For those of us who have become rather state centric politically the following article is STILL germane. If regulatory agencies have their budgets reduced, it helps the economy to do better. Better yet, if agencies have their regulatory authority stripped (particularly the ones that just aggravate people trying to provide for themselves) we might actually have a chance at having some kind of economic recovery. I know, wishful thinking with the derivative markets. At any rate, the following article and the study are important to the conversation with State and local elected officials.

Here it is:

Data Show that Reducing the Size of the Federal Regulatory Bureaucracy by Even Modest Amounts will have Significant Positive Effects on Both GDP and Private Sector Growth

WASHINGTON, April 13, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — With a sluggish economy, high unemployment, and unprecedented deficit spending, growing the economy and curbing federal spending are top priorities in Washington. A now-popular target for reform is regulation, which even President Obama claims to have “stifled innovation” and to have had “a chilling effect on growth and jobs.” In a new paper released today entitled Regulatory Expenditures, Economic Growth and Jobs: An Empirical Study, the Phoenix Center uses fifty years of data and modern econometric methods to quantify the relationship between government spending on regulatory activity and the important goals of economic growth and job recovery. The Center finds reducing the size of the federal regulatory budget by even modest amounts will have significant positive effects on both GDP and private sector growth.

In particular, the Phoenix Center estimates that even a small 5% reduction in the regulatory budget (about $2.8 billion) would result in about $75 billion in expanded private-sector GDP each year, with an increase in employment by 1.2 million jobs annually. On average, eliminating the job of a single regulator grows the American economy by $6.2 million and nearly 100 private sector jobs annually. Conversely, each million dollar increase in the regulatory budget costs the economy 420 private sector jobs.

Accordingly, as Congress and the President struggle with the difficult decisions of how to shrink federal spending, the Phoenix Center recommends that a sensible place to start would be to investigate responsible cuts in the budgets of federal regulatory agencies.

“Our statistical analysis of historical data indicates that federal expenditures on regulatory activity have a significant impact on the size of the private-sector economy and private-sector employment,” says Dr. George S. Ford, Chief Economist of the Phoenix Center. “While the entire federal budget must be cut to address the deficit problem, the evidence indicates that reductions in the overall federal regulatory budget may substantially impact the growth of economic output and employment.”

“In the end, our paper really is a ‘good government’ story,” says Phoenix Center President Lawrence J. Spiwak. “If regulators are forced to become more efficient on how they spend taxpayer dollars, then perhaps they will prioritize their activities on important policy issues rather than pursue marginal interventions that impose high costs but offer few benefits.”

“Like fiscal or monetary policy, regulation is used by government to affect economic activity,” observes Dr. T. Randolph Beard, Phoenix Center Senior Fellow and Professor of Economics at Auburn University. “However, the macroeconomic effects of regulation have not been adequately considered. This study suggests that those effects may be quite significant, and some accounting for these effects should be a part of every debate on regulatory proposals.”

“Without question, regulation imposes costs on the economy, but regulation, in some cases, also provides benefits,” says Dr. Hyeongwoo Kim, Phoenix Center Adjunct Fellow and Professor of Economics at Auburn University. “Our analysis reveals that the costs are very large, which, in turn, implies that regulators should act only when the expected benefits are likewise very large. With a smaller budget, the hope is that the regulators will focus their efforts on interventions with a very high expected net payoff.”

Phoenix Center Policy Bulletin No. 28: A Policy Framework for Spectrum Allocation in Mobile Communications, may be downloaded free from the Phoenix Center’s web page at: http://www.phoenix-center.org/PolicyBulletin/PCPB28Final.pdf.

A one page summary of the paper may also be downloaded at: http://www.phoenix-center.org/PolicyBulletin/PCPB28onepagerFinal.pdf.

Finally, illustrative sides of the paper’s findings are available at: http://www.phoenix-center.org/PolicyBulletin/PCPB28slidesFinal.pdf.

The Phoenix Center is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization that studies broad public-policy issues related to governance, social and economic conditions, with a particular emphasis on the law and economics of regulated industries.

www.phoenix-center.org

SOURCE Phoenix Center

The information on this page is provided by PR Newswire. All rights reserved. Reproduction or redistribution of this content without prior written consent from PR Newswire is strictly prohibited. is not responsible for this content. Learn more about this service.

This is really the only logical application of firearm freedom in my opinion. What other piece of personal property is a person required to display on their person? At any rate, I see this as positive for firearms freedom and say “Hooray for Kansas!”

Kansas Concealed Carry with No Permit

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — A proposal to allow Kansas residents to carry concealed firearms without a permit has won final approval from the Legislature.

The measure was headed Wednesday to Republican Gov. Sam Brownback even though some lawmakers having misgivings that the state would no longer require training to carry concealed.

The National Rifle Association says Kansas would become the fifth state to allow concealed carry without a permit everywhere within its borders.

The House approved the bill, 85-39. The Senate passed the measure last month, but House members made a technical change that senators had to review. Senators signed off on the minor revision, 31-8.

Supporters of the bill said gun owners have shown they can be trusted. Critics said the state should require some training to carry concealed.

The Mountain Grove Property Rights Coalition will be meeting March 26th at the Sunnyside Cafe located on the north side of the Walmart parking lot at Mountain Grove. Topics will include updates on legislation of interest at the State level and Michael Jones will be giving a talk on the Muslim Brotherhood. Michael has been studying this topic for years and will surely give an interesting talk on the subject.

The meeting will begin at 6pm and end at 8pm when the restaurant closes. Everyone interested in private property rights is invited to attend. Please come early and enjoy the buffet if you can!

Hope to see you there.

IRS may broaden rule to police political nonprofits

By Hillary Flynn and Rachael Bade

3/18/15 8:20 PM EDT

The IRS may broaden a looming controversial rule to police political nonprofits to include political parties and political action committees, the IRS chief said Wednesday.

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen said the agency may expand a yet-to-be-released rule governing 501(c)(4), “social welfare” groups, to include political groups known as 527s, which focus on elections. It could require them both — as well as other types of tax-exempt groups — to operate under the same definition of “political activity.”

“If it’s going to be a fair system, it needs to apply across the board,” Koskinen said when asked by POLITICO if such groups would be included in the new rule. “[I]f we have a set of definitions for 501(c)(4)s, what about everybody else? Can they do more or less [political activity]? And for us as (an) administration, for ease of administration, it makes sense to have this common definition.”

The impact of extending the proposed rule to groups registered under section 527 of the code is unclear, since a majority of these groups that are most active at the federal level are also registered with the Federal Election Commission.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/irs-may-broaden-rule-to-police-political-nonprofits-116206.html#ixzz3UppUtLio

Taxing Illegal Drugs?

Posted: March 16, 2015 in Legislative Issues

Rep Rhoads has put in a bill to tax illegal drugs in Missouri. Below is an article about the bill. It poses a great number of questions to my mind. We just thought you should know about it as the legislative session is now entering the manic phase and it will be difficult to keep up with what is going on and accomplish other things in life at the same time. Here’s the article:

 

Drugs to Generate Additional Revenue for Missouri Drug Task Forces

March 11, 2015

State Rep. Shawn Rhoads wants Missouri to join more than 20 other states that already have taxes on illicit drugs in effect. He filed legislation, HB 1138, this week that would require individuals in possession of illegal substances such as marijuana or cocaine to obtain a drug tax stamp from the Missouri Department of Revenue.
Rhoads said his goal with the bill is to secure additional funding for the various drug task forces around the state that work diligently to keep illegal substances off the streets.
“Many other states including our neighbors to the west in Kansas utilize drug tax stamps as a way to generate an additional source of revenue. These laws in no way change the criminal penalties associated with possessing, using or distributing these illicit drugs, but they do allow the state to tax these goods in much the same way we do other items that are bought and sold,” said Rhoads, R-West Plains.
He added, “The tax would generate additional dollars to help fund the efforts of our drug task forces, as well as pay for drug treatment and antidrug public awareness programs. Considering we have seen our governor withhold funds from our task forces, it is imperative we find new revenue sources that will ensure they can continue their efforts to investigate and combat drug-related crimes.”
Rhoads’ bill would levy an excise tax on various illicit substances based on the amount. For example, marijuana would be taxed at the rate of $3.50 per gram while cocaine would be taxed at the rate of $50 per gram. Funds generated by the excise tax would then be deposited in the Drug Task Force Enforcement Fund, which is also created by the bill. The state treasurer would oversee the fund and distribute the monies it contains to the state’s various drug task forces, and to the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services to fund drug treatment programs.
The bill now awaits assignment to committee for further discussion.

Net Neutrality Rules Are Out

Posted: March 15, 2015 in Uncategorized

The rules for Net Neutrality are finally out. The doc is 400 pages and can be downloaded here:

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

At this point, we can now begin to have honest conversation about what these rules may mean for us as far as internet freedom, privacy, and security are concerned. Anyone opining about how horrific or wonderful they were before reading them was truly jumping the gun.

So, let’s actually read them and backtrack on what the terms mean, and then we can have a solid opinion as to whether they are going to be positive or negative for us common folk.

From Mike Slack of Commonsense PRC:

Friday I did something very unusual. I called the office of Senator Maria Chappell-Nadal and thanked her for her vote. Senator Chappell-Nadal is a liberal Democrat from St. Louis. I’m a constitutional conservative Republican. We often disagree on the issues but this time Senator Chappell-Nadal and Republican Senator Brian Munslinger stood up for liberty AND for privacy, while five other senators – Republicans David Schatz, Doug Libla, Michael Kehoe and Bob Dixon, along with Democrat Kiki Curls betrayed the people of Missouri by voting in favor of the creation of a prescription drug database. Note four of the senators voting Yes call themselves “small government” Republicans, but  they just voted to make government much larger and more intrusive.
The following short article comes from Duane Lester of TheMissouriTorch.com and expresses my views totally, so please take a moment and read his thoughts.
Missouri is the last state in the union without a government run database tracking prescription drugs.
That’s not a bad thing.
The argument is that the abuse of prescription drugs is such a big problem, the government needs to implement this new program in order to somehow curtail it.
Let me rephrase that.
Let me rephrase that.
The argument is the government must expand in order to attempt to police an action that violates no one’s rights.
Is prescription drug abuse bad?
Without a doubt. I’ve seen it’s effects first hand.
But is the proper role of government to police what we put in our bodies? I’d argue it isn’t. The proper role of government is simple and is found in the Declaration of Independence.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
The proper role of government is to secure rights. That’s it.
So whose rights are being secured by the creation of a database to monitor prescription drugs?
No one’s. There isn’t a single person who’s rights are protected by this action.
Worse, this bill will violate the privacy of Missourians and place their medical information at risk by centralizing it all in one government database.
Let’s be clear: this is a bill that will expand government for purposes that are not the proper role of government.
There is only one response a conservative should have to this bill:  In the words of Gandolf in The Lord of the Rings, “You Shall Not Pass”.
We hear campaign speeches from people who claim to be conservatives, who claim they’ll fight to “restore liberty.”
When the battle lays before them, they cannot choose to remain seated. They must stand.
Principles matter. You are either for limited government or you aren’t. You can’t kinda be for limited government.
To claim the title of a champion of freedom, of a limited government conservative or a stalwart defender of liberty, one can’t simply stand by
Remember the words of President Calvin Coolidge. who said, “It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”
Conservatives must go full Gandalf and stand up to this.
They must ensure it doesn’t pass.
And that means filibuster.
Either that, or they admit to themselves, their
Constituents and their donors that they’re ok with government getting a little bigger in order to do a job it isn’t supposed to do.