Inane Ramblings

30 June 2007

Libertarian Saturday

Good Morning!

You're probably sitting down about now to your morning cereal....but have you given any thought recently to how much you paid for that milk? The government has been artificially propping up milk prices since the Great Depression, and Congress is working on a new farm bill that will continue that policy. Well guess what? It's a regressive tax that is borne mostly by the poorest among us.

Consider the illogic of federal dairy policies. They jack up milk prices for millions of families at the same time that other programs, such as food stamps, aim to reduce food costs. And although federal law generally prohibits cartels, a federal dairy cartel enforces high milk prices. If Coke and Pepsi got together and agreed to hike prices, they would be prosecuted. But with milk, raising prices is government policy.

The trouble started in 1930s with "marketing order" regulations. Those rules set minimum prices that dairy processors must pay to dairy farmers in 10 regions of the country. Today, about two–thirds of milk is produced under federal marketing orders, and most of the rest is produced under similar state schemes such as California's.

Marketing orders limit competition, because entrepreneurs are not allowed to supply milk at less than the government prices. The system also restricts milk from lower–cost regions, such as the Midwest, from gaining market share in higher–cost regions, such as the Southeast. Government data show that residents of Cincinnati paid an average $2.68 for a gallon of milk in 2006, while those in New Orleans paid $4.10, and government policy is largely to blame.

On top of marketing orders, Congress added a dairy price–support program in 1949. This program helps to keep prices high by guaranteeing that the government will purchase any amount of cheese, butter, and dry milk from processors at a set minimum price.

In 2002, Congress added an income support program for dairy farmers, which distributes cash payments whenever prices fall below target levels. Perversely, this program causes overproduction and thus downward pressure on prices — in direct opposition to the price support program, which tries to raise milk prices.

To enforce artificially high prices, the government imposes import barriers on milk, butter, cheese, and other products. Without those barriers, consumers could simply purchase lower–priced foreign goods. Imports of cheese, butter, and dried milk are limited to about 5 percent or less of U.S. consumption.

All these policies add up to higher prices. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development found that U.S. policies create a 26 percent "implicit tax" on milk consumers. That "milk tax" is regressive, meaning that it harms low–income families the most.

The Government Accountability Office compared U.S. dairy prices to world prices over the period 1998 to 2004. It found that U.S. prices for butter averaged twice the world price, cheese prices were about 50 percent higher, and dry milk prices were 24 percent or more higher.

Dairy entrepreneur Hein Hettinga started a dairy farm and milk bottling plant in Arizona in the 1990s outside of the government system. He sold his milk to Arizona stores and to Costco in California at 20 cents per gallon less than the government–regulated milk.

Established milk businesses were not happy with the new competition, and they spent millions of dollars lobbying Congress to intervene. At the behest of home–state dairy interests, Democrats and Republicans teamed up in 2006 to change the law and crush Hettinga.

Based on his experience, Hettinga lamented, "I had an awakening … it's not totally free enterprise in the United States."


Our favorite Libertarian Congressman, Ron Paul (R-TX) has chimed in about the stem cell debate. Never mind the pandering to the religious wingnuts, by vetoing the bill, the "president" has usurped your rights as a taxpayer. But that's nothing new with this "administration".


The debate in Washington has again turned to federal funding of stem cell research, with President Bush moving to veto legislation passed recently by Congress. Those engaged in this debate tend to split into warring camps claiming exclusive moral authority to decide the issue once and for all.

On one side, those who support the President’s veto tend to argue against embryonic stem cell research, pointing to the individual rights of the embryo being discarded for use in research. On the other hand are those who argue the embryo will be discarded any way, and the research may provide valuable cures for people suffering from terrible illnesses.

In Washington, these two camps generally advocate very different policies. The first group wants a federal ban on all such research, while the latter group expects the research to be federally-subsidized. Neither side in this battle seems to consider the morality surrounding the rights of federal taxpayers.

Our founding fathers devised a system of governance that limited federal activity very narrowly. In doing so, they intended to keep issues such as embryonic stem cell research entirely out of Washington’s hands. They believed issues such as this should be tackled by free people acting freely in their churches and medical associations, and in the marketplace that would determine effective means of research. When government policies on this issue were to be developed, our founders would have left them primarily to state legislators to decide in accord with community standards.

Their approach was also the only one consistent with a concern for the rights and freedom of all individuals, and for limiting negative impacts upon taxpayers. When Washington subsidizes something, it does so at the direct expense of the taxpayer. Likewise, when Washington bans something, it generally requires a federal agency and a team of federal agents— often heavily-armed federal agents—to enforce the ban. These agencies become the means by which the citizenry is harassed by government intrusions. Yet it is the mere existence of these agencies, and the attendant costs associated with operating them, that leads directly to the abuse of the taxpayers’ pocketbooks.


Lastly this morning, there's been a growing rumble calling for the restoration of the fairness doctrine...not surprisingly, the right is getting all defensive about their radio stations. While more government regulation might not be truly Libertarian, in this instance I'd support it, since the doctrine calls for equal time and indeed, fairness for all interested parties. That is the mission of government, to protect the rights of the people.

On its face, quantifying the conservative domination of talk-radio is about as valuable as studying the leftward lean in women's studies departments at American universities. The conventional wisdom is that during the 1980s, talk-radio tapped into a substantial group of angry, white and mostly male listeners who blamed their perceived loss of influence on what they believed were real powers in American society: feminists, gays, black kids applying for affirmative action programs and potty-mouthed Hollywood screenwriters. It was a niche market - AM radio was a dying format waiting for an infusion of energy - and the Limbaughs and Hannitys gave the people what they wanted.

But if that were all there was to the phenomenon, a new report by the Center for American Progress and the Free Press on right-wing talk's domination of the airwaves wouldn't be causing as much chagrin among conservative commentators as it has. The report, (PDF), "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio," is stirring up the right-wing squawkers because its analysis flies in the face of conventional wisdom; Right-wing talk doesn't dominate AM radio because of the magical hand of a functional free market, it dominates thanks to multiple market failures. Even worse, those failures represent a strong case for better regulation of what goes out on the public's airwaves.

The report contrasts the amount of right-wing talk - nine out of every ten hours broadcast on talk-radio is exclusively conservative - with a talk-radio audience that, according to Pew Research, identifies itself as follows: forty-three percent of regular talk radio listeners are conservative, while "23 percent identify as liberal and 30 percent as moderate." In other words, fewer than half of those listening to some of the most feverish voices on the right are themselves self-identified conservatives.

The report also shows that in markets where progressive and liberal talk has proven itself to be competitive, conservative programming still dominates the airwaves. The authors note: "[A]lthough there is a clear demand and proven success of progressive talk" in these markets, "station owners still elect to stack the airwaves with one-sided broadcasting." In radio, the "market" simply isn't meeting consumers' tastes.

That observation is what has so many on the right up in arms about the report (the Center for American Progress reports that they have never received such "vitriol" following the publication of previous studies). The report found evidence to support what critics of media concentration have long maintained: that for some media owners, advancing a series of political narratives can be just as much in their interest as a healthy bottom line ever was.

An analysis of all 10,506 licensed commercial radio stations found that stations "owned by women, minorities, or local owners are statistically less likely to air conservative hosts or shows." In contrast, "stations controlled by group owners-those with stations in multiple markets or more than three stations in a single market-were statistically more likely to air conservative talk." Markets that aired both conservative and progressive programming were "less concentrated than the markets that aired only one type of programming and were more likely to be the markets that had female- and minority-owned stations."

Meanwhile, the national trend is towards ever more concentrated media companies - local ownership is becoming harder and harder to find in many American markets. Advocates of deregulation have long insisted that it would lead to more rather than less diverse viewpoints on the airwaves, but the opposite has occurred.


That's enough for a summer weekend....We're off to another birthday party today for one of Javi's young friends. And it's the last weekend before we head for Florida! Gonna get an oil change, wash the car, and start packing!







21 June 2007

Campaign Kickoff!

Good Morning!

Well, I spent an interesting evening at the Waltham VFW last night. It was the campaign kickoff for my friend Ken Doucette, who is running for Mayor of this city.

Yes, I'm on the campaign staff. It hasn't been determined what I'll be doing yet, but I'm hoping for campaign blogger....an area I'm a bit familiar with. There's always MySpace and Facebook, too!

Ken is my age, and we even attended Bunker Hill Community College at the same time, although I didn't know him then. He's also an Eagle Scout of Troop 211...and that's enough for me.

This city is facing a number of challenges, and I was stunned to learn that several problems that are constantly raised by citizens have actually been addressed, and even funded...but the city is so badly managed right now that these projects have never been completed.

Have you driven on Main Street Waltham recently? I don't need to tell you about the traffic. What you probably didn't know was the poor condition of the stoplights along the main line. Many of these are simply on timers, and the lights don't react to traffic conditions...they just change on their schedule. The city has funded the installation of "traffic loops", which are embedded in the street and detect the traffic flow, and the lights react accordingly. This project has never been done, mostly due to mismanagement and lack of communication among city departments under the current administration.


Ken is certainly no flash-in-the-pan...he's been an elected member of City Council for the past 7 years, and has been instrumental in more than a few of the more public things around the city. Recently, Ken was instrumental in getting the Memorial Circle built on the common, honoring Waltham citizens who have given their lives in the wars of these United States.

Ken also took the lead in changing several local zonings from residential to conservation land, thus preserving open space in the city and keeping it out of the hands of greedy developers. (One of the key points the current administration has not done - the city is far too overdeveloped).

Perhaps his biggest achievement, and the one with the most impact on the future of this city, was the just completed six month project to update the city's master plan. I could only shake my head at how long it has been since the plan was updated. No, it wasn't 2000. It wasn't even 1990. If you can believe it, the City of Waltham has not had a master plan since 1950.

So, I'm hoping for a succesful campaign...at the very least, I'll gain some valuable knowledge from the experience.


I'll leave you a couple of tidbits...

I was talking to another gentleman, and I remarked how brief the campaign is. Ken announced last night, and the election is rapidly coming up on November 6, 2007. Would that the presidential election cycle was that brief!

I also ran into my state Rep, Peter Koutoujian, and I took the opportunity to thank him for his recent vote on defeating the gay marriage ammendment in this state. Imagine my surprise, however, when I discovered that not only does he live in my ward, he's literally two doors away from me on Harris Street. (I do email him all the time, but legislator's private addresses are notoriously hard to come by.)

So, all in all, a succesful start to the campaign. I'll post ocassional updates in this space, and there may yet be a campaign blog or other online resources...