Thirtieth Anniversary of Anderson Materials Evaluation, Inc.

The 14th of July, 2025, is the 30th anniversary of my materials analysis laboratory, Anderson Materials Evaluation, Inc.  Within two weeks of the announcement that the recent merger of Lockheed and Martin Marietta was going to result in the closing of the Martin Marietta Laboratories - Baltimore laboratory, I incorporated Anderson Materials Evaluation, Inc.

I initially provided surface analysis services using x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS, also called electron spectroscopy for chemical analysis or ESCA) and a scanning Auger electron microprobe (SAM).  Soon, I added thermal analysis services (thermogravimetry or TGA, differential scanning calorimetry or DSC, thermomechanical analysis or TMA, and dynamic mechanical analysis or DMA) and metallographic microscopy.  Down the road awhile, we offered infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM).  We then added energy-dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (EDS) to our SEM.

Still later, we added mechanical testing capabilities with the purchase of a used Instron machine and we upgraded its electronic controls and software.  We purchased an ultraviolet - visible light or UV-Vis spectrometer.  Then came the purchase of our gas chromatography - mass spectrometer (GC-MS), followed by the purchase of our wavelength-dispersive x-ray fluorescence spectrometer (XRF).  Next, we purchased a 3-dimension high resolution digital optical microscope with surface profiling capabilities and an integrated laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) elemental microanalysis spectrometer. Finally, our last major purchase was our x-ray diffraction instrument (XRD).  Through the years, I commonly paid myself less salary than my employees so I could invest more into expanding the laboratory's materials analysis capabilities.

This expanding instrument capability has helped us to provide a wide range of materials characterizations, failure analyses, materials verifications, quality control, detection of hazards, and research and development services.  We utilize these capabilities on materials as varied as metals, semiconductors, polymers, glasses, ceramics, composite materials, minerals and other inorganic chemicals, and organic liquids.  We presently employ 8 people, counting two interns and two other part time employees.

Today, Howard County, Maryland, presented me with my annual personal property tax bill.  My willingness to forgo income, purchase the equipment of my laboratory, and to take on risk, leaves me subject to a large tax bill annually for the value of my laboratory equipment.  That equipment depreciates, but if it is in use, it never depreciates below 25% of its initial cost.  This is one instance in which inflation is a good thing.  At least the expense of purchasing equipment in 1996 is much reduced by the inflation since then, along with the subsequent property tax.

Governments love taking from small businesses.  From each according to his ability or capability, to each according to someone's perception of their own need or maybe somebody else's need.  The force of government is most easily applied against a minority, such as capable small business owners.  Yet, after 30 years, I will continue working for as many more years as I can.  I still like solving materials problems and working with the kind of people who share my interest in using materials to improve the condition of mankind.

Business Tax Climate Rankings by State

The Tax Foundation has produced the 2013 report on the tax climate rankings of the states as of July 2012.  The ten states with the most favorable business tax climate and the ten with the worst are color-coded in the map below with their rankings given.  The white states are the best.

2013 State Business Tax Climate Index Ranks and Component Tax Ranks
State	Overall Rank	Corporate Tax Rank	Individual Income Tax Rank	Sales Tax Rank	Unemployment Insurance Tax Rank	Property Tax Rank
Alabama	21	17	18	37	13	8
Alaska	4	27	1	5	28	13
Arizona	25	24	17	50	1	5
Arkansas	33	37	28	41	19	19
California	48	45	49	40	16	17
Colorado	18	20	16	44	39	9
Connecticut	40	35	31	30	31	50
Delaware	14	50	29	2	3	14
Florida	5	13	1	18	10	25
Georgia	34	9	40	13	25	30
Hawaii	37	4	41	31	30	15
Idaho	20	19	23	23	47	2
Illinois	29	47	13	34	43	44
Indiana	11	28	10	11	11	11
Iowa	42	49	33	24	34	37
Kansas	26	36	21	32	9	28
Kentucky	24	26	26	9	48	18
Louisiana	32	18	25	49	4	23
Maine	30	41	27	10	32	39
Maryland	41	15	45	8	46	40
Massachusetts	22	33	15	17	49	47
Michigan	12	7	11	7	44	31
Minnesota	45	44	44	35	40	26
Mississippi	17	11	19	28	7	29
Missouri	16	8	24	27	6	6
Montana	8	16	20	3	21	7
Nebraska	31	34	30	26	8	38
Nevada	3	1	1	42	41	16
New Hampshire	7	48	9	1	42	43
New Jersey	49	40	48	46	24	49
New Mexico	38	39	34	45	15	1
New York	50	23	50	38	45	45
North Carolina	44	29	43	47	5	36
North Dakota	28	21	35	16	17	4
Ohio	39	22	42	29	12	34
Oklahoma	35	12	36	39	2	12
Oregon	13	31	32	4	37	10
Pennsylvania	19	46	12	20	36	42
Rhode Island	46	42	37	25	50	46
South Carolina	36	10	39	21	33	21
South Dakota	2	1	1	33	35	20
Tennessee	15	14	8	43	26	41
Texas	9	38	7	36	14	32
Utah	10	5	14	22	20	3
Vermont	47	43	47	14	22	48
Virginia	27	6	38	6	38	27
Washington	6	30	1	48	18	22
West Virginia	23	25	22	19	27	24
Wisconsin	43	32	46	15	23	33
Wyoming	1	1	1	12	29	35
Dist. of Columbia	44	35	36	42	48	24
Note: A rank of 1 is more favorable for business than a rank of 50. Rankings do not average to total. States without a tax rank equally as 1. D.C. score and rank do not affect other states. Report shows tax systems as of July 1, 2012 (the beginning of Fiscal Year 2013).

The scores of the ten best business tax climate states are:

1)  Wyoming, 7.66
2)  South Dakota, 7.56
3)  Nevada, 7.45
4)  Alaska, 7.34
5)  Florida, 6.88
6)  Washington, 6.38
7)  New Hampshire, 6.25
8)  Montana, 6.22
9)  Texas, 6.09
10) Utah, 6.04

There is not much difference between the top four ranked states.  There also is not much difference in those ranked from 6 through 10.

The ignominious final ten states are:

50) New York, 3.40
49) New Jersey, 3.40
48) California, 3.67
47) Vermont, 4.08
46) Rhode Island, 4.12
45) Minnesota, 4.18
44) North Carolina, 4.21
43) Wisconsin, 4.37
42) Iowa, 4.47
41) Maryland, 4.47
40) Connecticut, 4.47

The three worst states, New York, New Jersey, and California really stand out from the rest with their very low scores.  The remainder of the worst ten states all have close scores between 4.08 and 4.47.

The middle states of Arizona with a score of 5.13 and Kansas with a score of 5.10 lag the lowest state of the top ten more than they exceed the best state of the bottom ten states.  There are more states with high tax policies than there are with low tax policies.  Indeed, the states ranked 20 (Idaho) through 30 (Maine) are only separated by scores differing by 0.27.  All of these states are closer to New York in score than they are to Wyoming.  The average of the Wyoming and New York scores is 5.53 and the state having the score closest to this is Missouri with a score of 5.46 and a rank of 16.  So, the top few states in the rankings are very much better than the average state.  Even in the top ten the differential score between #1 and #10 is much greater than that between #50 and #40.

I live in the beautiful state of Maryland with a really awful state government.  Its business tax climate rank of 41 makes it a terror for businesses.  Much of my family is in Oklahoma with a poor ranking of 35.  One sister owns a business in North Carolina, which actually worse than Maryland!  Another sister tries to do business in Kansas with a ranking of 26, which as I mentioned puts it much closer to New York than to Wyoming.

I hear that parts of Wyoming are beautiful.  I will have to do some business scouting there and see if there is a suitable way to do business as a materials laboratory there.  After all, almost all of our customers send us materials to analyze by Fed Ex and UPS anyway.  My laboratory could be anywhere.

The Right to Association with Others - The Right to Work and Hire

The equal, sovereign rights of individuals to life, liberty, property, the ownership of their own minds and bodies, and to pursue their own happiness are very broad.  Limitations put upon individuals by legitimate governments are few and strictly limited to the prevention of violence and fraud.  Among the most basic of an individual's rights are the right to work for a living.  Another is the right to associate with others for voluntary purposes, which includes such rights as the right to trade goods and services, the right to hire employees, the right to be an employee of another, the right to be a service provider, the right to be a customer, the right to use property to provide goods and services, the right to practice a profession or trade, the right to enter into a business partnership, the right to enter into a domestic partnership, the right to exchange ideas, and the right to enjoy friendships and romantic and/or sexual relationships.  The freedom to work and the freedom to associate voluntarily with others are very broad freedoms, which legitimate governments seek to protect.  On the other hand, illegitimate governments, which are much more common, seek to interfere with these basic freedoms.

Illegitimate government was defined in our Declaration of Independence.  Government which is destructive to the unalienable rights of the individual to, among other rights, the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is declared illegitimate and tyrannical.  The United States of America today is full of such illegitimate and tyrannical governments.  These governments feel especially free to interfere with our voluntary associations in trade, work, and cooperation in the following ways

• controls and regulations on the production of goods,
• mandates and limits on the employer - employee relationships, 
• the licensing of professionals and tradesmen, 
• the imposition of slavery upon employers to keep financial records and to keep tax records and file tax forms, 
• limitations on the exchange of services, 
• the dictation of who can be hired and who cannot be hired, 
• the unequal treatment of various domestic partnership combinations, 
• the denial of access to the market of very large companies, 
• the excessive burdening of small companies with laws, mandates, regulations, and paperwork,
• micromanaging safety issues not understood by governments in complex workplaces,
• micromanaging performance standards not understood by governments in complex professions,
• exaggerating safety issues to gain control and to reward special interests,
• exaggerating issues of potential fraud in the interest of control and to award special interests,
• discriminating against many professions with property taxes on their tools and equipment, which does not hurt government pets such as lawyers and accountants and actually increases their business,
• discriminating against many professions because some people believe they are immoral, such as prostitution or marijuana suppliers,
• discrimination against some people in education and the exchange of ideas,
• preventing those with little wealth or income from entering many professions or trades,
• using minimum wage laws to discriminate against the undereducated and the disabled,
• using minimum wage laws to discriminate against young people lacking previous job experience or those living in low-cost-of-living areas (popular with unions),
• limiting the number of companies providing services to bolster the income of those previously in business,
• as a change-up, forcing companies and associations to grant special privileges to unions, people of favored races, people with handicaps, and to governments,
• requiring people to purchase goods and services, such as the services of accountants and lawyers by businesses, health insurance under ObamaCare, seatbelts in cars, child safety seats, high mileage vehicle mandates, unnecessary radiation inspection services for fully contained radiation sources, 
• the regulation and taxation of fossil fuels due to unproven and scientifically wrong fantasies of man-made global warming disasters,
• subsidies for favored people, companies, institutions, and industries, such as the cake-taking ethanol, wind generation, and solar power industries,
• manipulations of the value of the dollar to favor financial institutions or exporters or importers,
• restrictions on foreign competition such as the Jones Act provisos against foreign-owned shipping,
• interference with railroad and trucking rate structures,
• bailing out companies with strong union ties, such as GM and Chrysler, at the expense of other companies and taxpaying consumers,
• the massive transfer of wealth from the private sector to governments,
• requiring the payment of labor union labor rates on government projects or by government contractors,
• crippling American businesses with much higher taxes and regulatory burdens than foreign competitors have,
• and interfering with or failing to ease restrictions on foreign trade, since every individual has the right to trade with others, even when they are in foreign nations.

Of course, many of these restrictions on the freedom of association and work are justified with claims that public safety or the prevention of fraud make them necessary.  These claims are commonly exaggerated in the interest of some special interest, often that of the politician to award his friends and contributors being the foremost special interest.  Fraud should be combated with vigorous legal action against actual instances of fraud, not by overly active imaginations conjuring up ways in which someone in a profession might defraud a customer.  These anti-fraud prevention schemes will always cause more trouble than they address.  They gain traction, however, because many Progressive elitists believe the People are too stupid to choose their own associations well.  The People are imagined to be defenseless against fraud.  Somehow, the government will anticipate every possible fraud and prevent it.  Or so it wants us to believe.  In fact, it is mostly just successful in keeping entrepreneurs from competing for the business of a nation of sovereign individuals.

One of the best organizations in fighting such abuses of governmental power is the Merry Band of Freedom Litigators at the Institute for Justice. They have a long and successful track record of attacking irrational licensing laws and other approaches to preventing people from working and earning a living.  Here is a recent example of their work:

As demonstrated by a series of eight new reports issued in October 2010 by the Virginia-based Institute for Justice, one of the principal obstacles to creating new jobs and entrepreneurial activity in cities across the country is the complex maze of regulations cities and states impose on small businesses.  IJ’s “city study” reports are filled with real-world examples of specific restrictions that often make it impossible for entrepreneurs to create jobs for themselves, let alone for others.

The Institute for Justice has documented how police in Pine Hills, near Orlando, used barber licensing laws there, to fine barbers hundreds of dollars who had years of experience as barbers, but no license.  These raids on unlicensed barbers were used as a cover to search for drugs without a search warrant, showing how a disregard for some individual rights commonly leads to a disregard for other rights.  They also found that in eight major metropolitan areas, nearly one in three professions requires a license.  In the 1950s only about one in twenty professions needed a license.  One of the best ways to reduce unemployment is simply to let people work.  No subsidies are needed, no tax breaks are needed, and no government-sponsored training need be provided.  The governments simply need to get out of the damn way and allow people to work!

My bullet list above provides reason after reason for why Americans are unable to find jobs or to create their own jobs now.

Government Abuse of Building Permit Power

The Cato Institute Daily Podcast for 14 May 09 features Tim Sandefur, an adjunct scholar at Cato, discussing examples of local government abusing their control of building permits to deny the permit requester the right to vote or to charge them exorbitant fees. Permits are supposed to be the means to eliminate public safety hazards, but they are actually now used for much more. They are used with high fees to reduce general taxes. They were used in the most famous case on such matters to impose beach access for the general public over the land of a family who wanted a permit to add a second story to their home. That case went to the Supreme Court, where the argument that the home blocking the view of the beach from the highway was ruled no excuse to impose an unrelated requirement for a public easement on the property owners.

The featured issue in the podcast is that of the Griswolds of Carlsbad, CA. They wanted a permit to add two rooms to their home for their grandchildren when they came visiting. Carlsbad said they would grant the permit if the Griswolds would give up their right to vote "No" on property assessments! You might think this is really unreal. But, similar permit cases in Santa Rosa, CA and Missoula, MT have occurred in which the requester was required to give up the right to vote if they were to receive the permit.

While we are the subject of permits, I will add that permits are also used as a tool to enforce building codes, many of which require the use of expensive and old-fashioned materials which are difficult to install. These requirements are often not updated often and are designed to require the permit requester to use expensive, licensed tradesmen. They are also designed to keep pre-built housing from competing with the local builders who will hire local workers. In reality, permits and building codes are used for many purposes other than safety purposes. They are another tool in the hands of the power seekers in local government.