Falsehood #1: In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus, but instead of using it to pay off our debt, the money was used to pay off new tax cuts.
Why it's false: After tax cuts in 2003, from 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. (Even with the recession, 2008 revenues exceeded 2000 revenues by $1T.)
Falsehood #2: The recession meant less money was coming in, and it required us to spend more.
Why it's false: The government spent $278K per job created. In March, 2009 US underemployment stood at 15.6%. In July of 2011, US underemployment stands at 18.7%. This outcome does not substantiate this need.
Falsehood #3: ...if nothing is asked of the top of the income scale.
Why it's false: The top 1% income earners pay greater than 40% of total US government revenue. The bottom 95% pay less than 60% of the total US government revenue.
Falsehood #4:Republicans in the house are insisting on a cuts-only approach.
Why it's false: The House of Representatives passed a bill entitled Cut, Cap, and Balance. It raises the debt ceiling by $2.4T, as requested by the Democrats.
Falsehood #5: Most Americans don't understand how we can ask a Senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare benefits before we ask a corporate jet owner or the oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don't get.
Why it's false: The oil companies benefit from a $4B per year tax credit. Eliminating the corporate jet loophole would increase government revenue by $3B over the next decade. The federal debt is >$14T. If the US government collected 100% of income earned above $250K/year, 100% of all fortune 500 company profits, and 100% of the assets owned by individuals worth $1M or more, the US government could only pay for January through August of the 2011 budget. Loopholes aside, the rich pay their fair share.
Falsehood #6: If [a spending cuts only approach] happens and we default, we would not have enough money to pay all of our bills, bills that include monthly social security checks.
Why it's false: Social security has a trust fund and revenues capable of funding all social security checks through the end of President Obama's current term. A prioritization of loan payments avoids a default of any kind, which the government has sufficient revenue to pay without a debt ceiling increase.
Falsehood #7: Our AAA rating would be downgraded. Interest rates would skyrocket.
Why it's false: See answer to falsehood #6. Side Note: The US risks a loss of it's AAA rating and skyrocketing interest rates with an increase of it's debt to GDP ratio, which a debt ceiling increase will cause.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Making a Case for Federalism
On 7/24, a story ran about Dodd-Frank where Amy Friend illustrates pigs feeding at the troughs, even the very ones they’ve built.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/07/dodd-franks-winners-revolving-door-regulators
This story addresses the same issue at a macro level. American public loves to rail against lobbying while hailing the regulations that enable it. There’s no coincidence lobbying escalated over the past decade and regulations such as Sarbanes-Oxley, Obamacare, and Dodd-Frank passed. During the dot com boom, tech industry focused more of its investment in products and personnel. After the Microsoft anit-trust trials, they now spend on lobbying. Tax dollars leave states to the federal government, and the states have to grovel to get those dollars back. State legislators even have lobbying representation! These circumstances call for state to do more while the federal government does less with respect to taxing and regulating. This also has a role in solving our debt crisis because states can’t print money. They have to balance their budgets. This way, conservative locales could have the regulations and taxing they want while liberal locales could respectively have the same, and we could all happily coexists with less lobbying related gridlock in
Washington.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/07/dodd-franks-winners-revolving-door-regulators
This story addresses the same issue at a macro level. American public loves to rail against lobbying while hailing the regulations that enable it. There’s no coincidence lobbying escalated over the past decade and regulations such as Sarbanes-Oxley, Obamacare, and Dodd-Frank passed. During the dot com boom, tech industry focused more of its investment in products and personnel. After the Microsoft anit-trust trials, they now spend on lobbying. Tax dollars leave states to the federal government, and the states have to grovel to get those dollars back. State legislators even have lobbying representation! These circumstances call for state to do more while the federal government does less with respect to taxing and regulating. This also has a role in solving our debt crisis because states can’t print money. They have to balance their budgets. This way, conservative locales could have the regulations and taxing they want while liberal locales could respectively have the same, and we could all happily coexists with less lobbying related gridlock in
Washington.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Self Defense is a Human Right
Events at the Caribbean Carnival serve as another example of what dangers DC residents regularly face. This incident and others connected to it have resulted in harm to innocent bystanders. DC residents can find themselves in the paths of vicious, violent perpetrators at any time. Each person is endowed with the human right of self defense. Whether and how is for that individual to choose, but DC government impedes upon this by infringing upon our right to carry concealed firearms. As the article documents, gangs and teen mobs are increasingly tech savvy, creative, and ambitious. Police can’t be on scene at a second’s notice. 3:42 elapsed during video capturing Saturday’s melee before a policeman enters the footage. A lot can happen in 3:42. It’s time for the mayor and council to get real about gun ownership.
Video link: http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhafNEnJmHv3Sr08EL
Video link: http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhafNEnJmHv3Sr08EL
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Budget Battles of the 112th
As of today, April 9, the House Republicans and Senate Democrats respective leadership has reached a deal to cut $38.5B from the federal budget so as to avert a government shutdown. This deal came at the eleventh hour leading up to the shutdown on Friday, April 8. This deal doesn't amount to a formally passed continuing resolution just yet, but assuming no hang-ups in the process, this will become law within a few days. The numbers of cuts discussed include an initial $100B proposed by the GOP. Senate Democrats responded with $30B. Then, the Tea Party caucus insisted for no less than $60B in cuts, and now both sides have come to agree to the $38.5B figure.
Let's consider these numbers. The $30B cuts proposed by the Democrats amount to 4% of the budget and 0.4% of the total us debt, roughly $14T. This budget battle for fiscal year 2011 addresses only a timeline up until October 1 of this year, when the 2012 budget will begin, assuming the Congress actually passes one unlike they failed to do by October 2010.
So I pose the following question: why have the Republicans and the Tea Party caucus spent so much time and energy on FY 2011? The debt ceiling and budget for FY2010 stand as much larger and more critical battles. Rand Paul and Paul Ryan have both produced their own respective budget plans for how to address the countries arduous debt and running deficits. Getting either one of these plans in place, or even just portions thereof, enacted in any sustainable form is going to require a knock-down, drag-out fight between the Republicans in the House and the Democrats in the Senate and White House.
I understand why representatives like Michelle Bachmann express great frustration over not getting more cuts, but the gains of only removing 8% or less from current federal spending hardly warrant the down-to-the-wire negotiations we've observed. The American public already has a great deal of fatigue over this issue, and with plenty more to come, the House Republicans and Tea Party caucus will have to work overtime to win the media battles to keep the public on their side. The side who wins the PR battles in the media will ultimately get what they want with an election year on the horizon, and the House Republicans not showing the best strategy about which battles to fight has me a little worried. But overall, I think even the staunchest and most firmly grounded Tea Party supports and deficit hawks should look at the passing of this FY 2011 budget as a good thing. Now, time and energy can go to where it will be the most valuable: making the case to the public that America desperately needs a Paul Ryan or Rand Paul approach to the budget.
Let's consider these numbers. The $30B cuts proposed by the Democrats amount to 4% of the budget and 0.4% of the total us debt, roughly $14T. This budget battle for fiscal year 2011 addresses only a timeline up until October 1 of this year, when the 2012 budget will begin, assuming the Congress actually passes one unlike they failed to do by October 2010.
So I pose the following question: why have the Republicans and the Tea Party caucus spent so much time and energy on FY 2011? The debt ceiling and budget for FY2010 stand as much larger and more critical battles. Rand Paul and Paul Ryan have both produced their own respective budget plans for how to address the countries arduous debt and running deficits. Getting either one of these plans in place, or even just portions thereof, enacted in any sustainable form is going to require a knock-down, drag-out fight between the Republicans in the House and the Democrats in the Senate and White House.
I understand why representatives like Michelle Bachmann express great frustration over not getting more cuts, but the gains of only removing 8% or less from current federal spending hardly warrant the down-to-the-wire negotiations we've observed. The American public already has a great deal of fatigue over this issue, and with plenty more to come, the House Republicans and Tea Party caucus will have to work overtime to win the media battles to keep the public on their side. The side who wins the PR battles in the media will ultimately get what they want with an election year on the horizon, and the House Republicans not showing the best strategy about which battles to fight has me a little worried. But overall, I think even the staunchest and most firmly grounded Tea Party supports and deficit hawks should look at the passing of this FY 2011 budget as a good thing. Now, time and energy can go to where it will be the most valuable: making the case to the public that America desperately needs a Paul Ryan or Rand Paul approach to the budget.
Monday, April 4, 2011
A Wisconsin Paradox
Tomorrow, Tuesday, April 5, Wisconsin voters will go to the polls to elect a new judge to the state's supreme court for a ten year term. This election has transformed from one about a judgeship to one as a referendum on Governor Scott Walker and Republican legislators' efforts to reduce the collective bargaining power of union leadership within the State. The Senate stripped budgetary language from the bill in a maneuver to side step the quorum requirement to pass any legislation in reaction to Senate Democrats leaving the state to prevent the legislative business from progressing. The attempts to pass the legislation have sparked protests of angry demonstrators shouting, "Shame!" repeatedly at the legislators in their opposition to the bill's passage. They demonstrated on the stated grounds that this bill attacks their collective bargaining rights. Why does the election of this judge hold such relevance to this matter? Court challenges to the law on the basis of procedure will likely reach the state's supreme court, which will hand down the ultimate decision.
This ongoing saga has sparked strong language from union members about collective bargaining rights, how this bill infringes upon them. But nobody has clearly stated the meaning behind collective bargaining rights. What does it mean? What does it mean to an employee? Collective bargaining means that a group of employees may ban together, choose leadership, and bargain for their compensations with their employer. Collective rights guarantee an individual's ability to participate in this process without fear of retaliation from the employer. To become a member of such a collective, a worker must pay dues to belong to such an organization. Some states within the USA, have Right-to-Work legislation. This means that any employee may enter collective bargaining, but no such organization may compel membership. In states without this legislation, collective bargaining organizations may require that employment comes with a strict coupling of such membership, thus making the dues paid to the collective bargaining organization, i.e. a union, mandatory. Wisconsin does not have Right-to-Work legislation.
So we come to crossroads within the discussion of rights. Do mandatory union dues infringe upon the rights of an individual, or does the individual who choses to negotiate with an employer directly infringe on the rights of the collective? We find this debate far expanding outside of union membership as well. We have an ongoing national debate about whether the government may mandate an individual to purchase a health insurance product. This affects every person, whether they even chose employment associated with a union or not. And beyond health care and collective bargaining, how far should this go? Do we extend it to food products that make overweight people healthy, automobiles that motorists purchase, computing devices business use, clothing types based on cost of production, anti-perspiration products for those who ride crowded subways, birth control for those not financially stable enough to raise children, what people a businessman/woman must hire versus those it may not, etc., etc., etc.? We can make a good case for each how public policy planning could make society as a whole better for all. But we must also ask at what cost? Does it mean an individual cannot make it his or her own way. Does it quash the dreams and ambitions that transform the unimaginable into tangibles we take for granted? Does it stagnate what any one person may dream to achieve, or more simply, does it compromise an individual's ability to merely get by?
At some point, if we keep growing that list, virtually ever person who has some ambition in some facet of life will undoubtedly say such an idea goes too far. If if that person says yes for the thing he or she cares most, then why can't we work backwards from there all the way to the very last thing about which any individual may value? If 1000 employees want to join a union while one single employee does not, do we cast away the free choice of that single employee? Should he or she carry the unwanted obligation of paying for a product, union representation in Wisconsin's circumstances, for which he or she does not want?
Any person who truly values what it means to have a right can only honestly come down on one side of this decision, and that is to affirmatively say yes. If a union's leadership really has the best ideas, they will attract sufficient members to their ranks such that they can effectively bargain with an employer. If a union can't get enough of the employees to voluntarily accept membership in the organization, then it doesn't have the right ideas and questionably has the interests of the worker at heart.
The right of collectively bargaining is paradoxical to the concept of a right. By choosing not to purchase a produce, or membership in this case, infringes upon no other individual's rights. However, the impressment of an individual into such membership absolutely does.
Tomorrow's election will likely have enormous impacts on Wisconsin's collective bargaining future. Incumbent judge David Prosser has not publicly commented on the bill, but reasonable speculation concludes that he would uphold the law passed. A victory by his opponent, current state Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg, would tip the majority towards Left leaning judges on the court, and she has directly stated her intent to strike down the law. While Wisconsin gives us the venue of this fight, it already has will continue to play out in other parts of the nation, especially as financially strapped taxpayers will demand sacrifices from their public employees with tax revenue as their source of compensation.
Pray Prosser wins.
This ongoing saga has sparked strong language from union members about collective bargaining rights, how this bill infringes upon them. But nobody has clearly stated the meaning behind collective bargaining rights. What does it mean? What does it mean to an employee? Collective bargaining means that a group of employees may ban together, choose leadership, and bargain for their compensations with their employer. Collective rights guarantee an individual's ability to participate in this process without fear of retaliation from the employer. To become a member of such a collective, a worker must pay dues to belong to such an organization. Some states within the USA, have Right-to-Work legislation. This means that any employee may enter collective bargaining, but no such organization may compel membership. In states without this legislation, collective bargaining organizations may require that employment comes with a strict coupling of such membership, thus making the dues paid to the collective bargaining organization, i.e. a union, mandatory. Wisconsin does not have Right-to-Work legislation.
So we come to crossroads within the discussion of rights. Do mandatory union dues infringe upon the rights of an individual, or does the individual who choses to negotiate with an employer directly infringe on the rights of the collective? We find this debate far expanding outside of union membership as well. We have an ongoing national debate about whether the government may mandate an individual to purchase a health insurance product. This affects every person, whether they even chose employment associated with a union or not. And beyond health care and collective bargaining, how far should this go? Do we extend it to food products that make overweight people healthy, automobiles that motorists purchase, computing devices business use, clothing types based on cost of production, anti-perspiration products for those who ride crowded subways, birth control for those not financially stable enough to raise children, what people a businessman/woman must hire versus those it may not, etc., etc., etc.? We can make a good case for each how public policy planning could make society as a whole better for all. But we must also ask at what cost? Does it mean an individual cannot make it his or her own way. Does it quash the dreams and ambitions that transform the unimaginable into tangibles we take for granted? Does it stagnate what any one person may dream to achieve, or more simply, does it compromise an individual's ability to merely get by?
At some point, if we keep growing that list, virtually ever person who has some ambition in some facet of life will undoubtedly say such an idea goes too far. If if that person says yes for the thing he or she cares most, then why can't we work backwards from there all the way to the very last thing about which any individual may value? If 1000 employees want to join a union while one single employee does not, do we cast away the free choice of that single employee? Should he or she carry the unwanted obligation of paying for a product, union representation in Wisconsin's circumstances, for which he or she does not want?
Any person who truly values what it means to have a right can only honestly come down on one side of this decision, and that is to affirmatively say yes. If a union's leadership really has the best ideas, they will attract sufficient members to their ranks such that they can effectively bargain with an employer. If a union can't get enough of the employees to voluntarily accept membership in the organization, then it doesn't have the right ideas and questionably has the interests of the worker at heart.
The right of collectively bargaining is paradoxical to the concept of a right. By choosing not to purchase a produce, or membership in this case, infringes upon no other individual's rights. However, the impressment of an individual into such membership absolutely does.
Tomorrow's election will likely have enormous impacts on Wisconsin's collective bargaining future. Incumbent judge David Prosser has not publicly commented on the bill, but reasonable speculation concludes that he would uphold the law passed. A victory by his opponent, current state Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg, would tip the majority towards Left leaning judges on the court, and she has directly stated her intent to strike down the law. While Wisconsin gives us the venue of this fight, it already has will continue to play out in other parts of the nation, especially as financially strapped taxpayers will demand sacrifices from their public employees with tax revenue as their source of compensation.
Pray Prosser wins.
Monday, February 21, 2011
The Lopsided Story on Campaign Contributions
On February 18, MSNBC commentator Rachel Maddow delivered a fifteen minute segment of her show dedicated to her theory of the motivations behind Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's proposed legislation to curb union benefits. Within that segment, Maddow hit on several blatant falsehoods that triggered a need to address some point well grounded in reality to which she turns a blind eye.
Watch the rant.
Falsehood #1: Wisconsin is running a surplus.
This report refutes this claim in the most lopsided of fashions: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/18/rachel-maddow/rachel-maddow-says-wisconsin-track-have-budget-sur/. Just to paraphrase, the report states, "...$258 million in unpaid bills or expected shortfalls in programs such as Medicaid services for the needy ($174 million alone), the public defender’s office and corrections. Additionally, the state owes Minnesota $58.7 million under a discontinued tax reciprocity deal." This stands in stark contrast to Maddow's claim of a $137 million surplus.
Falsehood #2: The Wisconsin GOP is targeting union based PACs so that the Democrats can't get campaign money.
She enumerates the top ten political action spenders in the 2008 and 2010 elections respectively. For some reason, she lists the top five for 2008 and then the top ten for 2010. Why the inconsistency? I'll leave that to speculation. She denotes the Democrat party backing PACs as those below noted with an asterisk. She claims that if the Republican party can, "destroy," these organizations, the PACs can't fund the Democrat party. First, the Wisconsin legislation will not prevent donations from flowing to any of these organization. George Soros and Warren Buffet can still channel their billions straight into them as they please. Second, every non-asterisked PAC receives their income from voluntary donations, not compelled dues or publicly funded grants, as do the asterisked ones. Third, she blames the Citizen United case on the increase in contributions to Republican party backing PACs. By all accounts of recent polling data, the Democrat party policies of 2009 and 2010 did more to fuel contributes to these PACs. Citizens United produces documentaries that reach only a sliver of the voting population, and of those they do reach, they mostly include those who already have their political thoughts in firm opposition to the Democrat party.
2008
2010
Falsehood #3: The unions are the only big fish on the side of the Democrat party.
This one reflects Maddow's verbal shortfall of her monologue. 99% of the entertainment world is dominated by people who hold ultra-Left wing views. Hollywood movie themes, sitcoms, and musical artists only name a few institutions that pedal the Democrat party's philosophy. That's fine. They have every right to do so, but let's not pretend it doesn't exist. Next, the overwhelming majority of the news and commentary media lean far to the left. MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, NPR, Washington Post, New York Times, and LA Times pedal a Left-wing point of view. Only FNC, the Wall Street Journal, and talk radio put up anything that doesn't follow the Left-wing line.
Final Thoughts
Let's not pretend for a second that the Democrat party powers that be don't want to attack the very institutions that fund the PACs that challenge them. They seek to bar Citizens United from exercising free speech, have appointed an FCC Chief Diversity Czar who aims to determine 100% of the radio content on air, and at one point tried to kick FNC reporters out of the White House briefing room.
Who's really doing the hit-job, here, Rachel?
Watch the rant.
Falsehood #1: Wisconsin is running a surplus.
This report refutes this claim in the most lopsided of fashions: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/18/rachel-maddow/rachel-maddow-says-wisconsin-track-have-budget-sur/. Just to paraphrase, the report states, "...$258 million in unpaid bills or expected shortfalls in programs such as Medicaid services for the needy ($174 million alone), the public defender’s office and corrections. Additionally, the state owes Minnesota $58.7 million under a discontinued tax reciprocity deal." This stands in stark contrast to Maddow's claim of a $137 million surplus.
Falsehood #2: The Wisconsin GOP is targeting union based PACs so that the Democrats can't get campaign money.
She enumerates the top ten political action spenders in the 2008 and 2010 elections respectively. For some reason, she lists the top five for 2008 and then the top ten for 2010. Why the inconsistency? I'll leave that to speculation. She denotes the Democrat party backing PACs as those below noted with an asterisk. She claims that if the Republican party can, "destroy," these organizations, the PACs can't fund the Democrat party. First, the Wisconsin legislation will not prevent donations from flowing to any of these organization. George Soros and Warren Buffet can still channel their billions straight into them as they please. Second, every non-asterisked PAC receives their income from voluntary donations, not compelled dues or publicly funded grants, as do the asterisked ones. Third, she blames the Citizen United case on the increase in contributions to Republican party backing PACs. By all accounts of recent polling data, the Democrat party policies of 2009 and 2010 did more to fuel contributes to these PACs. Citizens United produces documentaries that reach only a sliver of the voting population, and of those they do reach, they mostly include those who already have their political thoughts in firm opposition to the Democrat party.
2008
- SEIU*
- AFSCME*
- NRA
- Freedom Watch
- Chamber of Commerce
2010
- Chamber of Commerce
- American Action Network
- American Crossroads
- Crossroads GPS
- SEUI*
- AFSCME*
- Americans for Job Security
- American Future Fund
- NEA*
- Club for Growth
Falsehood #3: The unions are the only big fish on the side of the Democrat party.
This one reflects Maddow's verbal shortfall of her monologue. 99% of the entertainment world is dominated by people who hold ultra-Left wing views. Hollywood movie themes, sitcoms, and musical artists only name a few institutions that pedal the Democrat party's philosophy. That's fine. They have every right to do so, but let's not pretend it doesn't exist. Next, the overwhelming majority of the news and commentary media lean far to the left. MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, NPR, Washington Post, New York Times, and LA Times pedal a Left-wing point of view. Only FNC, the Wall Street Journal, and talk radio put up anything that doesn't follow the Left-wing line.
Final Thoughts
Let's not pretend for a second that the Democrat party powers that be don't want to attack the very institutions that fund the PACs that challenge them. They seek to bar Citizens United from exercising free speech, have appointed an FCC Chief Diversity Czar who aims to determine 100% of the radio content on air, and at one point tried to kick FNC reporters out of the White House briefing room.
Who's really doing the hit-job, here, Rachel?
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Private Property vs. Public Interests
I recently attended a forum for candidates running for the local Advisory Neighborhood Council (ANC-1C) in Washington, DC this past Wednesday evening. Regular citizens who serve as ANC representatives volunteer their time and energy for no monetary compensation whatsoever to essentially lobby the DC council for the interests of their neighborhoods. The issues they tackle range from liquor licenses of local businesses to rat control to street parking matters. Their intentions are generally good, but like anyone involved in public service their actions can encroach into areas that should raise some questions. More on this further down.
This year, an Islamic group proposed to build a mosque within very close proximity of Ground Zero in New York City. This has stirred feelings of pain, anger, and sadness within the NYC community, not just because of the location of the mosque, but also because the primary financier of the mosque has made comments in the past stating that America essentially got what it deserved on 9/11. The proposed site is private property. 100% of the funds to build the mosque will have to come from private financing. The builders claim they want to demonstrate that Islam is as much a part of America as every other piece of American culture. The concept of this mosque runs through the NYC population as an unpopular idea. Some in NYC claim that Muslims have no right to build a mosque because of their strong feelings against it, but proponents have used the argument of private property to defend the planned mosque.
Now, I turn back to the ANC forum I attended on Thursday night of this past week. Several of the candidates discussed ideas for growing local small businesses in the neighborhood, a good thing in general. Small businesses have an investment in the community beyond a financial one. They serve as the largest engine for growth in the US economy. They don't export jobs. And they bring diversity to the economy that big businesses often do not. For example, near 18th St. and Columbia Rd. NW lies a Starbucks and local coffee shop called Tryst. Personally, I'd choose Tryst over Starbucks any day of the week and twice on Tuesday as a place to patronize over Starbucks. However, none of that justifies something that these ANC candidates suggested, something I find borderline appalling.
Within the neighborhood, a few businesses have closed and hence moved out of their retail rented space, leaving it open. The owners of the space, as claimed by the ANC candidates, have turned down offers to rent their space because those offers didn't reach the price they demanded. Small businesses have made such offers, but the owners have held out for better offers, offers that chain franchises could more likely fulfill. To address this, the ANC candidates proposed lobbying the city council to, "put pressure," on those owners to rent their space for less money than they choose to keep the chain franchises out of the neighborhood. They gave impassioned speeches while those in attendance cheered and applauded. They propose this with no regard for the fact that those business space owners OWN that property and have the right to rent it to whom they choose. Those owners have the obligations to their debtors, not the ANC candidates. Those owners have to put food on their own tables, not the ANC candidates.
The property rights of those retail shop space owners are no less that those of the owners of the site of the proposed "Ground Zero" mosque. In one case, the unpopularity has its roots in fear of Ialam and Shia law. In the other, the unpopularity has its roots in chain franchises changing the face of the neighborhood in a way that displeases those who live in the community. The heart of the issue, however, does not differ: private property. If proponents of Sharia Law have private property rights, so too do commercial real estate owners who want to rent to big, trendy chain franchises.
DC neighborhood communities should make such decisions based on principal, rather than personal interest alone. We can either as a society autocratically allow popular opinion to dictate what private owners must do, or we can draw limitation on how far our personal interests can encroach on private property. The overall point is this. My local ANC demonizing chain franchises while the local authorities of NYC defend proponents of Sharia Law makes for quite a disgusting contrast, but that's nonetheless what's happening now.
This year, an Islamic group proposed to build a mosque within very close proximity of Ground Zero in New York City. This has stirred feelings of pain, anger, and sadness within the NYC community, not just because of the location of the mosque, but also because the primary financier of the mosque has made comments in the past stating that America essentially got what it deserved on 9/11. The proposed site is private property. 100% of the funds to build the mosque will have to come from private financing. The builders claim they want to demonstrate that Islam is as much a part of America as every other piece of American culture. The concept of this mosque runs through the NYC population as an unpopular idea. Some in NYC claim that Muslims have no right to build a mosque because of their strong feelings against it, but proponents have used the argument of private property to defend the planned mosque.
Now, I turn back to the ANC forum I attended on Thursday night of this past week. Several of the candidates discussed ideas for growing local small businesses in the neighborhood, a good thing in general. Small businesses have an investment in the community beyond a financial one. They serve as the largest engine for growth in the US economy. They don't export jobs. And they bring diversity to the economy that big businesses often do not. For example, near 18th St. and Columbia Rd. NW lies a Starbucks and local coffee shop called Tryst. Personally, I'd choose Tryst over Starbucks any day of the week and twice on Tuesday as a place to patronize over Starbucks. However, none of that justifies something that these ANC candidates suggested, something I find borderline appalling.
Within the neighborhood, a few businesses have closed and hence moved out of their retail rented space, leaving it open. The owners of the space, as claimed by the ANC candidates, have turned down offers to rent their space because those offers didn't reach the price they demanded. Small businesses have made such offers, but the owners have held out for better offers, offers that chain franchises could more likely fulfill. To address this, the ANC candidates proposed lobbying the city council to, "put pressure," on those owners to rent their space for less money than they choose to keep the chain franchises out of the neighborhood. They gave impassioned speeches while those in attendance cheered and applauded. They propose this with no regard for the fact that those business space owners OWN that property and have the right to rent it to whom they choose. Those owners have the obligations to their debtors, not the ANC candidates. Those owners have to put food on their own tables, not the ANC candidates.
The property rights of those retail shop space owners are no less that those of the owners of the site of the proposed "Ground Zero" mosque. In one case, the unpopularity has its roots in fear of Ialam and Shia law. In the other, the unpopularity has its roots in chain franchises changing the face of the neighborhood in a way that displeases those who live in the community. The heart of the issue, however, does not differ: private property. If proponents of Sharia Law have private property rights, so too do commercial real estate owners who want to rent to big, trendy chain franchises.
DC neighborhood communities should make such decisions based on principal, rather than personal interest alone. We can either as a society autocratically allow popular opinion to dictate what private owners must do, or we can draw limitation on how far our personal interests can encroach on private property. The overall point is this. My local ANC demonizing chain franchises while the local authorities of NYC defend proponents of Sharia Law makes for quite a disgusting contrast, but that's nonetheless what's happening now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)