Blog Posts

A Standard Transition from Government Control and Ownership to Free Enterprise

2/17/2015

When the government has a long history of controlling a sector of the economy, they often build up a wealth of assets and capital. When we transition to free enterprise, those assets are likely to be needed and valuable to private companies taking over those roles. The following is a standard transition with the knowledge that there could be modifications depending on many factors.

The Transition

Once a bill is passed, the government will create a publicly traded corporation for each item or an appropriate group of items of value (school, Road, Building, ships, personnel, and equipment among others). In the beginning, the government will be the sole owner of all stocks. Each month they will have to price the stocks to sell off an additional one percent of the assets (adjusting in real time on the stock market).

As long as the government owns stocks in the corporation, each legislator will have voting rights for a percentage of the stocks that the government owns. These legislators will have to go through Corporate Proxy Groups, thus giving a buffer of conflicts of interest.

All taxes that was supporting the government spending that transitioned to free enterprise will be eliminated by way of tax rate reductions, and the free market corporation will charge for their services. If there is a desire for a service, the private sector will work out the details.

Funds from selling the stocks of the assets will first account for debt realized from the current system, and then the rest will be government money to pay down government debt.

Every time Haley2024 proposes to lower or eliminate government spending, tax exemptions, deductions or credits, I explicitly call for tax rates to lower to match

1/1/2015

Every time I propose to lower or eliminate government spending, I explicitly state the taxes rates should lowered to match. Most things that government does needs to be done, however they can be done in the free enterprise system. Tax payer, businesses, and others will need lower taxes to pay for the services no longer rendered by government.

When I call for the elimination of all deductions, exemptions and credits, I explicitly call for the tax rate to be lowered to match. As I endeavor to persuade in my Laffer Curve page, higher tax rates lowers taxable economic activity, which harms those in lower economic situations the most.

Campaign Finance Reform

1/1/2015

When government takes greater control of an aspect of life that individuals and free enterprise use to control people turn to trying to control politicians so as to have their preferences become law. The free enterprise system creates a system where everyone controls their own decisions therefore lowering the need for controlling politicians.

The proper campaign finance reform is simply to give politicians less control over things that can be done in the free market. Haley2024 reform on competitive regulatory agencies dramatically increases what the free enterprise can accomplish with the greatest liberties.

Free speech is highly important and should never be limited outside of taking others liberties away. Inciting violence and libel are two common limitations on speech because that speech infringes others liberties and rights. There are some that claim that too much money in politics by the rich increases their influences on politicians therefore reduces the non-rich. There is unquestionably that effect and it is detrimental to good government.

Trying to stop someone from getting their message out is very problematic because there are so many ways to do accomplish that task. If government limits how much someone can give a candidate, they could give to a political party, a P.A.C., an advocacy group, buy an ad directly or many other methods.

One method seldom used but could bypass most extremely restrictive laws is that one could sign up to be a write-in candidate and run unrestrictive ads as a candidate stating they do want votes and they get their message out. When people are eager to get their message out, people will find a way. If government chased every new way out by an ever growing restrictions by law, liberty would be greatly infringed.

Some people advocate partial or full public financing of elections. I believe this comes with much danger and the negatives far outweigh the positives. First, coming from someone that will most likely be outspend in my quest for the nomination by double digit multiples, the outside PAC and advocacy groups will not be able, nor should they be, from heavy spending. Second forcing people though taxes to support candidates that have views contrary their own is very problematic. The rich have many ways to show support to candidates to influence them on policy. If the law stops one way others will develop. Again, having the law chase every new way of influence will greatly inhibit liberty.

The Haley2024 Plan

Haley2024 the movement calls for all candidates to move to campaign competitive regulatory agencies (CRA’s) for campaign regulations and the bureaucracies that follows. Candidates would be mandated to choose a CRA and state on all campaign material the CRA they are in and their ratings. Voters will look at their ratings as part of their assessment of the candidate.

There Are Entrepreneurs Among Us

9/14/2014

There are entrepreneurs among us that have proven their ability to create and sustain a business, employing hundreds of people, satisfying customers, and contributing millions of dollars to the economy.

If businessmen look at high tax rates and ask themselves if working the many extra hours and risking capital is worth the extra income after a 60% tax rate, a certain percentage of people would say no.

Quite simply, the greater the percentage of income taxed by the government, the less likely it is that the already wealthy entrepreneur will create tens of millions of dollars of economic activity and employ hundreds of people. All the subcontractors, venders, and companies that supply anything to this entrepreneur has more business as a result of the entrepreneur working.

The principal of supply and demand works for labor as well. The greater the number of jobs, the higher the wages are needed for employers to seek out and compete for better employees.

Conversely, when jobs are suppressed, employees have to compete by offering their labor for less to attain employment. Small businessmen often go with little to no compensation to keep their businesses alive, however that can only go on for a limited time.

Government taxes and regulations sometimes discourage the expansion of successful businesses. Because of excessive taxation, businessmen can be influenced to cut back their hours and employ less people, thus hindering them from their fullest potential and contribution to economic activity. Any taxes or regulations that carry this effect should be minimized.

Many would claim that if one entrepreneur does not start a business, then another will. Thus, by not starting a business, the economy does not suffer or lose jobs. This, however, is an incredibly short sighted conclusion.

If the disincentive does not dissuade others from filling the gap, we have to consider the businesses that others are not starting elsewhere because of the need to fill this gap. Every employee working adds one job to economic activity, and every employer adds multiple jobs and economic activity.

It is important to remember that thousands of people have decided that this entrepreneur has provided service to them better than others, that is demonstrated by them turning over their money to the entrepreneur. If an entrepreneur dose not start, expand or even stay in business, then service is not done for thousands of people. We truly have lower quality of lives when we dissuade people from serving others.

Money Flow that Grows the Government

7/13/2014

Haley2024 the Movement agrees with three levels of government (federal, state, and local), however, thinks it wise that they should pick their responsibilities. There should be distinct differences with no overlap and no money flowing from one to another. Haley2024 the Movement calls for most of the current functions of the government to transition to the individual and free enterprise.

When money flows down, lower level governments have large incentives to grow overall government. The city of Chesapeake, Virginia makes up roughly 3% of the state, therefore the citizens of Chesapeake pays roughly 3% of Virginia's overall state taxes. For every dollar that the city can manage to acquire from the state, they know their citizens and voters only pay 3% of that in taxes, thus motivating them to collect as much as possible.

Local politicians are never blamed for state tax increases, but in reality, collectively with other local politicians, they are often the cause. If every dollar the local politicians spent had to be collected from their voters, they would be far more frugal.
There has been many speeches, talks and seminars regarding cities deciding if they wanted to apply for state or federal funds. The same applies for states seeking federal dollars.

There is simply to much to know to put so much power and control in the hands of a few.

Under the Haley2024 plan, the three largest parts of the budget returns to free enterprise. There would be a certain requirement that people contribute to charity in a structured system.

They look at how much it would cost to acquire the extra funds and the controls they would have to give up. Often the money needed to apply for the extra funds are a high percentage of the funds sought. Oftentimes, the funds come with major requirements that are hostile to the values of the local government. In this case, it would need to be decided whether or not the hostile policies are worth the money, thus the federal government purchase of those hostile policies.

Throughout the country, state governments are debating whether or not to take Medicaid expansion dollars. The liberals have a very strong argument that if the state government does not take it, they are leaving money on the table. They argue that in essence, the state can tax the entire country for money spent only in their state. They see other states taxing the entire country for their own state's benefit. The requirement to acquire federal funds is to become much more socialist and accept much larger controls of the health care industry.

Another example of this is the Common Core. This funds education with regulations that many find hostile. Many road projects are decided not on the state’s most urgent needs, but rather on which the federal government will provide funds. There is much discussion on whether or not to take road funds with certain requirements that a state does not want to accept, such as speed limits, HOV lanes, mass transit, environmental, agenda 21, etc.

In conclusion, people will always spend other peoples' money before they spend their own. Likewise, governments will always spend more of a higher level government's money rather than money they are responsible to tax. We should always have the value of only spending the funds your level of government taxes. Each level of government has very distinct roles in which they hold authority and responsibility.

click to go to my Knowledge and Corruption page

Politicians will talk about how political concerns play a large role on the flow of money. The political party you are in, or even inter-party conflicts play a major role in deciding, when there is discretion. Often times legislation is crafted to apply only or mostly to allies. Having a mayor of the same political party as the governor can be beneficial to your city. There are certain governors that are very open about the power of their discretion in how those on their good side will benefit.

James Buckley on Reviving Federalism
addresses the ills of money flowing from the federal to the states
He argues that repealing aid-to-state programs would free the federal government to focus on truly national matters, put the government on sounder financial footing, and improve the ability of states to manage their programs for education, welfare, transportation, and other activities.

Same man, shorter talk on the issue: Former U.S. Senator James L. Buckley makes the case for ending subsidies to state and local governments.

It is very popular to take federal money when less than one percent of federal taxes come from Hampton Roads. While most of this is legitimate federal money spent by the federal government for the military, this makes the point that every locality fights to achieve federal money.
Haley2024 military plan

Five Big Reasons Why Free Enterprise is Superior to Government Provision

6/14/2014

Lower Tax Rates

Government provision necessitates government taxes.
Taxes always reduce the activity taxed, thus economic activity (GDP) is reduced.
-Laffer-curve
-Deductions, Exemptions and Credits create a faster loss of economic activity

Political Decisions

When the government spends versus when the free market spends, political decisions are made. Power is taken from all citizens and given to a select few. Government spending crowds out the free market and diminished individual choices.
-Knowledge and Corruption
-Campaign Finance Reform
-Using Government Money for Political Gain

Experimentation

Government provision is a monopoly with one business model, thus making experimentation very limited and lacking in legitimate counterfactuals. Therefore, proper evaluation of government services are limited.
Free enterprise requires people to satisfy their fellow citizen to earn their money. Peoples' desire to receive the best deal requires a lot of effort to be more efficient than the competition. New business models and advancements in all areas flow fastest from the free market because many private sector businesses experiment and have legitimate competition. The best businesses stay in business with an eye on the rest looking to regain their market share of satisfying customers.
Private Market Benefits

Evolution

Government provided services naturally evolve into greater government control, more dependent citizens, and complicated bureaucracies. Separation of powers, while important for reducing corruption, is not conducive to running an ever fluctuating and complicated organization. The free market naturally and by necessity exists to serve the people more efficiently, creating greater individual choices and reduced bureaucracies.

Evaluation

Evaluation is vital for a business. It usually comes from profits and loss, customer acquisition, capital buildup, market share, or various other results. There are certain signs and patterns that demonstrate whether or not a business has potential and value. People have to risk their own money in this endeavor, which sharpens their focus on serving their fellow citizens.
The government's evaluation of their services is much more opaque. Government services using tax payer funds crowd out private sector competition. Tax payer money from the general fund obscures the evaluation of benefits with the cost. Politicians using other taxpayer funds diffuses their focus on how best to serve their fellow citizen effectively.

The High Cost of Government Programs

6/13/2014

This article on Mises.org is very relevant to why I want less government control.

Mises Daily

Home | Library | Why the Cost of Government Is Higher Than You Think
Why the Cost of Government Is Higher Than You Think

May 28, 2014Gary GallesTags Big Government Corporate Welfare Interventionism

This article is also available as an Audio Mises Daily“Look what I did for you!” When our children were small, my wife and I got many gifts from them accompanied with those words (including most of our refrigerator art and many things that still adorn our Christmas trees), in search of approval and encouragement.

While that process was an endearing part of parenting, I have been struck by a far less endearing parallel to public servants. In a similar way, they are always rolling out some new plan or program “for you,” in search of accolades and votes. However, unlike our children, what they claim to have created is frequently misleading to the point of rank dishonesty, because they present the benefits of their panaceas as far greater than they really are and the costs as far less than they really are. And a substantial part of that political overselling involves overlooked crowding-out effects.

The most common examples of politically ignored crowding-out effects are from government fiscal stimulus to “cure” recessions. Such stimulus must be paid for. If financed with current taxation, reduced take-home incomes of those forced to bear the burdens will crowd out some of their spending. If the stimulus is financed by borrowing, savings and investment dollars that would have gone to finance private-sector debt (for factories and other enterprises) will be crowded out by government debt instead. Current borrowing will also require higher taxes in the future to pay off or continue to finance the debt. These future taxes then crowd out future spending and savings.

Unfortunately, macroeconomic malpractice in search of credit where credit is not due does not exhaust the cornucopia of ways the government overstates
the benefits and understate the costs of intervention in the economy.

What is not saved or what is not spent in the future, thanks to intervention, is never mentioned. A good example of this is the government “solution” to Americans’ savings “crisis,” including Social Security, in which forced “savings” are extracted by government from current workers and handed over to retired workers.

Social Security’s vastly under-funded promises of retirement benefits has crowded out (i.e., replaced) funds they would have saved. Those savings would have financed investment, increasing future output, and income-increasing tools — from hammers to factories — for future production. But thanks to government intervention, that investment never takes place.

Similarly, Medicare and Medicaid’s nursing home coverage crowds out saving for future medical costs. Unemployment benefits and various forms of disaster aid extract still more income from taxpayers, thus crowding out more savings by lessening the individual’s ability to save.

Crowding-out effects taint all income-transfer programs, including food stamps, lottery funds for education, and humanitarian foreign aid, among other programs. In each case, aid crowds out private spending, savings, and investment that would have taken place, and could have been directed to job creation and capital accumulation that would have benefited all levels of society. Instead, such programs divert resources to government administration and to recipients chosen arbitrarily through the political process.

Crowding-out effects are also created whenever government takes over any function previously left to voluntary actions. As the history of voluntary charitable groups illustrate, public welfare programs crowd out private charity, private insurance arrangements, family support systems and more by diverting capital and income away from these programs and into government programs. The effect is to make all of these enterprises less economically viable. And having crowded out these voluntary efforts (and taken its cut to pay government salaries and government administration costs), government promoters then falsely claim such interventions solve “market failures” that are, in fact, governmentally induced.

Moreover, every tax introduces a wedge between what a buyer pays and what a seller keeps, crowding out exchanges that would have benefited both (e.g., trading something whose cost to you was $20, but worth $25 to me, creates $5 of wealth. However, a $6 tax would eliminate the trade and the wealth it would have created.) The burden of regulatory costs, on top of taxes, similarly crowd out production and wealth.

Minimum wages crowd out on-the-job training (which would have increased workers’ skills and future prospects). Rent controls and burdensome housing regulations crowd out rental housing by reducing property owners’ incentives to build and maintain it. Means-tested welfare benefits crowd out work, by increasing effective income tax rates, via benefit reductions as incomes rise. Unemployment benefits crowd out re-employment by decreasing the cost of remaining unemployed (whether the worker is really searching for work or not).

In all of these cases, crowding-out effects are overlooked in order to exaggerate the net benefits of government programs. In other words, the promotion of strategic ignorance — overselling benefits and hiding costs — means that what citizens are led to see is far better than what they actually get. And what has society gotten from our cornucopia of crowding-out policies? Reduced freedom, less responsibility independence, frugality, fairness, voluntary arrangements, character development, family ties, and more. We have gotten a demonstration of Dennis Prager’s crowding-out adage: “The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.”

Eliminate Business Taxes

5/3/2014

The act of taxing decreases the activity taxed. It is vital for the economy to not create disincentives on operating a business. Given that after a 10 year transition, my plan would reduce government spending by 72%, my plan would be to fully remove business taxes.

Looking at my Competitive Regulatory Agencies, you understand a business would be required to become regulated by private agencies all contending for your business. They would charge each business for the service they render. For example, a restaurant would need to be regulated by food safety agencies and would charge you for those services. Businesses would need to balance so that all strong ratings listed on their door come from strong regulations that are well monitored and lower ratings are from laxer regulations that are not enforced as well.

It is also vital for a business to directly link services provided by the government to that service. Those services of inspections and regulations by the state are often seen by a business to be obstacles and are often counterproductive to good business. In CRAs, businesses would look for agencies which eliminate counterproductive regulations and are fair and cost efficient in their services.

Politicians have been known to alter regulations to harm their political enemies or help their friends. This can easily lead to corruption and often the appearance of favoritism. There are some that make an art form out of this to keep their campaign donations flowing. They take bribes, some illegal such as direct personal payment for a vote or a vacation at the business’s expense.
Knowledge and Corruption

Agenda 21 is Not Sustainable

4/6/2014

Haley2024 is different than Agenda 21. Agenda 21 allows massive government control of people. Haley2024 takes the power away from the government and returns it to the people and free enterprise. Statism always claims to help the people but instead gives them an inferior lifestyle. The great experiment of America was to give people freedom, rights, free enterprise, justice, and liberty. This experiment has given us a 5,000 year leap of high improvements in standards of living. Those living under any form of statism are trying through Agenda 21 to bring those with far greater standards of living into their poverty.

Haley2024 is pulling towards liberty in the great tug-of-war of government control vs. liberty.

Why do People Vote for Bigger Government

4/6/2014

When people receive benefit from the government, they develop interest in ensuring the growth of that benefit.

Just a small list of so many hidden taxes.

To those who pay taxes indirectly, taxes are incredibly detached and dispersed. It is very hard to see jobs that were not created do to the disincentive of the tax. Higher prices at the store are often due to higher cost of taxes, yet it is very hard to fully understand the complexity of taxes in the economy. Many are willing to accept a new tax when it is hard to see they are paying for it, however they clearly see the benefit when government gives them money.

S.S and Medicare Payroll Tax Versus the Income Tax

3/16/2014

Have you ever thought about the lack of issues surrounding the payroll tax? There are no fights over deductions, credit, or exemptions. Few people change business plans to deal with this tax code. This is the most straight-forward and easy tax to figure out. The tax rate is far lower than the heavily progressive income tax and brings in almost as much money because of the lack of deduction, credit, and exemptions.

My proposals are much more like a system of payroll taxes than progressive income taxes, although the top cap on the payroll would be removed. This is not for S.S or Medicare; these transition away from being government programs.

The IRS targeting the Tea Party groups show the IRS can be used as a weapon against certain groups. We just do not see this with a payroll type of tax.

The Change to Liberty is Scary

2/22/2014

When the government is taking care of a certain aspect of your life, it is understandable that having to provide those services yourself is scary. Many people will not see the potential the free market will provide at first. How will children be educated? How will the poor and disabled be provided for? How will roads be built? All these things will emerge in the free market within the transitions periods.

If the government were in total control of the production and distribution of food, most people would not be able to see business plans develop. Understandably, some people would be concerned to rely on the free market. However the free market provides food in abundance to the rich and the poor and the number of products produced are extraordinary.

Haley2024 The Movement

9/15/2013

Over the years the government has grown too large. Bureaucracy leeches onto every aspect of our lives, government spending crowds out private spending, and the free market is far from free.

This movement is not about progressing the federal government slower than the Democrats or removing a few regulations. It is about turning government power to the people in a truly innovative way. No one person has the knowledge or experience base to know how to run the government in the best way possible

In this structured system, the private sector absorbs much of the current responsibilities of the government. Government spending will be roughly 28% of the current amount. The other 72% will still be spent however in the private sector in a structured system. Haley2024 is that structured system.

Anyone who loves liberty and believes that the United States of America is going down the wrong path should invest their time and treasure in restoring the freedom God blessed this country with.

I, Bill Haley, am doing my part by starting a movement; Haley2024. Haley2024 is well defined by privatizing Social Security, transportation, health care, welfare, education and bureaucracies. Regulations would come from the private sector with mandatory ratings. Roughly 72% of government spending (federal, state and local) will be taken away from government control. Haley2024 creates a structure in the private sector that allows for greater results compared to government control.

Forward>>