I made a trip down to Occupy Little Rock today, in light of their seemingly imminent eviction from city property at 7:00 a.m. tomorrow–as you’ll see in the following video(s), they aren’t so sure the eviction will take place.  It was kind of like walking into a warzone with all of the debris and trash, as you can see from the picture below, albeit peaceful.

Anyway, I had a great discussion with Mac Miller, a self-proclaimed spokesman for the group.  He was very cordial and forthcoming with his beliefs, although he and I found more than a few places of disagreement.

Mac says the tent is the symbol of the Occupy movement and therefore, according to the case law he has studied, should be protected speech.  (Dan Greenberg editorial intrusion: this theory is interesting, but insane.)

I asked him Mac to fill me in on the developments with the city of Little Rock, why the group’s ‘right’ to occupy the property trumps the city’s (i.e. taxpayers’) right to use the public property for city services, specifically parking, and if he would be comfortable with a group of protesters gathering on the lawn of the governor’s mansion–I really hope they don’t take me up on this idea.

When asked if Mac would be comfortable with myself or someone else making camp inside his tent, he said “I’ve got a little bit of a problem with that because I’ve got things in there I’d rather not [have] people going thru.”

He also speculated that the city is trying to evict the group because of their support for the anti-lobbying petitions that are being circulated around the state, formally known as “Regnat Populus.”

Find all of this and much more in the following two videos (I apologize that they are two separate files–someone had the nerve to call me while I was interviewing Mr. Miller):

Two weeks ago, Brantley took something of a hiatus from his latest witch hunt and focused on much more important issues–like Warren Stephens’ donations to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and the phenomenon of a barred contestant from Conway’s ‘Stuck on a Truck’ competition (in case anyone cares).

But those of us who need more ersatz drama in their lives will be pleased to hear that, last week, Brantley was back on the trail, serving the great people of Arkansas with more top-notch reporting on his favorite conspiracy theories. I guess with a Medicaid shortfall of $400 million in Arkansas–under the watch of liberal executive and legislative control, with no solutions in sight–Brantley has to do something to divert everyone’s attention.

Here’s the conspiratometer for last week, May 6th-11th:

Emergency Management Technicians are allowed on the job after only 28 days of training. Barbers must obtain 350 days of training. In fact, 30 licensed occupations require longer training than EMTs in the state.

You may remember that earlier in the week I wrote about the Institute for Justice’s new report that ranked Arkansas as the “5th most broadly and onerously licensed state in the country.”  The full report, titled “License To Work,” says the state’s high ranking is driven mostly by the years of education and work experience required for most construction work in the state:

Workers in other states are required to undergo only between 507 days (sheet metal workers) and 390 days (insulation contractors) of training to get a job in the same occupations, on average. Many states either do not have training requirements or do not require a license at all.

In Arkansas, the required days of experience are 1,825, or 5 years. And believe it or not, some Arkansas lawmakers tried to raise these hurdles on construction workers during the last legislative session, as reported by our own David Kinkade.

The report also lists all of the 52 occupations that require a license here in The Natural State.

Some of the most ridiculous include:

• Door Repair Contractor
• Teacher Assistant
• Mobile Home Installer (only in Arkansas!)
• Makeup Artist
• Fisher
• Funeral Attendant
• Animal Trainer

More bad news from the report:

Arkansas licenses a number of occupations that few other states do, such as funeral attendants, psychiatric technicians and residential drywall installers. Moreover, many occupations are subject to entry restrictions that exceed national averages. Opticians in Arkansas, for instance, must train for more than three years, about a year more than the national average. Fire alarm installers lose 1,095 days to education and experience requirements versus a national average of 486 days.

So, this raises the question: Why are we making it so hard on people to work? Shouldn’t we be working towards lowering hurdles in our state, which desperately needs an economic boost? Shouldn’t we be empowering the entrepreneurial spirit of Arkansans? And how can we ever compete with other states for jobs as long as we are regulating and taxing jobs that they are not?

Arkansas cannot hope to grow its frail economy until we reform our licensing system and end this regulatory tyranny. It’s a matter of freedom and sound economic policy.

When he was in the state legislature, AAI President Dan Greenberg worked to limit the reach of the state’s bureaucracy.  Namely, he tried to rein in the state’s Interior Design Board, as detailed in this story from Reason; he ultimately succeeded in limiting its powers by combining it with two other agencies and depriving it of a majority on its governing board. Last November, David Kinkade wrote about the state’s contractor licensing racket that was ‘hammering’ builders in the state.  So you can see that state licensing requirements have long been a (deserving) object of The Arkansas Project’s scorn.

To give you an idea just how out-of-control things have gotten in Arkansas, you can read about Arkansas’s panoply of state licensing requirements here.  (WARNING: Do not click if you suffer from narcolepsy or high blood pressure–there are scores of these things in state law, and outrage or sleep-induced boredom is a significant possibility.)

Not only do these licensing requirements stifle economic growth, they raise serious questions about the role of government:  Should you need the government’s permission to work?  A new video released by the Institute for Justice asks this question & highlights the perils of frivolous, burdensome state-level bureaucracies.

According to their rankings, Arkansas makes the list as the 5th worst state for licensing & high hurdles for “would-be workers.”

Among the 8 worst states–Arizona, California, Oregon, Nevada, Arkansas, Hawaii, Florida, & Louisiana–it takes an average of one and a half years of training, an exam, and $300 in fees to get a license.

Unfortunately, as the video below explains, research provides little evidence that these hurdles make services any safer or better.  Rather, these hurdles raise costs on consumers (e.g., you) and stifle employment opportunities, job creation, and economic growth.

These licensing requirements are not only an affront to liberty–which is certainly enough to garner my disapproval–they are roadblocks to prosperity & a genuine threat to the pursuit of happiness.

While Arkansas has been rushing to the front of the line for the feds’ “free money,” other states have been saying no.  In fact, liberal legislators in the president’s own home state of Illinois are putting the brakes on implementation:

“I’ve suspended the talks on the Illinois insurance exchange until the Supreme Court makes its decision, which we expect in June,” Rep. Frank Mautino (D- Spring Valley)…

Conservatives in Alabama are taking a stand of their own, as Governor Robert Bentley promises, via his Communications Director, to veto a bill that would institute exchanges in his state:

“The U.S. Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the constitutionality of the federal health care law.  If Supreme Court justices strike down the law as the Governor hopes they will, there will be no need for such an exchange.  Either way, there is no need to establish an exchange at this point…If this legislation is approved in the current session, a veto can be expected.”

So, Arkansas Legislative Council, what’s the rush?  We don’t know if Obamacare will stand or fall.  Furthermore, what is the point of setting up exchanges for a program that is not even in effect yet?  What will happen if the law is struck down and we’ve already spent that ‘free’ $7.6 million?  Will we have to pay it back to the feds? Furthermore, do legislators have any independent duty at all to avoid wasting taxpayer money when possible?

While liberal & conservative states alike are advancing against the tide of Obamacare, Arkansas has caved.  Instead of leading, we’re following—Obama.

[A roll call of the vote to accept the Obamacare funding can be seen here, courtesy of Rep. David Meeks.]

When asked what we can do to turn Arkansas into an attractive place for businesses to invest, both candidates expressed their desire to see fewer intrusive regulations and a lower overall tax burden.

When asked about specific steps they would take to reign in state government and protect personal liberties, both cited the need to rein in the state bureaucracy that consists of far too many agencies.

The candidates also both expressed a desire to solve the state’s Medicaid shortfall by cutting waste in other government departments—and within the Medicaid program itself.  They oppose the implementation of Obamacare in the state.

Rather than ask the candidates if they supported ‘guns in church,’ which is a rather unfair way to present the issue, I asked them if they supported the real meaning of ‘separation of church and state’—which is to keep the state out of churches, not the other way around—and think that churches should be able to decide for themselves whether or not their congregants can carry firearms.  Both candidates agreed again.

“Outlawing guns in church means only outlaws will have guns in church,” quipped Josh Miller.

Grace said that if churches want to ban firearms, they can display signage to that effect outside their buildings, but it is not the role of the state to decide for them.

We also took questions from the audience, which were screened & selected by the moderators.  One question that invoked a particularly insightful response was in regard to proposed mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients.

Both candidates agreed that testing should be mandatory, saying we need to be good stewards of taxpayer money.  But in a rare difference of opinion between the candidates, Grace went one step further in his comments, drawing a round of applause from attendees when he stated that elected officials in Arkansas should be subject to drug testing as well.

Overall, it looks like the people of District 66 have two good friends of limited government & liberty to choose from. Thanks to the Cleburne County Republican Women for inviting me to be a part of a great discussion.

The latest issue of Rich States, Poor States by Art Laffer, Steven Moore, and Jonathon Williams reveals data that Arkansas policymakers ignore at their peril.  For instance, the 9 U.S. states without income taxes grew 50% faster from 1998-2008 than states with such taxes.   And despite not having income taxes, tax revenues in these 9 states grew 30% faster than their income taxing counterparts.

But wait, there’s more:  All 11 states that have adopted income taxes in the last 50 years grew more slowly than the rest of the states since.  These 11 states all saw declines in personal income per capita, reinforcing the economic theory that income taxes punish success and encourage people to earn less so they can avoid higher tax bills.  For 9 of the states, total state and local tax revenues in the state as a percent of total state and local revenues in the U.S. declined as well, in some cases sharply.

The authors compare two states’ performances, Tennessee and Missouri, over this time period—states that are not unlike Arkansas.  Tennessee has no state income tax; Missouri does.  “From 1998 to 2008, Tennessee’s Gross State Product grew 27% faster than Missouri’s, while jobs grew 29% faster in Tennessee.  Yet over that period, total state revenues generated by Tennessee’s faster growing economy grew 39% faster than Missouri’s.”

What would Missouri look like with no income tax?

If Missouri’s economic growth just caught up to the average of the states with no income tax, which are growing 50% faster, Missouri would enjoy $100 billion in increased [Gross State Product] and income over the next 10 years.  From 1998 to 2008, the average job growth among the no income tax states was 349% (more than four times) faster than in Missouri.  The growth in GSP per capita, or standard of living, was 80% faster.  If GSP per capita over 1998 to 2008 had grown in Missouri at the same average rate as for the no income tax states, income for each Missouri resident would be more than $12,000 higher on average.

Peter Ferrera, Director of Policy for the Carleson Center for Public Policy and Senior Fellow at Heartland Institute, says eliminating state income taxes is not only good policy, but it would unleash growth in state economies—and in state revenues:

…In each state that has adopted a state income tax in the last 50 years, “the state’s economy has become a smaller portion of the overall U.S. economy, and the state’s citizens have had their standard of living dramatically reduced.”

With the burden of state income taxes lifted, economic growth in the states would soar, new jobs would be created, and wages and incomes would rise, as indicated by the discussion above.  Revenues from the remaining taxes would rise more rapidly as well, along with the booming economy, as the results discussed above also showed.

What this suggests is that getting rid of the income tax is good for economic growth, good for job creation, and even good for increasing revenue to strapped state governments.  Perhaps, instead of constantly raising taxes to cover shortfalls, we could cut taxes, growing the economic pie and actually increasing state revenues through increased activity & investment in the state.  Even if we had to increase some fees and consumption taxes, this is much better tax policy than an income tax system that punishes taxpayers for earning money.  The data is pretty clear: eliminating the income tax will unleash growth & increase individual income.

At the risk of giving Max Brantley a coronary, dare I say it’s time to consider eliminating the Arkansas income tax?

Steinbuch generally supports the idea that we are wasting some money in higher education—that we need more accountability, and when a lottery scholarship student drops out of school, someone often should have to repay the funds to the state, with a significant caveat:

“Family calamities and medical illnesses should excuse students from repayment. And if a student flunks out while doing all the right things, he should not have to repay the money.  But if the student fails to take his responsibilities seriously, causing him to flunk out, then he should repay.”

Steinbuch’s proposal, however, also adds a key element:  the determination of responsibility.  That is, “who is at fault for the student’s exit from school?”  The student?  An unforeseen circumstance?  Steinbuch’s answer (at least in some cases): the school.

Steinbuch said students should be held morally responsible for repayment only if their exit from school was their fault.  However, if the student is not at fault and the school essentially acted negligently by admitting an ill-prepared student, the school should be on the hook:

“The institutions should be held responsible.  If a school admits a student despite clear indications that the student will not complete a degree, the institution should be required to refund the money. There are some standard predictors that schools can use to make determinations about a students’ likelihood of success, such as high school GPA & ACT/SAT score, as well as other indicators.”

Steinbuch makes a compelling argument.  Essentially what we have done with state lottery scholarships is to bribe institutions of higher education with taxpayer money to accept higher numbers of students with lower prospects of educational success.

Critics of this approach to holding schools accountable will say that poor students will have ‘artificially depressed’ scores because they come from failing school districts.  Therefore, this approach is discriminatory.  But Steinbuch has a remedy for this as well:

“Schools should be able to absolve themselves from responsibility [for the costs] by placing these students into programs designed to address any incoming shorcomings.  Then if the student still falls, the school can show that it made sufficient efforts designed to bring about success.”

Steinbuch also said he supports the idea of a “contract approach,” as Bell has proposed:

“The terms should be spelled out in advance so there are clear expectations for students.”

Ultimately, Steinbuch said, this is about responsibility.  He’s right.  Did the student act responsibly?  Did the school?  And does the state act responsibly by doling out tens of millions of dollars to students who ultimately drop out, with no programs in place to minimize these losses? ($26 million just last year, according to Rep. Bell)  The answer is a resounding “no.”

We, as a state, should be promoting responsibility in all forms, particularly when the taxpayers are paying for it.  Steinbuch is far from the only law professor who advocates that schools should bear some of the cost for admitting substandard students, and his proposal is a great step in that direction.

Longtime readers of the Arkansas Times blog have noticed that hidden, sinister forces play a large role in the thoughts of its chief writer, Max Brantley. Occasionally, after reading his blog, I become curious about what conversations with Brantley must be like. I wonder if they’re something like this:

Balanced, stable person: Hmm. Looks like it’s about to rain.

Brantley: Yup. I imagine ALEC is responsible.

We are therefore honored to announce the premiere of a new series here at The Arkansas Project. For the first time, we have decided to scientifically measure the degree to which Brantley is, um, absorbed by such matters.  We call it “The Max Brantley Conspiratometer.”

In this series, we will quantify Max’s remarkable attention to conservative forces that promote dangerous and heretical ideas like limited government and fiscal responsibility.  Some of these groups include the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the Koch brothers. As a control, I have included an actual Arkansas political figure — Arkansas’s Secretary of State, Mark Martin. (We wanted to be even-handed and include mention of George Soros and the Council on Foreign Relations too, but for some reason on these topics Max is as quiet as a mouse.)

Here’s the tally of Arkansas Blog mentions from last week [April 22-28]: 

Brantley’s fury over ALEC reached something of an apex last week, given his endorsement of Common Cause’s notion that when conservatives get together and talk about ideas, this constitutes “lobbying” that must be monitored by and disclosed to the government. One might almost suspect that what Brantley really finds objectionable are ideas as such – requiring voters to show ID at the polls, permitting those who are attacked to defend themselves, and requiring disclosure of the burdens that Obamacare places on state governments. Unlike many of the ideas that are regularly flogged on the Arkansas Times blog, these are ideas that enjoy broad popular support. And notably, as has already been discussed on this here blog, the majority of these proposals are ideas from Arkansas legislators that were brought to ALEC, not the other way around.

Can Brantley top 66 mentions of ALEC in a week?  Will Brantley continue to be shocked and appalled by measures to oppose vote fraud, protect taxpayers, and promote self-defense? Is Brantley campaigning to be this century’s version of a left-wing Robert Welch? We’ll see.