First Slate Column of the Semester

Making Political Sense: Gov. Corbett Critics Speak Up

By: James E. Miller

Published 01/25/2011

Last week, Tom Corbett was inaugurated as the 46th governor of the state of Pennsylvania. While his election was undoubtedly due to the national Tea Party wave of antiincumbency and outrage over the size and spending of government, Gov. Corbett has a bigger issue to deal with besides downsizing his own office.

Certainly reducing the size of the state government amid falling tax revenue is a necessary cause. What is more pressing, however, is the means by which Corbett deals with the vast reserves of Marcellus Shale natural gas that runs under much of Pennsylvania. The stance he takes may end up being the focal point of his first term as governor.

With the extraction of Marcellus Shale comes the prospect of thousands of jobs to a state suffering from an unemployment rate of 8.1 percent. At the same time, however, comes a raging collision of environmentalists who, though once being in favor of natural gas over coal and oil, are now against drilling because of understandable environmental concerns.

These environmentalists, who were ironically shuttled into Harrisburg by a pink-colored and gasoline-powered bus, protested at Corbett’s inauguration because of his expected pro-drilling stance.

Without a potential moratorium to stop extraction all-together, the only way to stem the natural gas drilling appears to be taxing the industry at a high enough percentage to sup- press what looks to be a booming industry.

Unfortunately for the opponents of drilling, Corbett campaigned on not raising taxes if elected. Even more unfortunate is that many actually believed him and voted him into office accordingly.

Soon after taking the “no tax” pledge, Corbett let it be known that he would consider charging “royalty fees” to those who benefit from drilling. This includes companies and homeowners who lease out their property for drilling. Hate to break it to you Tom, but a “royalty fee” imposed by the state is no different from a tax.

That has not stopped the protesting environmentalists though. Ever since 1889 when Pres. William McKinley signed the “Rivers and Harbors Act” into law, the federal government has been taking sole ownership of various parts of the country in the name of creating “public land” for the purpose of “protecting” the environment.

States have certainly engaged in this practice as well, but government at both levels did not begin to significantly impose environmental conservatism till the beginning of the 20th century.

While the government taking monopolistic control over parts of land is a simple and short-term solution for protecting the environment from pollution, what environmentalists fail to recognize is that the land-grabbing they promote is actually more detrimental to the public in the long run.

All government acquisition of land ends up doing is driving up the costs to prospective buyers because property is effectively taken off the market. At the same time, it provides a kind of “tragedy of commons” mentality in that the land is now seen as a fertile dumping ground since it has no concrete ownership.

Robert P. Murphy, an adjunct scholar and economics professor at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, has already pointed out how capitalism and a strict adherence to private property rights are incredibly beneficial to the environment in his book “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism.”

Murphy points out that free markets encourage conservation in that any practical businessman or woman strives to preserve the value of his or her land by not damaging it through pollution, while upholding property rights serves as a deterrent, and punishment in some cases, to polluting other’s property.

He also shows how animals that are legal to sell and are treated as strict commodities, such as cows, chickens and fish remain
in plentiful supply while animals facing extinction were not awarded such a luxury.

While Murphy is generally correct, he misses an important point that makes his argument stronger.

As our society progresses and population grows grows, a kind of natural expansion will occur due to most people’s innate desire for privacy.

As this happens, the demand for a more natural and aesthetically pleasing environment will grow as more and more land is developed. If one were to come along and treat the land as a commodity, the profit incentive would enhance the need for conservation of the land in order to draw more people in.

No matter how much society progresses and develops, there will continue to be a desire by people to enjoy a setting far away from the technological achievements and industrial developments that have increased our standard of living.

By taking advantage of the simple supply and demand mechanism that guides a market economy, the environment could be better preserved by using its natural beauty as a product to sell, not just to preserve.

While I am not holding my breath for Gov. Corbett to keep his “no tax” pledge, I am certainly not expecting environmental groups to change their view anytime soon.

Doing so would be the changing of short-term satisfaction for long-term prosperity. Environmentalists may claim to see the proverbial forest for the trees, but fail to see the rationality through their own ignorance.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only editing problem I see is the hyphen in sup-press.  I am not sure what makes it different from suppress.

Anyway, I saw on Fox 43 news this morning that McDonald's is supposed to raise prices this year.  Soon enough the dollar won't be worth using as a napkin, let alone buying a mcdouble.  Keep the presses rolling Bernanke!