The following is my letter published by the Detroit Free Press in response to their editorial on immigration:

I commend the Detroit Free Press for supporting the Department of Justice’s decision to contest Arizona’s new immigration law, but the prescriptions offered are reminiscent of worn-out Republican talking points. Bolstered immigration legislation will not solve the problem. The answer lies in embracing free-trade and extending that principle to the labor market. Conservatives who traditionally support free trade should remember that borders have the effect of restricting the free exchange of services, which is bad news for an already ailing economy. Also, increased immigration only makes the economy stronger, a fact observed by virtually all economists. If President Obama and congressional Democrats voted to loosen up current immigration restrictions, Democrats could reclaim support from their discouraged liberal base while simultaneously pleasing the rising libertarian voting bloc. Hopefully, the president can garner enough political will to adopt a new immigration policy of free-trade by opening up our borders.

The following is a letter that I submitted to the Cleveland Plain Dealer. I once again went after Christopher Edley, who proposed increased wages as a means of bringing about economic recovery:

Christopher Edley’s main argument for increased wages as an antidote for unemployment (“The Economic Power of Obama’s Pen,” July 12) exposes a gap in basic economic understanding and a more pervasive fallacy in conventional economic wisdom. With each new increase in minimum wage, more unskilled workers are thrown onto the streets. Initially, the harmful effects of minimum wage were confined to teenagers, but now, market-defiant wage inflation threatens the breadwinners of already impoverished families. The lowest class of society is impacted most severely in the form of decreased hours or layoffs when government sets wages above market rates. If raising the minimum wage stimulated economic growth, it would make sense to set wages at $20, but at some point, employers are unable to meet payroll. Furthermore, as the economy continues to recede, massive levels of unemployment will force wages down, irrespective of government attempts to inflate wages. While the intentions of minimum wage supporters are noble, the interests of the poor would be better served with free-market solutions. Government will only increase unemployment when raising wages, and it will further harm efficient private-sector work with ill-advised public works programs. The answer is to allow individuals to negotiate wages without the meddlesome hand of the state.

The following letter is in response to UCB School of Law Dean Christopher Edley’s op-ed:

Christopher Edley’s proposal (“Let Treasury Rescue the States,” July 7) fell short of a realistic solution to current fiscal hurdles. In claiming that states could pay back the U.S. Treasury by accepting less future federal dollars, Edley failed to address how existing programs would be paid for were funds advanced for other purposes. The answer is in the form of higher taxes or spending cuts, a scenario he claims would undermine the federal stimulus. He further claims that states would repay the Treasury including interest with no expense to the federal government. Yet he fails to explain that the expense would instead be felt by increased taxes to pay interest. Ultimately, Edley’s premise that extending current recovery efforts can improve the economy is flawed. If Edley wants the suffering expedited, he will abandon his opposition to balanced budgets and instead favor free-market solutions, including decreasing debt and spending.

Last January, in bold and dramatic fashion, the Supreme Court issued a ruling extending the rights of speech to corporations in Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission. I hold two positions on the decision, like I do with most issues, that seemingly contradict one another, but I ultimately endorse the decision to extend First Amendment privileges to corporations and unions. The reason for my apparent conflict of opinion is that the contemporary terms of debate in American politics are between left and right, rather than more appropriately arguing in terms of the state versus the individual. On this issue, the right versus left model routinely intrigues me by the fact that the left generally fears big business, while the right fears big government. These fears are completely justified on both sides, yet each side rarely makes the connection between the two. Big government enables big business, which exemplifies the more appropriate debate that pits the state against the individual. Therefore, my conclusion on the ruling, while ultimately siding with the majority opinion, comes with severe reservations.

Reservations first: As a opponent of state intervention into all economic activity, I oppose the notion of corporations. Corporations are artificial entities created by the state, with legal privileges and protections, and they essentially act as an extension of government into the private sector. It should be noted that corporations, as traditionally conceived, would not exist in a free market, although there would likely be entities very similar in structure to corporations. However, these quasi-corporate structures would lack the same legal benefits and immunities that incorporated business enjoys.

The beauty of free markets, and yet another reason why corporation-weary leftists should adopt libertarian philosophy, is that big business’s market dominance, perverse incentives and profits would be much more limited were true market forces able to work. No longer would big banks presume that their risky investments would be insulated from market consequences, and no longer would businesses be able to use regulations to limit outside competition if there were real market freedom. Constant pressures of bankruptcy and contract enforcement would act as limits to irresponsible decisions.

Now to explain my support for the Citizens United decision, it is true that groups are merely collections of individuals. Therefore, it logically follows that if individuals have an unalienable right to free speech, the mere collective voice of a group should be free from unreasonable restraint as well. If individuals desire to join together under a common theme in order to more effectively communicate a message, then they should be no less restricted than an individual acting alone. As long as our legal framework recognizes the lawful status of corporations, then their right to speech should not be limited.

The Supreme Court’s decision, while ultimately falling on the side of freedom, is a difficult decision for principled libertarians. But if we simply refuse to argue on the domain of the childish left-right paradigm, then we can conclude in accordance with our principles.

The following is an op-ed that was published in my local newspaper. You can find the original link here.

Column – Clint Townsend: G-20 needs market solutions 07/04/10

MIDLAND, Mich. – President Obama promised world leaders at Toronto’s G-20 summit to increase global demand, largely building on the same promise from former G-20 meetings in both Pittsburgh and London.

He touted increased demand as the key for global economic recovery and domestic revitalization, but history shows that increased public spending programs will achieve neither. Governments, both here and abroad, must reject President Obama’s Keynesian approach and look for new solutions that include balanced budgets, deficit reduction, and more prudent monetary policies.

The overwhelming conclusion met by leaders in Toronto was to scrap former policies of easy credit and increased government spending and instead consider slashing sovereign deficits in half. European leaders likely fear their economies may end up like Greece’s if they do not take swift action. For once it seems as though the United States should heed the advice of Europeans and support initiatives to ease pressures on the government credit card.

Unnecessary military expenditures, not to be confused with essential defense spending, would be an easy place to start. President Obama ran on a platform to wind down the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, two places where billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent. Perhaps the president could also consider closing inessential bases and embassies in Europe and Japan that do not contribute to vital national defense interests; at the same time he would recapture confidence from his discouraged liberal base. These actions would immediately save billions of dollars that could pay down the looming $13 trillion deficit.

Concurrently, Republicans once again have a chance to place balanced budgets at the top of public discourse. Not only is the subject endlessly pertinent to current fiscal hurdles, but Republicans could benefit in November with the help of Tea Party activists who are searching for more judicious economic policies. In response to balanced-budget revivalists, President Obama and congressional Democrats passed pay-go. Unfortunately, pay-go merely makes increased borrowing and taxing more inevitable, not to mention that it simply won’t be honored. In fact, only days after pay-go was enacted Congress violated its own rule which is evidence enough to remain skeptical of its supposed payoffs. To combat breeching its own rules, Congress needs to adopt a balanced budget rule or amendment, a measure that would add teeth to the concept. Only after annual budgets find balance will the American people and the world at large believe that the United States is sincere about getting its fiscal house in order.

Lastly, the monetary authorities at the Federal Reserve, namely Chairman Ben Bernanke, have to adopt more market-oriented interest rate policies. Current interest rates of virtually zero percent only contribute to an already shaky consumption based economy. Easy money policies created the sub-prime housing bubble, and now extending those same policies is leading to an inevitable dollar crash, a situation that would depress economies the world over.

China and other nations have been less willing to further take on our debt because they realize that our monetary policy is building a house of cards. Although the dollar maintains a stronger position over the euro, the true test of a currency’s value is a comparison to gold rates. Recently, gold hit an all-time high, indicating the weakening or inflation of the dollar, yet Bernanke continues to invite inflation as an agent for economic growth.

As America enters a new era of economic uncertainty, new solutions must be offered. Stimulus packages, easy credit and more government spending will only prolong the pain, as it did in the Great Depression.

Now policy-makers must look toward market solutions, including balanced budgets, decreased debt and a more hawkish monetary policy to pave the path to economic recovery.

Clint Townsend is an Amarillo resident attending the University of North Texas, where he is majoring in economics and political science. He currently is in Midland, Mich., on a research fellowship.