Solution Lies in the Free Market System

On Monday, John P. Holdren criticized global warming skeptics for challenging the scientific "consensus" around global warming. He also accused skeptics of stalling the political process necessary to combat global warming:

The extent of unfounded skepticism about the disruption of global climate by human-produced greenhouse gases is not just regrettable, it is dangerous. It has delayed - and continues to delay - the development of the political consensus that will be needed if society is to embrace remedies commensurate with the challenge. The science of climate change is telling us that we need to get going. Those who still think this is all a mistake or a hoax need to think again.

The Boston Globe printed my response today.

SKEPTICS OF climate change not only doubt the "scientific consensus" behind global warming but the proposed mechanism to combat global warming.

Supporters of decisive action on climate change assume that the federal government must step in and solve the global warming crisis using a "cap and trade" or carbon tax program. Advocates of these programs do not realize that both these mechanisms will severely hamper economic growth, and neither plan will slow global warming.

The only way to slow global warming is to allow entrepreneurs to create more energy-efficient products and technologies. As the demand for these products grows, entrepreneurs will naturally react to market forces and direct their energies to producing more energy-efficient products at a cheaper cost. Government intervention is not the solution to this problem, the free market is.

More on Food Stamps

My favorite local archrival, John Edward, responded to a letter I had written to the Lowell Sun in regard to the rise in food stamp use in Massachusetts. My letter was a shorter version of a previous post on this blog, so I did indeed leave out some of the other explanations for the rise.

I sent in my response to the Sun this morning, so I won't make any more comments until they publish it (or toss it in the trash can).

Update: The Sun printed my response here.

Planning the City

Last week's Boston Sunday Globe Magazine contained a profile of Kairos Shen. He is the new chief planner for the city of Boston and is described in the article as "lead visionary" for the city.

The Globe printed my letter to the editor in today's magazine.

After Mayor Menino finishes my reading my letter, I will gladly loan him my copy of The Death and Life of Great American Cities.

Addendum: BHI reviewed Jacobs' The Nature of Economies back in 2000.

Other reasons to flee

Edward Moscovitch argued in a Herald op-ed last week that the exodus of young people from Massachusetts has nothing to do with our high taxes.

Citizens for Limited Taxation's Barbara Anderson replied on Monday arguing that taxes are indeed the problem

I replied on Wednesday arguing that taxes and land-use regulations are the problem.

Civics Lesson for Sal

The Boston Herald published my letter concerning Speaker Salvatore DiMasi's support for the "National Popular Vote" initiative.

Civics lesson for Sal

Speaker Sal DiMasi is wrong for endorsing the National Popular Vote initiative (“Salvatore DiMasi backs abolishing Electoral College process in favor of national vote,” July 1).

The Founders instituted the Electoral College for several reasons. Many argue that a switch to a popular vote system would enfranchise more voters; in fact it would disproportionately give more power to the larger states and metropolitan areas, leaving small states with little or no influence. Candidates would concentrate on densely populated areas where their resources could be more efficiently spent to reach voters. Voters in lesser populated areas would be ignored.

Furthermore, the National Popular Vote movement assumes the traditional, two-party system will hold. This will not be the case. We would see many elections like 1860, where the winning candidate only received 40 percent of the vote. A national popular vote system would encourage regional and issue-specific candidates, making it rare that one candidate would win a majority. A major candidate could only concentrate on his regions of strength and ignore the other parts of the country.

The Founders developed a system that has worked well for 218 years. Why change it now?

John Macek III

A Liberties Czar? Bad Idea

In a break from our daily economics-related posts, I offer my letter to the editor of the New York Times.

A Liberties Czar? Bad Idea

To the Editor:

Re “How to Put Civil Liberties in the White House” (Op-Ed, June 30):

Geoffrey R. Stone argues that the federal government should create an official position dedicated to protecting civil liberties.

While Mr. Stone concedes that the federal government already has an attorney general and many other positions with the same responsibility, he misses a crucial problem: this new civil liberties watchdog would be another political appointee of the executive branch, thus likely to follow the wishes of his boss, the president.

As a presidential appointee, the new civil liberties supervisor would reflect the values of the president. His ideas about what is an appropriate level of liberty would probably not differ from the president’s.

Why should the federal government create a redundant position just to confirm the administration’s viewpoint?

If Americans are really concerned about civil liberties, they should elect officeholders who will uphold the Constitution without the urging of an unnecessary bureaucrat.

John Macek III
Worcester, Mass., June 30, 2008

Simplify Tax Code to Boost Economy

In March, Congress passed the Recovery Rebates and Economic Stimulus for the American People Act of 2008. The bill was designed to stimulate the sluggish American economy.

In Sunday's Worcester Telegram and Gazette, I proposed a better way to stimulate long-term economic growth. The T&G liked my letter so much it named it "Letter of the Week."

Simplify tax code to boost economy

LETTER OF THE WEEK


U. S. Rep. James P. McGovern, D-Mass., said, “It’s their money and they need to decide how to spend it,” in response to the rebate checks currently being issued by Congress (“Found money,” Telegram & Gazette, June 26).

However, Mr. McGovern and his colleagues could better help the economy now and in the future by simplifying the tax code.

Americans have to waste millions of dollars and hours each year trying to figure out how to pay their high taxes.


Simplification of the tax code would leave more hard-earned tax dollars in taxpayers’ pockets, leading to higher economic growth and negating the necessity of these election-year economic stimulus packages.

JOHN MACEK III

Money, corruption, and political power

Janet Domenitz, of MASSPIRG, wrote an op-ed in the Globe last week blaming the ills of our electoral system on "big money" (who happens to be cousins with Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Business, but not Big Bird).

My response was printed in today's Globe.

Income mobility is fact, not fiction

John Edward (not to be confused with presidential wannabe John Edwards) has a monthly column in the Lowell Sun in which he invariably tries to convince the reader that the American dream is dead.

Last Sunday he called upward mobility a myth.

They printed my response this Sunday.

Strickland ignores successful school choice program

Here is my letter to the editor published in last Wednesday's Cleveland PlainDealer.

The June 19 article "Strickland school summit tries to ID what works" discusses Gov. Ted Strickland's desire to help Ohio's children get a good education. Yet, Strickland remains hostile to one of the highest-performing programs: school choice.
The summit is called the Governor's Institute for Creativity & Innovation in Education. Ohio already houses a creative and innovative plan for education in its EdChoice program. Studies show that school choice improves school performance and acts as an option to discourage dropping out.
If Strickland honestly wants to help Ohio's children, he must re-examine his beliefs and embrace the program that has helped education in Cleveland so much.

School Choice Introduces Competition

Here is my letter to the editor published in today's Boston Globe:

AS GOVERNOR Patrick aims to reduce the achievement gap between white and minority students in public education ("Patrick targets gaps in learning," Page A1, June 23), his Readiness Report leaves out the most effective mechanism for improving education for all students in Massachusetts: school choice.

Patrick's plan does not include proposals for a school voucher plan, an education tax credit, or lifting the cap on the number of charter schools. School choice programs have granted access to better education for students across the United States. Governor Patrick recommends creating readiness schools, but these will still fall under the supervision of local school boards, restricting their ability to create modern curricula to properly educate students for the 21st century.

The only way to bring these reforms to public education is to force public schools to compete with their counterparts in the private sector. As Americans have witnessed in the broader economy, competition breeds increased quality and variety. Why is education different?

JOHN MACEK III