The Church of Kharma Futures

The Rev's views on politics, events,faith, and the world. All content copyright Church of Kharma Future 2007-2015 All rights Reserved

Archive for the ‘Constitution’ Category

CEO Pay is Obscene, right?

Posted by revkharma on November 12, 2015

Much has been said recently about the ‘outrageous rate of pay’ received by CEO’s in American Companies. Not just the rate of pay, but the ‘ratio of CEO pay to the average employee’ in the companies they run.

Often , and frequently in the campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, a number is tossed around which shows the drastic and, by implication, immoral disparity, stating that on average American CEO’s are paid somewhere between 295 to 333 times the pay of the average employee of their company. Additionally  there is an accompanying outrage at the fact that CEO’s are receiving huge raises, while employees / workers pay is flat or reduced.

Here are some statistics provided directly by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics to shed some light on this mess

  1. What is the ratio of CEO pay to workers.

The common answer is in the range of 300 to 1.

This is determined by a several widely reported studies:

While the huge multi-million pay packages of a few hundred CEOs get all of the media attention, what usually receives much less attention is the small number of CEOs represented in the annual salary surveys, especially compared to the total number of CEOs in the US. For example, the WSJ’s executive compenstation survey last year included only 300 CEOs at large, U.S.-traded public companies, and the AP analyzed compensation figures for only 337 companies in the S&P 500 last year. The AFL-CIO did an analysis of the CEOs of 350 companies in the S&P 500 in 2013 and then computed a “CEO-to-worker pay ratio” of 331 times, up from a ratio of 300 ten years ago and 200 twenty years ago.

But as they say, facts are stubborn things.  The key detail in the above referenced studies is the number of companies surveyed, which is fewer than 400 companies. These are also among the highest performing, largest grossing corporations in America. This cherry picking will necessarily distort the results.

When the analysis is broadened to cover a more representative sample of  companies, with data supplied by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics:
 The BLS report provides “employment and wage estimates by area and by industry for wage and salary workers in 22 major occupational groups, 94 minor occupational groups, 458 broad occupations, and 821 detailed occupations

 

The information then presents a far different picture. In fact, the average pay for 246,240 CEO’s surveyed totals to $180,700. While this is surely not minimum wage, it is not exorbitant for someone who is charged with running the entire company.  When this figure is used to calculate the ratio of pay for CEO compared to average worker, the true figure drops to less than 4 to 1, or 3.83 to 1 for last year(2014).

  1. Why do CEO’s get huge raises while workers do not?

Once more, lets look at the BLS numbers for some factual answers:

For the larger sample of CEOs reported by the BLS, their average pay of $180,700 last year was an increase of only 1.3% from the average CEO pay of $178,400 in 2013. In contrast, the BLS reports that the average pay of all workers increased by 1.7% last year to $47,230 from $46,440 in 2013. That’s right, the average worker last year saw an increase in their pay that was more than 30% greater than the increase in pay for the average US CEO.

 

So, when correct information is supplied for analysis, rather than skewed and partial figures lumped into statistics for a particular agenda we see that the rallying cry of the ‘Occupy’ crowd and the socialists and the various political activists, we can see that American CEO’s are paid more than the workers in their companies, they are not ‘immoral and outrageously more’. And once again, those in rank and file of most companies have received pay increases, on average proportionally more than the CEO’s of the companies where they work.

All of this is actually beside the point. The purpose for bashing CEO pay is focused on a purpose of causing a move toward Federal Government regulation of the pay of CEOs of PRIVATE COMPANIES. There is absolutely no constitutional justification or provision for any such role for government, and no amount of skewed analysis of defective statistics should change that.

Here are some sources of reference for the above information:

Bureau of Labor statics report:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ocwage.pdf

American Enterprise Institute analysis of CEO pay:

https://www.aei.org/publication/when-we-consider-all-us-chief-executives-the-ceo-to-worker-pay-ratio-falls-from-3311-to-below-41/

Posted in Big Government, Civil liberties, Constitution, Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Forty Seven to run EVERYTHING

Posted by revkharma on September 10, 2015

For the record, I am not a follower of ‘numerology’. I don’t believe in horoscopes or most of the end times prophesies that pop up every year or so like so many whack a moles. But there is one number that has caught my attention. It’s an important number, and a far smaller than I would have imagined.  I’ll tell you about it quickly, then tell me what you think.

Forty Seven is a magical number. It is a DANGEROUS number.

That is the total number of people who are needed to destroy our republic. 1 president who is willing to act via executive decree. 5 supreme court justices willing to vote against clear language in Constitution  to enable that executive  to continue. 41 senators willing to vote to “filibuster ” to block any legislation which might rein in the lawlessness.
Of course there is a pair of spineless congressional leaders, one in the house and one in the Senate who will lay down and not fight to defend what they pretend their party  stands for.

Posted in Big Government, Constitution, Freedom, Government Power, liberty, Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Go Ahead.. Shout “FIRE”

Posted by revkharma on May 8, 2015

OK, this is one of the things that has ground my gears for years.

The famous hoary old quote trotted out whenever the libs disagree with something a libertarian or conservative says in public that ”offends them

Immediately they say,(harumph, harumph) “Well free speech is all well and good, and we all know that there is a First Amendment.

BUT….. We all know that YOU CAN’T YELL FIRE IN A CROWDED THEATER

Then the speaker smiles smugly like the Church Lady, and sits back. The argument is over, and I win! So SHUT UP they explained.

OK, so the quote is not in any law, but was part of an introduction by Justice Holmes in a 1919 court ruling.( US. V Schenck) In that ruling they said a pamphlet against the draft that contained the phrases ‘Assert Your Rights” and ‘Do  not submit to intimidation”

Pretty mild stuff, eh?

What is even more interesting is that the entire decision was OVERTURNED IN 1969!!!
(Brandenburg v. Ohio)

The ruling reversed a previous Supreme Court decision setting a new precedent for the “clear and present danger” standard in First Amendment cases. The Court now held that a person’s words were protected as free speech as long as they did not directly incite unlawful action

Court held that all speech,including inflammatory speech, such as in this case by the KKK, is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. The link must be there, the speech MUST directly result in the violent action.

So, next time someone says

Well, we ALL know you can’t shout Fire in a theater and gives that stupid look, the best reply is:

“Oh? What about Brandenburg v. Ohio?

Boom!

Posted in Civil liberties, Constitution, Freedom, Government Power, liberty, Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Responsibility where it belongs

Posted by revkharma on December 4, 2014

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) said that he plans to request federal funding for body cameras. It’s unclear whether Obama, who has made the most high-profile push for body cameras, will get congressional support for his proposal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/12/03/obamas-body-camera-argument-just-took-a-big-hit/

If the Mayor of  NYC feels that his police department needs to have their every move and interaction with the citizens of NYC recorded to prevent allegations of misbehavior he and the taxpaying residents of NYC are welcome to pony up their own cash to pay for it. The use of ‘federal funds’ in reality money confiscated from American Taxpayers around the nation, including from here in South Carolina, should be barred. There is no compelling overriding national interest. The police department of the City of New York may very well be one of the best in the world, But they are NOT the responsibility of the citizens of any other city in the nation.

Posted in administrative power, Big Government, change, Civil liberties, Constitution, distraction | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Questions That Need To Be Asked

Posted by revkharma on November 9, 2014

We have seen a new name floated for AG, Loretta Lynch is a prosecutor from NY.

Without question, she will be biased and partisan. That is part of the deal with this administration.
A few questions should be asked, in my opinion.
1. Do you support the current goals and plans to administratively refuse to prosecute immigration crimes, and will you support executive amnesty?
2. How will your deep ties to the Clinton Administration and your representation of Bill and Hillary Clinton during the Whitewater investigations affect your objectivity?
3. If presented with information and evidence which implicates those who preceded you in this office in potentially illegal or unconstitutional acts during the gun walking, or IRS investigations would you be willing to prosecute such former administration actors?
4. Will you state now, for the record, that you support a fair and neutral application and interpretation of EEOC and 14th amendment issues, and agree to follow truly race blind policies and practices while conducting the business of the United States as Attorney General?
5. What is your position on and interpretation on the Second Amendment?
======================
Think anyone in either party would have the C O Jones to ask those questions during confirmation hearings?
If so, think there is a chance in hell of getting any of them answered?

Posted in administrative power, Attorney General, Big Government, Bill of Rights, Cabinet, Civil liberties, condron.us, Constitution, Democrats | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

More info in IRS and Income Tax

Posted by revkharma on June 20, 2014

It was all a political ploy!’

According to Jay Starkman, writing in the Wall Street Journal, the Sixteenth amendment was merely a trick, employed to allow the Congress to pass an excise tax on business.

The Senate boss, Finance Committee Chairman Nelson Aldrich, together with President William Howard Taft concocted a compromise to stop the income tax bill that the House had passed. Congress would immediately pass a 1% “excise” tax on corporate income over $5,000—in effect the rich were being taxed. As a further sop to income-tax advocates, Aldrich would sponsor an income-tax constitutional amendment.

Aldrich was quite candid about his scheme to block the House bill that had been passed, declaring to the Senate: “I shall vote for the corporation tax as a means to defeat the income tax.”

But of course it was not something which those who imposed it had any desire subject themselves to :

After the tax law was passed, judges embraced it—for everyone else, just not themselves. Judges across the land proclaimed that the Constitution prohibited diminishing their salaries (and those of the president and state employees) through taxation. They emphasized the point by issuing court rulings in their own favor, excusing themselves from the tax. This lasted until the Depression, when the force of public opinion essentially shamed them into relenting. Under a law passed in 1932, Franklin Roosevelt became the first president subject to the income tax, but he refused to pay an increased rate that he helped enact in 1934. FDR insisted on paying the lower 1932 rates.

Now they just use the IRS to attack enemies and destroy those who oppose them.

Nice work.

Posted in 16th Amendment, administrative power, Big Government, Civil liberties, Constitution, deception, Fair Tax, Freedom, Government expansion, Government Power, IRS, laws, liberal court | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Now Is The Time To End It.

Posted by revkharma on June 20, 2014

Feb 13, 1913 The United States ratified the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Since that time what was introduced as a way for the wealthiest among us to pay a little more (sound familiar?) has grown and expanded beyond all imagination. Here is a graphic to illustrate:

(Source for this can be found here)

Additional outrage can be gleaned from such things as this:

(Found on Politico)

Rep. Jeff Duncan wants to know why IRS law enforcement agents are training with AR-15 rifles.

As chairman of the House Homeland Security oversight subcommittee, Duncan (R-S.C.) toured a federal law enforcement facility in late May and noticed agents training with the semi-automatic weapons at a firing range. They identified themselves as IRS, he said.

“When I left there, it’s been bugging me for weeks now, why IRS agents are training with a semi-automatic rifle AR-15, which has stand-off capability,” Duncan told POLITICO. “Are Americans that much of a target that you need that kind of capability?

Today during a hearing Paul Ryan in questioning  IRS commissioner John Koskinen stated the following:

You demand that taxpayers present seven years worth of information, yet you can’t maintain six months worth of employee emails?

 

All of this (and much much more) brings to mind only one question:

It is time, if not well past time, for the IRS to be abandoned. It is time to repeal the 16th amendment and dissolve and destroy the Internal Revenue Service and all the dangerous and repressive government coercion it represents and creates.

Time after time, republicans and democrats have used and abused the power of the IRS to compel and control others to advance their own power.

It’s time. NOW.

Posted in 16th Amendment, Bill of Rights, Constitution, corruption, Fair Tax, Government Power, IRS, liberty, Political parties, regulations, Taxation, White House Enemies List | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Outrage, Rights and Moral Failure

Posted by revkharma on June 9, 2014

KHARTOUM (Reuters) – A Sudanese court has sentenced a 27-year-old woman to death for converting to Christianity, judicial sources said.
Mariam Yahya Ibrahim had been ordered to abandon her newly adopted Christian faith and return to Islam. She had also been charged with adultery for marrying a Christian man.

OK, Where is the condemnation from the United Nations? From western nations? From the White House? From the House or Senate? From ANY leaders anywhere in the world??

And one more thing:
“Sudan is committed to all human rights and freedom of faith granted in Sudan by the constitution and law,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Abu-Bakr Al-Siddiq said. He added that his ministry trusted the integrity and independence of the judiciary.

Note the phrasing ‘Granted… by the Constitution and Law…”
The words betry a mindset, one which is different from the original ideas enshrined in the US Constitution. At least originally our founding documents declared that our rights pre-exist and supercede our constitution and laws. Rights co exist with humanity, ‘endowed by their Creater’ and inalienable.
As soon as they are ‘granted by law, or granted by Constitution’, they can be removed or altered by law.
As we in this nation continue to ‘grant rights’ by government fiat, we move quickly toward a legal grant which can be removed also by law.

Watch out, we are moving toward the very standard embraced by the Sudanese.

Posted in Bill of Rights, Civil liberties, Constitution, Culture of Death, Government Power, islamism, Politics, religion of peace, transnational law, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Destructive Seventeenth

Posted by revkharma on December 28, 2012

We all hear over and over about the famous “Checks and Balances” built into the government by the Constitution. Supposedly each of the three branches are separate and equal, in order to prevent any one branch from gaining too much centralized power and moving the nation back toward tyranny.  In recent times we have seen over and over that the balance is portrayed as a balance between the “Two Parties” so one political party does not gain overwhelming power over the levers of government. The last is the most risible of all, as there were no real political parties when the Constitution was written, and as most have heard, outgoing President Washington warned about the danger of parties as he left office.

All of this addresses the balance of power within the Federal Government. All of this also fails to address one area of balance which was intentionally removed, and all but forgotten. This loss, and loss of memory is perhaps the most destructive to our republic.

The loss I speak of is the loss of any check or balance of the power of the Federal government against the states, which was erased by the 17th amendment.

Read the entire thing here:

Patriots Do Not Comply

Keep The Faith

The Rev

Posted in administrative power, Big Government, congressional representation, Constitution, Founders, George Washington, Government expansion, Government Power, Gun crimes, Gun Laws, liberty, Obama Care, Political parties, Politics, Senate, State Supremacy, states rights, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

There is hope for the future

Posted by brotherkharma on November 3, 2010

Once again I will pop out of nowhere, fire off a post and return to normal life.  This time I am cheating a bit.  The following is an essay written by a student in a public high school.  There is hope that despite all efforts to indoctrinate, some students can see the truth.  Let’s call the author…….nephewkharma?  It is long but it was an assignment and I think you too will be a bit more hopeful for the next generation.

Why Deregulation Works Better Than Regulation

In his book, Arguing with Idiots, Glenn Beck writes as if he is having an ongoing conversation with a friend whom he has dubbed an idiot. One particularly amusing passage comes in his chapter about Capitalism where the idiot makes the argument, “We need a new kind of capitalism, one where the government has more control.” To which Beck responds, “Thanks for buying the book, Stalin.” While the exchange was intended for humor, it also makes a point. With that statement Beck says that there is no room for government in private enterprises and business, and he is right. While government regulation is generally harmful to the economy, deregulation provides for a much more profitable economy. There are several proofs of this. One is how regulation is harmful to the economy by restricting a company’s ability to adapt and placing hardships and financial burdens on the working class. Another proof is that deregulation brings more profits and companies to the market and is beneficial to consumers and the working class. Finally, there is proof in the fact that while the New Deal and other government programs were failures, private sectors achieved far greater success. When the facts are examined, it is hard to believe that anyone still believes in regulation of business.

The first fact to be examined is how regulation restricts a company’s ability to adapt to a changing market and to consumer needs. The airline industry is a prime example of regulatory harm to companies. This is because it has experienced complete regulation until 1978, when it was partially deregulated (Hamrin 245). While it was regulated the government controlled prices. The result was that airports couldn’t adjust prices, and the prices set by the government were too low to cover some basic maintenance costs. They had to close a few gates, which limited the number of carriers they could bring in, which cut their profits even more (“Airline Deregulation: The Concise”). Conditions would have been better if the government had allowed them to set their own prices, as will be shown. Yet the prices would not have been too high, because competition in the market would have driven them down. They would have started off initially higher than government prices, just so that the airports could cover the maintenance cost of the gates. After they had a steady income, they would have been able to open more gates. The additional gates would bring in additional carriers, bringing in more profit. Competition in the market would make them lower their prices so that consumers would choose them over their competitors, and the increased profit from the additional gates would allow them to. As previously stated, the airline industry is a great example of how regulation hurts businesses, but it is not the only example. Another prime example would be the United States housing market and the crash.

Many people say the collapse of the housing market was caused by a deregulated, free-market economy, but when the facts are examined the opposite holds true. The United States housing market was far from deregulated. The government wanted to increase home ownership to paint a better picture of the economy and the American dream, and so they began to regulate and set interest rates. (“Price”) According to economist Walter E. Williams in his paper, “The House that Uncle Sam Built,” interest rates provide potential investors with clues and signals as to whether or not to invest. When the investors saw the low-interest rates, they believed this was because the public was becoming more interested in the housing market, when in reality the rates were artificial and manufactured by the government to entice people to buy homes. Investors then made mistakes in investing in the market when public interest was not as high as they were led to believe, and these investing mistakes led to the housing crash. So it is quite apparent that if the government had left the housing market alone and allowed the economy to run the way it should, the housing market crash, which many cite as the cause of the global recession, would never have happened. Interest rates would have been based properly off of market factors, and that many investors would not have made bad investments in the market at the same time, which is what caused the crash. Rather, any poor investments would have been spread out, not doing as much damage to the market. Regulation hurts business in more ways than this, however. It also causes numerous other problems.

Among these problems is a decreased competitiveness between companies, which is essential to operating a business in a free-market economy. Once again, the airline industry is a prime example. As previously stated, airlines were very heavily regulated up to 1978. When deregulation finally came, some of the larger companies that had existed under regulations were hurt by their lack of competitiveness. Up until this point, these companies were not used to having to handle competition. The government had regulated almost everything in the industry, including prices, flight times, and carriers providing which flights. When competition came, large companies such as Braniff had no idea how to change their business plans to be competitive with smaller, more localized airlines. They had plans built around the fact that they flew at these prices at these times, and they were the only ones who flew at those times. So when smaller companies came and offered flights to the same destinations at the same time, but with lower prices or quicker routes or both, Braniff did not know how to properly adapt. Reliance upon government regulation caused Braniff and several other companies to collapse when smaller carriers entered the market (“Airline Deregulation: Lessons”). Without government regulation, these companies would not have become dependent on the government for support. They would have been able to properly adjust their plan and cost structure to compete with the smaller companies. With previous regulation taking away all competition, they had no idea how to do this, nor would they have been able to because of their business structure and cost structure. Because of this, their companies collapsed, costing many American jobs. Regulation does more than just decrease a company’s competitiveness; it also places hardships on many people.

The group most affected by government regulation is the consumers. For this example, the automobile industry is a good reference. From 1967 up to 2001, there were government regulations in the industry that mandated certain safety features, among other things. In that period of time, average cost of a vehicle rose about twenty-two thousand dollars. The mandated safety equipment was expensive, and the only way companies could compensate for costs was to raise the price of their vehicles. Now if the government hadn’t stepped in, the prices would not have gone up that high. Some argue that prices would still have risen, and although that may be true, we’ll never know for sure, but it is true that government regulations and requirements contributed to about a third of vehicle cost increases. (“Price”) So while the regulations maybe made cars a bit safer, it also placed an economic burden on the consumers. If the market had been deregulated, but people wanted safer cars, they could have opted to pay the higher price for the more expensive car. Instead, the government mandated the safety regulations and therefore indirectly took that choice away from the public. The automakers had to raise the prices, placing a burden on the consumers. Another example of how regulation places a burden on the working class can be found in the electricity industry in Texas. In 2001, the electric industry was regulated in Texas. The government deregulated the industries, and prices plunged. The average price of an electric plan in 2009 after deregulation was substantially lower than the average in 2001. Across the board in all companies and in all companies’ plans, every single rate for every plan went down (“The Success”). Obviously, the deregulation helped the market immensely. It is important to deregulate fully, as the Texas electric industry was. If an industry is only partially deregulated, there will only be partial success. Full deregulation has many benefits, as does even partial deregulation, though there is less success there.

One of these main benefits is a generally more profitable business environment, characterized by higher profits and more companies. For example, railroads were partially deregulated in 1981. As previously stated, partial deregulation will bring only partial success, but even this partial success brought a profit increase of forty-four per cent by 1984 (Hamrin, 246). After the airline industry was partially deregulated, fares have fallen twenty-five per cent. Economists say that if they continued under regulation, the fares would have fallen only three per cent. (“Airline Deregulation: Lessons”) Also, while regulated, no interstate carriers were granted permission to open, but after deregulation twenty-six new carriers opened from 1978-1988 (Hamrin, 246). The change in the railroad industry was drastic. A profit increase of forty-four per cent in only three years, and that is only under partial deregulation. Based on those numbers, the profits under full deregulation would be incredibly high. Some argue that full deregulation would mean an increase in control of the top companies, and a growth in “Big Business” but the airline industry proves quite the opposite. Rather than smaller companies being forced into bankruptcy, twenty-six new carriers were formed. Now it is apparent that deregulation is beneficial to companies, but many people are mistrustful of business in general. Deregulation does not only benefit companies, however.

Deregulation also benefits consumer and the working class. With an increased freedom for competitiveness, deregulated airlines resulted in more choices and even more services offered to consumers. Among these choices were city-pairs, which are flight direct from one city to another with no stops or connecting flights. After deregulation, there was a fifty-five per cent increase in city-pairs, which are quicker and more convenient for flyers (Hamrin 245). Obviously, quicker service and more convenience are positive aspects for consumers, and what is positive for the customer is positive also for the provider, as the customer will be more likely to return and do business again.  Many supporters of regulation say that regulation protects small business and keeps Big Business in check. This is a common misconception. In fact, the opposite holds true. In an article “Big Business and Big Government” published on the CATO institute’s website, Timothy P. Carney points out this flaw in thinking. He writes, “The facts point in an entirely different direction . . . Enron was a tireless advocate of strict global energy regulations supported by environmentalists. Enron also used its influence in Washington to keep laissez-faire bureaucrats off the federal commissions that regulate the energy industry.” Enron would not try to keep laissez-faire politicians off of federal commissions if deregulation increased its control over the business. So clearly, it must be that deregulation threatens its power. Carney goes on to explain that newer, smaller business cannot keep up financially with all the government regulations, whereas big businesses have the resources to easily afford whatever regulations the government puts in place. They use government regulations to keep their smaller competitors one step behind and struggling financially under the burden of the regulations, which usually are not quite big enough to do any real damage to big business (“Big Business”). It is not good for consumers or for an economy to have the majority of the financial power residing with a group of large corporations. It reduces customer choices, and prices are more likely to rise, placing a burden on the people. With less competition, business can and will slowly raise their prices. This is the point of business; to make a profit. A free-market economy ensures that these prices do not go out of control. Simply put, if two companies offer the same service or good with similar quality, but one offers it a lower price, consumers will go to the company with the lower prices, forcing companies to have fair, competitive rates. With regulations and restrictions, companies are either forced to raise these prices to cover the cost of these regulations, or they have the freedom to raise them with less competition, as proved above. So it is clear that regulation ultimately ends in failure.

There is no better way to show just how and why these regulations end in failure than to examine government run economic programs such as the New Deal and other programs that amounted to nothing. According to Glenn Beck in his book Arguing with Idiots, the reason that government is ineffective in areas involving economics and business is simple. He writes:

Their motives are completely different. Private companies exist to create wealth, the          government exists (at least in theory to provide protections critical to life, liberty, and the        pursuit of happiness. Private companies closely manage expenses and ensure every dollar      has a return; the government attempts to spend every dollar it’s given and measures     returns in campaign donations and polling data.

If one disagrees that government is incompetent in the business and economics field, he or she need only look over previous regulations and programs and find the proof. During the New Deal, Roosevelt thought it would be a good idea to seize all the banks and make them close during a national “banking holiday” as it was called. After the so-called holiday, five thousand of the banks did not re-open. The majority of failed banks were in states with unit banking laws, which forbade a bank from opening new branches to lessen risk. Now this could be circumstantial, but further evidence proves otherwise. In Canada, there were no such laws, and banks could feel free to open new branches wherever and whenever they like. The number of bank failures in Canada at this time was a grand total of zero (“Great Myths” 8). The logical conclusion is that the unit banking laws caused the banks to fail. The banks were not allowed to open new branches, so when there was an opportunity to make more profits in another area, they were unable to seize that opportunity. Obviously, these banks needed the extra profit badly, or they would not have failed. In Canada these banks could open new branches when they got into financial troubles, and the new revenue could save their company. So it is clearly established that government regulation and government programs ultimately end in little or no success.

In contrast, private sectors have achieved far greater success. When hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, both government agencies and private charities rushed to help. The government also put forth numerous recovery plans. The majority of these failed miserably. For example, Ray Nagin, the mayor of New Orleans, put forth over three hundred public projects and rebuilding efforts. Almost three years later, only six were complete. Conversely, Wal-Mart was having incredible success. One hundred and twenty-six of Walmart’s stores had been severely damaged in the hurricane. Within ten days, one hundred and ten of them were up and running (Arguing). It is hard to believe those numbers. In less than two weeks, Wal-Mart had completed recovering eighty-seven per cent of its stores, while in over three years less than two percent of the government programs were completed. Obviously the private company had much better success than the government; the facts do not leave room for any interpretation. New Orleans recovery is not the only example of the government versus private companies though.

For an additional example of how private sectors achieve greater success than government-run operations, the National Center for Educational Statistics offers this interesting report. Private school students in the fourth grade outscored public school students by 14.7 points in reading, and 7.8 points in math. By the eighth grade, private school students were outperforming their public school counterparts by 18.1 points in reading and 12.3 points in math (“Comparing Private Schools”). As the students in the private school advanced through the grades, their scores over the public school students increased by 3.4 points in reading and 4.5 points in math. The longer the student remains in a private school, the more his or her scores improve. Clearly, the private-run schools provide a better education than the government-run schools. Financially, the private schools were better also. Competition in the private, less regulated sector drives efficiency and lower cost. According to that same report, the average annual cost per public school student in 1996 was $6,857. The average tuition in private schools that same year was about half that, at $3,116. Obviously, the government is doing something to raise costs that the private sectors are not. This same basic effect occurs whenever the government attempts to regulate private industries that it should not be involved in.

So it is obvious that government regulation hurts the economy, while deregulation provides for a more profitable business climate. This can be seen in the way regulation restricts companies and places financial burdens on consumers. It can be seen in how higher profits accompany deregulation and the effects of deregulation on the working class. It can be seen when government is directly compared with the private sector. The Founding Fathers drafted our Constitution with distinct goals in mind. Among these goals was the decentralization of power, keeping the federal government as far detached from citizen’s day to day lives as possible. Through regulations and restrictions, however, the federal government has inserted itself into areas it does not belong, with complete disregard for the Constitution. It is time for a change; it is time for the government to realize that the welfare of the economy is more important than its own power. Deregulation can bring many benefits to the economy where regulation can only cause more harm. It is time to deregulate, before it is too late.

Posted in administrative power, bailout, bank takeover, Big Government, Bill of Rights, Constitution, corruption, Democrats, economics, federal reserve, Federal reserve bank, gold, gold standard, international money, monetary policy, Obama, Obama Administration, Political parties, TARP, Tea Parties, unconstitutional | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »