Government gobbles landowners' rights
By PAULA EASLEY
November 12, 2005When it comes to protecting property rights -- that pesky constitutional principle that underlies all freedoms -- sometimes people get it and sometimes they don't. When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Susette Kelo in the now-famous Connecticut eminent domain case, people got it.
That the 5-4 decision generated such a national outcry was astonishing. People perceived eminent domain as a last-resort tool when land was needed for public roads, schools and the like. But the Constitution's "public use" definition has changed by recent practice to mean "public benefit," a term akin to defining a wetland, which is anything the government says it is.Virtually the only unabashedly favorable editorial support for the decision came from The New York Times, which one would expect to vigorously denounce Big Business's trampling of the little guy, as occurred in Kelo. I wondered why. Lo and behold, I read that The New York Times coveted some nearby Manhattan land for a new 52-story headquarters, land occupied by 30 companies in 11 buildings. Rather than purchase the properties, the Times and its partner got a state development corporation to condemn them and notify the tenants to relocate.
The parcels were acquired at a steep discount ($85 million) from the agency that seized the buildings. Taxpayers would foot the difference if acquisition costs exceeded that amount. Government agencies also provided some $20 million in tax breaks and authorized building 40 percent more space than zoning limits allowed. Aside from the victimization of the 30 businesses, it was easy to see how a short-sighted assault on property rights could become a long-term threat to democracy.
I talked to Michael Pattinson, a land developer in Carlsbad, Calif., about the ruling. He commented, "For 30 years (government agencies) have been begging, borrowing and stealing trillions of dollars of private property with little or no compensation and little outrage. But in Connecticut, the Supreme Court allows a city to take a few homes -- even when it pays for them -- and the anger falls like acid rain."
Pattinson said in an editorial that more private land in California had been "reallocated" to frogs, sheep, shrimp, snails and grasshoppers than was used by every urban community in the state. "The wholesale destruction of our property rights means that only 6.4 percent of San Diego residents can afford an average-priced home. In Orange County it's 3.8 percent. The rest of the state is not much better off. Yet no one seems to notice."
He's right. Americans seem oblivious of government's confiscating private property through regulation; yet it happens repeatedly. The biggest culprits have been punitive endangered species and wetlands regulations. Speaking to a University of Alaska class about this, I explained why regulatory takings of private land without compensation should be outlawed. Still, the students argued it was justified for the "greater welfare of the community." Their collectivist logic would have government decide the public interest and allocate resources, with no regard for the plans of individuals who happened to own those resources.
So I posited: Suppose the Anchorage Assembly declared it in the community's interest for certain property owners to provide shelter for the homeless. You are arbitrarily selected to construct and maintain a dwelling in your back yard for a homeless family. To assure the family's privacy, you are prohibited from entering that part of your property. Oh, and your costs can't be reimbursed, and you can't sue the city because you still own the land. Would you comply?
Presented in those terms, they got it. Not one student would comply (and a new Assembly would likely be elected). So what is the difference between being conscripted into public service for human caretaking or being named guardian of a red-legged frog? Or being prohibited from disturbing your private wetlands? There is no difference. In each case someone is being forced to provide a public good that the community as a whole should willingly fund if the cause is that valued.
Congress and 30 states are now addressing legislation to "take back the Fifth." You can help. One organization that has long advocated restoring basic property rights is Pacific Legal Foundation. Just last month the foundation was back before the Supreme Court defending John Rapanos in his pseudo-wetlands case. The address is: Pacific Legal Foundation, 3900 Lennane Drive, No. 200, Sacramento, CA 95834. It's a good way to make a difference.
Paula Easley, an Anchorage public policy consultant, is vice chairwoman, Nationwide Public Projects Coalition; president, Alaska Land Rights Coalition; and board member, Resource Development Council of Alaska and Arctic Power. E-mail her at paulaeasley@yahoo.com.
By PAULA EASLEY
The Kyoto accord isn't our best option
October 8, 2005Looks like Alaska can't escape being in the eye of the global warming public policy storm. With the recent barrage of bloviating (I do love that word) over alleged human-caused melting glaciers, weather catastrophes, pandemics and nervous canaries, the path to righteousness for the United States is clear: Abide by the Kyoto accord or perish.
For now, set aside that imminent peril for a multiple-choice question: Which VIP said the following before a thousand guests at Bill Clinton's recent "Global Initiative" gathering in Manhattan?
"My thinking (regarding the global warming treaty) has changed in the past three or four years. No country is going to cut its growth." Asked what to expect after the current treaty expires: "What countries will do is work together to develop the science and technology. ... There is no way that we are going to tackle this problem unless we develop the science and technology to do it."
So, was it (a) Tim Wirth, president, UN Foundation, (b) British Prime Minister Tony Blair, (c) former Vice President Al Gore or (d) King Abdullah of Jordan?
No clue who said it? The quotes weren't in The New York Times or The Washington Post or other mainstream media. Nor did Bill Clinton, on stage during the exchange, mention them during a Meet the Press interview. If you answered (b), you win.
Wouldn't you consider that admission newsworthy?
It is now clear to Mr. Blair that England can't comply with Kyoto without devastating the country's economy. He agrees with President Bush that neither China nor India, excluded from Kyoto's requirements, would jeopardize their future economies either. It ain't gonna happen.
In my mind, it doesn't matter whether warming trends are attributed to natural variation, human activities or both. Certainly, viewpoints espousing natural variation don't get the media coverage and they don't get the research grants. We still don't know whether suppressing energy would have any impact or whether warming trends would be good or bad.
National polls ask whether respondents think the United States should support the climate treaty, and a majority traditionally does. However, I've not seen a poll yet that asks whether Americans are willing to take identifiable, specific hits to their living standards. The answers would be dramatically different with consequences factored in.
For starters, consumers would face higher food (11 percent), medical (14 percent) and housing (7 percent) costs, and a family of four would see real income drop by $2,700 in 2010 and each year thereafter (Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates). Projections showed energy and electricity prices nearly doubling, with gas prices jumping 65 cents per gallon, and these projections were made years ago. (Look where we are today even without Kyoto.)
Although the Clinton administration signed the Kyoto protocol in 1998, the U.S. Senate never ratified it, a fact rarely acknowledged. Republicans and Democrats alike resolved (95 to 0) they would not ratify if the treaty caused substantial economic harm and if developing countries weren't required to equally participate.
The Bush administration has tenaciously upheld the Senate's position and remains convinced the science is insufficient to justify horrific penalties on America, especially when the penalties appear designed not to solve a problem but to level the global economic playing field. Adopting a "let's do something even if it's wrong" approach hardly seems well-conceived national policy.
Global warming debates aside, declining oil production and supplies and high gas prices are a reality we must face today. The increased costs affect nearly everything. For our vehicles, few choices exist; today gasoline rules. However, municipal agencies could well devote more problem-solving resources toward reducing traffic bottlenecks, the major cause of wasted fuel.
Nothing has had as much positive impact on traffic congestion and reducing fuel consumption as computers and communications technology. Instead of visiting government offices and businesses, we visit their Web sites. Videoconferenced meetings are routine. We work from home and communicate electronically. We do research, exchange information and engage in commerce online. UPS and FedEx deliver to our neighborhoods, saving many individual trips. Imagine the fuel we'd burn without these advancements. And who knows what tomorrow's technology will bring?
Much more can be done to save energy on all fronts. Government and businesses could initiate voluntary conservation campaigns and offer rewards. Neighborhood groups could address the challenges. Families could re-evaluate needs and set conservation goals. By doing so, Alaskans could set an example for other states, and the favorable press would be a welcome change.
Taxpayers' precious money being wasted
By PAULA EASLEY
If every household paid federal taxes equally in 2005, we'd each pay $18,248, excluding $3,800 for the budget deficit and prior federal debt future generations will owe. Here's how our hypothetical $18,000-plus would be spent:
Social Security/Medicare, $7,245; defense, $4,451; low-income programs, $3,559; interest on the federal debt, $1,582; federal employee retirement benefits, $838; education, $627; health research and regulation, $614; veterans' benefits, $606; highways/mass transit, $388; justice administration, $361; unemployment benefits, $338; international affairs, $284; natural resources/environment, $275; agriculture, $271; and miscellaneous expenditures not fully accounted for here, $598.
Of course the tax bill isn't shared equally. One out of every three taxpayers pays no income taxes (42.5 million Americans), and millions more pay only a pittance. At the same time, the federal government keeps spending more than it collects.
So, what do we do about it? We can send bigger checks to keep Washington happy or force government to become more efficient. There are other options. The private sector, bound by the profit motive, could run many programs, and some could be eliminated altogether.
Who wouldn't like to see taxes cut, especially if it's accomplished by tackling government waste, fraud and abuse? A Heritage Foundation research fellow, Brian Riedl, who did the tax calculations cited here, says targeting just these three areas would net $100 billion annually without harming legitimate programs and benefits. Riedl's research, which appeared in the Spring issue of Insider, can be reviewed at (www.insideronline.org/archives/index.cfm. Examples are:
• A Treasury Department audit report on the federal government revealed unreconciled 2003 transactions totaling $24.5 billion. The money was apparently spent by someone, somewhere, on something, but auditors didn't know who spent it, where it was spent, or on what.
• Between 1997 and 2003, the Defense Department purchased but didn't use or seek reimbursement for some 270,000 commercial airline tickets costing $100 million. In 2001 and 2002, the Pentagon paid for the same tickets twice in 27,000 transactions, costing $8 million.
• Credit cards are given employees to circumvent the time-consuming government procurement process. An Agriculture Department (USDA) audit found employees diverted millions of dollars to personal purchases. A sample review of 300 employees' purchases over six months revealed roughly 15 percent abused the privilege, to the tune of $5.8 million. Purchases included tattoos, lingerie, bartender school tuition, car payments, concert tickets and cash advances. USDA has 55,000 credit cards in circulation, 1,550 of which were still held by past employees.
• Medicare tops every other program for wasting money, often paying eight times what other federal agencies pay for identical items. In 2000, payments for 24 drugs were $1.9 billion higher than other agencies paid. Uncollected accounts payable totaled $7 billion, and annual errors and fraud cost roughly $12.3 billion. (I forgot. Why is it some people want the federal government to run more programs?)
There are countless examples of wasteful and unfair special-interest programs. One is nongovernment organizations that pay no taxes but get substantial federal grants that allow them to turn around and sue the government, and then collect attorney fees, win or lose. We the people also fund the six-figure salaries of government lawyers to defend against these so-called "public interest" lawsuits. If the Center for Biological Diversity can raise nearly a million dollars in one year by suing the government, imagine the costs to citizens and the economy when considering all the other groups doing it. Eliminating the tax-exempt status of special-interest groups and cutting off their generous supply of federal grants would save a bundle.
Taxpayers traditionally support funding necessary government services, but they differ in defining "necessary." Hundreds of redundant programs -- including 342 separate economic development programs -- are candidates for review. No major system-wide effort to reduce waste and redundancy has been undertaken since the Grace Commission's important and popular work under President Reagan (the first-ever federal agency audit). That project saved taxpayers many billions of dollars.
At least the Bush administration is trying to better manage tax dollars, but it needs Congress' help. Right now reviewers are analyzing the effectiveness of federal programs and whether they fulfill national priorities. The president's 2006 budget request funds citizen advisory review commissions that would complete the process. Once recommendations go to Congress, members would decide whether a program goes or stays. That would be the time for citizens to make their voices heard.
Paula Easley, an Anchorage public policy consultant, is vice chair, Nationwide Public Projects Coalition; president, Alaska Land Rights Coalition; and board member, Resource Development Council of Alaska and Arctic Power. E-mail her at paulaeasley@yahoo.com.