The discussion usually takes one or more of the following shapes.

If you’re new to the conversation, just dipping your toes in for the first time, you might think we can simply cut defense spending, or eliminate ‘waste, fraud, and abuse.’ Considering how many military bases we have around the world, that’s a legit angle.

When you factor in the Pentagon’s numerous failed audits and run-of-the-mill household items running into the thousands of dollars, you could kill two birds with one stone.

We’re just scratching the surface here though.

If you’re somewhat serious, in addition to those, you’re pointing out discretionary spending. Those are monies that Congress approves annually. The nearly trillion-dollar defense budget is part of it.

However, all told, such spending barely makes up a quarter of the overall budget, if that.

If you’re more serious, you’re including all the aforementioned items, plus the programs on autopilot. Those would be Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. They are the three biggest items in the federal budget, eating up over half.

Interest on the debt, another expenditure on autopilot, recently overtook defense as the fourth largest item. Addressing all the rest will push that one down in the process.

Social Security’s financial health has been feeling the strain of an ever-growing number of beneficiaries and a declining birthrate. The worker-to-beneficiary ratio has been cut by more than half since it’s inception.

Regarding health insurance, its very structure is handicapped by its third-party payer nature. When consumers don’t know the actual price of the service they’re receiving, they’re less judicious in their spending.

One of the few less efficient enterprises than that is the government. It being the genesis of the Medis exacerbates the problem.

Regardless, you know you’ve encountered someone who is very serious about debt and deficits when they discuss attacking it at its root; the government’s ability to service it.

Investors (check your 401(k)) will continue to buy U.S. treasuries if they believe Uncle Sam will continue to have the ability to pay the interest. That ability rests on the taxing power it has over productive citizens.

So why not cut tax rates and reduce that ability?

History has shown that when they are reduced, and/or the code is simplified, the revenue flows to treasuries actually increases. This is partly due to taxpayers changing how they file, but it can also be attributed to the signal they’re getting from the government.

“We’ll take less from you, and you won’t have to spend as much time filing.”

Though some would convert that time into more leisure, that might very well entail more spending. What would juice economic growth even more is if some of that spending was via investing.

Alas, more growth creates more revenues, which gives buyers of U.S. debt even more confidence to continue lending to reliably profligate politicians. What then?

Go further. If we’re serious about reducing the national debt, the ability of the federal government to incur any more must be seriously curtailed.

In much the same way ‘waste, fraud, and abuse’ will never really go away until spending is reduced on a large scale, the spending itself will never really go away as long as there are tax revenues AND borrowing to finance it.

Whether or not this is the biggest problem facing us is up for discussion. Being a personal financial literacy teacher who walks the walk, I find such staggering debt levels to be outrageously appalling.

The upside is that the most organic, effective solution just so happens to coincide with a higher level of freedom, and subsequent prosperity for citizens.

The post Degrees of Seriousness on the National Debt appeared first on Free the People.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani on his free bus fares plan? No. It’s one of his fellow travelers here in San Antonio in a recent interview discussing a similar proposal. He currently has the support of two other socialist city council members, and one progressive.

Mayor Gina Ortiz Jones supports a pilot program to test it out.

In a related story, I will soon be hanging up my chauffeur hat when my youngest daughter takes her driving test next month. None of her three sisters have expressed a desire to be relieved of their “dependence” on their respective cars.

My third daughter did actually try Via (our public transit system) when she started the University of Texas-San Antonio last fall. Soon thereafter, Ukrainian immigrant Iryna Zarutska was stabbed to death on a light rail in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Her mom and I leaned on her to reconsider. She drives to campus now.

That’s just one of the concerns with this ‘free’ fare idea. Another is the challenge that vocabulary poses for political leaders pushing it, starting with the word “free.”

Are the buses donated? Do drivers volunteer their time? Is fueling/charging costless since they have their own stations? Most folks can see through such verbal shenanigans, knowing full-well that the taxpayer foots the bill.

The dedicated sales tax that partially finances Via will even rise a bit soon, when it reincorporates what had been diverted to a local workforce training program over the last several years.

More word chicanery can be found in asserting that drivers have a “dependency” on their cars. It’s more accurate to say that we’re dependent on having transportation. We need it to get to work, to the store, to get our kids to school, etc.

When we hop onto a bus, we’re depending on it to be functioning properly. We’re depending on the driver to be on time. We’re depending on other passengers to contribute to a smooth, “peaceful” ride.

That peace was important enough to one rider in Kansas City that he is glad they’re abandoning their ‘free’ fare experiment. Incidentally, that’s one program the councilman here has touted in making his case.

Due diligence appears to have suffered at the expense of the zeal to make more stuff ‘free’.

“There’s just a lot going on those busses,” the KC rider continued. That sentiment is echoed not only by some riders in the Big Apple, but also the head of the Via drivers’ union. He worries about “confrontations … people with no destinations … dirtier” buses, etc.

Riders get a pretty good deal here as-is, with fares as low as a buck and a quarter a day. Until Via police start riding along, there are probably others like the one in KC who appreciate a firm price signal that tends to keep such trouble at bay.

Moreover, it wouldn’t be the worst idea to go in the other direction on fares.

Not only would it further enhance safety for riders (assuming that’s a priority), who are just trying to get to work or school, but it would ease the several hundred million dollars drag on taxpayers.

Our own cars on the other hand, give us INdependence.

We drive ourselves. We fill up our own tanks. We keep our own tires inflated. We keep an eye on fluid levels. If there’s a problem, we either take it to our pick of several mechanics, or we fix it ourselves.

Of additional concern here are the attitudes and methods of the powers that be.

Via leaders, although resistant to this plan, otherwise talk in terms of “persuading” us to “ditch” our cars. The political establishment implies that we are immature, wondering when we will “grow up and get out of” them.

They propose adding a tax to our cell phone bills, and/or a “new sales tax” for just this ‘free’ fare idea, to push people into a service that most of them are clearly not interested in.

Factor in other overlapping taxing entities, like the city and school districts, who are considering their own property tax hikes, and a “small increase” here and there adds up for families trying to make ends meet.

Some, like mine growing up, will simply move outside city limits. Many already have. When local leaders claim San Antonio is growing fast, they neglect to mention that surrounding counties are growing faster.

Though buses that serve some areas of town could be downsized to more accurately fit demand, public transportation has a place in San Antonio. However, it’s as a bridge to more independence one day.

Being prodded to ride against our will, by forcefully taking more from us through taxing more aspects of our lives, is not that.

The post There’s No Such Thing as ‘Free’ Bus Fare appeared first on Free the People.

Coupled with Zohran Mamdani’s victory in the democratic primary for New York City mayor, and the rise of fellow socialist mayoral candidate Omar Fateh in Minneapolis, this should be cause for concern at all levels of American government.

My new councilman rarely if ever mentioned his endorsement from the San Antonio Democratic Socialists of America. His website offered plenty of hints though.

Whereas Mr. Mamdani wants to create “city-owned grocery stores,” our councilman aims to “create new city jobs” to “construct … community gardens and food forests.” He hopes these “good paying public jobs” will combat “the rising cost of living.”

One goal he spoke openly about on the campaign trail was “directly expand(ing) affordable housing opportunities.” Mr. Mamdani wants to do the same.

It’s hard not to think of Friedrich Hayek’s quip “if socialists understood economics, they wouldn’t be socialists.” They would have an inkling that government is the biggest driver of inflation.

They would also know that handing out “grants” or “forgivable loans to start … a business” erodes a key motivation for entrepreneurial success. If would-be business owners don’t have to save their own earnings, or repay debt, there’s less incentive for them to please the customer.

The taxpayer unwittingly ends up on the hook.

No doubt some of these aforementioned goals are shared by other left-wing politicians, like our former councilwoman. They seem to know however, that a lurch too far in that direction would be disastrous for the economy, and society as a whole.

That’s why they’re more likely to get into bed with developers, and Big Business. Ironically, that’s one thing that’s driving many of their voters to socialists; they mean what they say, and campaign donations won’t change their mind.

They can however, be beaten in the arena of ideas. The obstacle, at least on the local level, is getting into that arena in the first place.

Voter turnout in Bexar County for the 2024 presidential election was almost 60%. It was well over 40% in the 2022 midterms. For this municipal election, it was less than 10%. Though that didn’t seem to be a problem last month in the Big Apple, it’s a chronic one everywhere else.

To be sure, there are differences in governance between Texas and New York, and it’s possible that might also feed a sense of complacency here.

It would be easier, for example, for Mr. Mamdani to get Albany’s blessing to raise the city’s minimum wage than it would be for our council to do something similar. That hasn’t stopped them from trying though, as they passed a paid sick leave ordinance a few years ago.

That was eventually struck down by the courts, but not before costing taxpayers legal fees.

Before that ruling in 2021, San Antonio had zero socialists on the city council. Now, there are three. That’s halfway to a majority.

My district is arguably the swingiest one in the generally blue Alamo City. Our last councilwoman endured two runoffs, and won the 2023 election with less than 54% of the vote. Her predecessor, who leaned right, defeated her in one of those runoffs.

I finished barely 2% out of first in this May’s elections. District 6 is gettable.

If we don’t get more involved in local elections, this trend will continue to percolate upward. Then we’ll see fellow travelers Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Greg Casar (a former Austin city councilman) with more company in Washington, DC.

The post Losing to a Socialist and Municipal Apathy appeared first on Free the People.

Whenever entrepreneurs and small business owners face new regulatory obstacles, I think of that statement directed at a friend several years ago. More such impediments have popped up recently at all levels of government, instigated by both ends of the political spectrum.

A recent report in The Wall Street Journal described how, in the face of surging tariffs under President Trump, some businesses are being forced to lay off staff. Others are holding off on capital investments, or seeking outside investors to help.

Some store shelves are going bare.

Here in Texas, Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick spearheaded a drive to ban “all THC products.” That will drastically curtail an $8 billion industry made possible, ironically enough, by a 2019 law loosening up regulations on hemp.

Since then, it has grown to thousands of businesses that employ 50,000 Texans.

Closer to home, while on the one hand promoting “buy local,” the San Antonio City Council doles out taxpayer-funded subsidies to multimillion-dollar corporations from the other hand. They’ve also shown a willingness to seize businesses and arbitrarily shutter whole industries.

Small businesses are important to the economy, but they are also vital to society in general. At their most organic, they are a path to greater independence.

One of my jobs while in college was at a video store (remember those?). The owner had left his prior job because he wanted to be his “own boss.” Probably the easiest part was deciding exactly which industry to jump into.

Every other decision is what should command more respect from our leaders.

First of all, entrepreneurs have to save. In a country where government and media mistake consumption for growth (“consume: to destroy”), saving goes against the grain. Next, they have to sell their idea to potential investors in order to get the venture off the ground.

Then the risk comes into play.

After giving up a regular paycheck in order to make their idea a reality, there’s the pressure to succeed. It essentially becomes a member of the family, one of the children that must be looked after, and nurtured, 24/7.

In addition to the employment opportunities they create in the community, they also serve as laboratories for wealth creation.

When a business starts selling beyond city limits, it grows. More employees are hired, including those who bring their skills and ideas from other cities and towns. It expands capacity. After evolving into a big business, new small businesses sprout out around it. It’s a virtuous cycle.

Larry, the guy I worked for at the video store, came from one of those big businesses.

Government recognizes all this progress with overbearing mandates, high taxes, and reminders that they can shut them down at any time for any reason (see lockdowns). This creates the perverse illusion among politicians and bureaucrats that they can then offer assistance.

According to the WSJ report, lobbying groups are appealing to the federal government to grant exemptions from the tariffs. The Small Business Administration also “has endorsed bipartisan plans to double loan limits.”

Entrepreneurs can be forgiven their skepticism given the experience of the Paycheck Protection Program.

In tandem with the THC ban, the Texas legislature loosened up its medical marijuana program.

Meanwhile, our city council gave the horse-drawn carriage industry five years to close-up shop. Also, to assuage businesses harmed by the lockdowns and construction that “lasts a painfully long time,” they’ve handed out millions of dollars in grants.

Insufficient, obstructive, and counterproductive. The dependence built-in to all this ‘help’ runs against the very streak of independence that drove these entrepreneurs in the first place.

Why does any of this happen at all?

Some of our elected leaders may have struggled to find success in the private sector. They are sometimes lobbied by their counterparts in the business community who are losing out to their competition. We saw this during the paid sick leave debate here several years ago.

Such lobbying is frequently accompanied by campaign donations and their accompanying undue influence.

Policymakers may simply be ignorant about how the market works, how it motivates business owners to deliver the best product or service at the lowest possible price. They may furthermore feel government is an equal partner.

Or, it’s simply a lack of humility.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott tapped the brakes by vetoing the outright THC ban, calling instead for “an approach similar to the way alcohol is regulated.” Hopefully the rest of the governing class takes a cue from that slight course correction, and stops shortchanging us all.

The post The Bipartisan Hindering of the Entrepreneurial Spirit appeared first on Free the People.

I came to this medical device company a couple of years ago when my previous company in the energy industry was broken up and sold after going through Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Having survived multiple prior restructurings, I’m familiar with market turbulence.

But whereas that company was more directly affected by unstable monetary policy, my current dislocation is an example of growing pains toward progress.

One of the more unfortunate turns our politics have taken over the last decade has been away from free trade and globalization, and toward protectionism. This can be traced back at least to 1992 presidential candidate H. Ross Perot, who warned of a “giant sucking sound” of jobs leaving the country.

It was even parodied on a 2004 episode of South Park. “DEY TOOK ERR JOBS!”

Around the time of that episode, India was the I in BRICs, a block of countries (also Brazil, Russia and China) that was participating more in the world economy. One thing India has a lot of is people. The more you have of something, the less expensive it is.

Labor is not immune to that logic.

This comparative advantage that affected our domestic textile industry back in the days of Perot, has now found its way to some white-collar jobs like mine. It’s not however, necessarily a bad thing, nor is it necessarily all such jobs.

To state the obvious, the economies of North America, Western Europe, and East Asia are the most advanced in the world. Others, like the BRICs, are at earlier stages of development. There are benefits to them assuming tasks like these.

First, American-made goods and services (we still make stuff, contrary to political talking points) will have new customers. These transitioned jobs are upgrades for these folks. The higher pay will pull many out of poverty, and leave spending money in their pockets.

Plus, some of these American-made products will be brand new, things we’ve never seen before, or improvements on older versions. The less my former company spends on labor and office space, and can redirect those savings into research and development, the more likely this is to happen. I won’t lie, it was an odd, somewhat humbling experience training my replacements. If management can make the transition work though, they owe it to the shareholders (i.e. owners of the company) to do so.

Though my three remaining colleagues are likely facing rough seas in the coming months, they have options, like changing career tracks altogether. They could take the slightly longer route like I did when I went back to grad school.

Or, there is a plethora of certification programs and whatnot at a community college like the one where I teach economics in the evening.

Also, our company is certainly not the first of its size to offer a menu of continuing education. Not a week went by when our team lead didn’t mention the arrival of artificial intelligence, and how we should be prepared for it. AI automation was as much of a threat to my job as moving it overseas.

Diversifying your skillset opens up possibilities. So does going local.

In addition to multinational corporations, metros like San Antonio are also home to numerous midsize companies. They aren’t as likely to move work out of the office, much less to the other side of the world. Small businesses even less so.

The next person to open their own business after getting laid off won’t be the first. This could be the prime time to take the dive, especially if there’s a decent severance package to use as an initial investment. Regardless, financing will find a good idea and viable business plan.

Not only would that provide an independent source of income, but they’d be their own boss. Maybe create a job opportunity for a couple of folks. It might even go gangbusters, attracting customers outside of city limits, creating a sort of trade surplus for the local community.

Politicians like that phrase. “Trade deficit,” not so much.

“We import more than we export.” That’s all they see, it’s bad, end of story. However, something else we import is foreign savings (i.e. foreign direct investment or FDI), the mirror image of the trade deficit.

The aforementioned textile industry of the southeast gradually morphed into a burgeoning automobile industry. The factories that churn out foreign cars exist as a result of FDI. We have one right here on the south side of San Antonio—the Toyota truck plant.

FDI is a vote of confidence. We’re so productive, we simply don’t have enough savings to keep the American machine going ourselves. Moreover, we like to enjoy the proverbial fruits of our labor by buying toys, taking trips, etc. Work hard, play hard.

That productivity is a magnet for foreign investors. They are happy to plug the financial capital gap, confident they’ll earn a good return. That’s just one lesson I’ll take with me to my new gig.

I will be teaching economics, among other subjects, to 8th graders. It’s an incredible opportunity that I’m still trying to process (my daughters didn’t take AP Econ until their senior years!).

This wouldn’t have been possible though, if I’d simply clocked into my old jobs, performed the defined tasks, punched my card at 5:00, and checked-out completely. We have to be ready to adapt in a dynamic economy, just as sure as companies have to adjust if we leave them for another, better opportunity.

The less we’re held back by where we’ve been, the more our kids can lead the way to a brighter tomorrow.

The post Losing My Job to Globalization, and Seeing a Bright Future appeared first on Free the People.

If officials had a decent grasp of history, they’d know the likely outcomes from such efforts: more of the same.

Poverty is the natural, initial state. Society wasn’t just born into affluence; it had to be created. As new Argentine president Javier Milei reminded attendees at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland last month, humans trudged along for hundreds of years at little more than subsistence level.

Then, at the elbow of the classic hockey stick graph he cited, economic growth started skyrocketing. A few things coincided with that.

The Industrial Revolution and the publication of Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations” were two. If the only achievement of that book was promoting the virtues of specialization, it would have been enough.

Another thing that happened the same year that Mr. Smith’s book was published: the United States was born. When a society prioritizes simplicity in government, citizens are freer. When they’re freer, they produce and trade more. That is what immigrants found when they came here.

Fast forward a couple centuries.

Poverty was in free-fall after the dust had settled from World War II. We had learned the lesson from protectionist measures like the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was formed, and trade barriers started falling.

Bretton-Woods fixed numerous currencies to the dollar, which itself was pegged to gold. This stable measure of value enabled more certainty in investment, which is the driver of prosperity.

President Eisenhower was determined to keep the federal budget balanced, which emboldened JFK to cut marginal tax rates. Then LBJ declared war on poverty, and the free-fall stopped.

Financial hardship can be a complicated circumstance for an individual—job loss, divorce, death of the primary earner, substance abuse, mental health issues, etc. Emerging from it can be a challenge. There is one easy way for the community to help: stop the government from making it worse.

Just as there are out in the real world, the government is no doubt populated by people with good intentions. But the programs elected representatives set up, by and large, do not help. When you subsidize something, you get more of it.

To compound matters, some people profit off of poverty.

According to civil rights activist Robert Woodson, $.70 of every taxpayer dollar spent in an effort to alleviate poverty goes to those who administer it. That includes the folks we see on TV whipping up a fury and tugging at heart strings.

Since you don’t ascend to such a position without some smarts, these grievance hustlers must have an inkling of the damage done on the front end that makes this apparatus possible: taking from citizens with the tax bill.

The levies imposed on income, savings, investment and our homes are particularly counterproductive.

When you tax savings, you get less investment, and subsequently less job creation. Taxing labor gets you less savings. And as if the costs of owning a home are not high enough, property taxes put homeowners one step closer to downgrading to a less safe area, further away from family, or worse.

Putting jobs and shelter further out of reach inevitably pushes people closer to destitution.

However politicians try to “move the needle,” it reliably fails. Look no further than the Alamo City’s Ready to Work program. With roughly $163 million in tax revenues, and $61 million spent, 500+ people have been “placed in a quality job.”

That’s more expensive per graduate than college these days, and that’s saying something!

No government employee or bureaucracy can pretend to know about an individual/family’s plight. The solution to poverty on their end is very simple: stop making things worse.

The post Government Aid Only Perpetuates Poverty appeared first on Free the People.

It made me wonder what would be more punishing: listening to CC, or reading Mr. Krugman’s “Beware of Economists Who Won’t Admit They Were Wrong”?

In it, he calls out “the unwillingness of some influential economists and officials to accept the fact“ that “inflation came down amazingly fast at no visible cost.” They should admit “that they got it wrong.”

Not once in his piece however, does Mr. Krugman mention housing.

Regardless whether one rents or pays a mortgage, it’s a large and growing portion of a family’s budget. The more that line-item bulges, the less likely one is to buy. That’s a trend we’ve been seeing for much of this century thanks to a poor monetary regime.

The cynic would ask if housing has now been excluded from “core inflation.” That is the Federal Reserve’s “preferred” indicator on fluctuating prices. Like Mr. Krugman’s omission of housing prices, it also indicates the Fed’s disconnect from regular folks.

“Core” differs from the headline inflation rate in that it excludes food and energy prices, ostensibly due to their “volatility.” That’s rather convenient considering these biggest necessities of life are some of the most sensitive to a volatile currency.

It’s no coincidence that, even before the shutdowns, these three items’ prices were less stable than other goods and services we buy.

Unfortunately, to even begin to get that point across to government, establishment and media elites, we’d have to use their preferred pronouns for “shutdowns.” In Mr. Krugman’s case, that would be “covid disruptions.”

That makes the irony of the title of his column particularly choice.

He and his coterie don’t appear to have had the epiphany that the shutdowns were unnecessary at best, and haphazard at worst. The “supply chain issues” that contributed to exorbitant prices were merely “kinks” to be sorted out, in his telling.

As if that’s not enough, there are other key measures that he ignores. One is the labor force participation rate (LFP).

One happy stat he cites is that the unemployment rate has remained under 4%. This runs contrary to the old way of thinking that, to fight inflation, unemployment must rise.

There are a few measures that I regularly tell my students must be coupled with other, equally important ones. Foreign direct investment balancing the widely-accepted, downbeat trade deficit is one. LFP is another.

It must be included in any serious discussion about the employment picture. A lower percentage of workers being jobless means little when fewer people are looking for work in the first place.

As of now, the LFP hasn’t fully recovered to pre-shutdown levels.

People are also facing rising insurance costs, property taxes, etc. Even concert ticket prices are a good deal higher than usual. Megadeth frontman Dave Mustaine is the latest to chime in on that.

Regardless, my buddies and I will probably find a way to that show in May. I think I’d rather have my senses assaulted by a death metal concert than a Nobel Laureate who doesn’t give the full picture of our current condition.

The post When Paul Krugman Started Authoring Babylon Bee Headlines appeared first on Free the People.

Among other things, our company attempts to navigate supply chain issues for clients as effectively and efficiently as possible. Doing so helps them flourish, and when they succeed, their employees prosper, their owners profit, and we shine as well.

And it could be better.

One of the most detrimental things we’ve faced in the last few years has been soaring consumer prices. Part of that has been with us for a couple decades; inflation.

This stems from poor U.S. monetary policy. We’ve seen it manifest itself in high prices at the pump, at the grocery store (ironically, two metrics the Federal Reserve excludes from some of their stats), in housing, etc.

The other part has been a shock to global supply networks. Though that started creeping in a few years prior as a result of former President Donald Trump’s protectionist bent, it went into overdrive following the political reaction to the coronavirus.

Leaders the world over shut down businesses they deemed non-essential. Workers were sent home and all but put under house-arrest, ostensibly for our own safety.

Elected officials gave little to no thought to the unintended consequences of fighting a virus that had a couple of well-defined victim demographics (seniors and those with other medical conditions) and an overall 99+% survival rate.

In this case, when supply chains were broken apart and governments simply handed out cash to people whose jobs evaporated, it was a perfect storm for skyrocketing prices.

During the chat with my boss, I wondered; if corporate decisions are supposed to take into account societal well-being (as per ESG), beyond what they provide via employment, innovation, etc., should educating their employees on this type of fallout be included?

Wouldn’t being hip to policy choices that hit the poorest hardest fit here?

This isn’t so much a political point as it is one of logic and reason. The only time politics would enter the discussion is if companies, their trade associations, etc. lobby for preferential treatment. Or if their officials or associated political arms (PACs) make campaign donations.

If misinformation is a genuine concern, then employees should be aware that it’s not “greed” that compels companies to raise prices, for example. It’s more likely that the cost of inputs has subsequently risen, and/or the dollar has been allowed to depreciate in value.

Moreover, what some refer to as “greed,” others refer to as “profit motive,” without which we see less innovation, less competition. We subsequently endure lower quality and higher prices.

If companies want to put on workshops about taking care of the earth, or seminars promoting awareness of traditionally oppressed groups (both noble goals), should they not also shine a light on the consequences of poor decisions by people they vote for?

The post An Improved ESG appeared first on Free the People.

It’s no different here in Texas, and maybe why it has proven a tough haul to this day as the legislature debates it in a current special session.

At the end of the day though, you can’t go wrong with “parental prerogative” and “freedom.” That’s the entire, simple premise behind “school choice.”

Public schools are funded largely based on where you live. The property taxes you pay go to your geographically-based independent school district (ISD). The state and the federal government kick in a portion, but where you go is determined by your address.

This is a large driver of inequities.

It goes without saying that some neighborhoods and communities are more affluent than others. That results in an imbalance of property tax collections between ISDs. Some kids therefore have more resources than others with which to further learning.

Remedies have been tried, perhaps most notably 1993’s so-called Robinhood law here. It basically “recaptures” excess property tax revenue from wealthier ISDs and redirects them to poorer ones.

And yet here we are, three decades later with standards and outcomes generally regarded to (still) be on the decline. Hence, the special session. Enter “school choice,” or “vouchers,” or “educational savings accounts (ESAs),” or whatever demonized moniker you prefer.

In any case, if a taxing jurisdiction collects $1 million for public education for example, and there are 100 students living within that jurisdiction, each would get $10K for tuition to go to whichever school they and their guardians choose.

And therein lies the rub: using “public dollars” for “private schools.”

Advocates for government/public sector activism tend to quickly forget where those funds came from: productive citizens who actually earned and saved them in the first place. Once they are taken and pushed through the bureaucracy, voila; “public dollars.”

Somewhere, Saul Goodman nods in approval.

From there, much depends on whether or not you believe in equality of opportunity (EoO). Without question, children are the most vulnerable demographic in society. If anyone personifies the EoO ideal, it’s them. Hence, the generally broad support for publicly-funded education.

Public schools are another story. There is a difference.

If lack of funds was the main driver behind the suboptimal state of K-12, the solution would be easy. However, enough citizens understand that you can’t keep throwing good money after bad and expect different results. That’s colloquially referred to as “insanity.”

What is lacking is the same thing that is absent from lumbering government operations: competition and the threat of going out of business.

By and large, public schools don’t have to compete for customers. They have a captive audience. When providers of services have to joust with competitors though, they have more incentive to deliver a superior good.

In addition to a deadweight anchor, property taxes also serve as a socioeconomic wedge. People with means migrate to wealthier areas in part because of surrounding schools perceived to be of greater quality. Those without are left behind.

The vicious cycle continues.

Even though that breeds some opposition from those entrenched in the more well-resourced areas, hypocritical politicians and bureaucrats are the biggest enemy of equality and progress.

The landscape is replete with those who oppose and vote against greater choice, but yet send their own kids to private schools. It’s the height of obscenity and condescension to leverage political status to keep the less-powerful down.

This abuse of power and crippling of educational opportunities could start to be remedied by instituting the proper, natural course: fully empowering parents, families and their children to chart their own destiny. Precisely no one has a more vested interest in their future.

That’s where “accountability” starts and ends.

The post Using Public Dollars for Private Schools appeared first on Free the People.

If the donors have business before the legislature (or a local body) though, how proper is it that they give at all? That question popped to mind after perusing local campaign finance reports.

If a group wants to support a candidate who defends a woman’s control over her reproductive ability, OK. If another one geared toward lowering the tax burden on citizens wants to do the same, fine.

Whether it’s securing the right to defend yourself with guns, or shielding individuals from discrimination based on race, sexual orientation, etc. we’re dealing in terms of personal freedoms.

What if, on the other hand, we’re talking about an engineering company, or its PAC (political action committee) that is donating? How about a construction or real estate business?

As questionable as it is to be on the giving end, it’s completely noxious to be on the accepting end. It sends the wrong message, especially when the elected representative does not reject the funds.

For one, it arguably says you’re for sale as a policymaker.

Donors might claim it gets them access, and that if they don’t, someone else will step in line ahead of them. That’s still concerning, but point taken.

This is where the officeholder should make clear that access, not to mention their vote, is not up for auction. Otherwise, they embody the adage that “the second oldest profession (politics) bears a close resemblance to the oldest (prostitution).”

This dynamic also narrows the window of opportunity for smaller competitors who can’t afford a line item in their budget for lobbying. Plus, they’re likely too busy trying to stay in business, now having to work that much harder to overcome this additional government-created barrier.

And it’s not difficult to uncover these connections, though they exist on a sliding scale of transparency.

Some donors make no mention of the companies that they own that will benefit. Others do. Some go to the trouble to set up a PAC to carry out the favor-buying, but name it the same as the benefiting company.

Still others are so brazen in their contributions, that they misspell their names by one letter, or add a suffix like “Jr.” so as to circumvent donation limits altogether.

And so shameless are some politicians that they push to raise those limits.

I have the utmost respect for business owners and entrepreneurs. The risks they take, and the rewards that the rest of society derive from it, are things I try to shine a light on in class when discussing the supply side.

That admiration erodes however, when they try to buy a fast-pass to the head of the line. Worse is when elected representatives grant it to them. It’s another way in which they rob from taxpayers by depriving them of a fair bidding process.

Adding insult to injury is when a politician proposes a law to solve this problem. Either they’re naïve enough to think that this will be the law to do it, or it’s a blatant attempt to distract voters. Cue donations from lawyers who benefit from the opportunity to decipher all this.

If we’re really concerned about “mechanism(s) to incentivize good work,” how about clicking the “refund” button on these ethically-questionable high-dollar donations?

The post The Incentive Problem of Politics appeared first on Free the People.