taxpayer money

That G20 Communique

by Iain Murray on April 3, 2009 · 1 comment

in International, Regulation, Trade

Yesterday’s communiqué from the leaders of the G20 – a motley collection of democracies and dictatorships – has some good points, but in general it represents a new version of what economist Friedrich Hayek called “the fatal conceit.” It believes that government has all the answers, and demonstrates that the world’s leading governments recognize few boundaries. As such, not only does the communiqué promise far more than it can deliver – something the voters in G20 democracies should remember – but it may also impede global economic recovery.

The communiqué holds that, “We start from the belief that prosperity is indivisible; that growth, to be sustained, has to be shared” and to “do whatever is necessary.” In clause after clause, this pro-government rather than pro-prosperity declaration embraces new burdens on a limping financial sector in the form of expanded global regulation, and effectively requires that all look toward government before acting in the future. At no point does the communiqué recognize that government action can and does distort market action to the point of significant harm.

The only “growth” being sustained in today’s political environment – and further embraced here – is the open-ended stimulus culture that has already led to an orgy of “sharing” of citizens’ wealth; in a world increasingly at ease with the word “trillion,” we are not suffering from a lack of sharing. The “unprecedented fiscal expansion” is not, as British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said, an injection of new money (except for some sales of gold reserves) but mostly a redistribution of existing taxpayer money to politically-favored recipients.

An effective communiqué would have acknowledged that wealth is not automatic, that it must be created before it can grow and expand – or be shared. Individuals acting together in voluntary enterprise form the foundation of wealth creation and job growth, but that is nowhere articulated here. Leadership would require the G20 representatives to explain precisely how they plan to unravel tax and regulatory barriers to the creation of new wealth, infrastructure, jobs and new financial innovations. Instead, the document stands as yet another open-ended promise for redistribution of a shrinking pie, and aggressive new political dominance of economic life.

This is not to say that the communiqué is wholly bad. Even as they seek to increase the reach of government by a massive expansion of the International Monetary Fund (by its own figures, the IMF budget is now greater than the GDP of all but 16 countries), the G20 leaders had no choice but to recognize the harmful effects of protectionism. The sections lauding free trade are welcome, and stand as a rebuke to Congressional leaders who have introduced protectionist language in recent bills. If there is one glimmer of hope in the G20 communiqué, it is that the vitality of trade may counteract the dead hand of government control.

The Auto Bailout We Need

by Iain Murray on February 19, 2009 · 1 comment

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Energy, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk

The automakers have come back for more taxpayer money, which is exactly what we warned would happen when the first bailout was granted last year. The restructuring plans merely represent an attempt to acheive the results of bankruptcy, with the taxpayer picking up the costs. What is needed is not more taxpayer money, but a way to make US automakers competitive again. As I said in my recent Detroit News piece, we can do that through a simple, cost-free, program that will remove burdens Congress has unfairly placed on the US auto industry. These include:

• Repeal federal fuel economy requirements. They restrict consumer choice by insisting that fuel economy take precedence over safety and impose restrictions on design that reduce the competitive advantage of Detroit automakers. If a reduction in fuel use is a necessary policy goal (I would contend it is not, but that’s an argument for another time), there are other policy options that would not impose direct costs on the automakers or restrict consumer choice. One is to remove the absurd “two fleet” rule that uniquely hampers U.S. automakers by prohibiting them from counting their foreign-made vehicles toward their fleet fuel economy average. Moreover, by reducing the weight of vehicles, high fuel economy mandates remove the single most cost-effective safety design feature of all, so this bailout measure would also save thousands of lives each year.

• Reduce the burden of safety legislation. There are too many safety rules that are counter-productive, such as mandated air bags, which have proved dangerous to children and people of less-than-average height. Consumers should be free to pick from a menu of safety options that allows them to take their own circumstances and preferences into account. This does not mean that automakers should be free to build cars that explode on ignition. There is a range of safety considerations, from safe to extremely safe. The United States is requiring too many “extremely safe” features while perversely reducing safety though fuel economy requirements. Again, the Detroit manufacturers feel these more intensely than other manufacturers because of the sort of vehicles they have specialized in.

• Halt the march of further design regulations. My colleague Wayne Crews has identified 22 new regulations that were being pursued last year that would increase the costs of designing and manufacturing new cars.

• Remove artificial barriers to merger through too strict interpretations of antitrust law. Federal antitrust authorities have stopped attempts at a merger of General Motors and Chrysler because the two firms together would have a dominant position in the “light truck market.” Yet the recent oil price spike proved that customers easily substitute passenger cars for light trucks, showing that there is no such distinct market. If GM and Chrysler could merge, there would be plenty of scope for eliminating inefficiencies, which would allow the merged company to compete more effectively.

• Allow automakers–and, indeed, all firms–to repatriate foreign profits without double taxation. This will provide a much needed injection of funds. No other country handicaps its own companies in this way.

• Suspend particulate matter regulations emanating from California — but imposed on the United States. These regulations prevent automakers from selling in America the kind of high-mileage diesel-powered cars that sell well in Europe and meet all European emissions requirements. This will immediately reduce fuel usage and reduce the Detroit companies’ research and design costs, which must now go toward meeting California standards. Moreover, because the cars already meet European Union environmental and safety standards, there would be no significant reduction in those protections.

With such a “liberate to stimulate” program in place, US automakers will be able to regain their place as world leaders. Instead, we see GM begging Congress for $8 billion to design cars as fuel-efficient as ones they already sell in Europe. This is absurd and must end.

A loophole wide enough to drive a GMC truck though

by Ivan Osorio on December 19, 2008 · 4 comments

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Politics as Usual

The Bush administration’s outline of its automaker bailout package lists some seemingly sensible changes in labor practices that GM and Chrysler need to make. (Ford, to its credit, is seeking private financing instead.)

Targets: The terms and conditions established by Treasury will include additional targets that were the subject of Congressional negotiations but did not come to a vote, including:

  • Reduce debts by 2/3 via a debt for equity exchange.
  • Make one-half of VEBA payments in the form of stock.
  • Eliminate the jobs bank.
  • Work rules that are competitive with transplant auto manufacturers by 12/31/09.
  • Wages that are competitive with those of transplant auto manufacturers by 12/31/09.

But…

These terms and conditions would be non-binding in the sense that negotiations can deviate from the quantitative targets above, providing that the firm reports the reasons for these deviations and makes the business case to achieve long-term viability in spite of the deviations.

Conditions with a loophole wide enough to drive a GMC truck through are hardly the stuff of which corporate transformations are made. To be fair, the Bush administration has recognized the biggest labor-related problems affecting these companies, so it is particularly unfortunate that it is being this timid.

The requirement to pay contributions to VEBAs (voluntary employee benefit associations) draws welcome attention to a looming problem. VEBAs are intended to serve as health care trusts that allow companies to pass their health insurance obligations on to another party, in this case a union. It makes sense for a company to want to shed those costs, and GM has already passed $35 million on to the United Auto Workers.

But, as Brian Johnson and Ryan Ellis of Americans for Tax Reform point out:

[T]he United Auto Workers has been given a free hand to define “health care” under the Treasury regulations—not coincidentally written by IRS officials of Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter—which implement VEBAs.

Payments in the form of stock would at least help make VEBAs less liquid and thus prone to abuse — but even then, the requirement is only for half of payments, and is only a non-binding target for use of taxpayer money.

Finally, handing a large union a large wad of cash requires holding the union to a high standard of accountability, something for which President-elect Obama’s pick for Labor Secretary doesn’t provide confidence.