Too much of the discussion of the increase in health care costs implicitly views consumers as unchanging commodities and tries to shift costs for a fixed set of events from one set of payers to another. But just as tax policy must consider the dynamic effects of economic growth and changing incentives, health policy too must have a dynamic, pro-growth (or pro-health) component.

By Charles M. Arlinghaus May 2007 There is a growing hole in the New Hampshire state budget. Alone it would require tax increases that would cause undue economic damage. Coupled with a planned but undefined increase in education spending, the amount will be too large to close with small changes to our current tax structure. […]

A series published jointly with The Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation. Our third issue includes John Mitchell’s moving essay about how school choice changed his son’s life and the economics of who currently exercises school choice.
Changing Lives by Choosing Schools

The second issue of our series published jointly with the Milton and Rose D. Friendman Foundation includes an essay by Milton Friedman on “The Role of Government in Education” and an explanation of the principles of a well designed program.
Issue 2: Milton Friedman and the principles behind school choice

The Josiah Bartlett Center’s newsletter published jointly with the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation examines the public policy benefits of a well-designed school choice program.

Issue 1: The facts about School Choice

Once again, The Supreme Court is the focus of never ending education funding lawsuits. Bartlett Director Eugene Van Loan’s brief to the Court offers the best explanation of the issue and how the court can resolve it.

WHEN 25 PERCENT of New Hampshire’s high school students drop out something needs to change. Far too many of the students who need the benefit of a good education fall through the cracks and drop out. A targeted school choice program can provide students whose only current option isn’t working with an opportunity to find another choice to help them succeed.

With one little tax change, New Hampshire can add hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of new jobs to the economy with no net cost to the state budget.

A one percentage point cut to the little-known insurance tax will jumpstart the economy and make New Hampshire a regional center for well-paying financial services jobs. Rarely can a state achieve such dramatic benefits with one small change.

In New Hampshire and all of New England, the biggest threat to economic development that no one knows about is a looming energy crisis but not the one you think of. Everyone talks about the rising cost of gasoline but we are quietly and rapidly running out of electricity and face the threat of rolling blackouts as soon as 2008. New England is producing enough electricity today but the electricity needs of consumers are growing and a thriving economy will make those needs grow even faster. In a few short years, the capacity of existing power plants will no longer be enough to meet demand. Because new plants (and many existing plants) are not economically viable under current structures, the building of new plants has dried up.

In their thirst for more of our money, administrative officials have confused the difference between closing an inadvertent loophole in the tax code and making a decision to impose new taxes. In their confusion they have blurred the line between policymaking elected officials and the employees hired to perform administrative duties.