End economic discrimination

In an editorial he wrote yesterday, Saipan Tribune publisher John S. Del Rosario Jr. denounced the CNMI government’s intention to further discriminate among private enterprises. Mr. Rosario raises a very valid point.

Under the government’s proposed “Free Trade Zone,” why should selective taxation occur? Why should some businesses be penalized while other enterprises are handsomely rewarded? What would be the basis of this government policy of systematic private enterprise discrimination? After all, if we are really talking about free trade, shouldn’t everything be free?

If the government decided to tax indigenous Chamorros at a different rate than, say, mainland Americans, such an egregious, flagrantly oppressive and discriminatory policy would no doubt be immediately condemned as a moral and legal outrage (at least by reasonable people who value freedom and justice). Yet when it comes to private businesses, big government–the alleged defender of right and justice–feels completely free to discriminate among commercial enterprises with the greatest possible impunity.

This wicked double standard only holds because the private businessman essentially has no constitutional economic Bill of Rights. Private businesses are at the mercy of unpredictable political forces that could tax, regulate and loot at any given moment, depending on public opinion and the whims of the politicians and bureaucrats.

Even without the passage of the government’s proposed “Free Trade Zone,” the CNMI government’s policy of private business sector discrimination is widespread, entrenched, and endemic. The Tinian casino industry has that unimpeachable pillar of incorruptibility: The Tinian Gaming Casino. The banking industry has the banking section of the Commerce Department. And now the brilliant folks over at the CNMI legislature are fixing to let CUC regulate the telecommunications industry.

Meanwhile, the hotel industry has no regulatory agency to see if it is properly making up the rooms and beds, serving guests, etc. The nightclub industry has no regulatory agency to see if their karaoke systems are up to par, or if the hostesses are properly attired. The video rental industry also has no government agency. And the Saipan Tribune reports that a certain local congressman filed a telecommunications bill “that stressed the need to regulate the sector to protect the public welfare and promote free market policies . . . “

How about that one? A government regulatory agency to actually promote “free market policies?” If that’s not Orwellian doublethink, it would certainly have to qualify as a first: big government actually advancing free market policies.

My best educated guess: The congressman in this case, who reportedly has very close ties to a big local telephone outfit, probably filed the bill to stifle free market telecom competition and benefit his political campaign sponsor and former private employer.

Observe the recent attacks on outside long distance telephone cards, and ask yourself which local telephone monopoly it protects–and if that monopoly gives campaign “contributions” to their favorite local politicians, and what type of protectionist legislation those political hacks might pass in exchange, in the name of free enterprise and the public good.