maryland

Lessons in Entrepreneurship: Lemonade Stand Edition

by Ryan Young on June 17, 2011 · 1 comment

in Economy, Regulation

Post image for Lessons in Entrepreneurship: Lemonade Stand Edition

Jennifer Hughes is in charge of issuing permits for Montgomery County, Maryland’s government. She told WUSA, a local tv station, that it is “technically illegal to run even the smallest lemonade stand in the county, but inspectors usually don’t go looking for them.” Some enterprising children recently set up some lemonade stands outside of the U.S. Open, which is played in Montgomery County. They plan to donate the money they make to charity. Officials quickly shut down the stands and fined the children’s parents $500.

After a round of bad publicity, the county rescinded the fines. They are also allowing the children to re-open the lemonade stands, so long as they’re on an out-of-the-way road.

It’s good that these children are learning about entrepreneurship and running a business at such a young age. One worries, though, about the lessons Montgomery County is teaching them.

Regulation of the Day 164: Panhandling

by Ryan Young on February 8, 2011 · 1 comment

in Regulation, Regulation of the Day

If Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett gets his way, panhandlers will need a government permit to ask people for money if they’re near a road. When panhandlers solicit motorists at intersections, they often have to step into the road. Leggett believes this is a safety hazard that requires a legislative fix.

Roadside panhandling is already illegal under Maryland state law, so the county ordinance is technically redundant. But the state ban appears to not be well enforced; hence the local law. Leggett’s permit proposal is likely a backdoor ban. The permits will exist, and panhandlers can apply for them. But none will be issued.

But suppose a permit does get approved. This would violate state law, would it not? Of course, people still panhandle at intersections anyway. So maybe neither the state nor the county ban matters so much.

(via Dan Mitchell)

Maryland Considers Privatizing Liquor Sales

by Michelle Minton on November 13, 2010

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Regulation

The only place residents of Montgomery County, Maryland, can purchase liquor is in county-owned stores, which until recently were only open six days a week. However, some big changes might be on the way for Montgomery.

Beginning on November 21st the county will run a pilot program, allowing the county’s 24 county-owned stores to remain open on Sundays for the next six months to test the waters (translation: to see how much money they can bring into the county). The move has private stores up in arms — claiming that now they’ll have to compete with government-run stores and lose revenue and customers as a result. According to Scott Yates, whose father owns Olney Beer and Fine Wine:

“It will hurt us pretty bad,” he said. “Sundays are part of the weekend. We sort of look forward to that day and them being closed, when we can do business and not worry about competing with [the county].”

Rather than opposing Sunday sales, Montgomery County alcohol outlets ought to be supporting the closure of the county-run stores; a proposal that just might be under consideration.

According to the Rockville Patch, County Executive Ike Leggett — the same official that ordered the six-month Sunday sale pilot program — is considering completely privatizing liquor sales in the county.

While his comments were very tentative, it should give Montgomery County store owners a legitimate target: end county sales: “Leggett said he would ask the Department of Liquor Control to study the privatization issue and the pros and cons of Sunday sales after the six-month Sunday sales trial concludes in May.”

The county currently collects around $28 million in profit each year from liquor sales and any privatization plan will likely attempt to protect that revenue. If liquor store owners in Montgomery County don’t want to compete with government-run stores, they should get on board with privatization in their county and the greater D.C. Metro area.

Regulation of the Day 141: Mandatory Fire Sprinklers

by Ryan Young on June 14, 2010 · 2 comments

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Regulation, Regulation of the Day

Politicians love it when housing prices go up. They think it’s a sign of a vibrant and growing economy. That high-price fetish is partially to blame for the housing crisis of 2008.

Officials in Cumberland, Maryland have not learned their lesson. They are doing all they can to boost local housing prices. For example, the city council is currently mulling requiring all new homes to install fire sprinkler systems. For a 2,000 square foot home, that would add $3,000 to $9,000 to the price of the home.

Potential homebuyers are questioning the wisdom of the idea; high and rising prices reduce demand for housing. It’s basic economics. If this mandate passes, fewer Cumberlanders will be able to afford a new home. For a city complaining about its aging housing stock, this is not wise policy.

But this isn’t just an economic issue. It’s a personal freedom issue. As one man told the Cumberland Times-News,

Cumberland resident Don Bohrer suggested that more — and louder — smoke detectors, and not sprinklers, are a reasonable solution. Bohrer cautioned against “Big Brother” government infiltrating private homes any more than already is done.

“We’re losing more of our freedoms every time you pass one of these silly things,”?Bohrer said.

He’s right. One mandate isn’t that big of a deal, though this one is rather expensive. But when you add them all up – federal regulations alone add up to 157,000 pages – you see that regulators have created a monster.

(Hat tip to Megan McLaughlin)

Nanny State Prevails on Maryland Wine Laws

by Angela Logomasini on April 5, 2010

in Nanny State, Personal Liberty

Legislators in Maryland have disappointed the state’s wine lovers yet again by failing to pass a bill that would have allowed residents to receive wine via the mail. Sadly, the bill gained a sizable majority of the members (12-8) in the House Economic Matters Committee, but it was just shy of the 13 votes required (a majority of committee’s 26 members) before it could go for a full House vote. According to a memo produced by Marylanders for Better Wine and Beer Laws posted by wine writer Rob Garretson, three members were excused from voting, one because of religious views regarding alcohol and two others for unknown reasons. Something seems fishy here.

Staff at Marylanders for Better Wine and Beer Laws are optimistic that the state could open in 2011. This year, the legislature passed Maryland Winery Modernization Act, which Marylanders for Better Wine Laws says reduces regulation on Maryland wineries and allows wineries to open for the first time in Prince George’s County. In addition, the new law funded a study that could help build the case for direct shipping.

Nonetheless, such trade restrictions are just one problem with the prohibition-inspired, state-level regulatory morass. Some states have opened up, but problems abound. Even where shipping is allowed, myriad regulations and taxes needlessly burden consumers. The advocates of regulation make a host of arguments, some of which are quite similar to those made by the temperance movement to advance prohibition. Surely, responsible alcohol use is in order, but government bans and regulations are not necessary to protect us from ourselves. And the massive regulatory bureaucracy is not necessary to ensure simple ID checks to protect children. Instead, it largely serves politically organized players and government budgets.

MD Proposed Alcohol Tax Hikes Upward of 1,000 Percent

by Angela Logomasini on March 12, 2010

in Nanny State, Personal Liberty

Despite their seeming love of big government, Maryland lawmakers have done one thing worthy of praise: they have has kept state alcohol taxes relatively low. According to the Tax Foundation‘s most recent report on excise taxes, Maryland’s wine tax is the is the 11th lowest, it’s beer tax is the 8th lowest, and it is tied with D.C. for the lowest tax on spirits. For Marylanders who value freedom, a nice glass of wine, an affordable sip of beer, or a shot of whiskey, this is is terrific news! But nanny statists don’t like it, and they are lobbying for change.

According to today’s Washington Post, the state legislature is considering steep tax hikes on wine and spirits. Allegedly, the funds would be used to help those in need, including the mentally ill, as the taxes could theoretically defray state health care costs. At least that is what the Maryland Developmental Disabilities Coalition suggested this week in testimony before a Maryland House committee.

But such advocates put too much faith in government. Maryland’s health care problems have nothing to do with low state taxes. Despite relatively low alcohol taxes, Maryland’s per-capita state taxes are among the top five highest in the nation, according to another Tax Foundation report. Feeding that beast more tax revenues won’t make state social services more effective, nor can residents be sure the revenues will be used for health care. Tax hikes more likely will increase government waste and prolong a sluggish economy–which hurts rather than helps.

And the proposed tax increases are nothing short of draconian. As noted by “Brewnotes” blogger Ben Brouse in a well composed letter to MD legislators (posted on his blog):

MD proposed tax rates ($$/gal):

beer–1.16 (1,288% increase)
wine–2.96 (740% increase)
spirits–10.03 (668% increase)

If the tax increase passes, our state alcohol beverage taxes will be four times the national average for beer (highest in the nation; 2nd place Alaska at $1.07/gal), over three-and-half times the national average for wine (highest in the nation; 2nd place Alaska at $2.50/gal), and just shy of 50% higher than the national average for spirits (eleventh-highest in the nation; 1st place Washington state at $26.45/gal) [Source: the Jernigan paper referred to in the House bill preamble].

According to the Washington Post, change is unlikely because of “powerful alcohol lobby” in the state. Yet bigger lobbies have fallen under the weight of tax-and-spend politicians in the past. Still, consumers had better hope that the Post is right because it is they–not the “alcohol lobby”–who will be footing the bill.

Reason Prevails in Oregon

by Angela Logomasini on February 16, 2010

in Environment, Nanny State

Oregon Senators this week have voted down regulations that could have led consumers to less safe, glass baby bottles. Three Democrats in the Senate joined the Republicans to defeat a ban on baby bottles, sippy, cups, and other products made with the chemical Bisphenol A. CEI’s friends at the Cascade Policy Institute provided educational materials (in partnership with CEI) on the science and apparently legislators decided that reason and the facts should prevail over all the hype. And the hype has been significant, as noted here on Open Market: See here, here, and here. This is a tremendously important victory for reason and freedom. Unfortunately, most states are moving in the opposite direction.

Regulation of the Day 57: Minimum Price Agreements

by Ryan Young on October 7, 2009

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Legal, Regulation, Regulation of the Day, Tech & Telecom

A new Maryland law makes it illegal for manufacturers to set a minimum retail price for their products in sales contracts. The law is meant to increase competition. Unfortunately, it will have the opposite effect.

As Wayne Crews and I explain in the The American Spectator, it could prevent retailers from competing with each other on non-price grounds, such as customer service, product demonstrations, and advertising.

Some products, such as televisions or cars, have high information costs. Customers want to know a lot about these products before they commit to a purchase. They want to know what they’re getting. Try before they buy.

By forcing retailers to compete against each other to give customers more and better information and service, minimum price agreements can help consumers get what they want and boost sales at the same time.