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

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

The post (English) New York Cell Phone Taxes: «High» is an Understatement appeared first on Larry Sharpe, Libertarian.

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

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

The post (English) 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://backup1.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.