The Myth of the Chicago Big Box War

The idea that our representatives at various levels of government want to protect David from Goliath is not new.  Nor, is it new that the press, in order to sell its products, seeks to portray these important policy debates in terms of warfare.  Take this Chicago Sun-Times story that ran on Thursday:

 "Chicago's controversial big- box ordinance has produced its first casualty: Target has pulled out of a 32-acre shopping mall at 119th and Marshfield and will likely cut and run from the North Side's Wilson Yards project as well, city officials said Wednesday.

 Target's decision to follow through on its threat to avoid Chicago comes just one week after a bitterly divided City Council defied Daley by requiring retailing giants to pay their employees a "living wage" of at least $10 an hour and $3 in benefits by 2010. []

 [Ald. Carrie] Austin was one of only 15 aldermen to vote against the big-box ordinance. She was devastated, but not surprised, when the letter arrived from Target. "My colleagues are saying, 'Don't worry. They'll come.' Well, mine just left," Austin said."

There's just one problem:  This isn't about brave politicians taking on the big capitalists.  This is about a business' responsibility to its shareholders.  Target's question, to locate or not locate (with apologies to Will Shakespeare), was based on profitability.  If they can't make money, they're not going to locate in Chicago.  It really is that simple. 

Conversely, that means their responsibility is not, "to send a warning to everyone else..." nor is it to level "threats," as others claim.

Allusions to war paint a false picture in which Target has a choice and by choosing to leave, Target is somehow vindictive.  If Target can earn a profit in Chicago, they will stay, despite the tax. If they based a decision to leave on politics and passed up a profit making opportunity in Chicago, then they will be in breach of their responsibilities to shareholders. This would open manager to lawsuits, and they would lose their jobs.

Had managers chosen to stay, despite the ordinance, based on the premise that they would be "good corporate citizens," while losing money, guess what? They would be in the same legal box. They would have violated their fiduciary responsibility to maximize their company's value. 

In sum, Target, and any other public company really doesn't have a choice.  Economics makes it for them. Politicians, before slaying Goliath on our behalf, need to realize that when they sling stones they're hitting you and me.  And while "war" sells more newspapers than "economics," reporters have a responsibility to tell the truth they should try telling it.

"Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" Patrick Henry Unless It's about Smoking! Sangamon City Board President Andy Van Meter

The Sangamon County Board in Central Illinois is the latest local community poised to erode our property rights by regulating a legal activity on our property.  That is nothing new.  It's happening all over the state. 

What's fascinating is that the more successful these zealots are, the more transparent they become.  In his analysis of smoking ban opposition, Sangamon County Board President Andy Van Meter claims that smoking, a legal activity, is equivalent to an illegal activity public urination, "My friend and colleague, Abe Forsythe, said it best when he compared what we now know about secondhand smoke in public places to what we've long known about public swimming pools: "You just can't pee in one corner of the pool." Then, believe it or not, Van Meter repudiates Patrick Henry, confuses private property with public spaces and, for good measure, plugs concentration camps all within one paragraph:  "When liberty threatens life, we choose life. In 1840, our forefathers relinquished the right to let their hogs roam free because roaming swine threatened public health. In 1847 we required every citizen to have a fire bucket at the ready. In 1881 we forced naturally free people who contracted smallpox into isolation camps near the cemeteries."

One wonders what other personal freedoms and Constitutional rights Mr. Van Meter is willing to throw under the bus in the name of, "keeping us safe."

We've since learned that quarantining people can be done without placing them in internment camps.  Most of us can also differentiate between public and private property as well as accepted and legal social behavior (smoking) and illegal behavior outside of social norms (public urination).  Apparently, these distinctions not to mention a commitment to liberty -- are not prerequisites for holding public office in Sangamon County, Illinois.

Mandate ManiaThe "good people in Springfield" are once again trying to fix health care.  It's called the Adequate Health Care Task Force and it is part of then-State Sen. Barack Obama's legacy The Health Care Justice Act.

The task force has been holding meetings throughout Illinois since spring.  Mostly, the task force heard from leftists and union members seeking a "single payer" health financing system during their taxpayer funded hearings across Illinois.  Thankfully, their efforts -- without federal assistance -- are a pipe dream.  But they, along with three other groups were able to put forward their plans to "fix health care."

Four plans were put forward including a market-oriented plan offered by a coalition of insurance industry representatives (along with Medicaid reforms designed by the Illinois Policy Institute).  Of the four, three had some form of mandate on the individual or businesses.

Last week, through its highly paid firm Navigant Consulting, the task force released an assessment of the four proposal put forth by Illinois insurance industry working group, the Healthy Illinois Proposal (.pdf), a single payer model, a proposal by the Campaign for Better Health Care, and the Illinois Hospital Association.  The consultant also scored a hybrid proposal consisting of elements from all four proposals.  As one can imagine, the free market proposal put together by the insurance industry working group received the lowest scores.  In most categories it scored very competitively but alas, because it failed to provide mandates and emphasized quality care and personal responsibility over third party decisions, it wasn't well received by the task force.

In fact, it was apparent that the task force paid little attention to issues surrounding quality care, personal responsibility and giving patients a say in health care decision making.  Those three criteria were given very little weight in stead.  Instead, a third party in their view is better positioned to make your health care decisions than you are.   The task force also failed to account for real world results of the proposals.  The Healthy Illinois model was introduced in Maine as Dirigo Care.  It has failed to live up to expectations.  The Canadian single payer system only survives because the really sick have a safety valve -- the US. The individual health insurance market, while robust in Illinois, was dismissed out of hand during one meeting.  Health Savings Accounts, which have been growing steadily in popularity, were also given short shrift.  I can go on

We can conclude though, that it seems that adequate health care hasn't been a major priority for the Adequate Health Care Task Force. 

Look for more on this state funded boondoggle in the weeks and months to come.

New at the InstituteCheck out Andrew Hollingsead look at the Death Tax in Illinois and Collin Hitt's take on rural school choice.