taxpayers (a much smaller group than citizens, many of whom do not pay federal taxes) are laboring to support a massive, corrupt bureaucracy, which directly or indirectly employs a significant percentage of the population and thus grows unchecked by the democratic process. Public employees now enjoy greater salaries and benefits than their counterparts in the private sector. Government, currently our leading growth industry, has run up deficits both annual and structural that stagger the imagination. The modern corporation, though nimble and innovative, often joins the government and its political enemies at the table in order to avoid being on the menu.

We are talking about encouraging entrepreneurs in this symposium because most everyone is looking to them and economic growth to get us out of this mess, which, while daunting, would be no match for American private enterprise, if the state would just get out of the way and stay there. Right now, the entrepreneur is like Gulliver on the beach, trying to get up but unable to do so because he is tied down by the Lilliputians.

The financial crisis and ensuing recession were caused largely by government-created obscenities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Yet President Obama and Congress pile on bailouts and stimulus spending, new regulatory schemes, and massive legislation based on faulty premises and bad science (e.g., ObamaCare, Cap and Trade). All of this only further distorts markets and adds to the cost of business. An arrogant and guilty Congress dragoons executives with its subpoena power to deflect attention from its central role in our economy’s collapse. Senators Barney Frank and Chris Dodd should be tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail. Instead, they are still calling the shots, though Dodd’s impending retirement (and other political shake-ups) may be a sign that all is not lost.

Will we prove Schumpeter wrong and at least extend the greatest experiment in freedom and prosperity for the next generation? This Congress is hostile to free markets, and the courts abandoned economic rights long ago. President Obama would like the economy to recover, but only so he can fund an enlarged welfare state.

Therefore, to whom can we turn to defend American enterprise and free the entrepreneur? The people, We the People.

Liberals and conservatives alike must familiarize themselves with the concept of a limited federal government of enumerated powers. We must elect representatives who understand that means rolling back the state. We must reinvent core services, including K-12 education, while shifting social services back to an already vibrant charitable sector. Public pensions, the big daddy of icebergs for the ship of state, must be reformed. We the People must get our hands out of each other’s pockets so our children do not have to work like mules for the state while dwelling in the mediocrity of socialism. We have tipped, but we have not yet fallen.”

An Article V Convention of the States: Is it Time to Amend the Constitution?

August 9th, 2010 by Kim Crockett
We the People

We the People

Everyone knows that the founders gave us three “co-equal branches” of government and carefully crafted ”checks and balances.”  It has not worked perfectly but the founders anticipated that problem.  Article V of the U.S. Constitution permits Congress to amend the Constitution–this is widely known. What is not widely known is that state legislatures can also petition Congress for a convention; two thirds (34) of the states are required. Any amendment passed at the convention has to be ratified by three fourths (38) of the states. An Article V convention has never been called. Is it time?

The Constitution has been amended 27 times. The first 10 amendments are the Bill of Rights; they were ratified in 1791 a few years after the Constitution was ratified. Interestingly, the twenty-seventh amendment was part of the proposed Bill of Rights in 1789 but it was not ratified until 1992 by the vote of Michigan. It contains a common concept of “good government” today; that pay raises for Congress cannot take effect until after an intervening election.

There is a growing movement to call an Article V Convention. There is always fear of a “run away” convention, though the requirements of Article V to both call a convention (two thirds rule) and to ratify an amendment (three quarters rule) would seem to make that unlikely.

Clearly, we have a “run away” federal  government. The founders gave the states a tool to address weaknesses in the Constitution and abuses by the federal government. We will be exploring this option from time to time here at the Minnesota Free Market Institute.

Former Senator Norm Coleman has decided that it is time for an Article V convention. Here are his most recent remarks on the subject.  http://americanactionnetwork.org/news/aans-ceo-norm-colemans-remarks-alec-conference

ObamaCare: Virginia Challenge now in Federal Court and Missouri Joins Five Other States Rejecting Health Care TakeOver

August 5th, 2010 by admin
ObamaCare!

ObamaCare!

 

The state of Virginia’s challenge to ObamaCare is now in federal court. A federal judge has denied the Administration’s request to throw out the suit, finding enough merit in the case to proceed to trial.  Here is an article from the Christian Science Monitor (and see links to a discussion under “Related Stories” on the 14 state lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the sweeping legislation):  http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0802/Judge-refuses-to-block-Virginia-challenge-to-health-care-reform

On Tuesday, 71% of voters in Missouri rejected the idea that the state can force citizens to pay a fine if they do not carry health insurance. This undercuts the law’s enforceability. Missouri  joined five other states that passed similar measures via legislation (Idaho, Utah, Virginia, Georgia and Louisiana). Here is the Wall Street Journal’s Editorial  on Missouri’s vote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704026204575266472609370944.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

Various legal challenges (legislation, referenda, and law suits) to ObamaCare are active in at least 26 states–not including Minnesota. So far, all Minnesota has is a task force appointed by the governor to study it with a report due in December–we are double checking on this with Twila Brase and other experts, but it appears that Minnesota will not join the fight in 2010.

If the federal legislation is found to be constitutional, state law will be pre-empted by federal law. We think the legal case against ObamaCare is clear but given the history of the federal courts acquiescence to other unconstitutional grabs by Congress, we do not want to count on it.

“Disclose” Act Fails: Campaign Finance Regulation Falls Short in the Senate

July 28th, 2010 by Kim Crockett

US Constitution

Update as of July 28:The Democratic leadership wanted this passed before fall elections but fell short with just 57 of the 60 votes needed to move forward with a vote. The usual Republican suspects Democrats turn to for votes (Senators Collins, Snowe and Graham) opposed the Act. Senator Scott Brown of Massachusettes, who recently provided the 60th vote for so-called financial reform, also opposed the Act. This time, he stuck with Republicans. There is a good article in the Washington Post by Dan Eggen if you want to read more about it:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/27/AR2010072704656.html?nav=emailpage

Background from early July: As we approach the 4th of July, Democratic leaders in Congress, in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, lead the charge to pass the “Disclose” Act on June 24, 2010. The Act, introduced by Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Representative Chris Van Hollen (D-Md), is designed to blunt the First Amendment ruling in favor of speech rights for corporations and other groups, including labor unions. The Citizens United decision, relying on the First Amendment, ruled that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited. The court reasoned that political speech is indispensable to a democracy, though it upheld the ban on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions. We note here that political speech is also fundamental to free enterprise and individual liberty.

Our friends at CATO are on top of this: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/02/12/congress-goes-after-citizens-united/

Background: Citizens United made a movie about Hillary Clinton (Hillary: The Movie). They were prevented from showing the movie under the “Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act” that regulates political speech. They fought for an injunction against the law, took their case to the Supreme Court and won. Let’s see if Congress succeeds in once again tinkering with the First Amendment.

If passed by the Senate, the Act will require the disclosure of the names of major donors for political ads, require corporate and union executives to appear in political ads that their entities pay for and like a candidate, state that he or she “approves this message.” All of these are designed to discourage political speech. It also bans government contractors from contributing to campaigns, and regulates the recipients of TARP money as well as contributions from foreign nationals and countries. Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D-Nev) wants it passed before the fall elections.

Aside from the obvious constitutional issues, which have been raised by (mostly Republican) critics, liberal Democrats have also criticized the bill because the Act contains  hard to defend “carve outs” that, when applied, exempt certain powerful special interest groups such as the Humane Society, AARP and the Sierra Club–but also the NRA. The exemptions were negotiated by Democrats so they could get the Act passed and on the president’s desk. This is sausage making to be sure. Sadly, it will add to the already absurd quilt-work of bad election/campaign finance laws that thwart the First Amendment right to political speech.

Celebrate Independence Day: What are the Core Functions of Government?

July 2nd, 2010 by admin

betsy ross and flagBesides brats, beer and fireworks, a great way to celebrate our Independence and the legacy of Freedom is to think about the proper role of government. The Startribune published Kim Crockett’s article on how the desire to fund “good things” can lead to underfunding the core functions of government: constitutional duties and protecting life, liberty and property. Here is the commentary:   http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/97437104.html?elr=KArksc8P:Pc:U0ckkD:aEyKUiacyKUUr

Minnesota’s Budget Impasse Resolved With No New Taxes

May 17th, 2010 by Kim Crockett

Governor Tim PawlentyAfter reaching an agreement with Governor Pawlenty late on Sunday, the legislature went into a brief special session to formalize the terms. The good news is that Pawlenty’s insistence on no new taxes won the day; the legislature had to find the funds within the existing revenues. Moreover, most of the “unallotments” made by Governor Pawlenty in 2009 that were disallowed by the Minnesota Supreme Court have been enacted (but not made permanent). Like many businesses and families, our elected officials had to figure out how to live with less. The state is still left with a projected deficit of about $5.8 billion for FY 2012-13. That number will be higher if the nearly $2 billion shifted from K-12 education in 2011 is not repaid.

Minnesota Budget Solutions Coalition; Balance Minnesota’s Budget Without Raising Taxes

May 11th, 2010 by Kim Crockett

The Minnesota Free Market Institute is a proud member of the the Minnesota Budget Solutions Coalition. The Coalition is an informal alliance of non-profit organizations formed to solicit ideas from the public and members of the coalition on the state budget.

The Minnesota Budget Solutions Coalition released a brief in 2009 demonstrating that the budget can be balanced without raising taxes (for a copy go to http://www.mnbudgetsolutions.com/) . Now more than ever, innovative ideas are needed in St. Paul to balance the budget and get us on the road to recovery and prosperity. Raising taxes during an economic recession will have dire consequences. As our legislators debate in St. Paul, employers all over the state are deciding whether to hire (or fire) a new employee, invest in new equipment, or leave the state for a friendlier business climate. Minnesota already has one of the highest per-capita tax burdens in the nation. Taxing the so-called “rich” will not solve our budget problems. Every time we raise taxes on individuals and business, we are showing people the door. Our policy brief contains creative ideas that both parties can embrace if they are serious about living within our means. It also contains some strong medicine that will be hard for any politician to swallow. Please share these ideas and encourage our leaders to return Minnesota to economic health.

Note: The Coalition is busy updating the policy brief with figures from the current budget. Watch for its release this summer.

Article on “Unallotment” by Peter Nelson and Kim Crockett. Supreme Court Legislates Against Pawlenty.

May 11th, 2010 by Kim Crockett

The St.Paul Pioneer Press at TwinCities.com published an article (see  http://www.twincities.com/opinion/ci_14698526 ) by Peter Nelson, an attorney and policy fellow at the Center of the American Experiment and Kim Crockett, the President and General Counsel of the Minnesota Free Market Institute. Nelson and Crockett argued that Governor Pawlenty’s use of the “Unallotment” statute was proper and that any concerns about the statute giving the executive too much power should be handled at the legislature. Unfortunately, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled 4-3 against the governor, throwing the current budget and legislative session into chaos. The Chief Justice, writing for the majority, amended the statute more to its liking, rather than applying the statute as written by the legislature. We applaud the dissent written by Justice Lorie Gildea and recommend reading at least the first paragraph. Judges are to say what the law is, not what the law should be. Unfortunately, a majority of the court took up a legislative mantel, forgetting the limited role of the judiciary in these matters. Now the state is in uncharted territory with just a few days left of the legislative session. 

The opinion can be found at  http://www.mncourts.gov/opinions/sc/current/OPA100064-0505.pdf

Billion Dollar Bonding Bill: Governor Cuts to $680 Million

March 15th, 2010 by Kim Crockett
Governor Tim PawlentyEditor’s Update 3-15-10: House File 2700 (the Capital Investment Bill totalling nearly $1 billion ) was sent to the governor last week despite clear warnings to keep it around $725 million and focused on priorities such as veterans, military, and public safety.  Over the weekend, Pawlenty did what the DFL apparently could not do and trimmed it down to about $680 million.  A majority of House Republicans, lead by House Minority Leader Kurt Zellers, had asked the governor in a letter to cut spending to $200-250 million  (down to only “critical” construction projects) to bring the DFL to the negotiating table later in the session. The letter said such a move would show the DFL that  ”it is NOT OKAY to whip out the credit card for a sculpture garden, for civic centers, for shade trees and for the rest of their out-of-touch spending.”    The DFL conceded last week that it expected significant cuts, sending it to the governor’s desk after failing to negotiate a compromise last week.  The tone of the governor’s letter is similar to a letter one might find from an exasperated  parent to an out of control college student: he basically says, I told you what I expected and you ignored me (again). He noted that the bill exceeded the budgeted capital investment by about $275 million. “The DFL-controlled legislature seems incapable of prioritizing projects or simply sayng no. So I have done it for you.”  You can read the governor’s letter detailing the cuts at MinnPost : http://www.minnpost.com/client_files/pdfs/BondingLineItemVetoLetter.pdf The Governor noted early in the process that a bonding bill ought to be one of the least difficult items to agree on. Not this year. While we commend the governor for doing his job, we note that the DFL -controlled legislature may have conceded too much of its authority to authorize spending. Not only did the DFL fail to do its job, but it added language to the bill that the governor said “makes it impossible…to exercise line-item veto authority other than in an overly blunt manner.”  Well, we’ll take “blunt” over too much debt at this point, if those are our only choices.

Congress to Raise Debt Ceiling by $1.8 Trillion

December 11th, 2009 by Adam Axvig

House Appropriations Chair Dave ObeyCongressional Democrats are poised to vote on raising the national debt ceiling from $12 trillion to $13.8 trillion. The vote could come before the end of the year, an effort to minimize possible political blowback in the 2010 midterm elections. The story elicited a number of comments by lawmakers. In an interview with Politico, House Appropriations Chair David Obey said, “…the credit card has already been used. When you get the bill in the mail you need to pay it.”

Groups of conservative Democrats critical of runaway spending have emerged in both the House and Senate. One such member is North Dakota’s Sen. Kent Conrad, chair of the Senate Budget Committee. Conrad teamed up with New Hampshire Republican Sen. Judd Gregg to introduce legislation to create a budget task force (press release) to plot a more sustainable fiscal course.

The legislation has 31 co-sponsors including Minnesota’s own Sen. Amy Klobuchar.  In a press release yesterday, Klobuchar said:

“We have already seen what happens to our economy when Wall Street is fiscally irresponsible.  We cannot let our federal government do the same thing,”

“We need to change the way Washington works when it comes to our long-term fiscal outlook.  This is not about being a Democrat, a Republican or an Independent.  The Bipartisan Fiscal Task Force is about trying to get something done to stop unsustainable spending and restore our financial stability.” (Press Release, “Klobuchar Sponsors New Bipartisan Fiscal Task Force Legislation to Confront Nation’s Budget Crisis”)

The task force would have 18 members, ten Democrats and eight Republicans. The committee would also have bipartisan co-chairs.

Senator Gregg posted a fact sheet on the legislation here. For more information on the Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action Act of 2009, click here.

The Value Added Tax

I posted on the Value Added Tax (VAT) back on October 9th when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in an interview that the controversial tax was on the table.

The Value Added Tax is in the news again this week because of an article in yesterday’s New York Times suggesting a VAT is gaining support on and off Capitol Hill. According to the article, the VAT is gaining support as the only feasible way to raise enough revenue to keep up with runaway federal spending.

Pelosi isn’t the only influential lawmaker eyeing a value added tax. Senate Budget Committee Chair Kent Conrad also believes a value added tax should be on the table. In an interview with the Washington Post in May, Conrad said,

“There is a growing awareness of the need for fundamental tax reform…I think a VAT and a high-end income tax have got to be on the table.” (Washington Post, “Once Considered Unthinkable, U.S. Sales Tax Gets Fresh Look,” May 27, 2009)

Whether through spending cuts, a new task force or a national value added tax, it is becoming clear that the cure for paying off the federal credit card isn’t as simple as raising the credit limit.

twitterfacebookyoutube

Donate_Button

bvsiglogo

mbsbutton

Logo-Square_darkshadow


we_endorse_readthebill