Month: June 2012

The “Best Earthly Inheritance” Our Founders Bequeathed

Every July much is said by eloquent historians, civic and religious leaders, and—thanks to blogs and social media—Americans everywhere, about the Declaration of Independence, the meaning of the American Experiment, and the price of freedom. Independence Day is a moment to be grateful for the blessings of liberty and to remember the gifts many sacrificed so much to leave us.

But this year we also mark the 180th anniversary of the death in 1832 of the last surviving signer of the Declaration. Charles Carroll’s life spanned nearly a century. By the fiftieth anniversary of July 4, 1776, Carroll had outlived Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, who both died on that day.

At the time of the signing, Charles Carroll was the wealthiest man in the American colonies. The risk he took in siding with the cause of independence was acknowledged to be substantial, both in material terms and in his social standing as one of the most prominent citizens of Maryland. In his book, Charles Carroll of Carrollton: Faithful Revolutionary, biographer Scott McDermott recounts that when John Hancock asked Carroll to sign―and Carroll responded, “Most willingly”―a bystander commented, “There go a few millions.”

And just to make sure that everyone, including King George III, knew which of Maryland’s many Charles Carrolls was the signer, he proudly added the words “of Carrollton” (his Frederick County estate). Thus, history remembers him as “Charles Carroll of Carrollton.”

Carroll is unique among the signers for more than just his wealth. He was, in fact, ineligible to vote or to hold public office when he was chosen by the Maryland Convention as a delegate to Congress to approve the Declaration on its behalf. Maryland’s early Toleration Act granting religious freedom had been overturned in 1692, so Catholics could not vote, hold public office, worship in public, or freely educate their children in their faith.

Carroll’s participation in the War of Independence was motivated by his firm belief in natural law and rights, government by consent of the citizens, and freedom of religion. The Catholic minority in the British American colonies recognized in the cause of liberty the path to equality under law.

Carroll strongly supported and collaborated with George Washington during the war, influenced the crafting of the Maryland and the U.S. Constitutions, and served as the first senator from the new state of Maryland. His public life was long, and he was a giant figure through the early decades of the 19th century. Looked up to as an elder statesman and symbol of national unity, at his death, the Baltimore American called him “the last of the Romans”―a reference to the classical prototype of the generation who built the new but maturing Republic.

Charles Carroll’s brief testament to the America he would leave behind was written on a parchment copy of the Declaration, dated July 4, 1826. He wrote in the style of a man educated in the 18th century, but behind the formality is a stark humility and a simple message intended for today:

“Grateful to Almighty God for the blessing which, through Jesus Christ our Lord, he has conferred upon my beloved country, in her emancipation, and upon myself, in permitting me, under circumstances of mercy,…to survive the fiftieth year of American Independence, and certifying by my present signature my approbation of the Declaration of Independence adopted by Congress…, and of which I am now the last surviving signer, I do hereby recommend to the present and future generations the principles of that important document as the best earthly inheritance their ancestors could bequeath to them, and pray that the civil and religious liberties they have secured to my country may be perpetuated to the remotest posterity and extended to the whole family of man.”

This July 4th, as we celebrate our freedom and the legacy of each of America’s founders, let us also “remember Carroll’s sacred trust…and all [who slumber] with the just.”

Kathryn Hickok is Publications Director at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization. A lover of history, she has traveled extensively to sites of historical and cultural significance throughout the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. She is a graduate of the University of Portland and Kolbe Academy Home School.

Read Blog Detail

Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of ObamaCare – Not its Efficacy

“The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that most of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) is constitutional means that Congress now has power to do virtually whatever it wants,” says Steve Buckstein, Senior Policy Analyst and founder of Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free-market think tank. “But having the power to write health care rules and actually improving our health care system are two very different things.”

“By finding that the individual mandate cannot stand under the Commerce Clause, but can stand when looked at as a tax, the Court essentially seems to be telling Americans that while Congress cannot control every aspect of our behavior, it has virtually unlimited powers to tax us and spend the money as it sees fit.”

“Moving more control over health care to Washington, D.C. means that Oregonians, and citizens of every state, will have even less control over our own health care decisions. Big, centralized government systems mean higher costs, less access and less innovation in one of the most important areas of our lives,” Buckstein added.

Buckstein concluded that, “Now that the Court has failed to limit the role of the federal government in health care, it is up to Congress and the states to try to do so. The better chance for a lasting health care system fix involves empowering patients rather than marginalizing them. It involves giving them choices, and letting them do the inevitable rationing themselves, even if part of the money comes from public sources.

“Today’s Court decision was a step in the wrong direction, but Cascade Policy Institute will continue working to reaffirm that in America personal liberty is a cornerstone, not an afterthought, of our way of life.”

Read Blog Detail

Supreme Court Strikes Down ObamaCare Individual Mandate

The U.S. Supreme Court ObamaCare decision reinforces what British researcher John Spiers told Oregonians when he came here to study the Oregon Health Plan in 1999:

Political fixes in health care come unfixed fast.

They came unfixed for The Oregon Health Plan as pressure groups succeeded in eviscerating its rationing scheme, and they came unfixed for ObamaCare today as the highest court in the land struck down its centerpiece, the individual mandate.

Oregonians should be happy that the Supreme Court ruled as it did. After all, it was just six years ago that the Court sided with the state against the federal government in a health care regulatory case. In Gonzales v. Oregon (2006), the Court upheld Oregon’s “right-to-die” law, approved twice by Oregon voters. The U.S. Attorney General argued that federal law pre-empted the state law.

The Court disagreed and found that states generally have wide discretion in regulating health and safety, including medical standards. Finding that the Bush Administration’s reading of the federal statute would mark “a radical shift of authority from the States to the Federal Government to define general standards of medical practice in every locality,” the Court ruled that Oregon could protect the rights of its citizens, at least in this specific instance.

ObamaCare is a far broader “radical shift of authority from the States to the Federal Government.” By striking down its most onerous feature, the individual mandate, the Court recognized a bright line protecting every American against an overreaching federal government that tried to force us to purchase health insurance against our will. Any perceived reduction in health care benefits is far outweighed by the restoration of our personal liberty that the Court affirmed today.

The rest of ObamaCare is still an overreach by the federal government, even if the Court didn’t find it unconstitutional. The better chance for a lasting health care system fix involves empowering patients rather than marginalizing them. It involves giving them choices, and letting them do the inevitable rationing themselves, even if part of the money comes from public sources. And, again, it involves reaffirming that in America personal liberty is a cornerstone, not an afterthought, of our way of life.

Read Blog Detail

Supreme Court Strikes Down ObamaCare

The U.S. Supreme Court ObamaCare decision reinforces what British researcher John Spiers told Oregonians when he came here to study the Oregon Health Plan in 1999:

Political fixes in health care come unfixed fast.

They came unfixed for The Oregon Health Plan as pressure groups succeeded in eviscerating its rationing scheme, and they came unfixed for ObamaCare today as the highest court in the land struck it all down including its centerpiece, the individual mandate.

Oregonians should be happy that the Supreme Court ruled as it did. After all, it was just six years ago that the Court sided with the state against the federal government in a health care regulatory case. In Gonzales v. Oregon (2006), the Court upheld Oregon’s “right-to-die” law, approved twice by Oregon voters. The U.S. Attorney General argued that federal law pre-empted the state law.

The Court disagreed and found that states generally have wide discretion in regulating health and safety, including medical standards. Finding that the Bush Administration’s reading of the federal statute would mark “a radical shift of authority from the States to the Federal Government to define general standards of medical practice in every locality,” the Court ruled that Oregon could protect the rights of its citizens, at least in this specific instance.

ObamaCare was a far broader “radical shift of authority from the States to the Federal Government.” By striking it all down, including the onerous individual mandate, the Court recognized a bright line protecting every American against an overreaching federal government that tried to force us to purchase health insurance against our will. Any perceived reduction in health care benefits is far outweighed by the restoration of our personal liberty that the Court affirmed today.

The better chance for a lasting health care system fix involves empowering patients rather than marginalizing them. It involves giving them choices, and letting them do the inevitable rationing themselves, even if part of the money comes from public sources. And, again, it involves reaffirming that in America personal liberty is a cornerstone, not an afterthought, of our way of life.

Read Blog Detail

Union Members Can’t Be Forced to Pay for Political Activities

By Victoria Leca

Last Thursday the Supreme Court rejected the idea that public sector unions can charge non-members for political activities.

It was a 7-2 decision, and the practice was struck down on First Amendment grounds. The majority opinion held that while employees can be required to pay dues for the direct benefits they get from the union, they cannot be forced to give money to unions for political activities.

At first the Service Employees International Union offered refunds to employees who were non-members and who disagreed with the political cause the union was promoting, but the Supreme Court ruled that the individuals had to choose to “opt-in” to the payment.

The workers who do not join unions should not be forced to pay for the union’s political activities. The fact that the Supreme Court majority decided that the worker has to opt-in to paycheck deductions, rather than opt-out of these payments, restores protection of individuals’ right to free speech and property.

Coming on the heels of Governor Scott Walker surviving his recall election in Wisconsin, this is one more victory for the rights of workers to be independent of union control. Workers shouldn’t have to join a union to have the right to work, and they certainly shouldn’t be forced to make political contributions against their will.

Victoria Leca is a research associate at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.

Read Blog Detail

Kathryn Hickok talks about the first amendment fight to serve

We sat down with our Publications Director Kathryn Hickok to discuss her latest commentary, This First Amendment Fight Is for Freedom to Serve, where she discusses the threat to religious freedom from a recent U.S. Department of Health and Human Services mandate.

Read Blog Detail

Supreme Court to EPA: “You Are Not Above the Law”

By Daniel A. Himebaugh

Five years after the Environmental Protection Agency forced them to stop building their dream home, Mike and Chantell Sackett are celebrating a major legal victory. If you don’t already know, the Sacketts are the now-famous Idaho couple who have become the new poster children for victims of EPA bullying.

In 2007, the Sacketts were blind-sided by the EPA when the agency ordered them to restore a residential lot they were preparing for a home site. The EPA, lacking any proof of violation, asserted that the Sacketts’ property is a wetland which the Sacketts had filled without a required federal permit. The agency issued a “compliance order” directing the Sacketts to remove all fill, plant new vegetation, fence the lot for three years, provide off-site mitigation, and pay a fine; or risk ruinous civil penalties (up to $75,000 a day) and possible criminal sanctions.

Holding all necessary state and local permits—and adamant that they had not filled a wetland—the Sacketts filed a lawsuit with the help of Pacific Legal Foundation attorneys, challenging the EPA’s claim of jurisdiction over their property. The EPA, for its part, brushed aside the Sacketts’ complaint, arguing that the Clean Water Act did not provide the Sacketts with an opportunity to seek judicial review of the agency’s compliance order.

The Sacketts lost their case in every court until March 2012, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Sackett v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that the Sacketts are entitled to challenge the EPA’s assertion of jurisdiction over their property. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that the Clean Water Act does not preclude the Sacketts from seeking judicial review of the EPA’s compliance order. In one of the more strongly worded passages of the opinion, Scalia remarked that “there is no reason to think that the Clean Water Act was uniquely designed to enable the strong-arming of regulated parties into ‘voluntary compliance’ without the opportunity for judicial review.” As a result of the Court’s opinion, the Sacketts now have the opportunity to show that their property is not a wetland under the Clean Water Act, which means they could eventually be able to build their home as they originally planned.

In a forceful concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito expressed his disapproval of the EPA’s overbearing administration of the Clean Water Act: “The reach of the Clean Water Act is notoriously unclear. Any piece of land that is wet at least part of the year is in danger of being classified by EPA employees as wetlands covered by the Act, and according to the Federal Government, if property owners begin to construct a home on a lot that the agency thinks possesses the requisite wetness, the property owners are at the agency’s mercy….In a nation that values due process, not to mention private property, such treatment is unthinkable.”

True, the Sackett v. EPA decision does not solve every problem that builders might encounter when dealing with the EPA, but it goes a long way in the right direction. Homebuilders finally have the opportunity to challenge EPA compliance orders, an option that had heretofore been unavailable to them. And hopefully the decision will cause the EPA to base future compliance orders on more than mere suspicion, since the agency can now be held to account in federal court when it asserts wetlands jurisdiction over private property.

The Sacketts should be commended for pursuing a case that injects some much needed fairness into the compliance order process, which for too long has been dominated by an agency utterly disdainful of any constraints on its authority.

Daniel A. Himebaugh is an attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation in Bellevue, Washington. PLF is the oldest and most experienced nonprofit legal foundation litigating for property rights, free enterprise, limited government, and a balanced approach to environmental regulation. He is a guest contributor for Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market research center. This article originally appeared in Building Insight Magazine, April 2012.

Read Blog Detail

Limit Government, Not Consumer Choices

By Erin Mae Shiffler

We live in a country founded on freedom and limited government. We choose where we live, what we do for a living, and what products we buy. If we aren’t satisfied with our decisions, we choose differently next time. Consumer choices are an important market signal that directs the allocation of resources more efficiently in our economy. It is not the proper role of government to micromanage those choices in order to enforce a “politically correct” lifestyle on everyone else.

The plastic bag ban that took effect eight months ago is just one recent example of how Portland imposes its “green” ideology on everyone who does business here. If enough people thought refraining from using plastic shopping bags would protect the environment, and valued the importance of that, they would choose not to use plastic bags. Plastic bags are a reusable product I get when I buy something else. But I no longer get the choice of canvas, paper, or plastic. Instead of reusing my plastic bags, I have to buy other plastic bags to take out my garbage. Where is the net environmental benefit in that?

Our choices are our personal liberty in action. If we want to preserve our freedom in the most important areas of our lives, we need to stop government from encroaching even on what may appear to be the most trivial of things.

Erin Mae Shiffler is a research associate at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research center.

Read Blog Detail

Friedman Legacy for Freedom Day

RESERVATION DEADLINE IS THIS WEDNESDAY, JULY 25TH AT NOON.

The Cascade Policy Institute cordially invites you to participate in this year’s Friedman Legacy for Freedom Day on July 31st, which would have been Milton Friedman’s 100th birthday. This annual, international event provides fans of Professor Friedman and lovers of liberty the opportunity to learn about the late economics Nobel laureate, to share his ideas, and to celebrate the impact they still have on our country and the world.

Join us at the Portland Golf Club to hear School Choice Reform Advocate and former Arizona school chief Lisa Graham Keegan talk about Milton Friedman and the future of school choice in Oregon.

Sponsor tables of eight available

To RSVP, complete this form and send to:

Patrick Schmitt at

503-242-0900

or by e-mail at patrick@cascadepolicy.org

Milton Friedman Birthday Celebration

Read Blog Detail

Steve Buckstein talks with Victoria Taft on ending forced unionism

KPAM’s Victoria Taft interviewed Cascade Policy Institute Senior Policy Analyst Steve Buckstein about the involvement of Congress in professional sports and his latest QuickPoint about ending forced unionism in Oregon.

Read Blog Detail

This First Amendment Fight Is for Freedom to Serve

Fifteen million. That is the number of meals Blanchet House of Hospitality estimates it has served to the needy in Portland since 1952. Blanchet House originated as a Catholic social and service group started by University of Portland students in 1938. Today, Blanchet serves an estimated 700 to 900 people every day in Old Town/Chinatown. If fifteen million people stood next to each other, the distance would stretch from about the North Pole to the Equator.

Nearly forty years ago, a Salem priest wanted “to provide a safe and loving home” for pregnant teenage mothers so they wouldn’t believe their only option was an abortion. The Father Taaffe Foundation says: “They were given a home, not just an address. They were treated with respect, love and care, some for the first time in their lives. They were given a sense of safety, structure, and direction; an example of family life and hope for the future.”

Monday through Saturday, volunteers provide help for those most marginalized and forgotten at Saint André Bessette Catholic Church, better known by its former name―the Downtown Chapel. Says St. André Bessette’s mission statement: “Compelled by our faith, our parish honors the dignity of each person by providing hope, healing and hospitality to all who come to our doors.”

Catholic Charities is the professional social services arm of the Archdiocese of Portland. It offers housing assistance, disaster relief, human trafficking outreach, immigration legal services, pregnancy and adoption counseling and services, Hispanic outreach, and more. It provides these things “regardless of faith, race, marital status or condition in life. [Catholic Charities’] activities are based upon the fundamental belief in the dignity and sanctity of human life and the principles of Catholic Social Teaching.” Catholic Charities served 1,323 people in 1952. Today, Catholic Charities helps more than 100,000 Oregonians in need every year.

The Society of St. Vincent de Paul, with a highly active council in Portland, is a “worldwide Catholic organization of laypersons, open to all who wish to live their faith by loving and serving their neighbor….[M]embers…help those in need, regardless of race, ethnicity, creed, gender, orientation, handicap or religion.”

All of these organizations provide vital assistance to the needy in Oregon, all are inspired directly and explicitly by the faith of the people who work and volunteer for them, and all operate in accordance with the moral beliefs and values of the Catholic Church.

But organizations like these would not be considered “religious employers” by the federal government, because they do not exist solely for the purpose of serving members of their own faith.

Last summer, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) directed virtually all employers to include coverage of contraceptives, sterilization procedures, and abortion-inducing pharmaceuticals without copayment in their employee insurance policies. HHS subsequently published a final rule that requires many health insurers to charge all enrollees in order to cover the cost of other people’s elective abortions.

The HHS mandate on contraception, sterilization, and abortion has an extremely narrow conscience exemption only applicable to organizations whose purpose is solely to inculcate religious values and which employ and serve primarily members of their own faith. It will not include the vast majority of religiously affiliated or faith-based institutions like hospitals, colleges, schools, and social service organizations which may have moral objections to paying for or providing these products and services. Grimly dubbed “the parish secretary exemption,” it would apply mostly to houses of worship, not to ministries and charitable agencies which serve all people without discrimination.

For the federal government to attempt to force organizations like Catholic Charities to pay for or to provide contraception and abortion is absurd. Equally absurd is forcing Catholic organizations to assist only members of the Catholic Church or else to be considered “not religious”―and therefore subject to government regulations that violate their moral standards. In fact, this should be ruled unconstitutional.

Catholic social services are the fruit of people’s faith, but they don’t help others because the needy share that faith. Catholics believe that Christ’s words and example require them to reach out to all. Restricting assistance only to members of their religion is unacceptable to them. This is why forty-three Catholic dioceses, universities, Catholic Charities chapters, and other entities have brought a historic lawsuit against the federal government. Through the new HHS rules, the federal government, in effect, has created “two classes of religious organizations”―houses of worship which are exempt from its conscience-crushing directives, and service organizations which may have to violate their moral principles or stop serving the needy.

The Catholic Church, and Americans of all faiths or none who are uniting in defense of religious liberty, are not seeking special treatment under the law, but only the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution. The Archbishop of Washington, D.C., Cardinal Donald Wuerl, said, “Just as our faith compels us to uphold the liberty and dignity of others, so too, we must defend our own.” This First Amendment fight is not for believers’ freedom to worship behind church doors, but for their freedom to serve millions of their neighbors who stand outside, in accordance with their faith and moral values.

Kathryn Hickok is Publications Director at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization, and a graduate of the University of Portland.

 

Read Blog Detail

End Forced Unionism Now

The failed June 5th recall election of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker was supposedly over collective bargaining reform, but syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer points out that the real battle was over ending automatic collection of union dues by government: “Without the thumb of the state tilting the scale by coerced collection, union membership became truly voluntary. Result? Newly freed members rushed for the exits. In less than one year, AFSCME, the second largest public-sector union in Wisconsin, has lost more than 50 percent of its membership.”

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels ended that practice in his state seven years ago, and 91 percent of public union members no longer pay dues. Then, on February 1st of this year, Daniels signed legislation making Indiana the 23rd Right to Work state so that no workers, public or private, can be forced to join a union or pay dues against their will.

The Walker recall failure shows that a politician can stand against forced unionism and still keep his job. It is time for Oregon politicians to take such stands. They should stop forcibly collecting union dues from unwilling workers. Then, they should make Oregon the 24th Right to Work state so all workers can keep their jobs without some third party coming between them and their employer.

Read Blog Detail

Cascade Update Spring 2012

Want to know the latest happenings at Cascade Policy Institute? Click here to read our Spring newsletter.

Read Blog Detail

Oregon Lawmakers: Get Proactive on the Economy

Who wouldn’t want to live in the Pacific Northwest?

According to the 2010 Census, Oregon has enjoyed a relatively large population growth. There were 12 percent more people in the Beaver State in 2010 than in 2000. This is good compared to the national growth rate of 9.7 percent.

Oregon is attractive. But other than a pleasant climate, a breathtaking coastline, and beautiful mountains, what makes Oregon stand out?

From an economic viewpoint the answer is “not much.” Over the past decade Oregon had a few years of strong growth, but that was driven entirely by computer and electronics manufacturing. While production of computer components and other electronic products surged from ten percent of the state’s economy in 2001 to 30 percent in 2010, the rest of the private sector stood still or declined. And even though recent media headlines noted that Oregon saw the second highest economic growth rate in the country at 4.7 percent in 2011, you would have to read down the page to realize that this was a 42 percent decline from our 8.1 percent growth rate the year before.*

It is a bit frightening to see the numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Comparing the recession year of 2001 to the recession year of 2010, there is absolutely no private-sector job growth. There are as many people working private jobs in Oregon today as there were a decade ago.

Again, it is nice that electronics manufacturing has become big in Oregon, and 16,000 Intel employees should be proud of their jobs. But it is problematic that this particular branch of manufacturing is the only driver of the state’s economy. Jobs in the electronics industry are among the easiest to move, both nationally and globally.

The problem is that the Beaver State lacks consistent growth-promoting policies. Instead of being economic visionaries, the lawmakers in Salem come across as run-of-the-mill ho-hummers.

Oregon’s ranking with the Tax Foundation has not changed much over the past ten years. Taxes are relatively high – currently 17th highest in the nation. Oregon is not in the tax dungeon like New York or California; but on the other hand, there is no concerted effort in Salem to make Oregon attractive relative to its peers in the West.

Oregon’s tax rates continue to make the state uncompetitive compared with others. The high individual income tax is a good example. Since two thirds of the state’s tax revenues come from the individual income tax, state legislators are more interested in a tax code that maximizes revenue than one that promotes growth. As a result, Oregon has a nine-percent state income tax bracket that covers the vast majority of income tax filers. Even California is more lenient toward individual incomes.

And let’s not forget that Washington and Nevada have no state income tax at all.

In terms of business taxes, Oregon ranks about the same as for individual income taxes: better than California and Idaho, but worse than Washington and Nevada. This is yet more evidence that state lawmakers are taking a passive, go-with-the-flow attitude to economic policy.

Government employment is another area where state legislators could be proactive. While there is no steady, long-term growth in private employment in Oregon, government employment is doing well. In 2001, at the bottom of the Millennium recession, there were 181 state and local government employees per 1,000 private-sector employees. In 2010, at the bottom of the Great Recession, that ratio had risen to 191. This means, in plain English, that while the private sector was essentially standing still, job-wise, over the long term, Oregon’s governments kept adding to their payrolls.

Since the summer of 2010 there have been some reductions in local government employment, but available Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows no break in the trend of swelling state payrolls. In other words, the prevailing spending-as-usual attitude continues in Salem.

Instead of complacency, the state legislature needs to take a proactive approach to the economy. Their duty is not first and foremost to maintain government and the status quo, but to facilitate the growth of prosperity and economic freedom in the state. To do this, they could start with something as simple as capping tax-funded payrolls to what the private sector can afford. If there are no new jobs being created in the private sector, then at the very least there should be no expansion in tax-funded payrolls, either.

Another step is a more competitive tax code. Interstate migration data from the Census Bureau shows that while Oregon has gained population over the past decade, Washington is a much stronger magnet. It is fair to assume that Washington’s lack of income tax is a major reason for this.

There is a lot more to do, of course, but these two measures would be a good way to start.

 

*http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2012/06/oregon_economy_growing_at_nati.html

 

Sven Larson is Senior Fellow in Economics at the Wyoming Liberty Group and a guest contributor for Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research center. He holds a Ph.D. in social sciences with major in economics and has taught economics at colleges in three countries. His research on health policy, taxes, and government budgeting and entitlement reform has been published by think tanks including Cascade Policy Institute and the Wyoming Liberty Group.

Read Blog Detail

Zoning Oregonians out of House and Home

In a four-part feature this week, The Oregonian writes about the failure of government policy to provide “affordable housing” in the Portland metro region. Extensive public subsidies for low-income housing have failed to ameliorate the problem, and legislative efforts to force homebuilders to provide lower-priced housing (at a loss) have been unsuccessful.

What the story largely ignores, however, is that Oregon’s land-use regulatory system makes it illegal to build any kind of housing on most private land in Oregon. In addition, the small amount of land available for housing is subject to extensive planning and zoning requirements. This was explained 10 years ago by consulting economist Randall Pozdena in an econometric study entitled, “The New Segregation.” His analysis found that Portland-style “smart-growth” policies across the country were making it increasingly difficult for low-income and minority households to become homeowners.

Other housing experts, such as Harvard’s Edward L. Glaeser, reached similar conclusions.

Housing was not always so expensive. In the decades immediately following World War II, when there was enormous demand for more homes, the private sector was able to respond because large tracts of surplus farmland were converted to residential housing. Such conversions are illegal in Oregon today.

The Oregonian is correct in saying that government housing policy has failed, but forcing private builders to sell homes at a loss will only make things worse. The real solution is to get government zoning out of the way so housing markets can begin to work again.

Read Blog Detail

Bill Post interviews Sarah Ross on the role of government

Cascade Communications Coordinator Sarah Ross speaks with KYKN talk show host Bill Post about the role of government and the latest commentary from Steve Buckstein, Oregon’s Budget Transformation.

Read Blog Detail

Steve Buckstein interviewed about his commentary, Oregon’s Budget Transformation

We sat down with Cascade Policy Institute Senior Policy Analyst, Steve Buckstein, to talk about his latest commentary, Oregon’s Budget Transformation which discusses government trying to do efficiently that which it shouldn’t be doing at all.

 

Read Blog Detail