• Tag Archives California
  • California’s Politicians Appear Determined to Bring ‘Atlas Shrugged’ to Life – Foundation for Economic Education

    The plot of Ayn Rand’s 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged can be briefly summed up as follows: the productive leaders and innovators of the country go on strike by disappearing from society to protest the cronyism, corruption, and oppressive taxes that have made living a virtuous life unbearable. The nation is then on the brink of an economic collapse as the remaining politicians, intellectuals, and mediocre businessmen are only able to take from others and have no capability to create or add value. Atlas Shrugged is very popular with those whose views lean toward libertarianism, while those who lean to the left react to it like a vampire does to a crucifix, despite never even reading a page.

    Concerningly, the state of California seems determined to bring Rand’s novel to life.

    During the 20th century, California was the jewel of America. Beautiful weather, diverse landscapes, access to the Pacific Ocean, and other features made it the leading state of the nation. There is a saying that says “As California goes, so goes the nation” because to many Americans this seemed like the best place in the entire country to live and raise a family.

    Things seem to have changed in the 21st century though. When times were good, the government of California grew and spent more money than it had. In the short term, most people ignored this problem, but as time went on the deficits grew and grew. By the year 2000, the government had run up a debt of $57 billion. Twenty-two years later that number had almost tripled to $145 billion dollars. Since California is a state and not a nation they couldn’t print money to make up for the downfall, so their only options were to either cut spending or raise taxes. They chose the latter.

    For state income taxes, California has the highest rates in the entire nation. They also have a declining population, with a loss of more than half a million people since a peak population of 39.5 million in 2019—and they did not all die of Covid. The majority are people who left to live in other states that did not have oppressive taxes and draconian Covid restrictions.

    While wise leaders might look at this indicator and see it as a sign that they should change course, wisdom seems to be in short supply for the political elite in this state. Rather than move towards freedom, they are instead moving to erode and attack property rights even more through the form of a wealth tax. Of course, the people proposing this are trying to sell the idea to the public by saying only the super wealthy will be on the hook for this. The rest of us in the ninety-percent will benefit thanks to the rich paying their “fair share”.

    The 16th amendment was sold to the American people under this promise too, and had people back then known that income taxes would lead to the system we have today, where the majority of the people use the majority of their income to pay taxes (federal, state, local, property, sales, etc), then this proposal would have been dead on arrival. Today’s politicians are trying to use the same tricks to pass a wealth tax, but the difference between now and then is that now we should know better.

    What makes California’s proposed wealth tax even more disturbing is that they wish to still collect the tax for years after a person moves out of the state, like a feudal lord persecuting a serf for moving off his land. They also wish to impose the wealth tax on “part time residents” for the portion of the year that they “reside” in the state. In other words, a family vacation to Disney Land might come with a tax bill from the State of California. And when tourism declines, I wonder who the politicians will blame?

    While the wealth tax has not become law yet, it is already prompting some of the mega-rich to move away, depriving California of their portion of the income tax and increasing the deficit. And it’s not just individuals who are leaving the state. National corporations are also deciding not to do business there as well.

    As inflation rages across the nation, the costs of everything have gone up, and building materials are no exception. It costs more to replace a house now than it did five years ago. To meet this new reality, home insurance premiums everywhere have increased. California’s Department of Insurance has responded to the new reality by placing new regulations on the insurers to prevent them from raising rates on their customers. The logic here is that the state has the largest population so if insurers wish to do business in the largest market in the United States, then they must abide by our rules.

    The reaction has essentially been a boycott of the state by the companies. In addition to normal risks, California is also prone to natural disasters like wildfires, earthquakes, and even mud slides from heavy rains. With these new regulations limiting what prices could be charged, the cost of doing business in the state increasingly outweighs any potential profits. As a result, many of the largest insurance companies in the nation like Allstate and Hartford are no longer issuing new policies in the state.

    California government policy has created an insurance desert in the state and with private business unwilling to respond because the once free market is no longer free, the politicians have solved the problem with a government insurance system called FAIR so that homeowners can comply with the insurance requirements for their mortgage. Under this state-owned enterprise, California residents get to enjoy reduced coverage at a higher premium than they would have been able to get before the politicians stepped in to help. This is a clear cut, black and white example of the standard of living decreasing.

    The theme of Atlas Shrugged is that the freedom of American society is responsible for its greatest achievements. The book warned that as freedom declined, so too would the standard of living. California’s politicians seem determined to recreate the dystopian world of the book with oppressive taxes, attacks on personal property, and regulations that drive away private businesses.

    Someone really ought to tell them that the world of Ayn Rand’s novel was not meant to be aspirational.


    Daniel Kowalski

    Daniel Kowalski is an American businessman with interests in the USA and developing markets of Africa.

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.


  • The Real Reason State Farm Won’t Sell Home Insurance in California Anymore

    State Farm announced last week it will no longer accept homeowner insurance applications in California , where it has long been a leading insurance provider.

    In a press release , America’s largest property insurance company cited various reasons for its decision, including the high costs of doing business in California, macroeconomic factors such as inflation, and increased catastrophe exposure.

    Media seized on this last item to declare the official arrival of the climate apocalypse.

    “Climate shocks are making parts of America uninsurable,” The New York Times observed following State Farm’s announcement.

    While climate change might be in the zeitgeist, there are better explanations for State Farm’s exit.

    Though State Farm said nothing about climate change in its press release, there’s no question that California has struggled mightily with wildfires in recent years. Data collected by Policygenius show California experiences more wildfires than any other U.S. state (9,280 in 2021) and the most acreage burned (2.2 million acres).

    Worse, California’s wildfires tend to be the most destructive. The Golden State suffered $14 billion in insured wildfire losses in 2017, the most in history. The worst years for other states don’t even come close: The next closest is Texas, which suffered $530 million in insured wildfire losses in 2011, followed by Colorado ($450 million in 2012) and Arizona ($120 million in 2002).

    Many have seized on California’s struggles with wildfires to perpetuate the myth that wildfires are at historic highs in the United States—they are not—because of climate change. The truth is wildfires are not a serious problem in most parts of the U.S., and it’s not because the climate change gods are fickle, but because these states practice better land management.

    In a 2020 ProPublica article, journalist Elizabeth Weil pointed out that California officials have turned the state into a tinderbox through years of fire suppression.

    “The pattern is a form of insanity,” Weil wrote. “We keep doing overzealous fire suppression across California landscapes where the fire poses little risk to people and structures.”

    The New York Times noted California’s approach is a stark contrast to the Southeast, where “fire is widely accepted as a tool for land management” and millions of acres are allowed to burn each year.

    Property rights also play a role. In Texas, 95% of the land is privately owned , which has resulted in better stewardship and fewer megafires. This is a stark contrast to California, where roughly 48 million acres , nearly half the state’s land area, are owned by the federal government, which is so bad at land management that it managed to lose some 15 million acres of public land .

    The authorities have shown they are far less competent than the indigenous tribes who managed the land far more effectively through prescribed fire.

    “We should be empowering the people who know how to do this,” Crystal Kolden, a fire scientist at the University of California, Merced, told the New York Times after wildfires ravaged the state in 2020.

    Privatizing these lands would be more effective than any federal climate policy — ever hear of the tragedy of the commons ? — but government officials will never concede that their own mismanagement is to blame.

    “The factors driving State Farm’s decision are beyond our control, including climate change,” a statement from the California Department of Insurance said .

    It’s a tempting fiction to believe, to be sure. But the truth is California’s own policies are to blame, and not just fire suppression.

    I spoke to Rex Frazier, president of the Personal Insurance Federation of California, who cited several policies that no doubt contributed to State Farm’s decision to stop issuing policies, including various price controls that prevent insurers from raising prices to meet surging costs without the written approval of the California Department of Insurance.

    “California is the only state in the country that doesn’t allow insurers’ rates to be based upon actual reinsurance costs,” Frazier said. “California’s regulations employ a legal fiction that each insurer uses its own capital to serve customers. As reinsurance costs go up, insurers cannot have their rates reflect those higher costs.”

    Many will cling to the theory that climate change is the real culprit. Those who favor this theory should be asked why California is particularly prone to the externalities of climate change.

    This article originally appeared on The Washington Examiner.


    Jon Miltimore

    Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. (Follow him on Substack.)

    His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune.

    Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times. 

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.


  • Banning Skittles Might Seem Trivial. It’s Not

    My 9-year-old son and his teammates often buy Skittles at wrestling tournaments. Their theory is that eating them before matches gives them energy — especially certain colored ones.

    “The red ones make you kick a**,” one boy told me. (I told him that’s good but that he shouldn’t use that word.)

    As it happens, Skittles has been in the news lately. Proposed legislation in California would ban the candy , which was first introduced in North America in 1979. At issue are several chemicals most people have never heard of — brominated vegetable oil, red dye No. 3, propylparaben, titanium dioxide, and potassium bromate — that critics allege are dangerous.

    “Why are these toxic chemicals in our food?” asked health advocate Susan Little. “We know they are harmful and that children are likely eating more of these chemicals than adults.”

    Candy companies said the claims have no merit, pointing out that none of the ingredients have been banned by the Food and Drug Administration.

    “Food safety is the No. 1 priority for U.S. confectionery companies,” said a spokesman for the National Confectioners Association. “Chocolate and candy are safe to enjoy, as they have been for centuries.”

    Many parents might be shocked by claims that Skittles is harmful, but they shouldn’t be. The war on Skittles is part of a broader effort to control what products consumers can buy.

    That gasoline-powered car you drive? Sorry, it’s an existential threat to the environment. Those large sugary drinks you enjoy with your New York-style pizza? Not a chance . The plastic straw you’re using to sip those drinks with? Also harmful to the environment. And don’t even think about buying a gas-powered stove .

    This is the trendy new strain of anti-capitalism . It’s designed to protect humanity by regulating what you consume — everything from what you eat and drive to the size of your house and how many calories you get to take in each day. The ideology is detailed in German author Ulrike Herrmann’s bestselling book Das Ende des Kapitalismus (English: The End of Capitalism).

    Not all of these efforts have yet been realized, of course. Many, such as California’s ban on the sale of gas-powered cars, are scheduled to go into effect years from now.

    Nor does all anti-capitalism look the same. Some proponents want to eliminate meat consumption to save the planet (in parts of Europe, this is primarily being done through emission regulations). Others seek to protect public health by eliminating foods or food ingredients they deem harmful, as in the case of Skittles.

    But notice the common theme: In both instances, they get to choose, not you. This is what truly matters.

    “The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best,” the bestselling economist Thomas Sowell has observed.

    Banning Skittles might seem trivial, but it’s not. It’s an assault on limited government and the idea that consumers should be free to decide for themselves what to consume. It’s a battle over who is sovereign in society and gets to decide what is produced: consumers or planners.

    And that’s what the Skittles fight is really about: politics, influence, and power. Indeed, proponents of the legislation admit they don’t think California’s bill will pass, but they hope it will draw the attention of the FDA.

    “I think its purpose, which is valuable, is getting the FDA to look again at these chemicals and possibly to reevaluate its entire system for reviewing food additives,” UCLA School of Law professor Diana Winters told the Guardian.

    Unlike Winters, I won’t decide for you whether you should eat Skittles. I have no idea what brominated vegetable oil even is. But I do know that tens of billions of Skittles are consumed each year, and children are doing OK. I’m aware of other government bans on perfectly safe candies .

    So yes, I’ll allow my son to keep eating Skittles before his matches. As far as warnings from public health experts, I put as much stock in those as claims that the red Skittles help him “kick a**.”

    This article was originally published by the Washington Examiner.


    Jon Miltimore

    Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. (Follow him on Substack.)

    His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune.

    Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times. 

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.