Think Tanks Wrap-up

WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 (UPI) -- The UPI Think Tank Wrap-Up is a daily digest covering brief opinion pieces, reactions to recent news events, and position statements released by various think tanks.

Mackinac Center for Public Policy

The Mackinac Center for Public Policy

(MCPP is a nonpartisan research and educational organization devoted to improving the quality of life for all Michigan citizens by promoting sound solutions to state and local policy questions through the objective analysis of Michigan issues. MCPP seeks to broaden the policy past the belief that government intervention should be the standard solution for various issues. MCPP offers an integrated and comprehensive approach encompassing the role of voluntary associations, business, community and family, as well as government.)

MIDLAND, Mich.--How We'll Know When We've Won

By Lawrence W. Reed

"Are we winning?"

That's a query I hear almost every time I speak to an audience about liberty and the battle of ideas. Everyone wants to know if we should be upbeat or distraught about the course of events, as if the verdict should determine whether or not we continue the fight. So many friends of liberty are constantly putting a wet finger in the air, relying on the prevailing wind to tell them whether, when, and how to proceed and even how to feel about it at any given moment.

Personally, I take a long-term, optimistic, even-tempered, and self-directed approach that doesn't depend upon the rest of the world. I figure that each and every one of us ought to do all in our power to advance the cause and then let the proverbial chips fall where they may, taking comfort in the fact that regardless of the outcome, we did our part on behalf of the solution and not the problem.

Moreover, I remain supremely confident that, as Foundation for Economic Education founder Leonard Read put it, "truth will out" and liberty will indeed triumph--because it is right. Pessimism is a self-fulfilling opiate anyway, so I never let it enter my mind.

But this raises an even more important question, one posed to me on a recent occasion when I cited powerful intellectual trends as evidence that we are indeed winning. The question was, "How will we know when we've won?"

In the largest sense, "winning," means achieving a civil society in which people both preach and practice respect for life and property. It means we each mend our own ways and mind our own business. It means we rely upon voluntary association and individual compassion, not coercive arrangements and political redistribution. It means minimal government, and maximum self-reliance.

And when we get there, the battle of ideas will still not be over because people, being less than perfect, can always unlearn the truths they've learned. In a narrower and concrete sense, we'll know we've won when very specific changes-in thought and policy--have come about. I've compiled a few here in a list that is by no means complete. Consider it nothing more than a beginning.

We'll know we've won:

When "liberalism" once again is synonymous with liberty

In his "History of Economic Thought," Joseph Schumpeter noted that liberalism initially described the view of those who believed that "the best way of promoting economic development and general welfare is to remove fetters from the private enterprise economy and to leave it alone."

In today's American parlance, it means quite the opposite. Schumpeter regarded it as "a supreme, if unintended, compliment" that "the enemies of the system of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label."

Liberalism is too good a term to allow it to be the stolen booty of statists. Let's re-take it, and let those who fight to preserve the failed big government status quo be known as the real "conservatives." When that happens, we'll have won much more than just the semantic high ground.

When "public service" is regarded as what one naturally does in the private sector

Government employment, even when the employee is running roughshod over the rights and property of others, wears the prestigious mantle of selfless service to humanity, a cut above what motivates people who don't work for the government. But in many cases, a government worker's genuine public service actually begins when he secures an honest living in the private sector--producing goods and providing services that improve the lives of others who patronize him because they choose to, not because they're forced to.

Conquering diseases, inventing labor-saving devices, feeding and clothing millions, and countless other private, often profit-motivated activities are no less indicative of service to the public than just about anything the government does. The next time someone tells you they're running for office or seeking a government job, ask them if this means they are planning to leave public service.

When an "entitlement" is a paycheck, not a welfare check

My hat's off to whoever it was who started the bad habit of calling government handouts "entitlements." The term cleverly solidifies and perpetuates the very programs it labels--programs that take something of value from those who earned it and bestow it on those who didn't earn it and may even value it less.

A paycheck for work performed is a genuine entitlement. A claim against that paycheck by those who would rather vote for a living than work for one is neither genuine nor something to which one is entitled in a free society. Let's correct the thought patterns that allow the current misuse of the term to under gird the modern welfare state.

When citizens muster at least as much interest in a spending revolt as they often exhibit for a tax revolt

Almost everyone favors lower taxes, at least for themselves, but that doesn't necessarily mean everyone also favors less government spending. Sometimes, the same people who advocate lower taxes are in line for whatever they can slurp from the public trough.

It's not enough to ask your congressman not to take from you. You must also demand that he not give you anything either, at least nothing that isn't rightfully yours in the first place.

When government stops distributing its coercive powers to special interests

Government isn't the only outfit that employs legal and often unwarranted force against people. Others do it too, if government first grants them the power to do so.

The best example is today's labor unions. With special privileges given them by government, they force millions into their ranks or into financially supporting causes to which they may object. For instance, the U. S. Supreme Court affirmed in its 1988 "Beck" decision the right of each and every worker not to be assessed a penny by his union for political activities without his consent, but almost no one at any level of government seems interested in enforcing that ruling.

We should work for the day when a citizen's "Beck" rights are widely regarded to be as important as his "Miranda" rights.

When self-improvement is understood to be the indispensable first step to reforming the world.

If every person set about to make himself a model citizen, he would have a full-time, lifetime job on his hands. Many succumb, however, to the temptation to meddle in the affairs of others--the result being that even the best of intentions often ends up yielding conflict and harm.

The steady progress of mankind derives from the progress of individual men and women who, one at a time decided to make the best of what God gave them. Be a model, not a burden, and watch how quickly you encourage others to be the same.

A pretty tall order, you say? Yes it is, and there are plenty of other benchmarks I could have added to this list to make the order even taller. Very few things that are worthwhile, however, are attained or retained easily. Winning the battle for liberty is among the most animating contests I can imagine, in part because the benchmarks along the way are as right as is the ultimate objective.

Lawrence W. (Larry) Reed, 48, is president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

Cato Institute

WASHINGTON--Campaign Finance Folly

By Patrick Basham and John Samples

Most members of the political class welcome any opportunity to sing the praises of curtailing political speech, especially the necessity of banning "soft money" donations -- the unlimited donations made to political parties to pay for issue advertising, voter registration, and voter mobilization campaigns. But lofty rhetoric designed to impress suburban soccer moms recedes when it comes face-to-face with the reality of funding a modern-day political operation.

A case in point: The Democratic National Committee recently alleged before the Federal Election Commission that it had suffered a drop in fundraising as a result of its decision, following the Sept. 11 attacks, to cancel eight fundraising events projected to raise $1.65 million.

Although soft money can be donated in unlimited amounts, there are limits on how party committees such as the DNC may spend it. Consequently, the DNC wanted the FEC to suspend regulations that provide a 60-day window for transferring soft money funds to its hard money accounts in order to give the DNC more time to cover operating expenses (such as rent) using soft money donations.

Curiously, no other party committees made a similar request. Even Common Cause, the reliable campaign finance reform gadfly, objected to the DNC's shenanigans. Interestingly, in the midst of its financial dry spell the DNC ignored the rent bill and chose to spend $3.4 million in September and October supporting Democratic candidates in New Jersey and Virginia.

Once the money was spent, the DNC still had non-FEC options. It could borrow funds from other Democratic Party committees, borrow funds from a bank, or, heavens forbid, tighten its belt and cut its budget. Instead, the DNC sought special treatment under the law--just the kind of campaign finance high jinks it regularly demonizes as corrupt.

The FEC, an agency that can normally be counted on to chip away at the First Amendment, concluded that the principle of equal enforcement and application of the Federal Election Campaign Act and FEC regulations is paramount. Campaign regulations must be applied consistently across political parties and their respective committees. Hence, the DNC's request was rejected.

The DNC isn't the only culprit when it comes to favoring one kind of campaign reform for itself and another for everyone else. Sen. John McCain (R, Ariz.) is a skilled practitioner of this approach to campaign regulation. McCain, the principal backer of campaign finance reform, is also a loyal backer of Indian political causes. As a result, McCain is the number one recipient of the political donations provided to candidates by the nation's 550 Indian tribes. In fact, McCain receives twice the amount given to the second-highest recipient.

Under current law, a person may donate a maximum of $1,000 to a specific candidate up to an annual limit of $25,000. This is known as "hard money." The candidate may use it directly for his own campaign. In May 2000, the FEC ruled that an Indian tribe may make the current maximum hard money donation of $1,000 per candidate to each of the more than 500 candidates running for federal office. In other words, Indian tribes can make aggregate annual hard money contributions in excess of $500,000.

In April, McCain's campaign finance bill passed the Senate and remains in legislative limbo in the House. However, if a McCain-style campaign finance bill is eventually passed, thereby banning soft money, McCain's favored tribes will possess a huge advantage over other Americans in exercising their right to political speech.

Curiously, this discrepancy wasn't resolved before McCain's bill reached the Senate floor last spring. But the Senator's senior advisor on this issue offers the reassurance that "there may be flaws that need to be rectified, but they can be handled at a later time." Let's not hold our collective breath on that one.

With the House of Representatives just seven signatures short of the magic number needed to force a vote on campaign finance reform, both the DNC's action and McCain's inaction are instructive. They highlight the double standards characteristic of most efforts to reform campaign finance. The result of increased constraints on political speech is never cheaper, fairer, or more honest campaigning. The only result is more power for the regulators and less freedom for the rest of us.

(Patrick Basham is senior fellow, and John Samples is director, of the Center for Representative Government at the Cato Institute.)

National Center for Public Policy Research

(NCPPR is a communications and research foundation dedicated to providing free market solutions to today's public policy problems, based on the principles of a free market, individual liberty and personal responsibility. NCPPR was founded to provide the conservative movement with a versatile and energetic organization capable of responding quickly and decisively to late-breaking issues, based on thorough research.)

CHICAGO--Ten Second Response: Endangered Species Act Studies May be Hoaxes Designed to Restrict Human Use of Government Lands

Background: Seven officials from the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife were recently found to have submitted falsified samples of Canadian lynx hair to labs as part of a study to determine if lynx live in three national forests in Washington state. In early January, The Washington Times subsequently reported that a taxidermist in Washington state was approached by a state Fish and Wildlife official for a sample of grizzly bear hair to submit for a study on grizzly habitat.

Ten Second Response: What rural Americans have claimed for years is now becoming apparent--there is a concerted effort by some government officials to use any means available to restrict use and access to federal lands such as national forests.

Thirty Second Response: All previous endangered species studies should be re-opened to determine if they also were falsified. In the meantime, there should be a temporary injunction issued against enforcing any judgments or decisions resulting from endangered species actions.

Discussion: The Canadian lynx is on the threatened species list in 16 states but not yet listed as endangered. In 1999 the three services above began conducting tests to find if lynx exist in three national forests-Mount Baker/Snoqualmie National Forests, the Gifford Pinchot National Forest and the Wenatchee National Forest (all in Washington state). If lynx were found in these forests, restrictions could be imposed on logging, recreational uses such as snowmobiling, as well as on off-road and other vehicle usage.

Rep. James Hansen (R, Utah), chairman of the U.S. House Resources Committee, and Rep. Scott McInnis (R, Colo.), chairman of the U.S. House Forest Subcommittee have requested that the Government Accounting Office investigate the incident. Rep. McInnis plans to hold hearings before the Forest subcommittee this spring.

Sen. Larry Craig (R, Idaho) said: "If in fact it occurred, and there's clear evidence it did, people ought to be fired."

The employees, however, said they submitted the false samples in order to test the laboratories. They have not yet been fired but have been removed from participating in the study.

The taxidermist in Washington who was asked by a state biologist for a grizzly hair sample in March 2001 did not comply with the request and has since reported the contact to state officials.

(Gretchen Randall is the director of the John P. McGovern, MD Center for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs at the National Center for Public Policy Research.)