Published in Budget & Tax news it examines the issues. Read it here.

Economist John Rutledge on his blog this morning makes the point that technology and education are two sides of the same coin. Europe and other parts of the world have heavily invested in high speed broadband access while here in the U.S.

I have spoken with grade school principals who tell me they do not have access to high-speed networks. They don’t exist because our laws have made it uneconomic to invest in the fiber to the school/home/business. Thankfully, there are draft bills now in Congress that may help the situation.

John has spoken here in Hawaii from time to time and makes the point that Hawaii is specifically situated to take advantage as a hub for cross Pacific, U.S. to Pacific rim broadband connections. Hawaii needs this to compete in the future, if it really wants to diverify its economy, especially into high tech.

Keep watching his blog as he has just returned from an extended period in China and is going to have a lot to say about what’s happening there. And how we might benefit.

Phillip Brennan says it’s the Fifth Column.

For many years the United States has been the target of another brand of fifth columnists, covert Marxists who by their subversive activities, clothed in the mantle of citizens concerned with the environment, have played havoc with the economy of this nation and the freedoms of the American people.

Whole essay here.

What more needs to be said? A seventh-grader sees through the sophistry of the Kelo v. New London ruling. As she is quoted as saying:

This decision is bogus! I’m pretty sure this is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind for America’s future. Samuel Adams once said, “What liberty can there be when property is taken without consent?”

The more research I’ve done, the stronger I feel about my opinion. Personal property shouldn’t be taken away without a really good reason and a true need that benefits everyone, not just the economy.

You can’t take away somebody’s house or store or farm just because you want to put in a nicer house or business or development.

Whole thing here.

For this child the Supreme Court is wearing invisible robes.

The blogger at Out of Control says it all with this quote:

The “smart growth” solution looks great on paper when you don’t have to balance it out with concern for costs, property rights, etc.

A perfect example of why “smart growth” looks good on paper and never works out in reality.

Bruce Bartlett testified recently before congress. What distressed him the most is runaway spending passed during the current administration. Only the editorial itself can do justice to his arguments. Read it here.

There is a situation brewing in Arizona and New Mexico that could have profound energy effects for the nation. The main natural gas pipeline that runs from El Paso, Texas supplies the vast majority of natural gas to New Mexico, Arizona and California. The pipeline crosses Navajo Tribal Land and the old right of way with the tribe is due to expire October 18. The tribe now wants a significant increase in the fees to allow the right-of-way for the pipeline to continue.

What is particularly interesting is the total lack of options on the part of El Paso Corp. the natural gas company.

Part of El Paso’s frustration lies with the fact that there is no way to force a settlement.

If the land were private property, El Paso could seek to seize the right of way through an eminent domain case in civil court. And right-of-way procedures are spelled out for government-owned land.

But because the Navajo tribe is its own nation, El Paso has no recourse through existing law to force a price.

This is precisely what will happen if the Akaka Bill is passed and the newly formed Native Hawaiian government becomes its own sovereign entity, on par with Indian Tribes. Thus there is no way of knowing how much the new government would want for an easement for the fixed rail project to service the Leeward side of the island, for example. If some of the federal lands and ceded lands to be “negotiated” are then handed to the Native Hawaiian government then this is a likely scenario.

Just one of the many “unintended consequences” that might result from the Akaka Bill. And no one can know just how much money this is going to end up costing the state and the counties.

Read the article on the El Paso Corp. pipeline negotiations here.

Grassroot Institute of Hawaii has an Advisory Board. One of those advisors has just been named a finalist for the Bastiat Prize for Journalism which is sponsored by the International Policy Network, London UK. The final awards will be announced at the IPN Bastiat Awards Dinner on October 25, 2005 in New York city.

Also on our Advisory Board is June Arunga of Kenya, who is currently in law school in London. June, is only 24 years of age, boasts an impressive resume. She will be visiting Hawaii December 11th through the 28th. If you would like to help sponsor her trip or take part in an event featuring June and her work, please contact us.

John Stossel has another excellent editorial detailing government failures in the Katrina disaster. Not only during the response but government goofs committed long before. One exchange stands out though:

But, surprise! It turns out Louisiana got lots of money for Corps of Engineers projects — hundreds of millions of dollars more than any other state. Congress just spent it on pork projects instead of on the levees.

I confronted (Former Louisiana senator)Breaux about his own state’s pork, such as subsidies for ship builders and the sugar industry.

“I object to you using words like squander and pork,” he said. “What is pork in one part of the country is an essential project in another part.”

There is the whole problem in a nutshell. One state’s “pork” is another state’s “essential project.” This mentality is why our federal government’s budget is a runaway freight train to disaster. Of course the premise is wrong. If it is pork for one part of the country, it is pork, period. Read the whole editorial.

The Economist asks that question but there was another crucial issue it raised:

That could have interesting consequences. Unlike Native American tribes, which have been separate political entities since before the American constitution was framed, native Hawaiians live intermingled with those whose ancestors arrived more recently. So, under the new system, could you have two shops side by side, one of them paying taxes, and one exempt because its owner has a drop of native blood? Asked that question by a caller to a Hawaiian radio station, Robert Klein, a lawyer for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, which is promoting the Akaka bill, replied: “I don’t know. We would need to see how that will play out in the negotiations.”

An interesting admission by Klein. Whole article here.