Fast, Cheap, Healthy Eating

For some time I've wanted to discuss "fast, cheap, healthy eating" in more detail, and finally I just decided to do it in a fast and cheap blog post. I should state that I am neither a doctor nor a nutritionist. I'm inspired by "paleo" type eating, associated with lower carbs and nutrient-rich meats and vegetables. Much of my thinking on budget eating was inspired by my "food stamp diets" in 2009 and 2007.

Good Time for Economy

Unemployment remains high throughout much of the country; it hit 9.3 percent in Colorado as of the last measurement. It seems very much as though the federal government's inflationary monetary policies are starting to show up in food prices (see a first, second, and third article on the matter.)

So many people's budgets are strained now more than ever. But we gotta eat. Thankfully, some easy, common-sense steps can help make one's grocery budget stretch further while still providing great nutrition. That's what this post is about.

My Dietary Pilgrimage

Once in college a fast food joint put burgers on sale, so I ate there every day until, one day, I nearly vomited. Then I stopped eating there. But the funny thing was, I wasn't really saving any money by purchasing the "sale" food. Soon after college I stuffed my freezer with frozen dinners, again from a sale. But then I discovered that these dinners were full of salt and other junk, plus they just didn't taste very good (at least after about the third one). Nor did they save me any money.

Now I'm still not much of a chef, but I've learned to prepare tasty, economical, fast, and nutritious meals. My wife and I eat things like curry chicken and saag, roasts with sweet potatoes and onions, quiche, and spaghetti squash with meat sauce. We eat very well, but we don't spend a lot of time or money on our food. I thought others might benefit from my experiences.

The Great Myths: Eating Well Costs a Lot and Consumes Time

We hear constantly that nutritious eating is costly and time-consuming. It's not. Some of the least nutritious food in the grocery stores, food full of sugar and processed grains, is also relatively expensive. Some of the least expensive food overflows with life-giving nutrition. Often preparing and packing a meal takes less time than going to a restaurant.

It is a myth that nutritious eating has to cost a lot. It is a myth that nutritious eating takes a lot of time. This entire post is about exploding those myths, but I thought it worth mentioning them explicitly at the outset.

Eating Out: The Great Budget Killer

I enjoy eating out at restaurants, just like most people do. But it's important to understand just how much that costs. A nice restaurant meal easily can cost a person fifty bucks -- enough for more than a week's worth of groceries.

If you figure there are around 260 weekdays in a year, eating an $8 lunch for every one of those days costs over $2,000 for the year. If you buy a $4 coffee for each of those days, that's another thousand.

Sure, if you're bringing down a large salary, you're very busy, and you enjoy eating out, spending that much or more might be worth it to you. But if you're on a tight budget, or you'd rather spend that money on other things, preparing food and taking it to work is relatively easy.

Consider an Entertainment Budget

You probably don't need to give up eating out, but you might want to eat out less often.

For a long time my wife and I bickered about spending money on entertainment. We'd spend money to eat out, then feel guilty about blowing our money on nonessentials. We'd argue about what entertainment pursuits were worth it.

We've solved those problems by adopting an entertainment budget. The idea was inspired by Diana Hsieh, though my wife and I adapted it to our own purposes. The basic idea is that you give yourself a certain amount each month for entertainment, to spend however you want without feeling guilty about it. Obviously the amount must make sense given your overall budget. If you spend less one month, you can carry the balance to the next.

We also decided to put a third of all extra income (beyond our regular take-home) into our entertainment budget (split evenly between us). We figure that gives us a third for fun, a third for taxes, and a third for investment.

Obviously the details of an entertainment budget can be adapted for the particular needs of an individual, couple, or family. But, having tried it, I really like the general strategy.

Forget List Shopping

It seems like every pretender who addresses the matter of budget shopping suggests that you shop only from an established list. Such advice is horrible. You cannot possibly maximize your grocery budget if you shop only from your preordained list. Indeed, while I do make lists for the essentials, often I shop without any list at all.

The grain of truth to the "shop by list" mantra is that it's stupid to make impulse purchases of unnecessary items. Certainly I am not advocating that!

What I am advocating is that you take advantage of sales, the most important of which are never announced. I'm talking about mark-downs. You will never include mark-downs on your shopping list, because you cannot possibly know which items a store will mark down on a given day.

Now, not every store features mark-downs, but most grocery stores I've seen do. The idea is that stores will put items about to go out of date on steep discount.

My local grocery store -- and this is similar to many other stores I've seen -- features a regular "discount" section with breads, canned goods, etc. Most of these "sale" items are worthless: discounted junk carbs are still junk carbs. You're not getting a "deal" by buying nutritionally worthless food. Sometimes, though, I have found spectacular deals in the discount sections.

Often, rather than place mark-downs in a special location, stores will leave them in their regular place. For example, once at Target I bought something like eighty 100-percent chocolate bars at a steep discount.

Other times, stores will create a special place for mark-down meats and dairy. So get to know your store. And get to know your foods: I regularly use eggs well after their stated expiration date. (Obviously eating spoiled foods can be dangerous, so you have to pay attention.)

Obviously my shopping strategy depends on my living in an urban and suburban environment, where I am constantly walking or driving past stores. Because my rented mail box is near my local grocery store, I'll quickly pop into the store most days of the week. (Plus I just enjoy walking through stores.) This enables me to hunt for mark-downs. But if you live out in the country, you'll probably be able to visit stores infrequently, so you'll be less able to take advantage of unannounced sales.

The key to mark-downs is to figure out what you need that's a good deal (sometimes mark-down sales aren't a very good deal), then buy a lot of it. Often I'll unexpectedly pick up 20, 30, even 60 pounds of produce or meat, because it's on a spectacular sale. By shopping only by list, you close your eyes to the best deals out there.

Eat What's On Sale

Don't schedule your meals far in advance; cook the ingredients that are the most economical at the time. If you find chicken on a great mark-down, eat chicken, not hamburger. If squash is fifty cents a pound, eat squash, not a pricey salad. Hamburger and lettuce will be on sale another day.

Shop the Good Aisles

I don't even look at most of the aisles in my grocery store. Boxed cereals? Forget it. Soda? Nope. In my world, there are really only three main sections of the store: dairy and eggs, meat, and produce. (Add to these the minor sections of spices and chocolate.) If you're shopping anywhere else, chances are excellent you're wasting money.

Use Your Freezer

If you live in a normal American house, you have a freezer conjoined to your refrigerator. Use it! Practically every meat freezes well. Practically every fruit freezes well, including bananas. (Frozen fruit works great for smoothies.)

The freezer is what enables you to buy mark-downs in huge quantities and preserve the food for several months.

Particularly fruits are subject to large seasonal variations in price. So buy when the prices are low!

I also bought a half-sized stand-alone freezer for the garage. That lets me really stock up on meat and frozen fruit. (I also freeze sprouted bread.) Be aware that the freezer costs some money, as does the electricity to run it, but for some people an extra freezer can save money overall. An extra freezer also allows you consider options like buying a side of beef.

Even if you don't have an extra freezer, your standard one can still hold a great amount of frozen food.

Consider a Dehydrator

I also own a food dehydrator, which is great for drying fruits like peaches, apricots, cherries, and strawberries. (I tend to cut my fruit into thin slices for faster drying.) I've even dried banana slices soaked in orange juice, and they were delicious but exceptionally messy. (I've also tried canning before, which may interest you, but I don't do it any more. I much prefer drying.)

Think About Gardening

This year my wife and I are putting in two long planters with soaker hoses. The goal is to grow food is that is relatively easy to raise in our region and more expensive at the store, like tomatoes. I probably won't grow hard squash, because usually it goes on sale every year for about fifty cents a pound (which likely will inflate upwards over the coming years). I want to try yams, too, and perhaps even some type of berry if I can find a region-friendly one.

Minimize Coupons

I use coupons, just not very often. Usually coupons apply to overpriced items that you'd do best to avoid altogether. Getting a discount on overpriced, highly processed, nutritionally worthless food is still a bad deal.

Remember, there is no coupon for a mark-down, the best deal out there.

Often a coupon is a just a way to dupe the mathematically challenged into spending more money on unnecessary products.

Sometimes people trap themselves in a false choice with a coupon. They think, "Would I rather have Product X at its normal price, or at the discounted price?" The discount wins! But the third option is to buy some other product altogether, or to buy nothing. For example, a coupon for boxed cereal will rarely save you money over a box of uncooked oatmeal or a breakfast of scrambled eggs.

Very often, coupons are for suckers.

Watch Weekly Ads

Sometimes a grocery store will offer some spectacular deals announced in their weekly ads. Usually these ads are mailed to every household and are also available online.

A "loss leader" is a sale product that a store doesn't expect to make any money from, and may even lose money on, in the hopes that the item will bring people into the store to buy other stuff. The loss leader is your friend. Just note any restrictions on quantity.

Sometimes stores offer steep discounts on products like eggs, some item of produce, tea, or a particular meat. Watch for these!

A couple of my local stores recognize "double ad day" every Wednesday, when the store honors ads from two weeks.

Consider Costco

Perhaps surprisingly, Costco (to which my wife and I have a membership) often offers worse prices on staple grocery items. I buy neither eggs nor yoghurt at Costco, though I did recently start buying milk there. One issue is that often Costco offers only a big-brand item, while a local grocery store may offer its own brand or a less-expensive third-party brand.

But some things I regularly buy at Costco: roasted almonds, large bags of fresh spinach, ice cream, and yams. But on many items Target or the local grocer beats the hell out of Costco's prices. So don't assume that "membership store" equals lower prices; very often it does not.

Use Math

Don't assume a coupon will save you money. Don't assume a "sale" will save you money. Don't even assume a mark-down will save you money. Don't assume the larger package will save you money. Don't assume a generic brand will save you money. Don't assume a membership store will save you money.

In short, don't shop like a sucker.

Only two things matter: the quality of the food, and the price per weight.

If a grocer can sell you a generic brand on "sale" for more than a regular brand, he will gladly do so. If a grocer can sell you a larger package for more per weight than the smaller package, again he will gladly do so.

Thankfully, many stores now provide the price per weight, so that can help. If not, figure it out yourself. Put the fruit on the scales. Put that fourth-grade education to work and do a little division. Bring a calculator with you if you must.

Cook a Lot at Once

Some dishes (scrambled eggs) are so quick and easy that it makes little sense to prepare large quantities.

Very often, though, it's a good idea to cook a lot, then keep the spare in the refrigerator or freezer for later. This is the primary way to save time on food preparation.

Don't cook two chicken breasts; cook six. Don't bake one flan; bake two.

You only have to cook major dishes two or three times a week if you cook a lot each time.

The Pan: Types

Now I'll get into cooking proper. I'll start with an essential item for any cook: the pan.

I've gone round and round with pans. I started with a nonstick pan, but it started getting scratched. I bought expensive stainless steal pans, but they're hard to use without food sticking. I tried cast iron, which are theoretically very cool but are difficult to use without food sticking and even more difficult to keep clean without ruining the surface. So now I'm back to a nonstick pan.

Are nonstick pans safe? Consumer Reports states, "Some perfluorinated compounds have been found to be accumulating in human blood, but our past tests suggest nonstick cookware is not likely to be a significant source of exposure."

The keys to safely using a nonstick pan are to use it only on low to medium heat and toss it once it starts to scratch or flake. (I suggest a soft silicone spatula.)

The best feature of nonstick pans is that they are cheap. I've seen small ones for as little as a dollar, and regular ones for ten to twenty dollars.

The Pan: Dishes

Pans are great for cooking bacon, sausage, scrambled eggs, toast, and so on. Try an "egg in the basket:" a piece of bread with a hole cut in it (say, with a glass), cooked with an egg in the hole.

Often I cook a generic dish starting with an onion. Peel the onion, cut it in half, and slice it in wedges and then in small pieces. Place the chopped onion, perhaps with some chopped cloves of garlic, in your pan with some butter, olive oil, or coconut oil. Cook on low to medium heat until translucent. Then you can add practically any combination of vegetables, meats, and spices for a quick, nutritious meal (plus leftovers).

Are you in the mood for something spicy? Try some tomatoes, hamburger, and chili powder. Have some summer squash sitting around? Dice it up and toss it in with the onion, perhaps with some diced chicken or turkey.

I also use my pan for things like cooked cabbage.

The Crockpot

You can pick up a decent crockpot (with a removable bowl) for around twenty bucks. Do it! Nothing cooks food faster or easier.

Consider some possibilities:
* Throw a roast in the crockpot with some diced yams and onions.
* Combine a can of coconut milk, some curry powder, and a half dozen chicken breasts.
* For an easy, spicy dish, cook a half dozen chicken breasts in the crockpot with a jar of salsa.
* Throw in some ground hamburger for Mom's chili recipe (or a recipe from the internet).

I love my crockpot.

The Oven

You can also bake chicken breasts, fish fillets, and dishes of vegetables in the oven. I really like ceramic dishes with glass lids.

We eat baked "fry"-style yams fairly often. Just slice up a yam or potato into strips, coat them lightly with olive oil and salt, and bake them at 350 degrees for about half an hour, stirring after fifteen minutes. Or I'll cook a sliced onion the same way.

My wife is the master of oven-prepared desserts; for instance, she makes a spectacular cheesecake but uses only a quarter cup of sugar for the recipe. I make a great flan but cut the sugar way down.

The Knife

You don't need a bunch of knives. You need only one knife. But make it a good one.

If I could have only one knife, I would choose the Wusthof paring knife. It's great for cutting up all kinds of vegetables, and it can handle meats well enough.

I also use a larger Wusthof knife for bigger jobs, but I use the paring knife much more often.

If you eat a lot of bread -- we do not -- you might also want a bread slicer.

The Plates

Once I saw my sister drop a whole stack of Corelle plates, and not one of them broke. I love my Corelle plates. They're inexpensive and sturdy, and they stack well.

But if you're really on a budget, check out the local thrift store.

Don't Forget the Simplest Dishes!

Some of the best dishes are the simplest.

What's easier than throwing a couple of salmon steaks in the oven? Or tossing some chicken in the crockpot?

Salads can make wonderful meals or sides, and they are trivially easy to prepare. Top any combination of greens with any combination of vegetables, and perhaps some chunk tuna or chicken.

For a snack, I like something I call "Chocolate Uncovered Raisins." Mix chocolate chips (I buy 60 percent Ghirardelli from Target, where I get the best price for that item) with some raisins (from Costco) and perhaps some roasted almonds (also from Costco).

Or for dessert I'll mix a little ice cream (Costco) with shredded coconut (Sunflower), fresh walnuts (also Sunflower, from the bulk aisle), and chocolate chips.

If you're not worried about your carb load, you can make silly stuff like popcorn or a microwaved Mug Cake.

Vitamins

I do take a multivitamin, along with Vitamin D3 and fish oil (all from Costco). We try to eat wild salmon (frozen) once a week, as I think that's better than fish oil for getting DHA Omega 3. Salmon is easily the most expensive food I buy, which is why we limit our intake of it and supplement with fish oil.

Good Fat

I have severe misgivings about vegetable fats. Yes, it's low in saturated fat, but it's high in Omega 6 fat, and it's just not something people ate as they developed. So, while a giant vat of vegetable fat is cheap, I go with butter, olive oil, and coconut fat. They're a bit more expensive but still reasonable.

Invite Guests

My grandparents played cards, a lot. When I got older I realized why: they didn't have cable, and they didn't have money for restaurants and such. So the family would get together for dinner and cards. And people had a delightful time. The same simple, cheap forms of entertainment are open to us today.

Stay In Touch

For updates about my articles, blog posts, and videos, please "Like" my Facebook Page.

And please check out my book, Values of Harry Potter: Lessons for Muggles.

Bill Johnson "Detests" Liberty in Beer Sales

Denver Post editorial columnist Bill Johnson (whose tirades inexplicably appear on the news pages of the paper) "detests" a bill to expand economic liberty and consumer choice in the beer trade, he writes in in his latest piece.

Johnson dislikes a bill that would allow consenting adults -- grocers and consumers -- to agree to exchange dollars for regular-strength beer. Currently Colorado law forcibly prohibits such voluntary exchanges and limits grocery stores (except for a single store in a chain) to low-alcohol beer.

To Johnson, the issue is about "the little guy" versus "corporate America," and a "government... threatening yet again to shut" down liquor stores. Johnson doesn't mention a single word about the fact that the so-called "little guy" liquor stores (which often also are corporate entities) currently use government force to block the competition.

What about the littlest guy of all, the lone consumer without the resources to relentlessly lobby the legislature, as liquor stores do? Consumers should be able to buy whatever beer they want from the seller of their choice. But their rights are irrelevant in Johnson's world.

To be sure, the legislature also oppresses liquor stores by forcibly preventing them from selling most food and from opening chains. Those laws should be repealed. But two wrongs do not make a right, and rights-violating restrictions on liquor stores hardly justify additional restrictions on grocers. Justice requires the complete repudiation of all such anti-liberty controls.

Liquor store owners went into businesses knowing full well that current law benefits them by forcibly blocking their competitors. Those who start a businesses relying on the protection of unjust laws have no grounds to complain when those unjust laws finally are repealed. To the degree that the economic interests of liquor stores depend on violating people's rights, those interests properly bear no legal weight.

Two main special interests oppose expanding a free market in beer sales: liquor stores and brewers like Mike Bristol. They argue that, if grocers were allowed to sell the beer of their choice, consumers would flock to grocers for their beer purchases, and they would stop buying craft beer. Such hyperventilating claims not only defy reality, they demean consumers as well as liquor store owners and craft brewers.

If consumers only shopped at liquor stores and only purchased craft beer because the law forcibly prevented them from doing otherwise, then obviously existing law harms consumers. Bristol basically is arguing that his beer is so bad that he must force people to drink it, and if he stops using force, people will strop drinking it. Well, if his beer is so bad that consumers would not voluntarily choose to buy it on a free market, then he should stop producing it! Likewise, if liquor stores exist only because the law forcibly prevents consumers from shopping elsewhere, then obviously those stores are not meeting consumers' needs.

I would expect Bristol to take a little more pride in his work than that. If you have a good product, Mr. Bristol, then you should trust consumers to purchase it voluntarily. Just as it was wrong for Prohibition to once put beer brewers like you out of businesses, so it is wrong for you to use the force of unjust laws to block voluntary exchanges.

The simple fact is that, once grocers sell regular-strength beer, some will stock many craft beers, and others will not. That's the case with liquor stores now. Guess what: stores stock what their customers like to buy. I personally have not purchased anything other than high-quality beer for many years (I have a wonderful Vanilla Porter in the fridge right now from Breckenridge Brewery), and I'm not going to start buying Bud and Coors just because the law permits a free market in beer sales.

Having been to many of Colorado's fine breweries, talked to several of the state's brewers, and chatted with hundreds of beer enthusiasts, it is obvious to me that there is a strong market in Colorado for craft beer. That market is not somehow going to evaporate just because grocery stores can sell beer. What that market presents is an opportunity for liquor stores to specialize in selection. I doubt that many grocery stores will offer services like pick-and-choose six-packs, as various liquor stores already provide. As is obvious to anyone who has traveled outside Colorado, liquor stores continue to thrive in states where grocers may sell regular-strength beer.

As for Johnson's argument about putting people out of work, perhaps Johnson should brush up on his Bastiat so he doesn't sound like such an economic illiterate. What is immediately seen is that some liquor stores may enjoy less business or even shut down. What is not seen is that, if that happens, it will happen because some consumers are better off buying beer at grocery stores. What Johnson ignores are the extra jobs at the grocery stores, the extra money in consumers' pockets that can be spent elsewhere, and the extra time consumers have to produce or relax.

The legislature has no legitimate businesses forcibly disrupting the competitors of select businesses. Laws that prevent consenting adults from associating voluntarily to trade beer for dollars violate the rights of both buyer and seller. Shops that survive solely because they are protected by unjust laws do not deserve to be in business. Liquor store owners and brewers who actually take pride in their work and meet the needs of consumers will continue to thrive in a free market.

Give us liberty. Protect people's rights. Restore a free market in beer.


Additional reading:
Time for a Free Market in the Alcohol Industry
Free Liquor Stores from Prohibition-Era Rules
Another Look at Blue Laws
Time to Bring Beer Sales to Ballot
Beer Smash Protests Protectionism | Photos
CO Brewers Should Endorse Liberty
A Good Beer Needs No Political Force
Blue-law special

Stripper Welfare Illustrates Why Charity Should Be Voluntary

The following article by Linn and Ari Armstrong originally was published March 18, 2011, by Grand Junction Free Press.

Do people have a right to food, shelter, and other basic needs? Or do people who earn wealth have a right to use it as they see fit, to donate to charity (if they wish to do so) on a voluntary basis?

An Associated Press headline last month nicely illustrates a major problem with modern welfare programs: "Colorado bill bans welfare cards at strip clubs." Bill 1058 pertains to "public assistance payments and food stamps" that can be accessed through ATMs. It adds strip clubs to the list of other establishments where the funds may not be withdrawn: racetracks, bingo clubs, gun shops, and liquor stores.

Apparently even the Colorado legislature grants there is no fundamental right to stuff tax dollars into the garters and panties of strippers. Yet somehow we do not find the so-called "Responsible Family and Taxpayer Stewardship Act of 2011" very reassuring. What's to stop the same welfare recipients from cashing out down the block (or illegally selling tax-funded goods) and using the money at the same establishments?

Those who would trivialize such problems need only turn to the pages of the Los Angeles Times, where we find the following headlines and summaries from last year. "$69 million in California welfare money drawn out of state: Las Vegas tops the list with $11.8 million spent at casinos or taken from ATMs, but transactions in Hawaii, Miami, Guam and elsewhere also raise questions." "Thousands in welfare cash tapped at California strip clubs." "California welfare recipients withdrew $1.8 million at casino ATMs over eight months."

When politicians hand out "free" cash, there's no way to ensure the money is spent on basic needs. But even programs that provide goods and services, such as food or health care, allow the recipients to redirect their own dollars to wasteful spending. How often do people use food stamps for food and spend their own cash on cigarettes and booze?

The bureaucrats who distribute welfare benefits cannot possibly know whether the recipients use the benefits prudently or wastefully. Even outright fraud is difficult to detect. Moreover, because political programs operate by formulas and reams of rules, bureaucrats usually couldn't do anything about wasteful spending anyway. And, because the bureaucrats spend other people's money, they have little incentive to provide accountability for the resources.

Contrast forced welfare with voluntary charity. Somebody who voluntarily contributes to a cause has a strong incentive to make sure the money achieves its purpose. Voluntary charity is much more flexible, ranging from helping out a family member or neighbor to funding a major nonprofit. Voluntary charities are diverse, meeting a variety of needs through different approaches. Thus, the failure of one charity will have little impact on voluntary giving as a whole.

Voluntary charities are better able to ensure recipients actually benefit from the donations, and they have an interest in improving recipients' condition. A local charity organizer is more likely to know whether a recipient is trying hard to get back on his feet or squandering the resources on booze and strip clubs.

A local food bank is more likely to provide economical, healthy foods, as opposed to the high-sugar processed foods often obtained with food stamps. And voluntary charities are more likely to function well, as opposed to Colorado's failed computers that caused years of welfare backlogs.

If a charity performs poorly, donors can quickly redirect their resources to more effective organizations. By contrast, the contributers to tax-funded welfare have little ability or incentive to provide any oversight for those programs.

The greatest harm of forced welfare programs is not the wasted resources, but the cultural decay they foster. When people donate voluntarily to charity, they share a sense of goodwill with the recipients and hold a sincere desire to help them achieve a better life. Forced welfare more often causes animosity and anger.

The recipients of voluntary charity are more likely to realize that the help comes with the expectation of becoming responsibly self-sufficient. Forced welfare fosters the notion that recipients somehow deserve the help simply by virtue of failing to earn a living. Recipients with this attitude are more likely to squander the resources, live irresponsible lifestyles, and grow perpetually dependent on government handouts.

Those who advocate forced welfare confuse a need with a right, ignoring the fact that a "right" to material assistance implies the ability to force somebody else to produce those resources. Welfare benefits do not come from some magical pot of gold in the sky; they must be paid by individual producers.

People have the right to use the product of their labor as they deem best. A free society is a wealthy society in which the successful majority, freed from onerous tax burdens, gladly helps those truly in need. Voluntary charity respects the rights of the donors while best ensuring the well-being of the recipients.

Caldara Promotes Liberty On the Rocks

Jon Caldara spoke March 16 at Liberty On the Rocks in Denver:



Amanda Teresi, founder of the organization, also explained why it's important to recognize that George W. Bush was not a free-market capitalist:



Note: I run Liberty In the Books in association with Liberty On the Rocks, and I get paid a bit for doing so.

Talk on Individual Rights Versus Force

Starting with the example of slavery, I talk about the principle of individual rights, which holds that each individual properly lives his own life and keeps the fruits of his own labor, as contrasted with the principle of force.



I presented this talk on March 19 at Liberty Toastmasters (which does not necessarily endorse anything I have to say).

I slightly misquote Howard Roark; the original line is, "I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone's right to one minute of my life."

As an aside, I have an interesting story about this talk. I struggled to come up with a theme and outline I was happy with, and the morning of the talk I woke up early and thought about this some more. It seemed that I was trying to mash two different talks together, so the results were unsatisfactory. I went back to sleep and dreamed about writing down some notes, and when I woke up I altered my speech according to the notes I had dreamed about. I cut some material from the middle of the speech and added some new material, and I'm much happier with the talk as revised partly in my sleep. Of course one must rationally review the results, but the subconscious is fairly amazing.

Gardner Introduces Tax Discrimination Bill

The more I hear of discriminatory tax schemes (such as what Scott Walker promoted in Wisconsin) the less I like them. While I do not favor repealing tax exemptions unless offset by general tax cuts, neither to I support implementing new discriminatory tax measures. Instead, advocates of economic liberty should advocate lower taxes for everybody, imposed in an equitable way.

I see four main problems with discriminatory taxes.

1. They're not fair. Taxing two people in comparable situations different rates is just plain wrong. Moreover, they seem to blatantly violate the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of an "equal protection of the laws."

2. They involve politicians in social engineering. Politicians impose relatively harsher tax penalties on people and activities they don't like, in order to impose less-harsh penalties on those they favor. But it's simply not the proper job of politicians to pick winners and losers in the marketplace, or to play favorites.

3. Discriminatory taxes encourage individuals and business to squander resources vying for special tax privileges. This time and energy should be spent on productive work, not sucking up to politicians.

4. Discriminatory taxes skew people's incentives. They direct more effort into tax-favored activities, and less effort into tax-punished activities. This necessarily shifts economic activity away from serving the highest needs and wants of customers.

In light of this general criticism, consider a new tax discrimination scheme proposed by Colorado Representative Cory Gardner, as described in a March 17 release:

Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO) introduced a bill today that will help entrepreneurs and small business owners by allowing them to open tax deductable savings accounts under the condition that the money is used to start or grow a small business.

"Many small businesses are started in a garage with a dream and a credit card, and it's time to lend these people a hand." Gardner said. "If we're serious about economic recovery and job creation then let's look to ways that we can help small businesses, which create 2 out of every 3 new jobs."

Details of Rep. Gardner's proposal:

* Businesses with 500 or fewer employees will be eligible to open a savings account.

* Contributions to the account would be capped at $10,000 per year and the total value of these accounts at any one time would be capped at $150,000.

* As long as the money is used within five years of the first distribution, account holders do not have to worry about fees or penalties.

* Account holders could use the funds for the costs of business creation or expansion, such as the purchase of equipment or facilities, marketing, training, incorporation or accounting costs.

Consider the problems with this proposal:

* It favors new jobs over old jobs. Thus, it will promote ending stable, existing jobs in favor of "creating" new, more-speculative work.

* Who gets to decide which expenditures count as "growing a small business?" In actuality, every business expense is made with that outcome in mind. But, under the proposal, we'll have some team of bureaucrats to decide what counts and what does not count as "business development" under the program. And so businesses will waste resources playing this political game.

* The proposal favors small businesses over large ones. But, again, it's not the proper role of politicians to pick winners and losers or play favorites. It's the proper job of politicians to protect property rights, including rights of contract. Let people in a voluntary market decide the proper sizes of business ventures.

If Corry wants to cut taxes for businesses, something I strongly favor, then he should just proclaim that openly and offer an across-the-board tax cut.

A Note on 'No Soliciting'

This last fall, as I handed out flyers for Congressional Candidate Stephen Bailey, I wondered whether all the people with "No Soliciting" signs really wanted to avoid getting campaign literature. (I avoided handing out flyers at such places.)

A family member of mine put up a no-soliciting sign that excepts youth fundraisers. That gave me the idea to post the following: "No Soliciting. No flyers, handbills, phone books, etc. Youth fundraisers and political campaigns excepted." I think that distinguishes the sort of contacts I want from the sort I don't want. (I just used plain paper in a sealed ziplock bag.)

Moreover, the term "soliciting" is somewhat ambiguous, so the added detail is helpful. Dictionary.com includes the following two definitions, among others: "to solicit orders or trade, as for a business"; "to offer to have sex with someone in exchange for money." So does "soliciting" include fundraising for nonprofits and political literature?

Generally I don't want business flyers for several reasons. First, they're wasteful (especially phone books), and I have to spend my time throwing them away. Second, I don't really trust flyers handed out door to door. I'd rather find a business through referral or the internet. Third, if I happen to leave for a few days, collected flyers can telegraph to would-be burglars that the house may be unoccupied.

Today I happened to be returning from a walk, and I noticed a flyer distributer read my sign and then not drop a flyer, as my sign requested. I was so impressed that I asked him who he works for. It turns out it's Miss Jenny's Dry Cleaner. I had the following humorous exchange with a manager of the business:

[Me] I really appreciated your flyer guy in Westminster respecting my no-soliciting/ no-flyers sign. It gives me a favorable view of your business.

[Manager] I'm sorry, but was that sarcasm? If it wasn't, then thank you. If it was, we instruct our marketing people to avoid houses that have a "no handbills" sign, as we do not handout flyers. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me.

[Me] No, it wasn't sarcasm. I watched your guy notice my sign and then not place the flyer. (I was returning from a walk.) So, because I appreciate your respect for property rights, I posted a link to your web page on my Facebook feed.

The manager then thanked me again.

Now, it might be said that, if I hadn't noticed the flyer guy avoid my house, I never would have heard of Jenny's Cleaner. Perhaps, especially as I already have a dry cleaner I'm happy with. However, if he'd placed the flyer against my stated wishes, I certainly would have had a negative impression of the business.

So, if you have a generic "No Soliciting" sign posted, I suggest you replace it with a more explicit and detailed sign. If you don't have a sign up, you might consider whether you want to try to limit what people leave at your door.

Free Elmo!

Today's Denver Post publishes some thoughtful letters on "public" broadcast funding.

While my own letter did not make the mix, I though it worth reproducing here:

The Denver Post argues PBS and NPR offer good content that "most Americans" wish to fund with tax dollars. But our nation is established on the principle that the rights of the individual may not be violated by majority rule. Just as "most Americans" cannot rightly prevent an individual from speaking, so the majority ought not force individuals to finance speech against their will. Elmo does not need a bandit's mask, he needs freedom from political meddling.

You Mean Licensing Massage Therapists Didn't Stop Prostitution?

A few years ago the Colorado legislature imposed massage licensing on the pretext that it would stop "parlor" prostitution. My dad and I wrote about this.

You can imagine my surprise, then, upon reading the following Denver Post headline: "Accused madam in suburban spa prostitute ring surrenders."

You mean licensing therapeutic massage didn't stop parlor prostitution? What a shocker.

Of course the licensing scheme was never about stopping prostitution. It was about protecting existing massage therapists from competition and screwing consumers with higher prices.

Given the obvious failure of the licensing law to achieve its stated objective, will the legislature now repeal Title 12, Article 48.5, Sections 101 through 119, the "Massage Parlor Code?"

Of course not.

'Personhood' and the Fetal Protection Bill

Anti-abortion activists killed a bill to protect fetuses from criminal and reckless harm, as I recently pointed out. Over at Big Media, Jason Salzman also quotes from the Colorado Christian Family Alliance, which opposed the bill.

Today, Lynn Bartels of the Denver Post advances the story by paraphrasing State Representative Mark Waller, who blames the pro-choice side for including language denying the legal "personhood" of fetuses.

Bartels also quotes Colorado Right to Life as accusing Waller of failing to fight the "battle with the liberal, godless, left-wing abortion industry." (Obviously the line is intended as a smear on multiple counts; many people other than those who facilitate abortions favor legal abortion, as do many religious people and non-left-wing people.)

But Bartels is wrong to imply that the "single sentence" about personhood is what primarily doomed the bill. Both the Colorado Catholic Conference and the Colorado Christian Family Alliance mention the personhood line, but they also dislike the fact that the bill repealed other (mostly unenforceable) laws pertaining to abortion. A release yesterday from the Alliance does not even mention the "personhood" issue (see below).

Notably, the Alliance gives anti-abortion activists full credit for killing the bill, and the Alliance pledges to accept only clearly "pro-life," meaning anti-abortion, language.

The Alliance material quoted by Salzman also claims the bill "codifies taxpayer funding for abortion mills." But I looked at the bill and found no language along those lines. Update: State Senator Pat Steadman returned my call and confirmed the bill did not pertain to "taxpayer funding" of abortions. Steadman said it's "ridiculous" to think the bill has anything to do with tax funding, "because that's unconstitutional" according to Article 5, Section 50; "I can't imagine what provision of the bill they would even cite to make that claim."

Obviously the anti-abortion crowd is attempting to hijack the fetal protection bill, which is why the line about "personhood" was important. To review, in 2010 State Senator Dave Schultheis ran a bill explicitly granting legal "personhood" to fetuses, and in 2008 and 2010 anti-abortion groups ran a "personhood" initiative in Colorado (and have threatened to do so again in 2012).

So for Waller to accuse the pro-choice side of hanging up the bill over "personhood" language is completely disingenuous. The central problem is that the anti-abortion side will not allow a bill to proceed unless it is a backdoor attempt to outlaw abortion.

Another reason why language denying legal "personhood" to fetuses was needed in this year's bill (1256) is that its title and language explicitly refers to an "unborn child." As I've argued, this "vague, non-objective" language "obscures the important distinction between a fetus and a born child." Given that ambiguity, language clarifying that a fetus is not in fact legally a "person" is absolutely essential to the bill.

Now, for a bill with a neutral title, such as "A Bill to Protect Embryos and Fetuses from Criminal and Reckless Harm," specific language about "personhood" would not be necessary, so long as the bill's provisions unambiguously refrained from restricting abortions.

In general, a good bill would be much shorter and much simpler than 1256. However, a good bill must also prevent anti-abortion zealots from hijacking the law for backdoor abortion bans.

March 17 Release from the Christian Family Alliance of Colorado

Pro-Life Citizens Rally to kill sneak attack on Colorado's voter-passed Pro-life Laws
Even the bill's drafter, attorney Michael Dohr, admitted the bill "removes all criminal abortion statutes" thereby ratifying abortion-on-demand in Colorado

Denver, CO – Today, Christian Family Alliance of Colorado responded to deceptive State House GOP leadership back pedaling on a bill designed to subvert Colorado's voter-passed pro-life laws.

HB 1256, the so-called fetal homicide bill, inspired by a recent hit and run crime committed against an Aurora women and her unborn child, was pulled after pro-life citizens rallied to expose the deceitful bill.

The language of the bill, rather than address only fetal homicide, went far beyond to strike part 1 of article 6 of title 18 that would decriminalize all abortion related criminal activity.

"It saddens CFAC to know that even House GOP leadership seemed prepared to nullify all of Colorado’s voter-passed pro-life laws and therefore ratify abortion-on-demand in the Centennial State," said Neville.

"We'd expect that from a Planned Parenthood lobbyist like Senate sponsor Pat Steadman, but not from those who claim to value the lives of unborn children."

"Thankfully pro-life citizens rallied in time to end the travesty that was HB 1256. They are now looking forward to working with real pro-life legislation that will finally close Colorado's fetal homicide loop hole," concluded Neville.

Denver Mayoral Candidate Mejia Speaks at Liberty On the Rocks

Now that former Denver Mayor Federico Peña has endorsed James Mejia for the same job, I thought I'd release video of Mejia from the March 2 Liberty On the Rocks. Participants asked Mejia some tough questions about education, the city's homeless program, and political "investments." And he offered some thoughtful answers (though I disagree with many of his views).

Anti-Abortion Zealots Kill Fetal Protection Bill

You'd think anti-abortion zealots might want to protect fetuses from criminal harm, right? Wrong.

"Right-fringe... abortion extremists" opposed Colorado House Bill 1256, as State Senator Pat Steadman told Lynn Bartels of the Denver Post, causing the bill's sponsors to withdraw the measure concerning fetal protection.

As I've reviewed, Colorado law is deficient in that it criminalizes only intentional termination of a pregnancy (against the woman's wishes). What if, through a criminal or reckless act, somebody unintentionally kills a woman's wanted fetus? That's what happened with the hit-and-run in Denver.

The new bill defined four levels of offense: intentionally killing a fetus after deliberation (against the woman's wishes), intentionally killing a fetus without prior deliberation, recklessly causing the death of a fetus while knowing the woman is pregnant, and recklessly causing the death of a fetus without knowing the woman is pregnant. These basic categories of offense make a lot of sense, which is why I favored the bill (despite some problems with it).

In a subsequent op-ed, I offered the basic theoretical foundation for such a law: "Legal protections for a woman's fetus properly extend from the legal rights of the woman herself."

Why, then, did anti-abortion activists, who claim to want to protect fetuses, oppose the bill? On March 14, the Colorado Catholic Conference sent an action alert via email opposing 1256. This Catholic group offered two main arguments. First, the "bill fails to recognize an unborn child as a separate victim of homicide or assault," as the bill explicitly states that a fetus is not a person under law. Second:

The Colorado Catholic Conference also opposes the fact that this bill seeks to repeal the criminal abortion statute that is still on the books in Colorado. The pro-life community looks forward to the day when Roe vs. Wade is overturned, and there is no benefit to the pro-life community to repeal our criminal abortion statute, even if currently it is not enforceable.

I take it this refers to statutes 18-6-101 through 18-6-105, which bill 1256 would have repealed. Statute 18-6-102 outlaws the ending of a "pregnancy of a woman by any means other than justified medical termination or birth." The key, then, is what constitutes "justified medical termination," which 18-6-101 defines. The measure severely restricts abortion to cases of likely death of the woman, "serious permanent impairment of the physical health of the woman" (including mental health), serious fetal deformity, cases where the woman is under sixteen, rape, and incest.

As I have argued, these statutes seriously violate the rights of pregnant women to get an abortion. But apparently the Colorado Catholic Conference would rather prevent actual laws that protect fetuses from criminal harm, in order to leave unenforceable statutes on the books that outlaw elective abortions.

This is just the latest illustration of how anti-abortion zealots undermine the rights and lives of actual people, in order to maintain the faith-based fantasy that a zygote is a person. So the next time a criminal gets away with killing a woman's fetus, feel free to blame the anti-abortion crusaders who killed bill 1256.

Vouchers Undermine Liberty

With Colorado conservatives all atwitter over Douglas County's adoption of a voucher program (see the Denver Post and 9News), now might be a good time to pause and consider whether vouchers advance liberty or undermine it.

Recently Michael LaFerrara has argued that a voucher program "is a statist 'Trojan Horse' set to destroy the private nature of private schools," whereas a good tax credit program (along the lines of Colorado's bill 1048) "is a means to more parental choice and less government interference in education."

I have three main concerns with vouchers.

1. Vouchers put otherwise-private schools under heavier government controls. To take but one example from the present case, "The district also added a provision... to allow students to opt out of religious instruction at religion-based schools," the Post reports. But presumably many of the leaders of those schools regard the religious instruction as fundamental to their school's mission. Parents and schools should be free to agree on the terms of a child's education (within the bounds of that child's rights) without political interference.

2. Vouchers force people to finance religious institutions against their will. Secularists are forced to subsidize religious schools, Buddhists and Muslims are forced to subsidize Christian schools, etc. That's wrong. The freedom of conscience, of which free speech is an aspect, entails the right not to support, monetarily or otherwise, the propagation of ideas with which one disagrees.

3. Vouchers entrench the welfare state. Whereas a tax credit reduces a person's tax burden, and thus involves that person's own money, a voucher forcibly transfers wealth. Vouchers thus sanction the propriety of forcing some people to fund the education of others. Obviously this is a big problem for anybody who advocates the individual right to control one's own income and resources. If we take property rights seriously, then we must recognize the right of each individual to voluntarily contribute funds to any educational program he chooses -- or to no educational program at all. (Obviously parents have an obligation to provide for their own children's education.)

For more on this issue, please see the recent article from my dad and me, "How About School Choice for Everyone?"

'America Is Not Broke'

Over at Reason Nick Gillespie reviews the fashionable leftist view that deficit, tax, and spending rates don't matter.

In a recent writing workshop, a participant brought to my attention a New York Times article with the same theme.

The Times accuses those claiming the Emperor has no money of uttering "obfuscating nonsense," though the U.S. faces debt over $14 trillion and unfunded liabilities several times larger. True, this does not technically render the federal government "broke," because it can pay its debts by raising taxes and creating money from thin air, in other words by forcibly confiscating more of people's earnings.

But, regardless of what the meaning of the word "broke," is, out-of-control federal spending threatens our prosperity and our liberty.

Law Should Protect Wanted Fetuses While Allowing Abortions

The following article originally was published March 1 by Denver Daily News.

A hit and run in Denver last December killed a woman's fetus and led to calls for new legislation. If someone harms a woman's fetus against her will, whether intentionally or through negligence, what is the proper legal penalty?

We recognize a woman's right to bear a child, and we condemn as viciously evil the intentional killing of a woman's wanted fetus. Likewise, when negligence or criminal violence causes the death of a fetus, we regard that as horribly tragic and look for legal recourse.

But the fact that the law should protect a woman's wanted fetus does not imply that the law should also prohibit women from getting an abortion, though opponents of abortion often argue as much.

The mistake is to think that, because the law should protect a woman's wanted fetus, therefore the fetus is a person with full legal rights, just like every born child and adult.

Legal protections for a woman's fetus properly extend from the legal rights of the woman herself. Every woman has the right to life, liberty, and the security of her person. One of a woman's most profound choices is whether to bear a child. A pregnant woman who wants to bear a child devotes great care and resources to having a healthy baby, and she contemplates her fetus in anticipation of the independent person it will become. Therefore, killing a woman's wanted fetus, whether intentionally or as the consequence of violence or negligence, violates that woman's rights.

Likewise, because the woman is an independent person with full rights, whereas her fetus is totally contained within her body and not a biologically separate and independent person, the woman has the right to get an abortion if she chooses.

Unfortunately, some on the religious right have attempted to hijack the issue of fetal protection for backdoor attempts to outlaw abortion. For example, in 2010 Senator Dave Schultheis's bill attempted to define a fetus as a person in a fetal homicide bill.

Whereas sensible fetal protection laws protect a woman's rights to her own body and choices, legally defining a fetus as a person strips a woman of her rights. If a fetus is legally declared a person with the right to life, then, logically, the pregnant woman must be legally forbidden from getting an abortion, even if that endangers her health, and even if she must be imprisoned and physically restrained to force her to give birth.

Thankfully, newly introduced House Bill 1256 explicitly avoids conferring personhood to fetuses. Existing laws already criminalize the "unlawful termination of pregnancy," and last year a Mesa County court sentenced a man to five years in prison for giving his pregnant former girlfriend an abortifacient without her knowledge, the Daily Sentinel reported. [See also my previous post.] The new bill creates four ranges of offense, ranging from recklessness to the deliberate killing of a woman's wanted fetus.

Bill 1256 has some problems. Rather than outline the general principles applicable to call cases, it contains unnecessary language about committing an offense while driving a vehicle. Moreover, the bill obscures the important distinction between a fetus and a born child by referring to an "unborn child." Such vague, non-objective language should be removed.

Overall, though, the new bill seeks to more fully protect women against crime and reckless acts. While the law should not be contorted to serve an anti-abortion agenda, it should consistently protect the rights of every born person, including the rights of a pregnant woman either to get an abortion or protect her fetus, as she chooses.


Ari Armstrong blogs at FreeColorado.com and is the coauthor of the paper, "The 'Personhood' Movement Is Anti-Life."

Guarantee to Unions the Same Rights the Rest of Us Have

The following article by Linn and Ari Armstrong originally was published March 4 by Grand Junction Free Press.

Union battles in Wisconsin spilled over into Colorado February 22 as union supporters and Tea Party groups held opposing rallies at the capitol. See FreeColorado.com for Ari's videos. The clash offers a great opportunity to review the proper functions and legal protections of unions.

The essential principle is that individuals have the right to associate voluntarily with others, whether as friends, union supporters, or corporate investors. Our First Amendment recognizes the fundamental "right of the people peaceably to assemble."

The great irony and hypocrisy of the left is that it seeks to deprive people of their rights of assembly and speech when they join corporations. People have the right to speak, try to persuade others, and contribute their funds to whatever (nonviolent) causes they want, whether as individuals or as voluntary participants in unions, corporations, or other groups.

"Corporations aren't people," the left continuously cries. True, and neither are unions. However, all groups are composed of individuals, and people don't lose their rights (or acquire any new ones) by virtue of joining some group.

Employers too have the right to associate freely by seeking to hire whomever they please, on whatever terms both parties agree to adopt. Whether employers want to hire no union members, only union members, or some combination, that is properly their right. Thus, we oppose so-called "right to work" laws restricting the voluntary association of unions and employers.

The problem with the Wagner Act (also called the National Labor Relations Act) signed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1935 is that, in conjunction with subsequent legislation, it violates the rights of employers and their employees to associate freely. Today's unions use political force to drive wages for a select few above market rates, thereby contributing to unemployment and the degradation of American industry. And often government has permitted outright violence by union thugs, who have forcibly shut down businesses and viciously attacked nonunion employees.

Just law neither grants to unions special political advantages nor impedes their formation. Properly speaking, there are no special "union rights" or "corporate rights" or rights for any other group. There are only individual rights, which are the same for everybody, and which people retain when they consensually join together.

Note that when people form unions solely by voluntary consent and eschew violence and political force, those unions become part of the free market economy. The free market simply describes all the networks of individuals who respect each other's property rights and interact voluntarily.

What about political-sector unions, which are the cause of all the fuss in Wisconsin? We might note that the obvious way to resolve the problem in many cases is to restore those jobs to the free market, but then we'd be accused of radicalism.

Government employees don't need special legal protections for "collective bargaining." Union members are free to rally, argue, campaign, and vote. And taxpayers have every right, through their elected representatives, to say no to union demands. The right of the taxpayer to his own earnings is what the political-sector unions blatantly disregard.

At the Denver rally, various union supporters claimed that unions are responsible for shorter workweeks, higher wages, and the rise of the middle class. In fact, insofar as unions have resorted to political force, they have thrown others out of work, undermined American business, and stunted the middle class.

The fundamental driver of higher wages is worker productivity. People in an economy as a whole cannot earn more than they produce. And productivity depends on capital formation. People can produce a lot more with computers, tractors, high-tech factory equipment, and automobiles than they can with crude iron tools and horse-drawn plows. Higher productivity is what enables people to earn more. Thank the capitalists, not the unions, for increasing wages.

True, in a small fraction of cases, unions might, without resorting to political force, persuade an obstinate business owner to pay market wages. In such cases the owner is better off paying more, or he'll soon lose his best workers to competitors. Yet it is fundamentally this competition for labor, not union pressure, that drives up wages as productivity increases.

We were shocked to hear the blatant class envy of many of the Denver union supporters. "Eat the rich," "tax the rich," "tax those bastards up in Aspen," stick it to corporations, we heard. How shameful.

True, some people in our largely politicized economy enrich themselves by gaining favors for the politically connected. That's how newly elected Chicago mayor and Democratic favorite Rahm Emanuel gained his money, as Tim Carney pointed out a couple years ago in the Washington Examiner.

But big earners in the free sectors of the economy produce their wealth through years of dedication, hard work, long hours, and foresight. They drive our prosperity. Their money belongs to them, and their rights should not be sacrificed to destructive and hateful envy.

Maher, Williams Debate Party Strategy

Should liberty activists participate in the Republican or Libertarian parties? That's what Kelly Maher of WhoSaidYouSaid.com and David Williams of the Gadsden Society debated March 2 at Liberty On the Rocks.



Maher's basic point was that liberty activists should work within a party that can actually win elections. Williams argued that Republicans have too often undermined liberty.

As indicated by the question I ask in the video, I do not support the Libertarian Party, for reasons I discussed in 2005.

Business Investment: Willkie's Lessons for Obama and Moore

Last month, Obama implored businesses to "get in the game" and increase investments; "now is the time to invest in America."

More recently leftist agitator Michael Moore said, "[Businesses are] sitting on the money, they're using it for their own -- they're putting it someplace else with no interest in helping you with your life, with that money. We've allowed them to take that. That's not theirs, that's a national resource, that's ours. We all have this -- we all benefit from this or we all suffer as a result of not having it."

Note that Obama and Moore share a collectivist vision of property. Obama does not want businesses to invest in particular projects most likely to earn them a profit; he wants businesses to "invest in America" as a collective whole, without regard to personal advantage. Moore's collectivism is more overt and severe: he follows Marx in declaring produced wealth the property of the nation state.

But the real cause of lackluster investment is not shortsightedness or "greed" on the part of businesses owners and executives. If they thought they could make money, they'd invest! Instead, the real cause of continued high unemployment and sluggish economic growth is the economic uncertainty created by leftist politicians and activists like Obama and Moore. Robert Higgs, for example, has written about this.

Consider just a few of the ways that power-hungry politicians have fostered uncertainty. ObamaCare with its waivers and Constitutional problems is intentionally left to bureaucrats to implement by fiat. Democrats keep talking about raising taxes and implementing new taxes like the VAT. The FTC and DOJ keep threatening to persecute successful companies under antitrust laws. Vicious laws like Sarbanes-Oxley discourage corporate formation. Obama and his minions have diverted billions of dollars to the politically connected as corporate welfare. Anti-energy activists continue to impede development of real domestic energy sources (as opposed to windmills and wasteful solar panels.)

With all this politically-caused uncertainty, many business leaders simply cannot predict whether they'll see a return on their investments.

If Obama and Moore want businesses to invest, they should stop threatening to confiscate the earnings of businesses and get the hell out of the way.

Interestingly, this same debate played out during the Great Depression. This is Wendell Willkie, a book I discovered through Amity Shlaes, contains the text of a debate between Willkie and Robert H. Jackson held January 6, 1938. Following are some of Willkie's remarks (see pages 70-73 of the 1940 book from Dodd, Mead, & Company).

"Mr. Jackson has previously spoken of a 'strike of capital' against the government. ... The main problem is to restore the confidence of investors in American business, and to do this will require more than pleasant speaking on the part of government. For several years the government has taken definite action to show its hostility to business. It must now take definite action to demonstrate the sincerity of its desire for cooperation. ...

"For example, there seems to be no important disagreement today on the need for a reduction in the undistributed profits tax and the capital gains tax, both of which fall with particular severity upon small businesses and both of which restrict the expansion of industry.

"[Other needed reforms include] modifying those restrictions upon the buying and selling of securities that hamper the investment of funds...

"And above all... the American people should be spared the confusion of hearing what one government official says in friendship today denied by another in hostility tomorrow."

While I do not agree with all of Willkie's proposals, his basic appraisal of the cause of the "strike of capital" is accurate. It is a lesson the Obamas and Moores of the world would do well to heed.