Congress is about to vote on what Rand Paul calls “the biggest anti-poverty initiative” in 50 years

Detroit cc cc

All I can say is we made the case for making Detroit an economic “free zone” back in October 2012. Not that “free zones” are our idea. Free market/price advocates have made the case for them for years. It’s good to see the idea getting some real political traction.

Free up places which are disasters. Make them business friendly. Lower or eliminate taxes. Let people innovate. Many of our cities have little to lose at this point. Other than a rigid fear of free markets why wouldn’t one want free zones in areas of economic despair?

And big government people look at it this way – if free zones fail you have a feather in your cap. (Good luck.)

This is what we said back in 2012;

Detroit is crashing badly. It can’t pay its bills. It basically can’t even function. It has little to lose at this point. How about we declare Detroit an economic “free-zone.” No taxes, private everything, and see how it does. I’m not kidding. Why not let the market do its thing and revitalize the city, or at the very least help it convert from open economic sore, to a net contributor. It sits right at the Canadian border. This is a huge advantage for trade. What does it have to lose?

(From Rare)

For some time now, Rand Paul has been pushing to create “economic freedom zones” in areas with unemployment rates that are one and half times the national average.

The legislation creates areas where personal and corporate income taxes would be lowered to 5 percent, payroll taxes would be cut by 2 percent, and numerous federal regulations would be waived. The bill would also create a school choice program and ease restrictions on highly skilled immigrants who want to move to these zones.

Paul was able to attach his legislation to H.R. 2028, which deals with the budgets for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Energy Department, and other related agencies. The legislation is set to receive a vote in the Senate this week.

Click here for the article.