N.H. again tops all of North America in economic freedom

, , , , ,

New Hampshire is the most economically free state in North America and in the United States, once again edging Florida to top every Canadian province, U.S. state and Mexican state as ranked by the Fraser Institute, Canada’s free-market think tank. 

The Fraser Institute’s 2023 Economic Freedom in North America report, released in partnership with the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, measures government spending, taxation and labor market restrictions using data from 2021, the most recent year of available comparable data.

New Hampshire surpassed Florida as having the highest level of economic freedom in the U.S., having scored 7.96 out of 10 in this year’s report. Rounding out the top five freest states are Florida (2nd), Tennessee (3rd), Texas (4th) and South Dakota (5th). Puerto Rico came in last with 2.85. The least free states were New York (50th), California and Vermont (tied for 48th), Oregon (47th) and Hawaii (46th).

The Granite State also topped the list of all states in North America, scoring 8.14 out of 10, followed by Florida (8.07), South Carolina (8.06), and then Idaho and Indiana, tied for fourth (8.05). Alberta is the highest-ranking Canadian province, tied for 31st place with a score of 7.90. 

“New Hampshire is proof for all of North America that economic freedom creates maximum opportunity and prosperity,” Josiah Bartlett Center President Andrew Cline said. “The formula is proven, and anyone can follow it. Even Vermont, if it wants to.” 

“The freest economies operate with comparatively less government interference, relying more on personal choice and markets to decide what’s produced, how it’s produced and how much is produced; as government imposes restrictions on these choices, there’s less economic freedom and less opportunity for prosperity,” said Fred McMahon, the Dr. Michael A. Walker Research Chair in Economic Freedom at the Fraser Institute and report co-author.

The report includes an all-government ranking, which adds federal government policy to the index and includes the 50 U.S. states and the territory of Puerto Rico, 32 Mexican states, and 10 Canadian provinces.

Taking into account both federal and state policies, U.S. economic freedom declined from 2003 to 2011, began to recover, and then declined again after 2017. The last two years have seen the lowest levels of measured economic freedom in the U.S. in the last two decades. And while the U.S. remains more economically free than Canada, the gap is relatively small.

“The evidence is clear—lower levels of economic freedom are associated with less prosperity, slower economic growth, less investment, and fewer jobs and opportunities,” said Dean Stansel, economist and research associate professor at Southern Methodist University and co-author of the report.

The Economic Freedom of North America report, also co-authored by José Torra, the head of research at the Mexico City-based Caminos de la Libertad, and Ángel Carrión-Tavárez,  director of research and policy at the Instituto de Libertad Económica in Puerto Rico, is an offshoot of the Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom of the World index, the result of more than a quarter-century of work by more than 60 scholars, including three Nobel laureates.

See the full report at www.fraserinstitute.org/economic-freedom.

New Hampshire’s cores in key components of economic freedom (from 1 to 10 where a higher value indicates a higher level of economic freedom):

  • Government spending: 8.25
  • Taxes: 7.68
  • Labor Market Freedom: 7.60

About the Economic Freedom Index

Economic Freedom of North America measures the degree to which the policies and institutions of countries support economic freedom. This year’s publication ranks 93 provincial/state governments in Canada, the United States and Mexico. The report also updates data in earlier reports in instances where data has been revised.

For more information on the Economic Freedom Network, datasets and previous Economic Freedom of North America reports, visit www.fraserinstitute.org. And you can “Like” the Economic Freedom Network on Facebook at www.facebook.com/EconomicFreedomNetwork.

Download the entire report here: EFNA-2023-US.

 

/by

Republican Primary voters in NH want to restrain the federal government, not American businesses, a Competitiveness Coalition and Josiah Bartlett Center poll finds

, , ,

The Competitiveness Coalition, in coordination with The Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, find in a poll of 800 likely Republican primary voters, released Sept. 5,  that these voters want the federal government to focus on inflation, the cost of living and the economy, and not get distracted by attacking American tech companies.

On New Hampshire-specific issues, the poll shows huge support among Republican primary voters for ending the Interest & Dividends Tax, and little support for raising electricity costs to fight climate change. 

The key findings of the poll include:

  • More than 70% of GOP primary voters believe there is too much government regulation.
  • New Hampshire Republican presidential primary voters are focused on the economy: just under half (48%) of primary voters said either inflation and the cost of living (28%) or jobs and the economy (20%) were the most important issues.
  • At just 4%, breaking up large technology companies is a bottom-tier issue position for Republican presidential primary voters in New Hampshire.
  • Fully 72% of GOP primary voters are opposed to the Biden Administration establishing new regulations that would break up large technology companies such as Amazon, Apple, and Google, including 47% who are strongly opposed.
  • If these regulations were to go into place, these voters are concerned about the impact they would have on their own lives, including Google starting to charge for their services (34%), and Apple no longer being able to ensure the safety and security of downloaded apps (also 34%).
  • Supporting breaking up large technology companies has the potential to be electorally damaging for Republican candidates, especially when informed this could give the advantage to Chinese tech companies. Seventy-four percent (74%) of GOP primary voters are less likely to vote for a Republican candidate after hearing that, including 59% who are much less likely.
  • Fully 80% of GOP primary voters support eliminating the Interest & Dividends Tax to make New Hampshire truly income-tax-free. 
  • Asked how much more they’d be willing to pay per month in higher electricity costs to convert New Hampshire power plants from natural gas to renewables, 59% said they’d be willing to pay nothing more, 23% said $5 more, 9% said $25 more, 4% said $50 more, and 3% said $100 more.

“It’s clear that Republican voters in the First In The Nation state oppose the misguided Biden antitrust agenda and believe it will exacerbate the challenges of Bidenomics,” said Scott Brown, a New Hampshire resident, former U.S. Senator and Ambassador and chair of the Competitiveness Coalition. “The candidates competing in the Granite State would be wise to take heed and advocate for policies that will bring economic relief rather than additional pain. We have far too much regulation on our innovators already, and breaking up successful American success stories to the benefit of the Chinese Communist Party is the exact wrong approach.”

Andrew Cline, president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, added that the poll reinforces that New Hampshire voters are looking for basic good governance, not more government activism. “The message from Republican primary voters in New Hampshire is simple. They’d prefer to restrain the federal government, not American businesses,” Cline said.  

Additionally, the poll, which was conducted after the first Republican presidential debate, shows Donald Trump with a significant lead on the Republican presidential primary ballot. The former President currently garners 47% on the primary ballot, giving him a more than 30-point lead over his closest challengers (Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley, both at 10%).  Chris Christie and Vivek Ramaswamy both sit at 8%, with no other candidate receiving more than 5% of the vote.

  • Trump: 47%
  • Ron DeSantis: 10%
  • Nikki Haley: 10%
  • Vivek Ramaswamy: 8%
  • Chris Christie: 8%
  • Tim Scott: 5%
  • Mike Pence: 4%
  • Doug Burgum: 2%
  • Will Hurd: 1%
  • Asa Hutchison: 1%
  • Larry Elder: 1%
  • Undecided: 4%

On behalf of the Competitiveness Coalition and The Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy,  NMB Research conducted a statewide survey of N=800 likely Republican presidential primary voters in New Hampshire. The survey was conducted August 25-31, 2023 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.46%.  All surveys were conducted by live interviewers, with 78% of interviews conducted with cell phone respondents (N=623) and 22% of interviews conducted with landline respondents (N=177).

Launched in April 2022, the Competitiveness Coalition is a first-of-its-kind group educating the public and advocating for policies that put consumers first while fostering innovation and attracting new investment. For more information, please visit competitivenesscoalition.com. Members of the press can contact the coalition at [email protected]. The Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy is New Hampshire’s free-market think tank.

/by

N.H. voters lost trust in media & government during pandemic; helping drive Biden favorability below 50%

, ,

New Hampshire voters’ trust in government and media has collapsed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, a St. Anselm College Survey Center poll conducted for the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy has found. In addition, President Joe Biden’s honeymoon with New Hampshire voters is over, as majorities now view him unfavorably and think the country is on the wrong track. 

Among registered New Hampshire voters, 61% said the COVID-19 pandemic has made them less trustful of the government, and 60% said it has made them less trustful of the media. In both questions, 34% said their level of trust was unchanged. 

Business, however, saw those ratios reversed. Only 22% said the pandemic has made them less trustful of business, with 69% saying their level of trust is unchanged. 

“The huge collapse in trust of government and media, but not business, ought to be a five-alarm warning to government officials and journalists,” said Josiah Bartlett Center president Andrew Cline. “Trust in institutions was already low before the pandemic. It would be a mistake to maintain business as usual and see how low it can go. A serious effort to regain public trust is needed.”

Republicans and undeclared voters posted the largest drops in trust of both government and media. 

Eighty-seven percent of Republicans and 65% of undeclared voters say the pandemic made them less trustful of government. 

Ninety-two percent of Republicans and 63% of undeclared voters said the pandemic made them less trustful of media.

Democrats registered the smallest drops, with most saying the pandemic made no change in their trust of government (59%) or media (62%). 

These trust declines accompanied a significant drop in President Joe Biden’s favorability rating in the Granite State. 

Among New Hampshire voters, 52% now say they have an unfavorable opinion of President Biden, with 47% saying they have a favorable opinion. 

That’s an almost exact reversal from the February St. Anselm College poll, which found that 53% had a favorable opinion of President Biden and 46% had an unfavorable opinion. 

Biden won New Hampshire 53%-45.5% last November. 

A solid majority of New Hampshire voters (59%) now says the country is on the wrong track, with only 31% saying it’s on the right track. 

That’s up from 55% who said the country was on the wrong track in the February St. Anselm College poll. 

Gov Chris Sununu fared better, with 64% saying they had a favorable opinion of him, and 34% saying they had an unfavorable opinion. That’s down four percentage points, from 68%, in the February St. Anselm College poll. 

These results are from a Saint Anselm College Survey Center online poll conducted on behalf of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy based on online surveys of 897 New Hampshire registered voters. Surveys were collected between May 26th and 28th, 2021, from cell phone users randomly drawn from a sample of registered voters reflecting the demographic and partisan characteristics of the voting population. The survey has an overall margin of sampling error of +/- 3.3% with a confidence interval of 95%. The data are weighted for age, gender, geography, and education based on a voter demographic model derived from historical voting patterns, but are not weighted by party registration or party identification. 

The political party registration of poll respondents was 30% Democratic, 28% Republican, and 42% undeclared. 

The Josiah Bartlett Center released a previous batch of results from this poll last week. The book of tables for the poll includes both sets of questions and can be read here: SACSurveyBook JBC May 2021. 

/by

New Hampshire ranked most economically free state for second year in a row

, ,

New Hampshire is the most economically free state in North America for the second year in a row, and the third time in four years, finds this year’s edition of Economic Freedom in North America, the annual report from Canadian free-market think tank the Fraser Institute.

New Hampshire scored 7.84 out of 10 in this year’s report (down from 7.93 last year), beating out second-place Florida (7.73).

“The New Hampshire Advantage has made Granite Staters more economically free than roughly half a billion other North Americans, from Nunavut to Chiapas,” Josiah Bartlett Center President Andrew Cline said. “From the simple idea that people should be left as free as possible to pursue their economic dreams, we’ve created a continental marvel.”

Rounding out the top five freest U.S. states are Virginia (3rd), Texas (4th) and Tennessee (5th). At the other end of the index, New York (50th) is once again the least-free state, followed by West Virginia (49th), Alaska (48th), California (47th) and Vermont (46th).

New England states were ranked as follows: New Hampshire (1), Massachusetts (18), Connecticut (25), Maine (37), Rhode Island (43) and Vermont (46).

The report measures the extent to which the policies of individual provinces and states in Canada, the United States of America and Mexico were supportive of economic freedom, the ability of individuals to act in the economic sphere free of undue restrictions.

Economic freedom—the ability of individuals to make their own economic decisions including what to buy, where to work and whether to start a business—is fundamental to prosperity.

“When governments allow markets to decide what’s produced, how it’s produced and how much is produced, citizens enjoy greater levels of economic freedom,” said Fred McMahon, the Dr. Michael A. Walker Research Chair in Economic Freedom at the Fraser Institute and co-author of this year’s Economic Freedom of North America report, which measures government spending, taxation and labor market restrictions using data from 2018, the latest year of available comparable data.

From 2004 to 2018, the average score for U.S. states in the all-government index fell from 8.31 to 7.97. Across North America, the least-free quartile of jurisdictions had an average per-capita income 8.1 percent below the national average compared to 4.6 percent above the national average for the most-free quartile.

“Higher levels of economic freedom lead to more opportunity, more prosperity, greater economic growth, more investment and jobs,” said Dean Stansel, report co-author and economics professor at Southern Methodist University.

The Economic Freedom of North America report (also co-authored by José Torra, the head of research at the Mexico City-based Caminos de la Libertad) is an offshoot of the Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom of the World index, the result of more than a quarter century of work by more than 60 scholars, including three Nobel laureates.

The U.S. edition of the report can be found EFNA-2020-US-POST.

Detailed tables for each country and subnational jurisdiction can be found at www.fraserinstitute.org.

/by

Bartlett Center launches “Civil Discourses” event series with Pulitzer-winning historian Gordon S. Wood

The Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy announces the creation of a new event series, Civil Discourses, to promote public discussion of civics, policy and the humanities. The series will launch on Thursday, April 19 — the anniversary of the start of the Revolutionary War — with a lecture by Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Gordon S. Wood at the American Independence Museum’s historic Folsom Tavern.

“The social, cultural and technological trends of the moment are drawing us away from our founding promise of a nation shaped by civil discourse and toward tribal clustering, which breeds hostility, distrust and incivility,” Andrew Cline, president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, said. “As an institution dedicated to the free and open exchange of ideas, the Josiah Bartlett Center is creating our Civil Discourses event series to counter these corrosive trends and create new opportunities for Granite Staters to encounter, discuss and debate ideas.”

To launch its Civil Discourses event series, the center will hold a luncheon with historian Gordon S. Wood at Exeter’s Folsom Tavern at noon on Thursday, April 19. Dr. Wood, winner of the Pulitzer and Bancroft Prizes, will discuss his new book, “Friends Divided: John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.”

“We could not imagine a better inaugural event for our Civil Discourses series than a talk about a deep and affectionate friendship between two of America’s most bitter political enemies, held at an authentic Revolutionary War tavern on the anniversary of the opening shots of the American Revolution,” Cline said.

Gordon S. Wood is professor of history emeritus at Brown University and a best-selling author of numerous award-winning books on the American founding. He won the Bancroft Prize for his first book, “Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787,” and the Pulitzer Prize for “The Radicalism of the American Revolution.” In 2011, President Obama awarded him the National Humanities Medal.

The event costs $25 per person and includes a catered lunch and a tour of the historic tavern by docents of the American Independence Museum. Copies of “Friends Divided” and other books by the author will be available for purchase and signing, with a portion of the proceeds going to support the Josiah Bartlett Center.

For reservations, go to https://www.eventbrite.com/e/friends-divided-john-adams-and-thomas-jefferson-with-pulitzer-prize-winning-historian-gordon-s-wood-tickets-44713325761

/by

The Best Bet on FirstNet

Bartlett Brief

The Best Bet on FirstNet

Opting in is less risky for New Hampshire
December 19, 2017

 

On December 7, Gov. Chris Sununu announced his intention to have New Hampshire opt out of the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet).  In theory, opting out of FirstNet would give the state greater control over its first responder radio network, a factor the governor mentioned in his announcement.  Unfortunately, because of the way FirstNet is legally structured, opting out creates numerous financial and operational risks for the state.  Given the risks that would be incurred by opting out — and only by opting out —  New Hampshire’s best choice is to opt in.  This remains a possibility because the Executive Council has to approve the final contract.

Formed by Congress to fulfill the final recommendation of the 9/11 Commission report, FirstNet’s mission is to create a nationwide broadband network so first responders will have a reliable and secure communications system from coast to coast.  An independent authority in the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), FirstNet has contracted with AT&T to build its nationwide broadband network.  States that opt in will have their networks built by AT&T and funded by FirstNet and AT&T.  States that opt out will be legally responsible for building their own networks that meet FirstNet’s coverage requirements and are interoperable with the national network.

There is no financial risk to New Hampshire of going with FirstNet.  The FirstNet Opt-Out Review Committee’s report to the governor provides a good overview of the risks New Hampshire would shoulder should it opt out.  There are 5 points at which the state’s opt-out plan can trigger penalties or other financial risks.

  1. The state could fail the Federal Communications Commission’s review of the state’s Radio Access Network (RAN) interoperability.  The risk of failing this first review is considered small, and FirstNet can require AT&T to build a state’s network if it fails this first test.
  2. The state could fail the NTIA review that follows the FCC review.  At this stage, states apply to lease the spectrum from FirstNet and can apply for a grant.  As the FirstNet Opt-Out Review Committee noted, “unlike at the FCC level, there is no language in the Act providing for FirstNet to build out the network in the State if the State’s alternative plan fails to pass the NTIA review for funding and achieving a spectrum lease.”
  3. After NTIA approval, the state would have to enter into a spectrum manager lease agreement (SMLA) with FirstNet.  The state would lease the spectrum from FirstNet.  A state that opts out would be financially responsible for making those lease payments.
  4. The SMLA contains targets that a state would have to meet for first responder adoption and participation.  If those targets are not met, a state would be obligated to make “disincentive payments” to FirstNet.
  5. If the state terminates the contract or FirstNet terminates it for cause at any time during the 25-year term of the SMLA, the state would be obligated to pay FirstNet the full cost of building the state’s RAN.  FirstNet’s CEO testified that the bill would cover the actual cost of building out the state’s network, which could total more than $600 million in the worst case scenario.

New Hampshire has chosen Rivada Networks to build the state’s RAN should the opt out become final.  Rivada is a new company that has never built a RAN.  It would have to build an entire network from scratch.  Where it does not build its own towers, it would lease space on another network’s towers.

Rivada proposes to finance its RAN construction and operation through dynamic spectrum arbitrage.  It intends to borrow the money to build the network, then sell the network’s surplus bandwidth on the wholesale market.  It would simultaneously be paying for the bandwidth while trying to sell it.

Rivada says this poses zero risk to New Hampshire because the demand for this bandwidth is so high and because the entire project will be bonded.  In theory, even if the company goes under or otherwise fails to meet its contract obligations, the bonds will protect New Hampshire by ensuring that the costs are covered.

For good reason, the state’s FirstNet Opt-Out Review Committee did not appear convinced that Rivada’s proposed measures for mitigating the risk to New Hampshire were satisfactory.  In addition to the confidential risk mitigation measures recommended by the state’s outside bond counsel, the committee recommended 13 additional conditions for any contract with Rivada.

Rivada’s proposal presents very real risks for New Hampshire.  If this untested business model fails, New Hampshire could be on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars.  Beyond the financial risk, there are public safety concerns.  If Rivada is slow to complete its network or if the network fails, first responders will be left without a reliable, secure means of communicating.

By contrast, AT&T already has a network in New Hampshire that includes more than 300 towers.  It is reasonable to expect that it will be able to complete its network more quickly.  AT&T also operates on a proven business model that suggests it is less of a failure risk over the 25-year term of the SMLA.  Under the FirstNet contract with AT&T, the financial risks are borne by AT&T.  If AT&T fails to meet the terms of its contract, the company, not the state, would be fined.  By contrast, if New Hampshire opts out, the taxpayers are ultimately responsible for the costs if, for whatever reason (another recession, weak demand for bandwidth in rural New Hampshire, etc.) Rivada and its bond holders cannot cover them.

At the end of the FirstNet Opt-Out Review Committee’s public report (the bulk of its report was confidential), it concluded: “Pursuit of an alternative plan presents legal and financial risks to the State of New Hampshire.”  The seriousness of those risks cannot be precisely determined without access to information that remains confidential under the state’s Right to Know law.  But it is safe to say that the state takes on those potentially substantial risks only if it opts out of FirstNet.  For that reason, opting in is New Hampshire’s safest option.

/by

Shaheen, Hassan should explain vote to keep state and local tax deduction

,

CONCORD — U.S. Sens. Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan should explain why they voted against ending the federal tax deduction for state and local taxes, which aids high-tax states at the expense of New Hampshire, Andrew Cline, interim president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, said.

“Through the state and local tax deduction, Granite Staters subsidize the high tax bills imposed by neighboring Vermont and Maine as well as other big-spending states,” Cline said.

“The deduction also reduces the incentive for business owners, investors, middle-class families, and others to move to a low-tax state. New Hampshire has benefitted from a steady influx of tax refugees from Massachusetts. Our booming economy has generated a 2.7 percent unemployment rate, which means we have a strong demand for more labor. Why would senators who represent New Hampshire want to continue a system in which Granite Staters essentially pay to make life more comfortable for our high-tax neighbors? Granite State taxpayers deserve an explanation.”

Sens. Shaheen and Hassan voted Thursday against an amendment to allow the federal government to reduce the state and local tax deduction. The vote is here.

The Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, a 501 (c)(3) non-profit organization, is New Hampshire’s free-market think tank.

/by

Announcing the 2017 Libertas Dinner with Stephen F. Hayes

Save The Date!

2017 Libertas Dinner

featuring

Stephen F. Hayes

Editor, The Weekly Standard
Contributor, FOX News

 December 4, 2017

Reception 5:30 p.m.
Dinner 7:00 p.m.

Grappone Center
70 Constitution Avenue
Concord, New Hampshire

 

Mark your calendars for Dec. 4 and join us for the Josiah Bartlett Center’s annual celebration of free markets and free people.

We are excited to have Stephen F. Hayes, editor of The Weekly Standard, join us as our keynote speaker this year.

Hayes has distinguished himself as one of the most respected political reporters and commentators in Washington.  Come enjoy a great dinner and get an insightful update on U.S. politics.

The Libertas Dinner has been called New Hampshire’s best networking event of the year.  Save the date to be sure you don’t miss it!

 

Sponsorship Levels

Benefactor ~ $10,000
Patron ~ $5,000
Sponsor ~ $2,500
Table ~ $1,000
Individual Ticket ~ $100

More details coming soon!

/by

Bernie Sanders’ Labor Day Fantasies

The Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy’s Andrew Cline took to the pages of the Concord Monitor on Labor Day to rebut U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ anti-capitalist populism.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/Bernie-Sanders-Labor-Day-fantasies-12233000

Bernie Sanders’ Labor Day fantasies

By Andrew Cline

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, America’s most popular advocate of socialism, is in New Hampshire today to blame free-market capitalism for the economic struggles of America’s lower and middle classes. Unfortunately for Bernie, most of us will be too busy enjoying capitalism’s bounties to listen. 

As Sanders mumble-shouts his blame-the-rich populism, tourists from around the world will be packing up and heading home, having dropped millions of dollars at New Hampshire restaurants, hotels, gas stations, and other businesses. It wasn’t the victory of international socialism that brought them from Boston to New Boston, Berlin to Berlin. It was free-market capitalism. 

On Labor Day weekend, as many as half of the guests at some New Hampshire inns are international travelers. Mostly they drive down from Canada or fly in from Europe. It is doubtful that many Venezuelans sailed Lake Winnipesaukee or climbed Mount Monadnock, though. Venezuela’s poverty rate hit 82 percent this year, compared to 48 percent when Socialist Hugo Chavez came to power in 1998.

Nor will many Cubans be found at at Castro’s Back Room, the excellent New Hampshire cigar shops named after the man who turned Cuba from a popular resort destination into an island prison. If you’re a Bernie fan, you should consider Cuba doubly blessed. It’s got a socialist government and no international trade with the United States to take away Cuban jobs. 

Yet Cuba’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per person is just $6,445. Nearby Puerto Rico’s per capita GDP is $25,967. Cuba’s per capita GDP is just slightly higher than where Puerto Rico’s was in 1970. Clearly, capitalism and trade stink.

Socialist sympathizers often blame Cuba’s economic woes on the U.S. embargo. If only Cuba could trade, its economy would thrive. Trade does help economies grow. But Sanders isn’t a fan.

In his 2014 Labor Day speech in Manchester, Sanders noted U.S. factory losses since 2000 and got a standing ovation when he denounced international trade, yelling, “I have never voted for one of these trade agreements, and I was right!”

Except, he was wrong. “Most US manufacturing jobs lost to technology, not trade,” the Financial Times reported in December. A report by Boston Consulting Group noted, “a human welder today earns around $25 per hour, including benefits, the equivalent operating cost per hour for a robot is around $8.”

In the first quarter of this year, U.S. manufacturing output was 80 percent higher than it was three decades ago, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. One reason that U.S. factories produce more with fewer people is that unions drove the price of labor prohibitively high. 

Sanders in that same speech railed said the United States would bring back good jobs by raising taxes on the wealthy and financing massive jobs programs. Wrong again.

A 2008 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development study titled “tax and economic growth” concluded that “lowering statutory corporate tax rates can lead to particularly large productivity gains in firms that are dynamic and profitable, i.e. those that can make the largest contribution to GDP growth.”

Regarding personal income taxes, it concluded that “a reduction in the top marginal tax rate is found to raise productivity in industries with potentially high rates of enterprise creation.”

In other words, lowering corporate and personal income tax rates can stimulate the capital investment needed for both job creation and economic growth.

If labor were the driver of economic growth, Americans would be migrating to India, which has 1 billion more people than the United States. But Indians are migrating here. Why?

In 2011, the average income in India was $1,500 U.S. dollars (or $4,800 if adjusted for purchasing power). The average U.S. income was $50,000. India has a lot more labor, but a lot less capital, so its labor is less productive. To generate the most robust levels of productivity and growth, market capitalism is essential.

As Harvard professor of political economy Benjamin Friedman put it, “ever since the Industrial Revolution, de-centralized market economies have had a proven record of delivering rising living standards over sustained periods of time.” 

It has become a New Hampshire ritual for Bernie Sanders to cap Labor Day weekend with a resounding denunciation of the economic system that lifted humanity out of abject poverty, transformed subsistence farmers into industrial laborers and gave their employers large enough surpluses to finance the material comforts they eventually demanded. 

It must be a lot of fun for Bernie. Just remember that he has the leisure time to harangue us with socialist fantasies only because of the prosperity generated by free-market capitalism. 

Andrew Cline, is interim president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, a free-market think tank in Concord.

 

 

 

/by

Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy hires Andrew Cline as Interim President

CONCORD — The Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, New Hampshire’s free-market think tank, today named former New Hampshire Union Leader Editorial Page Editor Andrew Cline the Center’s Interim President.

Cline, a writer and communications consultant, will take on the role previously held by long-time President Charlie Arlinghaus, who left earlier this year to become Commissioner of the NH Department of Administrative Services.

James Sununu, Chairman of the Bartlett Center’s Board of Directors, said “We are thrilled that Drew has agreed to take the Josiah Bartlett Center’s helm and help us continue the work of New Hampshire’s premier free-market institution. As a small but critically important part of the New Hampshire public policy landscape, the Center was looking for someone with deep policy knowledge, communication expertise, and proven leadership abilities. Fortunately, we did not have to look far.”

Before coming to the Union Leader in 2001, Cline served as Director of Publications for the John Locke Foundation, North Carolina’s free-market think tank. As Interim President of the Josiah Bartlett Center, Cline will focus on organizing the center’s upcoming events, improving fund-raising, and setting the organization’s policy and communications goals for the coming year.

In addition to his work as a journalist and communicator, Cline brings to the position valuable experience as a community volunteer and non-profit leader. A former Cub Scout leader, he currently serves as Chairman of the State Board of Education and Chairman of the Board of the Educational Farm at Joppa Hill in Bedford.

CONTACT: James Sununu, 603-658-0602

/by