Leading the Revival of Individualism & Self Reliance

Posts

Making Money Is A Patriotic Act.

/in /by
The two of us are quite rich. We have earned more money than we could have imagined and more than we can spend on ourselves, our children and grandchildren. These days getting rich off a profitable business is regarded as almost sinister. But we have nothing to apologize for, and we don’t think the government should have more of our profits.

We believe in a well-funded government, and we understand it is our duty to pay our fair share of taxes. And we do. Some of our financially successful colleagues call themselves “patriotic millionaires” and wish to pay more taxes to the government. We tip our hats to them and hope they write big checks to the Treasury, which accepts voluntary donations.

Yet we oppose higher taxes on “the rich,” for two practical reasons. First, the evidence is clear that higher tax rates would hurt the global competitiveness of the American economy, and thus hurt all Americans. One of us lives in Florida, where there is no state income tax; the other in New York City, with the highest income taxes in the country. The Empire State is struggling compared with other states; the Sunshine State is booming.

More important, we know we can spend our dollars more wisely, and in ways that benefit our communities and our country, than politicians can.

The businesses we created have employed hundreds of thousands of Americans. Two of the firms we own we purchased in bankruptcy court, saving more than 5,000 jobs. Our companies have paid tens of billions of dollars in wages and contributed hundreds of billions to U.S. gross domestic product. They also made the tens of millions of Americans who use our products and services better off. The Home Depot lowered hardware prices across the country. Customers chose us because we offered what they wanted at a price they were willing to pay. That’s the win-win miracle of the free market.

We continually plow most of our earnings back into the enterprises and charities we support, built, own or operate. Our businesses in particular are our legacies, and our greatest passion is to ensure that they keep growing and innovating for decades beyond our lifetimes. Every additional dollar the government takes from us is a dollar less for this critical process of expanding America’s wealth and job-creating businesses.

We also have given more than $2 billion to charity—causes ranging from the American Cancer Society to the Salvation Army, from museums and operas to veterans programs, homeless assistance and private schools in inner cities for at-risk kids.

When we look at the way government spends its money, we are frustrated by the waste and the ineffectiveness of so many of its programs, however well-intentioned. The projects we fund of our own accord deliver real bang for the buck. The schools to which we donate teach kids better than many rural and inner-city government-run ones do. Our enterprises better promote values associated with virtue and success, and they are helping cure terrible and painful diseases from cancer to multiple sclerosis.

We are forever grateful to live in a nation that promotes free enterprise, which enabled us to achieve our dreams. Both of us are sons of immigrants who came to these shores with almost nothing. No one would ever say we grew up privileged—and that is true of most other highly successful business owners we know. We made it the old-fashioned way: We had bold plans, we took big risks, and we built and invested in highly successful made-in-America businesses.

Our greatest hope for our country is that others have the opportunities we had. We are profoundly troubled by the obstacles that many millions of young Americans face today—poor schools, drugs, single parent homes, discrimination, broken and dangerous communities.

Our patriotism is measured not in how much we pay in taxes—which is a lot—but in the businesses and the wealth and the jobs we create. We wish Washington would focus on advancing policies that will allow millions of others to experience the American Dream—as we have.

Mr. Marcus is chairman of the Marcus Foundation and the Job Creators Network and retired co-founder of The Home Depot. Mr. Catsimatidis is honorary chairman of the Committee to Unleash Prosperity and owner of Red Apple Group.

This article appeared August 13, 2019 in wsj.com.

When Regulations Prevent the Private Sector from Being Charitable

/in /by

The American Royal’s World Series of Barbecue is a longstanding tradition for community members of Kansas City, Missouri. Since 1899, the event has attracted the most talented barbecue chefs from all corners of the state, who gather annually to show off their skills. With so many BBQ experts in one place, there tends to be a fair amount of leftover food once the festivities come to a close.

Hating to waste such a vast amount of quality barbecue, some of the event’s BBQ gurus got together and founded the charitable group, Kookers Kare. Partnering with the Harvesters Community Food Network, Kookers Kare has made a tradition of donating the leftover food to local homeless shelters at the end of each annual event.

This year, the two groups collected over 3,000 pounds of meat and 1,200 pounds of sides, all bound for a local nonprofit organization called Hope City, where it was to be served to over 3,000 homeless citizens in need. However, the Kansas City Health Department put the kibosh on Kookers Kare’s attempts to feed the homeless before anyone was even able to enjoy the food.

Claiming they had no foreknowledge of this charitable tradition, the health department forbid the food from being served to the needy. Suspiciously, the inspectors just happened to be doing a random inspection of Hope City the day the BBQ arrived.

“All of that food was uninspected, so that makes it from an unapproved source, it cannot be served to the public,” Kansas City Health Department Operations Manager Joe Williamson said in response to the department’s decision to stop the food from being consumed.

The health department did not stop at simply forbidding the food from being served, they demanded that it be destroyed immediately. Those who had worked diligently to collect the food were forced to douse over 3,000 pounds of award-winning barbecue food with bleach, in order to ensure its destruction and appease the local health department. Meanwhile, 3,000 homeless individuals went without a meal that day.

After receiving negative feedback when this story surfaced in the news, the health department doubled down on its decision by saying, “3,000 people a year die of foodborne illness, so this is nothing to play with, it’s very serious.”

Harvesters Community Food Network Director of Communications, Sarah Biles lamented the health department’s decision and commented, “We’ve had a great partnership and we’ve been able to collect that food over the years. However, in recent year’s food safety regulations have gotten tighter and more strict and continue to change.”

For charitable individuals, giving back to their communities should not be an act that is tightly regulated by government entities. Instead, these volunteers should be met with open arms and positivity from state entities, rather than being demonized unless they have first sought the government’s seal of approval.

As disappointed as these volunteers may be, we can only imagine the disappointment among the 3,000 people who were denied a hot meal.

When Occupational Licensing Is Used to Prohibit Private Acts of Charity

/in /by

There is something especially immoral about a government that punishes private individuals for giving back to their communities. Unfortunately, this cruel trend is becoming all too common, as one Tucson resident learned firsthand.

Stranger than Fiction

When local news spread about a cosmetology student being investigated for giving free haircuts to the homeless, many people expected to find some shocking twist revealed in the fine print. Surely, this student must have done something truly monstrous to warrant an official state investigation.

But instead of the story taking a Sweeney Todd-esque twist, it turned out that Juan Carlos Montesdeoca was just a generous cosmetology student trying to help the less fortunate in his community. His only real “crime” was not asking the government for permission beforehand.

A Noble Deed

Montesdeoca had extra time on his hands after his cosmetology school unexpectedly closed its doors a few months ago. Not wanting to lose the momentum he had built while in school, Montesdeoca decided to continue practicing his trade while also lending a hand to his fellow man.

For the homeless recipients of Montesdeoca’s generosity, this was the first haircut they had received in months. One woman even stressed that she had gone seven months without so much as a trim.

Every Sunday, Montesdeoca would visit his friends and offer to wash and cut their hair. This was especially significant to these individuals since even a simple shampooing was enough to help restore some of the dignity they had lost while living on the street.

After being chastised by passersby on a daily basis, many begin to feel disconnected from society. Having this human interaction was as good for morale as it was for their hair. Montesdeoca understood this plight all too well, as he too, had been homeless in the past.

Send in the Goons

Instead of applauding the efforts of Montesdeoca, who had also been experiencing rough times since the closure of his school, the state went out of its way to penalize him. Apparently, protecting the cosmetology industry is more important than promoting human kindness, at least in the eyes of the local government.

When the Arizona Cosmetology Board discovered that Montesdeoca was cutting hair without a license, they immediately put a stop to his “criminal” conduct.

Cosmetology is, unfortunately, just one of the many industries heavily burdened with protectionism in the form of occupational licensing.

True market competition terrifies established industries that have gotten too comfortable in their specialized fields and now refuse to innovate. The taxi industry’s constant campaign for stricter regulations on the ridesharing market is a perfect example of this.

Unwilling to participate in the market process, these trade cartels spend money pressuring local politicians into passing laws that protect their companies from actually having to compete. In other words: it’s cronyism at its finest.

Occupational licensing rigs the game against hardworking individuals, who, as a result, are the ones who end up paying the highest price.  

A Slap in the Face, Not on The Wrist

Since Montesdeoca has not completed his cosmetology training, he does not yet have a license to practice his trade. While he has not received any compensation in exchange for practicing cosmetology without a license, giving free haircuts to the homeless still somehow constitutes a violation of the state’s laws.

The board opened up an investigation into Montesdeoca’s “criminal” behavior and has also moved to proactively suspend his cosmetology license. When Montesdeoca finally does complete his training someday, it won’t matter since the board has already suspended a license he doesn’t yet have.

The board claims that its primary concern in this matter is the health and safety of the homeless community. Without a proper license, the board worries that Montesdeoca may not have practiced proper hygiene with his “clients.”

However, this claim seems unlikely, since no one in that particular governing body seemed too worried about any of the other unsanitary conditions so inherent to life on the street. Instead, they focused their attention on Montesdeoca, shutting down an act of charity in the name of cronyism.

After learning about the board’s insensitive response to Montesdeoca’s actions, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey released a strongly worded letter saying:

“Very unfortunate’ is an understatement. I find this outrageous, and I call on you to end your investigation, save Mr. Montesdeoca the inconvenience of having to travel to Phoenix to appear before your body, and waive any fees or penalties the cosmetology board is considering against him.”

Appalled that the board would threaten to ruin Montesdeoca’s career before it even begins, Governor Ducey was livid when he learned that the board was taking any action aside from applauding this young man for his charitable deeds.

Governor Ducey ended his letter to the board by reminding them that their duty is to serve the people of Arizona and not the cosmetology industry.

“Our job as public servants is to support Arizonans in their efforts to better their own lives—and certainly in their efforts to improve the lives of others.”

“Greedy” Capitalists Are Often the First to Lend a Helping Hand

/in /by

Private corporations have become the punching bags of many, who are under the belief that socialism is needed to create a charitable society. In their minds, without government, human beings are not likely to give back. But by casting capitalists as the villain in every story, these critics neglect, or purposefully ignore, the many instances when private companies have given back to their communities. In fact, when national disasters strike, for example, it is often private organizations that arrive first on the scene.

Wild Fires

Of all the “greedy” capitalist entities, there is perhaps no one judged more harshly than oil companies.  Yet, when a large forest fire consumed more than one million acres of land in the province of Alberta, Canada, the oil companies, along with other private entities, pulled together to lend a hand.

As it continued to burn for the better part of a month, the fire caused more than 60,000 residents to flee their homes. Many homes were destroyed and the city of Fort McMurray was left in ruins.

Commenting on the fire, Tristin Hopper of the National Post highlights specific relief efforts sponsored by local oil companies in Alberta. Hopper mentions how local oil companies provided free food and shelter to over 25,000 community members affected by the fires. Likewise, as the fires continued to spread and began cutting off easy access to the roads, Brion Energy arranged to have perishable foods delivered each day via truck shipments.

But the acts of charity were not limited to these oil companies alone. Shell Albian Aerodrome actually helped many residents escape the scene by providing buses for their evacuation. Suncor’s Firebag Aerodrome, also helped with the evacuation efforts by using its own company-chartered commercial jets to help over 7,000 residents escape the fire. But this is far from the only instance of private entities giving back.

Walmart Gives Back

Touching on the charitable acts of private entities in the Wall Street Journal, economics professor Steve Horwitz writes:

“That shouldn’t surprise anyone who knows what Walmart did after Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast in 2005. The company shipped thousands of trucks of water and other supplies into the area, well ahead of the lethargic Federal Emergency Management Agency. It even beat the Red Cross in many areas.”

In addition to the Walmart’s charitable acts, McDonald’s also handed out free food to first responders and Marriott offered up free rooms for those who had been displaced.

Though these private corporations are so often thought to be cold, unsympathetic, and disconnected from the experience of the typical American, they are, in fact, still members of their respective communities who rely on the patronage of the locals.

In return, these private entities are there to meet the needs of the consumer, which, under these circumstances, has meant giving the community what it needed most, acts of charity. In addition to serving their communities when it is most needed, the private sector offers something that the government has never been able to master; efficiency.

Driving this point home, Horwitz writes:

“These firms have experience that makes them distinctly effective during and after disasters. Walmart constantly responds to changing market conditions, moving people and resources where they are needed. FEMA and other agencies don’t regularly engage in this sort of behavior.”

Before casting stones at private corporations based solely on their desire to make a profit, it would be wise to first look at what these companies have done for their surrounding communities. Additionally, before praising the government for simply creating agencies meant to aid those in need, it would be wise to take a close look at how these agencies are run and ask ourselves if what is being done by government cannot be performed more adequately by the free market.

Write for CFI