Taxes and Regulations Stifle Development

Franchise tax, ENI tax, business and investment capital tax, minimum taxable income, fixed dollar minimum tax, subsidiary capital tax, MTA tax, state filing fee, personal income tax—these are just some of the taxes New York state imposes upon local businesses. The tax rate in the state for businesses ranges from about 6.5%-7.1%. Because of the state’s high personal income tax, sales tax, and property tax rates, New York is considered “one of the least favorable states for new and small businesses.”

In terms of regulations, the list of things required to start and run a business in New York City is extensive. It includes certificates, inspection requirements, permits, licenses (individual and business), registrations, rules and regulations, signage requirements, and much more. These cost time and money to obtain and follow, which mega corporations have to spare. Small businesses, on the other hand, like mom-and-pop, brick-and-mortar shops don’t necessarily have the money to adhere to these requirements. They hinder business development and growth.

The IRS considers any company with 500 or fewer employees a small business. But New York has lowered that standard to any company with fewer than 100 employees. Imagine having only a few hundred employees in your business, but being regulated as if you employed over a thousand. New York should make it easier for small businesses by at least categorizing them the same way they are recognized federally.

Lowering Taxes Helps Businesses Grow

Which taxes should be lowered to make it easier for businesses to flourish in the state? One example is the capital gains tax. According to the Cato Institute, “reduced capital gains taxes can generate greater financing of young companies by angel investors and venture capitalists.” As we’ve all seen on ABC’s Shark Tank, small businesses and start-ups rely on those investors to get the push they need to make it big. If the capital those investors receive is taxed too much, the investors are less likely to invest, and entrepreneurs are less likely to even try to start their business in the first place.

The individual income tax in the state should also be lowered, since small businesses file as individuals. Big corporations only pay about a half percentage higher tax rate than small businesses. That’s not to say that we should increase the corporate tax rate in the state, since “state corporate taxes are borne mostly by workers, not shareholders, because it’s easier to pay local labor less than it is to attract global investors at lower rates of return.” So if the corporate tax rate were also reduced, we’d start to see wages increase. And if the individual income tax rate were reduced, there would be much less of a burden on small businesses.

Regulations and taxes make it much more difficult for small business owners to make a worthwhile profit. These taxes and regulations inhibit business growth and hinder start-ups. This results in less competition in the market and fewer choices for consumers and wage workers (which regulations are intended to help). Legislating minimum wage, occupational licenses, zoning and parking requirements, etc. do nothing to help small businesses. Most of these laws are written by big corporate lobbyists who know that it will only subdue any challengers that the Wal-Marts and Targets of the state may have to compete against. Pizza Hut can afford a higher tax rate and can pay their employees $15/hr. Salvatore’s Pizzeria cannot.

The post Small Businesses Need Small Government: Lessening Tax and Regulatory Burdens appeared first on Larry Sharpe, Libertarian.

Governor Cuomo’s approval ratings have taken a dive this past year because of the many issues involving the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA). With so many problems dogging this institution, it’s time for New Yorkers to demand a new approach to the transportation industry.

There is a problem when you have one person, or even a governing body, making decisions regarding something they know very little about. The lack of knowledge regarding transportation, engineering, and other related fields is not under criticism; politicians aren’t expected to know what makes every industry thrive. But their lack of knowledge should disqualify them from deciding what to improve within the MTA. This important role should fall to the engineers—the people who know the technology—who can assess which upgrades are needed. Unfortunately, because the MTA is funded by taxpayers, government makes the decisions, not the knowledgeable industry leaders.

The First Step Toward Innovation

Government stifles technological innovation, which happens especially when enforcing monopolies. Allowing the subway system to exist within a free enterprise would be ideal for improving rail technology and even customer satisfaction. The argument against a decentralized subway system is that it would mean that one corporation would become an abusive monopoly. But isn’t that what the MTA is now? It is a government-run monopoly that abuses the consumers all the time. Fires have started. Trains have swerved off the tracks. A train even broke down in the middle of the subway leaving hundreds of people stranded in the dark for 45 minutes. If the MTA was owned, funded, and operated by a non-public corporation, they would have incentive to make customers happy. This is something that doesn’t happen within government programs, and it is exactly what the MTA is lacking. Moving the MTA to the market would be an extensive step and not one that should necessarily happen in one swoop. However, there are steps we can take to get to that point.

Take Hong Kong, for example: they use a public-private partnership for their subway system, the Mass Transit Railway (MTR). Hong Kong and New York transit systems have roughly the same number of regular riders, yet there is an incredible difference between revenue, profit, fare prices, and consumer satisfaction. In 2013, the Hong Kong MTR spent about $2.18 billion in transit revenue (about a quarter of the MTA’s $8.4 billion), charged, on average, $1USD per ride (compared to MTA’s $2.75), yet has a 99.9% on-time rating for train schedules (MTA is at about 72%). Not only that, but they make a profit: more than $1 billion per year! Compare that to the MTA’s $38 billion debt that has been lingering for 30+ years. Why is there such a stark difference between the two (including the remarkable differences in cleanliness and aesthetics)? A large part of it is because there are shareholders involved who have a profit incentive to do well by consumers or risk losing a lot of money.

Options Lead to Innovation

By loosening the bureaucratic stronghold on the MTA, there would be less waste and we would start to experience real improvements and eventually see progress with cosmetic upgrades (but the internal problems would need to be dealt with first and foremost). The subway system currently uses technology decades, and in some cases over a century, old and is in desperate need of an overhaul. Of course, another issue is that rail infrastructure itself is becoming obsolete due to technological advances of electric driverless cars and buses. Instead of spending an obscene amount of money fixing antiquated railways, companies could eventually use the already built subway tunnels for electric busses. This is just one of many possibilities.

What makes a business perform well? Incentives and choices. The MTA has neither of those. They don’t have any profit incentive because most of the funding comes from taxpayer money and government subsidies. And of course, there is no competing subway system. Because of this, it really doesn’t matter how poor of a job it does; people still need to use it. Companies like Uber and Lyft help commuters to a certain extent, but traffic congestion is its own issue and isn’t necessarily an option for those who need reliable transportation. But with Uber and Lyft, we can see how opening the market to allow more companies to participate gives consumers a lot more options and at lower prices. If the MTA was subjected to the market, because of the enormous debt it currently has, it would have filed for bankruptcy years ago and been forced to fix the issues instead of just throwing more taxpayer money at the problem. As Larry Sharpe has said, “The MTA needs more competition. It’s as simple as that.”

An example of choices within the transportation market is with busses. Chariot, a Ford-based shuttle service, opened in New York recently to provide competition to the bus system. You simply set up the starting and ending addresses as well as an ETA, and a shuttle bus picks you up with a guaranteed seat. This leaves more room on city buses and forces the city busses to lower fares to attract consumers. Who knows what other possibilities there are when we let the professionals handle the industry, not the bureaucrats.

The bureaucratic answer is always more subsidies. But with subsidies, wasteful spending is pretty much guaranteed. At what point do we say: “Throwing money at the problem isn’t helping; let’s try something else!” We could try a private-public partnership at first. Or we could simply have more subway options sharing a rail. There are many possibilities if we let industry leaders innovate.  Larry Sharpe is willing to try something new. Are you?

Please donate or volunteer here. Follow Larry on Facebook and Twitter for more information.

The post Reinventing the MTA: Improvement through Innovation appeared first on Larry Sharpe, Libertarian.

Bloated New York government needs money. They use our mobile phone bills as a quiet way to support their own waste and corruption, while they hit us with the third-highest taxes in the U.S.—50% higher than average. We get little in return.

In New York, sales tax on most purchases of is 8.875%. But for some reason, tax on mobile phone service is almost 3 times that—almost 25%. Why?

I can find no good answer to that question.

High tax rates are usually reserved for “sins:” cigarettes, big boats, alcohol, etc.

Whether or not you agree with the premise that “sins” should be heavily taxed, do mobile phones belong in this group?

These days owning a mobile phone is a necessity for running one’s life. In many states, necessities are tax exempt to avoid the regressive punishment against the poor—but not mobile phone service. Phones are hit many times harder than other products. Quietly, enormous telecom taxes have been levied on all of us, disproportionally hitting those most dependent on the technology.

It appears they do it because they can, and because they need money—lots of our money.

“Wireless taxes have long been a fairly frictionless way for states and cities to get revenue,” says Jot Carpenter, Vice President of government affairs at telecom industry association CTIA. He means politically “frictionless”—you and I won’t complain or hold politicians accountable at the ballot box for taking so much of our money for no apparent reason.

It’s as Willie Sutton explained about why he robbed banks: “That’s where the money is.”

When you think like a bureaucrat, it makes perfect sense. And they don’t care who it hurts.

As With Most Tax Issues, New York is Among the Worst

New Yorkers have been hit HARD. The federal tax rate on mobile phone service is 6.3% (that applies to all states). State and local governments then layer on more—much more, an average of 12.2% more. Out of 50 states, New York adds the nation’s third-highest state and local taxes: 18.3%, which is 50% more than the average state. That brings the total cell phone tax rate in New York to 24.6%.

And while telecom companies themselves have competed in a cutthroat industry to reduce their monthly service charges by 17% over the past 10 years, those savings have been more than lost, as cell service tax rates have increased by 22% over that period.

So, as we complain about our cell phone bills going up, many of us blaming the carriers, we need to see that it’s really the politicians doing it to us. Ironically, as carriers improve service and technology and lower costs to us, bloated “public servants” view that as a bad thing, because it takes money out of their hands. And they need our money—it’s already been spent. So, they have to increase the tax rate to make up for the savings that the phone carriers are trying to give us, effectively erasing any savings by putting more of our money in the hands of bloated government.

Infrastructure and Services Don’t Justify the High Tax Rate

You may ask whether New York State provides a lot of infrastructure to assist the public or the telecom industry, which might make the taxes seem more reasonable. But this is not really the case.

State and local politicians will tout things like 911 emergency services, 411 information services, “right-of-way” infrastructure, and franchise agreements for services. But don’t fall for their rhetoric: these are inexpensive services to provide as compared to the massive tax revenue they take from all of us. The FCC found that a sizable portion of 911, 411, and other infrastructure taxes were diverted to other, unrelated purposes, such as coping with localities’ pension crises. Many other taxes and fees don’t even pretend to be related to mobile service.

You must ask yourself: why does New York need so much more cell service tax than other states?

Government officials simply need the tax money to support their waste and corruption. And since New York is so much more wasteful and corrupt than other states, high cell service tax is just another example of where New Yorkers get hit harder.

Just One More Reason Businesses Won’t Invest in New York

In addition to hitting the poor the hardest, higher tax rates discourage investment. Ask yourself: if you were considering bringing your business to New York, with it’s incredibly high income and property taxes, how might incredibly high telecom taxes impact your choice?

The International Chamber of Commerce concluded that such discriminatory taxes not only make doing business more expensive, they also create complexities which make it harder for new telecom companies to offer services, which limits consumer choices. New York is among the worst in all of these areas.

Put Them on a Diet to Make Us All Healthier

To be competitive and attract business and new jobs, New York doesn’t need to dump cash and goodies on companies and college students. Governor Cuomo has tried and it doesn’t work—only wastes. We need our government to get out of the way—stop with the oppressive taxes, stop with undue complexities, stop the need for permission to start a business or get a good job. Just stop!

In the case of telecom taxes, we need to immediately stop their growth. We should be telling Andrew Cuomo and the rest of Albany to roll back such taxes and put a cap on local taxes. We should permit just enough tax to cover essential 911 services and infrastructure, but no more. We can check ourselves against other states to see how we’re doing. We can scale back the limit over a number of years to manage the hit to local governments who have, sadly, become dependent on such tax revenues.

We must put New York government on a financial diet, starting with our cell phone taxes.

The post New York Cell Phone Taxes: “High” is an Understatement appeared first on Larry Sharpe, Libertarian.

He likes to spend the hard-earned money of the people on programs that may sound good (to get him re-elected), but which don’t actually work. His Royal Highness considers it treason to lower taxes for citizens, and he makes it extremely difficult for businesses to operate efficiently and at low costs.

IF IT PLEASES THE CROWN, MAY WE CUT EXCESSIVE SPENDING?

When it comes to the increasing debt of New York, instead of claiming responsibility for the insane amount of government spending that happens in the state, King Andrew places the blame with the county and municipal governments (let’s call them his “earls”). He tells local governments to rein in spending, but the King never seems to cut spending for his own projects. 70 cents for every tax dollar collected goes to state-mandated programs.

Soon that amount will be even higher. Spending is consistently rising in the state and doesn’t seem to be slowing down. In 2016, the state received $8 billion in settlements from 20 businesses, and instead of using that money to pay off some of the state debt, it was added to the state budget for capital projects.

NEEDLESS SPENDING IN EDUCATION

When it comes to education, New York spends the most money per student in the entire nation: $20,600 per pupil. King Andrew is proud of that fact because, to him, spending that much money per student shows that he cares about the children. But spending money doesn’t equate to good leadership. And His Royal Highness didn’t always have this mindset. When he was campaigning in 2010, the King held the exact opposite sentiment, claiming that he did not support the traditional answer to education, which has always been to throw more money at the problem. He then said, “we have, and you know what it’s gotten us? A larger and larger bureaucracy and higher salaries for people who work in the education industry.” But now that King Andrew rules, apparently it is good to outspend every other state in the country when it comes to education.

Now add in the Excelsior Scholarship, which offers free tuition to a certain class of the common folk. Free college sounds great and makes King Andrew look good on the surface, but the program doesn’t help who it claims to help. It is a waste of tax money to pay tuition for students who can afford it on their own.

SPENDING MONEY IN THE WRONG PLACES

When it comes to the many problems surrounding the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, King Andrew spends money on nonessential makeovers, not any of the real internal problems. He pressured the MTA to spend almost $1 billion on the Enhanced Station Initiative, which included new lighting, signs, and clocks, as well as other upgrades that were not considered necessary by MTA leaders. But these cosmetic upgrades make the stations look good. The King also pushed the MTA to spend money on adding phone chargers, Wi-Fi, and new logos painted on subway cars. All of these decisions valued flashy projects over necessary maintenance; this seems to be a common theme in King Andrew’s reign as governor.

And like most politicians, the King participates in crony corporatism (see more about corporatism in this past blog post). A few years ago, King Andrew announced that the state would spend $55 million to help IBM set up a center in Buffalo, claiming they’d create 500 jobs for the area and additional jobs throughout the state. Currently, only 165 people work at the center, most of which are help-desk jobs, not the high-paying $70,000+ annual salary tech jobs they promised to create. Millions of taxpayer dollars have essentially been gifted to a multi-billion-dollar corporation for no reason other than to make the His Royal Highness look good for his subjects.

IF IT PLEASES THE CROWN, MAY WE KEEP MORE OF OUR OWN MONEY?

New York state has the highest individual tax burden in the nation. Along with the income tax, the high property, sales, and excise taxes in the state make New York the least tax-friendly state in the country. Because of these high taxes, many people are leaving the state, especially those with higher incomes. This leaves an enormous tax burden with the middle class. If King Andrew would kindly allow New Yorkers to keep more of their own money, less people would be inclined to leave the state.

MANDATED PROGRAMS AND HOLLYWOOD TAX BREAKS

As with spending, King Andrew doesn’t take responsibility for the insanely high tax burden in the state and instead shifts the blame to his earls. He said, “When you’re annoyed at high taxes, don’t look at me … the problem has always been property taxes in the state of New York.” What he fails to mention is that 85% of property taxes go toward mandated programs from Albany, like Medicaid and education, not local spending, so when the earls are budgeting for local programs, they only work with 15% of property taxes. It’s hard to believe that King Andrew can’t do more to cut capital spending and lower property taxes.

Although the King considers it treasonous to cut taxes for us lowly plebs, he is more than happy to contribute to corporate welfare by giving huge tax breaks to Hollywood executives. King Andrew wants to walk among Hollywood royalty, and to do so he must offer them $420 million in tax credits. New York City has always been a hot spot for filming because of its beautiful scenery, rich history, and magical ambiance. These tax credits don’t necessary encourage production in the city, but they do encourage the wealthy execs to contribute to Cuomo’s campaigns to keep him on the throne.

IF IT PLEASES THE CROWN, MAY WE CONDUCT BUSINESS IN OUR OWN WAY?

New York is ranked the worst state for economic freedom in the nation. With countless regulations within the market, starting a small business and keeping employees is becoming more and more difficult. Legislation and regulations are combining to hurt the New York economy and the workforce.

REGULATIONS HURT MORE THAN THEY HELP

Starting at the end of this year, minimum wage will be increased to $10.40/hr, and it will gradually increase to $15/hr. Legislating a high minimum wage does not help people earn a living. For one, small businesses cannot afford to pay workers those high wages, so many people will lose their jobs. In fact, these minimum wage increases do the most harm to the low-skilled workers they claim to help. Even established business can’t afford to pay someone with minimal skills $15 per hour, meaning the work force will be cut and jobs will be outsourced or replaced by automation. We all want to help the less fortunate gain experience and increase income, but raising the minimum wage has no positive impact on the rate of poverty and only makes King Andrew appear caring.

Recently, the King has announced new regulations that would require businesses to release employee schedules two weeks in advance. If an employer fails to do so, it must pay the employee for an extra 2 hours of work time. Not only is this paying people for labor not performed, it also means an increase in other costs like social security payments. While it can be annoying to receive last-minute work schedules, these regulations will put a huge strain on a lot of businesses. Many managers are unable to know who will be available for shifts 14 days in advance. It is important for both employer and employee to remain flexible. Like with adding phone chargers and fancy lights on the subway instead of fixing the important problems, His Royal Highness has created this rule so he can appear to appease his subjects, without actually creating jobs or improving the economy.

IT’S TIME TO EMPOWER THE PEOPLE

With King Andrew spends commoner money on outrageous projects, like spending $207 million on advertisements for the state within a 3-year period or reallocating $5 million of the MTA’s budget on bailing out three different ski resorts, the state needs a new leader. Larry Sharpe will empower the people by treating them as equals, not mere peons, by rolling back the Crown and instead allowing New Yorkers to keep more of their own earnings to spend in their local communities where the money is most needed.

If you’re tired of being ruled over, and want the power back in the hands of the people, follow Larry on Facebook and Twitter, and consider donating to the campaign here.

The post The Reign of King Andrew appeared first on Larry Sharpe, Libertarian.

The Excelsior Scholarship is the state-wide program Governor Cuomo recently established, which offers families who earn up to $125,000 per year free tuition for any CUNY or SUNY two- or four-year program. To be eligible, a student must take 30 credits per year, and then stay in New York state after graduation for as many years as he or she took advantage of the program. The scholarship converts into a student loan if the student fails a class or moves out of New York before the required in-state residency time is up. The scholarship is only for tuition, so it does not cover the cost of books, housing, fees, etc. This program is a bad idea for a number of reasons.

Bribing Students Increases Corruption

As Larry Sharpe explained in an interview on Live It Up with Donna Drake, Cuomo is essentially bribing people to stay in New York after graduation. Indeed, Governor Cuomo himself said the concept of the program “is that you’re going to stay here and be an asset to the state,” but if “you don’t stay here, then go to California and let them pay for your college education.” Cuomo looks at students as sources of tax revenue he needs to bribe into staying in state, not as individual humans with their own dreams and aspirations and families to feed.

The Excelsior Scholarship will trap people in state even if they can’t find a job after graduating. And it will also force people who are offered a great opportunity out of state into either foregoing the opportunity or being suddenly saddled with an incredible amount of debt they didn’t expect to have to pay back when they signed up—all so Cuomo can use them for their tax dollars. Worse, Excelsior incentivizes graduates to lie about living in New York on paper to avoid the pitfalls that are built into the system, adding yet another layer of corruption to a government program.

Free Bad College is Still Bad College

As Larry has said, free bad college is still bad college, if nothing is being done to address quality. The offer of free tuition will increase class sizes, which almost always decreases quality. Spending money to give individuals a poor education that does not prepare them to enter the workforce is a waste of taxpayer money.

Schools need to have skin in the game in order to have incentive to do better. By innovating and building better educational programs, universities can court students and earn the tuition dollars that students choose to spend. Giving colleges a guaranteed income in the form of millions of taxpayer dollars only rewards underperforming schools and makes them complacent. Just like in life, money doesn’t solve all problems. Yes, schools need funds to operate, but throwing money at the problem is never a good solution.

Target Students Aren’t Reaping the Benefits

On the surface, it seems like the Excelsior program benefits the poorest students who would otherwise be unable to attend school. But the scholarship doesn’t really help the people it’s claiming to. It might be a good deal for the middle- and upper middle-class students who can afford the other costs needed for school without also working a lot, but it doesn’t benefit the lower-class students who still need to work full-time (or close to) to afford housing, books, and other fees. Moreover, if a busy poor student juggling work and school slips and gets an F, the student must pay back the scholarship as a loan.

Known as the “last dollar program,” the scholarship only applies after Pell grants and other financial aid options have been exhausted. Most students who qualify for those other programs need the money for books, housing, and other expenses. But because Excelsior only applies after those other grants, the poorest students get the least amount of money.

We see this in other states that offer free 2-year community college. In Oregon, middle-class students are receiving most of the money— about 60% of the total Oregon Promise budget— because they’re ineligible for Pell grants and financial aid. So oftentimes, students who could afford tuition on their own get free college at the taxpayers’ expense. This defeats the purpose of the program—middle- and upper-class students can already go to college regardless of whether it is “free,” and the economically disadvantaged students aren’t getting the help these programs claim to provide.

Excelsior Economics Belie the “Free” Claim

We all know that “free” college isn’t really free. The taxpayers foot the bill, and since we can’t expect current state leaders to cut spending elsewhere, tax increases are inevitable. Not only that, but these free college promises that are being pushed throughout the nation are far from economically sound.

NPR asked 22 economists about Bernie Sanders’ free-college-for-all proposal, and 20 of the 22 called it a bad idea because it is wasteful to spend money on students who can already afford tuition. Sanders’ plan is a bit different than the Excelsior Scholarship, but similarly, the benefits go to people who aren’t truly in need of the funds.

Let’s look at basic economics: if a service is free, the demand for it goes up; when demand goes up, the cost increases. This means that free college programs are creating more demand for higher education, which is driving up the cots of tuition and fees. So those who don’t qualify for the program end up paying more. We already see this pattern of rising educational costs reflected in the enormous number of student loans.

In addition, offering free college also makes the education market imbalanced. It is incredibly difficult for private schools to compete with “free.” Once private schools start losing students, thus losing tuition payments, they will begin to disappear from the market, which hurts the diversity of education and lessens choices for future students. The wide range of different schools is extremely important in a state as diverse as New York.

Free College Devalues Degrees

If tuition is free, it will no doubt attract more students to apply for college. Morley Winograd, an advocate for free college programs like Excelsior, told NPR that these programs have the power to get more students to apply for college, regardless of whether the free college programs are able to deliver on their promises.

But flooding the college system will only devalue the college degree, like we see with high school diplomas. In his 2015 State of the Union address, President Obama said, “I want to spread that idea . . . that two years of college becomes as free and universal in America as high school is today.” We all agree that college should be more affordable, but devaluing the degree the same way free high school devalues the high school diploma won’t necessarily help graduates get into the workforce.

To learn more about innovation in New York education, check out this past blog post and Larry’s video here.

The post The Price of Free College: How Excelsior Pushes Education Costs Ever Upward appeared first on Larry Sharpe, Libertarian.

The purpose of prison is not to teach lessons, and it rarely corrects bad behavior—it simply punishes lawbreakers. We need to start thinking of our justice system as just that: a system of justice, not punishment, in which prisons, police, and the laws themselves are used to pursue actual justice.

Legal Reform

According to the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, they are responsible for the confinement and habitation of 53,000 people in custody and 36,000 on parole. Nationally, there are over 2.2 million people incarcerated in both jails and prisons. Are there really that many criminals in New York and across the country? Or are people being confined for committing nonviolent crimes or unknowingly violating statutes? We can easily reduce the prison population by creating fewer criminals in the first place: by repealing bloated legislation and decriminalizing nonviolent and victimless offenses.

Many “crimes” should not be considered as such. The Libertarian Party supports the idea that only the use of force and fraud should be criminal. One way to reform what characterizes a criminal is mens rea reform. Mens rea is the idea that criminal intent occurred at the time of the wrongdoing. Currently, the extent of evidence that needs to be proven to show criminal intent varies.

The Mens Rea Reform Act of 2017 (which is supported by the Federal Defenders of New York) was introduced in early October by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) to raise the requirements for prosecutors to prove criminal intent for a conviction of federal crimes. Often, the justice system operates on the principle that ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking a law; this makes no sense given the sheer number of laws on the books, and, according  to the CATO Institute, this definition of “criminal” should be rejected. This would be a great first step to decreasing the number of incarcerated individuals.

Prison Reform

Another element of the criminal justice system in need of reform is the prison system. National jail populations are rising, including in New York. In New York state, 70% of county jail inmates have not even been convicted yet. There are too many people who are not a threat to public safety in cages because they cannot afford a cash bail. Biased risk assessments are keeping people in jail unnecessarily. And if someone is unable to afford bail, it affects their ability to maintain employment during their jail stay. When their trial ends, they have no job to go back to. This hurts the most disadvantaged people in society.

Although there are no private prisons in New York state, private prisons in the rest of the nation are currently paid per inmate, which creates an incentive for prisons to put more people behind bars, whether they deserve to be there or not. Instead, prisons should only get paid when they house dangerous criminals and when non-violent prisoners are rehabilitated, released, and rejoin society (similar to recruiting companies, as Larry Sharpe states). This is not currently happening, as recidivism rates are extremely high.

New York City claims to want to help inmates rehabilitate back into society. For example, there has been a proposal for NYC Artist Residencies. The money would be used to help rehabilitate and resocialize prisoners through art. It sounds nice, but it is difficult to see how it would help. Art is a wonderful healing tool, but it’s not a practical way to get criminals the real help they need. That money could be put toward education to help them get back into the lawful workforce.

Right now, prisons around the country are profiting from the suffering of many citizens, especially those who struggle with substance abuse and addiction. True rehabilitation of these inmates would entail treating drug problems as medical issues, not crimes. The War on Drugs does nothing to help addiction or abuse. Alcohol prohibition did not work; Marijuana prohibition does not work. Prohibition does not curb sales or use of any drug. Not only does this war kill and jail too many good people, it is a waste of time and money for police officers to enforce. If prisons start educating inmates and treating addiction as a health issue, we would start to see recidivism rates decrease.

Police Reform

Law enforcement reform is also needed. As the martial arm of the criminal justice system, this is a crucial aspect of promoting justice over punishment. Body cameras make transparency possible (but we do need to be careful about how we use technology so as to not infringe on privacy rights). Police need to be held accountable for errors in judgement, including the use of violent force against the accused. Many issues must be resolved at the federal level, but as a state, New York can effect meaningful change for the training and accountability of our police force, ensuring that justice is served in police-civilian interactions. For example, civil asset forfeiture laws can be changed at the state level.

Civil asset forfeiture is a process in which law enforcement seizes money or property from an accused person before he or she is convicted of a crime. This is a very controversial process, as most state laws on asset forfeiture encourage law enforcement officers to profit from the property taken. We expect our law enforcement to remain neutral entities in the judicial process, but reports of widespread corruption show that this is not the reality.

For example, the NYPD claims they have not backed up data detailing $68 million in forfeited assets, and have therefore been unable to give property back to those they have taken it from.  Not only that, but the “NYPD is supposed to return property seized during an arrest once a criminal case ends, so long as the person has a signed release from prosecutors. But public defenders say these requests are often ignored without consequence.” In this case, the law itself is at odds with justice. Civil asset forfeiture is legalized theft, and reform is needed. The process of recouping property needs to be much easier—or, better yet, law enforcement should stop taking property from the accused before conviction.

Another major problem specifically in New York with the criminal justice system is perjuring police officers. Cops are lying under oath to justify unnecessary arrests made to meet quotas. First, there should not be quotas set for arrests, as this only incentivizes police officers to make petty arrests that can ruin lives. Second, we need to trust officers to be honest about important cases, and cops lying about petty crimes undermines our entire judicial process. Quotas and petty-offense policing open the door to harassment and civil rights violations, which works against the goal of justice. And there is already evidence that reform of this nature works. When NYPD did a slowdown in petty law enforcement as a form of protest, major crime complaints were down. By simply reducing the aggressive policing of minor statutes, the number of serious crimes in the community fell.

We must get back to the idea of criminal justice, not criminal punishment. We need to rethink the definition of crime and how prisons and police precincts make a profit. Take a look at what Larry Sharpe has to say about criminal justice reform on his issues page: https://staging1.larrysharpe.com/issues.

The post Restoring Justice to the Criminal Justice System appeared first on Larry Sharpe, Libertarian.

First, we need to recognize what the problems are. Is it a lack of accessibility to schooling? No. Regardless of where a family resides, they are in a school district where they can access public education. The problem is access to quality education.

Is another problem affordability? No. Again, we all have access to “free” public education. But like Larry Sharpe said about free college— it is still free bad college. So yes, we can go to a free public school, but many of them are free bad public schools. Often the only good education available is private, which is currently too expensive for many families.

Another problem with our current system is that it is a one-size-fits-all curriculum. The state often forgets that students are individuals who learn best by using various methods and at differing paces. They do not consider individual aspirations for future careers. This is especially evident in state colleges and universities, who do not currently offer many programs that the workforce needs.

Perhaps most importantly, we keep throwing money at ineffective schools that underperform and do not allow students to thrive. They are being rewarded for doing a bad job. In a free market, if a business is not doing well for their customers, they shut down and the customers move to a more successful business. The same should happen with education. If a public school is not teaching students effectively, funding should cease until the school finds a better way, or until they shut down. The idea of rewarding a bad job also applies to inadequate teachers. For example, job privileges are given to teachers who have been employed longest, not to teachers who are better at their job.

So what solutions can we put forth to make these problems go away? Should we continue to fund, fund, and fund some more? Governor Cuomo seems to think more funding (which requires significant tax increases) will increase higher education accessibility and affordability. With the new Excelsior Scholarship program, families who earn up to $125,000 per year are eligible for free tuition for any CUNY or SUNY two- or four-year program. The student must take 30 credits per year, then stay in New York state after graduation for as many years as they were in the program. It is popular, but there are some major problems with this so-called solution.

As Larry said in a CBS “Live It Up with Donna Drake” interview, the state is basically bribing students to stay. That’s not a very honorable way to keep New Yorkers from moving out of state. Suppose a recent college graduate can only find a job in NYC, but can’t afford to live in the city and must find a place to live in New Jersey. Or suppose a recent grad can’t find a job in the state at all. Do we expect them to give up a job opportunity to stay in the state, or risk having their scholarship turn into a loan they can’t afford? What would most likely happen is a new layer of corruption: the grad would leave the state and use an in-state address  to keep from owing tuition.

Another major problem with the Excelsior Scholarship is that a student must take 30 credits each year. This is a full-time load, which is doable, but it is extremely difficult for students who need to work while enrolled in school. After all, the scholarship only covers tuition, so the student still needs to foot the bill for housing, books, food, and other necessities. Those who need to work are at a disadvantage and may not be able to keep up with 15 credits per semester.

The program does not cover costs for failed classes. If a student is overloaded and consequently fails a class, they owe tuition to the school. So as attractive as “free” college sounds, it creates more problems for those it claims to help.

The same can be said for the free 3-K plan Mayor Bill de Blasio has been endorsing in NYC. It will add more seats to already crowded classrooms and make it more difficult to add funding for more teachers. The city will need a projected $700 million from both the state and federal governments to fund this.  Not to mention it would give funding to public schools, daycare centers, and religious centers. Many of the same people who are against school choice vouchers because it directs funds to religious institutions are trying to push funds to religious institutions for 3-K students.

The simple solution to fixing our education system is to relinquish the stronghold of the state education department. It has already proven it cannot competently handle your money. A few years ago,$356 million for special education funding disappeared. Recently, another $84 million budgeted for disability programs can’t be accounted for. And of course, school construction and renovation projects almost always go over time and over budget. Simply put, the department does not efficiently keep schools up to quality standards.

Ideally, under a libertarian government, educational institutions would be a segment of the free-market which would allow good schools to succeed (based on competition and profit incentives) and bad schools to close. Prices would be set by market supply and demand laws so there would be different schools at different price points, and charitable free schooling for those in need (much like charitable hospitals). But until we get government out of the education business, there are still ways to immediately improve our current system.

To make access to high quality schooling easier for every family, the state must empower families by getting rid of mandatory location-based school districts. A zip code should not determine what kind of education a student receives. If a family lives in a low-income neighborhood, their government should not force them to attend poor quality schools.

In terms of affordability, we need to bring back the option of school choice to New York state. Upper class families already have school choice. They can afford to send their kids to any school in the state. Families with less means have no choice in our current system. They live in areas where schools are not thriving, but they cannot afford to send their children elsewhere.

Think of school choice vouchers like food stamps. Instead of having government-run grocery stores where everybody can get groceries for “free,” the state gives food vouchers to needy families to buy groceries at any market store they want. The same would be true for school choice vouchers. Instead of being forced into government-run schools, the state returns tax dollars to families in the form of a voucher the can spend at any school of their choosing. This would lead to many more options for more personalized education, which is incredibly important for a state as wonderfully diverse as New York.

Indeed, personalization of education would be much easier if we empowered families instead of a bureaucratic education department.  If there were fewer regulations and blanket curriculums in all sectors of education (public, private, charter, home school, etc.), there would be more options for different programs. Some could focus on agriculture, arts, or STEM. Others could focus on different methods of teaching (hands-on, teamwork or solo work, varied levels of reading, etc.). This should apply to higher education as well. Larry has said that colleges should be trying harder to figure out which skills are needed in the workforce and applying that to what programs they offer.

Education is too important for the people of New York state to put up with inadequate, bureaucratic institutions. Families and individuals need the power of choice and the freedom of opportunity back in their hands.

Check out Larry Sharpe on education reform here: https://staging1.larrysharpe.com/issues.

The post Innovation and Change in Education appeared first on Larry Sharpe, Libertarian.

The goal of IDAs is admirable. We can all agree that a strong economy and job growth is a positive thing. But there are many problems with their implementation and execution. The idea that businesses will be drawn to certain areas based on incentive packages and tax breaks holds some merit, but programs like these are no more than crony capitalism, or corporatism.

Crony capitalism is what happens when businesses profit from having money given to them (or having less taken from them in taxes) through a deal between the business and the government. Instead of taking a certain amount of risk, they are insulated from risk by your tax dollars. This is how an IDA works. For example, an agency may lease tax exempt property or issue bonds to a company that is planning on moving to or expanding in that area. Giving these benefits to big corporations while taxing local businesses makes an unequal playing field, giving advantages to special interest over small businesses. Not only that, but it shifts the property tax burden from big businesses to working families.

But IDAs have more problems than simply the underlying corruption. The criteria that decide which types of businesses get these benefits are often inconsistent. There is also a history of inaccurate reporting and billing. For businesses which are exempt from certain taxation, they make PILOT agreements with the IDA for payments overtime. The PILOT (payments-in-lieu-of-taxes) agreements in 2005 underbilled more than $51,000 from some businesses and overbilled more than $38,000 from others. These mistakes were due to vague term agreements and inadequate communication and monitoring.

This mismanagement is concerning, but not surprising. Government agencies are notorious for their inefficiencies. But worse, the main goal of IDAs, to create additional jobs than would be created without them, isn’t even achieved. Many of the jobs claimed to have been generated by IDAs would have been created without agency involvement.

The problems with government claiming it creates jobs are that 1) government does NOT create jobs. Entrepreneurs do. And 2) if the main goal is to create jobs (not to finish a project, or to sell a product/service), it will be at a loss of money and time. For instance, it would create a lot of jobs to require everyone to use spoons instead of shovels—thousands of digging jobs would be “created.” But that would be a drag on the economy as all of those people could instead be pursuing something more productive. Thus, IDAs have no incentive when doling out tax breaks to reach any goal efficiently, if the goal of “job creation” appears to be accomplished. The use of IDAs for this task is unnecessary and, at the least, must be scaled back.

So what can government do to make it easier for job growth to happen? Making the market as free and open as possible by making it easy for local businesses to open will increase job growth. After all, businesses are simply people who believe they have an idea, product, or service that will help others so much that people are willing to pay them for it. How will job growth happen? By getting government out of the way of people who want to offer a product or service to others at better price or quality than what is currently available.

As one example, New York should stop raising the state minimum wage. Every time the wage is raised, it makes it more difficult for people to hire employees to help them offer better products and services to the public. With a high minimum wage, businesses can’t afford to keep as many employees, automation takes over, and it makes it difficult for people to start at entry-level positions. It makes it nearly impossible for low-skilled workers to find work. And it also makes it hard for start-up companies to compete with large corporations who can afford to pay the higher wages.

Another way to keep government out of the economy is to eliminate occupational licensing. Under the current rules, if people want to start a business braiding hair, for example, they must go through thousands of hours and dollars to get a cosmetology license. This is unnecessary and no doubt stifles business development. Protecting consumers from accidents or other hazards is important and market regulations would still be in place to do that.

But current state regulations are too burdensome on business owners like a hair braider. And the thousands of dollars that need to be spent to obtain a cosmetology license will get passed down to the consumer to balance out that cost. So if the hair braider didn’t have to spend the money to obtain the license, the service would most likely be less expensive. Also, according to the Obama administration, these burdensome regulations keep employment down for licensed professions.

Don’t listen to a politician when they tell you they created X amount of jobs whether because of IDAs or some other incentives. As John Stossel writes, “jobs come from government getting out of the way and letting employers produce goods”. Government leaders need to empower business owners to run their businesses the way that works best for them.

The post The Mismanagement of Industrial Development Agencies in NY appeared first on Larry Sharpe, Libertarian.

Most Americans would like the government to spend less money (therefore, taking less of ours) and most Americans are socially tolerant of other peoples’ lifestyles. So specifically, what do libertarians believe in terms of current political, economic, and social issues?

At the core of libertarianism is a Non-Aggression Principle, or NAP. No use of aggression or force is legitimate except in self-defense, or defense of property. All other use of force is unjust. Because of this principle, many libertarians tend to believe that the government’s use of force in terms of taxation and programs funded by taxation is illegitimate. This may seem extreme, and in our current political structure it is, so the Libertarian Party structures its platform on limiting government and giving the power back to the individual.

Larry Sharpe is a firm believer in the idea that most people have the same goals when it comes to political hot topics. Libertarians, Republicans, and Democrats all want less poverty and more prosperity. We all want easy and affordable access to healthcare. We all want to live happily and peacefully. Here are some ways Libertarians want to make those goals a reality:

Marriage

Goal: Anyone can consensually marry whomever they want, regardless of sexuality, religion, race, etc.

How to get there: We do not believe a certificate authenticates a relationship. The government institution of marriage should be abolished. The parties involved can agree to a law-binding contract, or a faith-based contract if they wish. While government is in the business of marriage, Libertarians do support marriage equality.

Healthcare

Goal: Affordable and accessible healthcare for all.

How to get there: Larry Sharpe posted a great video saying that if you ask a libertarian if they support universal healthcare, they’ll shout “no!!!” But, if thinking about the result we want, then yes, we do support universal healthcare for everybody. We want everybody to have easy access to affordable healthcare, just not at the hands of the government. Libertarians support a free market approach to healthcare, with no government involvement, so crony capitalism would not be possible.  The market would adjust prices of visits and drugs to what people are willing to pay. Insurance should no longer be based on your job, but purchased in-market, much like auto insurance, and be for unexpected illnesses.

Self-Ownership

Goal: Ownership of our bodies back in the hands of the people, not the government.

How to get there: Each person owns their own body and have the only legitimate right to do to it what they want. Any laws restricting which substances we can ingest, which medical procedures we elect to undergo, or which profession we choose to engage in should be repealed.

Criminal Justice

Goal: Reforming criminal justice to ensure fewer lives are harmed by unjust laws.

How to get there: Laws that hinder an individual’s life choices (which do not infringe on others’ rights) are unjust and should be abolished. Because of these unjust laws, the incarceration rate in the US is much larger than other nations. Libertarians call for a reform in criminal justice by ending the racist war on drugs and putting an end to the unconstitutional civil asset forfeiture laws.

Environment

Goal: For everyone to live in a safe and healthy environment free from pollution.

How to get there: Considering government is the worst polluter in the world (and rarely gets punished for it), they should not be the ones regulating environmental protections.  Enforcing private property rights is a great way to make sure people care for our land, water, and air. If the EPA became a national organization similar to the ACLU, they could do a lot more in protecting our right to live in a healthy environment.

Economy

Goal: To have a prospering and innovative economy.

How to get there: Libertarians believe in free market capitalism as the only equitable economic system. Without governmental regulations, subsidies, and arbitrary values, the good products and services that are produced and sold in the free market would flourish, and the bad would fail. Crony capitalism would be very difficult if government involvement was minimal.

Immigration

Goal: To allow any peaceful person to easily become a US citizen.

How to get there: The US, and especially New York, is a place people dream of immigrating to. We are proud of our melting pot and believe that the path to citizenship should be an extremely easy process. Any peaceful person who wants to become a citizen should have that right, regardless of which country they come from, which language they speak, or which religion they practice.

Foreign Policy

Goal: To defend the US against attacks and coexist peacefully with the rest of the world.

How to get there: In adherence with the Non-Aggression Principle, Libertarians believe there is no reason to get involved in wars unless in defense of our nation. Also, the US military consumes a very large percentage of our spending budget. The US should stop policing the world and getting involved in decades-long wars that do not improve with our involvement.

Abortion

Goal: To make abortion a family matter, not a government issue.

How to get there: The Libertarian Party is known to be the pro-choice party on every issue. The party’s view is that government should not decide what medical procedures we elect to do. Understandably so, abortion is a very personal issue, and based on this position, the government should not be involved in making that choice.

Gun Rights

Goal: To allow law-abiding citizens the ability to self-defense, defense of property, and defense of liberty.

How to get there: Libertarians support the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Any obstacle from the government to restrict that right in any way is unjust and should be repealed. The more restrictions that are in place, the larger the black market for guns, and the more weapons in the hands of dangerous people.

Education

Goal: To improve education at all levels.

How to get there: The free market, as with any industry, would allow for a flourishing educational system. Great schools would succeed and underperforming schools would be replaced with better ones. Ideally, education would be placed back in the states’ hands and out of the federal government’s. While the government is in the education business, libertarians want to reform education by getting rid of location-based education and blanket regulations. We support school choice as a great stepping stone to a market-based system.

David Boaz of the Cato Institute put it perfectly saying, “libertarianism proposes a society of liberty under law, in which individuals are free to pursue their own lives so long as they respect the equal rights of others.” If that sounds good to you, and you agree with some of the above stances, give Larry and the LP a chance. Larry believes in an 80/20 rule. If you agree with someone on 80% of their platform, then there is enough reason to vote for them. Check out Larry on more specific New York issues here.

The post What Are Libertarian Views and Beliefs? appeared first on Larry Sharpe, Libertarian.