Policy Institutes

Patrick J. Michaels

Today the Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari on EPA’s 2012 ruling, Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. This ruling, projected in 2012 to result  in the closing of 68 power plants supplying electricity to 22 million homes, is EPA’s version of swatting a gnat with an atomic bomb. Here’s some sobering numbers, from a 2010 article in the refereed scientific journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions:

Total emissions of mercury (in metric tons):

  • From natural sources (mainly volcanoes and forest fires): 5200 tons
  • From human activity: 2320 tons
  • Total, natural and human: ~7500 tons
  • Human activity in the US: 117 tons, or about 1.6% of global emissions
  • From coal-fired electrical generation in the US: 48 tons, or about 0.6% of global emissions
  • Amount that actually falls on our soil from our power plants: 12 tons, or about 0.2% of global emissions.

Mercury can reside in the atmosphere for up to two years, unless it is rained out as “wet deposition,” which means that a lot of what comes out of the volcanoes of the Pacific Rim and wildfires winds up here.

If EPA was really serious about Mercury it would issue regulations capping volcanoes and outlawing wildfires.

Patrick J. Michaels

We’d be remiss if we didn’t acknowledge Winter Storm “Cato” is probably going to do a pretty good job limiting the government tomorrow, as well as shortening tempers throughout the country if it jams up the BosNYWash flyway on the day before Thanksgiving. Surely many climate alarmists will blame this garden-variety coastal cyclone on global warming.

Rational minds should know that these types of storms are largely powered by the midlatitude jet stream. The jet is nature’s way of dissipating the difference in energy between warm tropical air and polar cold on a rotating earth—the larger the temperature difference is between the tropics and the North Pole, the more powerful it is. Greenhouse gas-induced climate change warms the poles much more than the tropics, which reduces the temperature difference and should make storms of Cato’s ilk less powerful and/or frequent. 

Many pundits are fond of blaming these storms on changes in the “polar vortex” (which itself has existed ever since the earth acquired an atmosphere) caused by global warming, a notion that was thoroughly debunked by Colorado State’s Elizabeth Barnes last year in Geophysical Research Letters.

Walter Olson

President Obama has called on the nation to accept the decision of the Ferguson grand jury. But looking forward, across much of this country, our system for dealing with police use of deadly force is broken. Police shoot and kill civilians at a rate unheard of in many other advanced nations, and even after incidents where there are indications that excessive force was used, police across many parts of the country seldom face trial or even dismissal from the force. A system for review of police misconduct must take care to vindicate and protect the innocent cop, but it also needs to deliver a credible promise of justice to the communities being policed. As a front-line means of regulating lethal force, grand juries – which are secret, remote from the truth-finding of an adversary process, and dependent on prosecutors’ guidance – do not command broad public confidence.  We see that in Ferguson today.

Tim Lynch

The grand jury’s decision not to indict Darren Wilson is not surprising because police officers are rarely prosecuted for on-duty shootings.  And in the rare instances in which criminal charges are ever brought against police, juries are reluctant to hold them accountable with a felony criminal charge.  A report on Cato’s Police Misconduct web site found a conviction rate of only 33% – roughly half the percentage in non-police, civilian prosecutions.  It remains to be seen whether Wilson will be held accountable in some other way.  We must remember that just because a jury has declined to bring criminal charges does not automatically mean that Wilson should return to duty.  Police commanders may conclude, given all the surrounding circumstances, that he may not be right for police work. Certainly his involvement in Brown’s death will create problems for prosecutors who will have to rely on his future work. Wilson’s testimony in future trials could be very problematic.

With respect to the unrest in Ferguson, there seems to be a reluctance to acknowledge the crimes that are being committed by thugs who are taking advantage of the situation.  It seems wildly inaccurate to say that protesters have started fires and are looting stores, for instance.  The people doing that are criminal troublemakers, not “protesters.”

Trevor Burrus

The violence in Ferguson is inexcusable. But it should not be seen as primarily a reaction to the grand jury’s decision not to indict Darren Wilson. Rather, it should be seen as a reaction to years of racially charged policing and a discriminatory justice. Focusing on Officer Wilson’s culpability detracts from the bigger, nation-wide story: That every month there are innumerable police abuses throughout the country that go unnoticed and unreported, and, even if they are reported, the accused officers will likely never be disciplined, much less charged with a crime. Unfortunately, many of these abuses are disproportionately felt by people of color. Abuses can be small and nearly impossible to discover, such as stopping a car full of black men without probable cause, or they can be large and public, such as unjustifiably gunning down an unarmed black teenager. Sometimes the police action may be justified, and sometimes it may not, but the systems in place for determining culpability are egregiously biased in favor of police officers. Add to this an over-militarized police force that uses surplus military gear to violently break into homes 100 times per day, usually to only execute search warrants, and you have a recipe for disaster and an urgent need for reform. We should take advantage of this time of heightened awareness to reform a justice system that has too much power and too little accountability. Hopefully the violence in the street will not overshadow the legitimate protests, but I fear it may. 

Daniel R. Pearson

 The World Trade Organization (WTO) seems on the verge of approving an agreement with India to allow the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) to move forward.  The TFA is to be applauded.  It will make a useful contribution toward helping goods move across borders more efficiently, which will tend to increase trade and promote economic growth.

The problem is not with the TFA, but rather with the high price that the global community seems ready to pay for it.  India has asked that it be allowed to exceed the level of domestic agricultural subsidies to which it agreed twenty years ago in the Uruguay Round negotiations.  For the first time in history, those talks led to limits on the ability of countries to use trade distorting agricultural supports.  Those subsidies had been rampant, often leading to surplus production that depressed crop prices in global markets.  Farmers who were being subsidized generally were happy enough with that arrangement, but it was a very different story for unprotected farmers in other countries.  Many of the world’s farmers are quite poor to start with.  Government-driven decreases in commodity prices make them even poorer.

A teachable moment is slipping away because no WTO member has been willing to stand up and explain what’s going on.  India sanctimoniously declares that it needs to promote food security through use of a robust public stockholding program, and would like the world to believe that existing WTO rules prohibit them from doing so.  This is simply not correct.  The Uruguay Round includes specific provisions detailing how public stockholding may be used for food security purposes.  A great deal of time, effort and tough negotiating went into developing those provisions.  There is no limit on government expenditures to provide food – including free or reduced-price food – to low-income people.  However, there is a clear requirement that purchases of commodities for public stocks must be made at open-market prices.  It is not allowable to purchase commodities at above-market prices in order to provide a subsidy to farmers. 

India’s public stockholding program does exactly that – purchase commodities from farmers at prices set well above the market.  Those high purchase prices provide incentives for farmers to increase production of subsidized crops.  Not surprisingly, this has led to surpluses of rice, sugar and wheat that are diverted to export markets.  In 2013 India was the world’s largest exporter of rice, the fifth largest exporter of sugar, and the ninth largest exporter of wheat.  Not bad for a country that thinks it needs even higher levels of distorting subsidies to promote its food security.  The fact that India ranks second in the world in terms of arable acreage underscores the potential for its subsidies to do damage to global markets.

It would not be difficult for India to bring its agricultural support regime into harmony with WTO requirements.  It would start by purchasing its food stocks at market prices.  This would save billions of dollars that now are being spent on above-market purchases.  Those savings could be devoted to some of the many policy measures that were explicitly agreed in the Uruguay Round to be considered non-distorting.  Those include providing “decoupled” income support payments (not linked to current production or price of a crop) directly to farmers.  They also include policy options designed to spur development in underprivileged rural communities, such as:  agricultural research, pest and disease control, extension advisory services, marketing services, infrastructure services (roads, electricity, irrigation, etc.), and insurance programs.

The argument is sometimes raised that developed countries, including the United States, also utilize distorting agricultural subsidies, so why criticize India?  Other countries have made efforts to bring their farm support programs into conformity with WTO commitments; those support regimes create fewer distortions now than in the past, but further liberalization is badly needed.  A key goal of the still-unfinished Doha negotiations was to continue to reduce or eliminate distorting agricultural subsidies. The world of agriculture still is beset by an abundance of within-the-rules subsidies.  However, expanding the rules to permit even more subsidies does nothing to help the situation.  Granting India’s request would shift the reform process into reverse.

It is to be hoped that WTO members will remember the origins of the organization, which was created to pursue open markets and freer trade.  Policy backsliding would be tantamount to abandoning the vision of the WTO’s founders.  There seems little doubt that millions of poor farmers would bear the costs of a decision that leads to more-highly-distorted global agricultural markets.

Kat Murti

In their effort to provide the public with information about controversial yet important world events, journalists face constant intimidation. Whether it takes an extreme form—such as beheading or death threats—or a less violent one—like government censorship or enforced political correctness—it nonetheless constricts their ability to convey truthful information about key issues.

No one knows this better than Flemming Rose.

In 2006,  the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published 12 cartoons of the prophet Muhammad, stoking the fires of a worldwide debate about what limits—if any—should constrain freedom of speech in the 21st century.

Rose, then the paper’s culture editor, defended the decision to print the drawings, quickly becoming the target of death threats and more, all of which he recounts in his new book, published by the Cato Institute.

In The Tyranny of Silence: How One Cartoon Ignited a Global Debate on the Future of Free Speech, Rose provides a personal account of an event that has shaped the global debate about what it means to be a citizen in a democracy and how to coexist in a world that is increasingly multicultural, multireligious, and multiethnic. Rose writes about the people and experiences that have influenced his understanding of the crisis—including meetings with dissidents from the former Soviet Union and ex-Muslims living in Europe—and takes a hard look at the slippery slope of attempts to limit free speech.


Rose’s message clearly resonates with lovers of liberty around the world. A special one-on-one conversation between Rose and Jonathan Rauch of the Brookings Institution, hosted at the Cato Institute in mid-November, saw over 100 in-person attendees with another 53 people tuning in online.

That impressive showing, however, was far outpaced by the mass response to Cato’s very first Reddit AMA, featuring Rose, which has been viewed well over 200,000 times since it was first published on November 13th, and continues to draw thousands of Reddit viewers every hour, almost two weeks later.

Rose’s AMA, entitled “I am a journalist and free speech advocate who has received hundreds of death threats since 2006. AMA,” quickly broke into the top ten discussions on the iAMA forum that week. As questions continues pouring in, Rose sat down for a second full hour session the day after the original session was scheduled.

You should definitely read the AMA yourself, but here are some highlights:

Enjoyed the discussion? You can read the whole thing here. And, of course, don’t forget to buy the book to read all of Rose’s harrowing tale.

Ilya Shapiro and Gabriel Latner

Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act, also known as the Fair Housing Act (FHA), makes it illegal to deny someone housing on the basis of race and other protected characteristics. Applicable to governments, private entities, and individuals, the FHA prohibits racially discriminatory practices in most if not all transactions relating to housing.

For example, a landlord can’t refuse to rent an apartment to an otherwise qualified tenant, solely on the basis of race. Similarly, banks and credit unions can’t take a borrower’s race into account when deciding whether and on what terms to extend credit for the purpose of buying a home.

While it’s clear that the FHA bars such discriminatory intent, it remains an open question whether it covers claims of “disparate impact,” where a neutral policy disproportionately harms members of the protected class. Under this theory, a landlord insisting that all applicants pass a credit check could be held liable if it turns out that applicants from one protected group are disproportionately unlikely to have a sufficiently high credit score. That landlord would be held liable even though a satisfactory credit score is required of all potential tenants, regardless of race, and the landlord’s only intent was the (perfectly legal) desire to avoid tenants who would get behind on their rent—not to deny housing to any particular group.

In the decades since the FHA was passed, disparate impact has been used by the government and private litigants to exact tens of millions of dollars in fines and settlements from banks and developers whose facially neutral policies were alleged to have excluded members of a protected class from the housing market. The problem is that unlike with other anti-discrimination laws, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act—which expressly prohibits policies that have a disparate impact—the text of the FHA explicitly forbids only intentional discrimination.

In 2011, the Supreme Court agreed to decide once and for all the simple question of whether the FHA allows for disparate-impact claims. Before the Court had the chance to rule on the case, however, the government and certain interest groups intervened – in part at the instigation of Labor Secretary Thomas Perez, who was then head of the Justice Deaprtment’s Civil Rights Division. Fearing (not without justification) that the Court would decide that the FHA only allows claims based on intentional discrimination, they arranged a settlement package that induced the parties challenging the FHA to drop their case. The same thing happened in 2013.

Now the Court is facing the issue a third time, in a case arising out of a Texas program that allocated federal tax credits for developers to build low-income housing projects. An advocacy group called the Inclusive Communities Project sued the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, claiming that by attempting in good faith to spend the federal funds in the poor neighborhoods where they’re most needed, the Department violated the FHA by concentrating low-income housing in predominantly minority neighborhoods.

Together with the Pacific Legal Foundation and five other groups, Cato has filed a brief arguing that the FHA can’t be read to prohibit innocently adopted policies that happen to have a statistically disproportionate impact on one group.

The brief makes three key points. First, the text of the FHA doesn’t support disparate-impact claims. The relevant provision—making it unlawful to “refuse to sell or rent … because of race”—connotes a purposeful, causal connection between the refusal to deal and the person’s race. Second, the FHA’s legislative history reveals that Congress only intended to target intentional discrimination, not the unpredictable consequences of nondiscriminatory policies.

Finally, allowing for claims against government bodies to be based on disparate impact forces them to engage in unconstitutional race-conscious decision making to avoid potential liability. The only way to avoid claims based on disparate impact is by designing policies which work backwards from the desired result, essentially requiring unconstitutional devices like racial quotas.

But discrimination can’t lead to equality. As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for a Supreme Court plurality in 2007: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

The Supreme Court will hear the case of Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project on January 21. Regardless of Tom Perez’s whereabouts between now and then, this case is unlikely to settle.

Brink Lindsey

Today we add the following essays to Cato’s online growth forum:

1. Enrico Moretti wants to increase the R&D tax credit.

2. Daniel Ikenson calls for more foreign investment.

3. Scott Sumner argues for better monetary policy based on nominal GDP targeting.

4. Don Peck worries about growing dysfunction in the middle class.

5. William Galston offers a potpourri of proposals for faster, more inclusive growth.

6. David Audretsch highlights the central importance of entrepreneurship.

The remaining essays will posted next week.

Daniel J. Mitchell

Since I’ve accused the Congressional Budget Office of “witch doctor economics and gypsy forecasting,” it’s obvious I’m not a big fan of the organization’s approach to fiscal analysis.

I’ve even argued that Republicans shouldn’t cite CBO when the bureaucrats reach correct conclusions on policy (at least when such findings are based on bad Keynesian methodology).

So nobody should be surprised that I think the incoming Republican majority should install new leadership at CBO (and the Joint Committee on Taxation as well).

So why, then, are some advocates of smaller government - such as Greg Mankiw, Keith Hennessey, Alan Viard, and Michael Strain - arguing that Republicans should keep the current Director, Doug Elmendorf, who was appointed by the Democrats back in 2009?

Before answering that question, let’s look at some of what was written today for the Washington Post’s Wonkblog.

After a series of highly-regarded conservatives voiced their support for Doug Elmendorf, the director of the Congressional Budget Office whose term is up in January, Elmendorf haters fired back on Friday, urging Republicans to jettison the Democratic appointee as soon as possible. …This argument is advanced most forcefully in an open letter to GOP congressional leaders by Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, who…is most famous as the author of the anti-tax pledge that binds virtually every Republican in Congress never to vote to raise taxes. So why is Norquist against Elmendorf? For one thing, because CBO, under Elmendorf, has not demonized higher taxes. Instead, the agency promotes a “Failed Keynesian Economic Analysis,” Norquist says, that asserts that “higher taxes are good for the economy, even to the point of implying that growth is maximized when tax rates are 100 percent.”

And where did Grover get the idea that CBO believes that ever-higher taxes lead to more growth?

Umm…well, from something I wrote.

As evidence, Norquist points to a 2010 post by the Cato Institute’s Dan Mitchell, titled “Congressional Budget Office Says We Can Maximize Long-Run Economic Output with 100 Percent Tax Rates.” “I hope the title of this post is an exaggeration,” Mitchell writes, “but it’s certainly a logical conclusion based on” CBO’s claim that paying down the national debt – regardless of whether it’s through higher taxes or lower government spending – would be a good thing for the economy. “There’s nothing necessarily wrong with CBO’s concern about deficits,” Mitchell goes on. But “what’s missing from CBO’s analysis is any recognition or understanding that the real problem is excessive government spending.” In other words, what’s missing is conservative ideology about fiscal policy.

I have two reactions, one minor and one major.

My minor point is that the author of the piece is supposed to be a neutral, even-handed reporter, yet she refers to opponents of Elmendorf as “haters” and she implies that we’re simply upset because CBO’s analysis is missing “conservative ideology about fiscal policy.”  Given that she was writing for Wonkblog, which is more akin to an editorial page, there’s nothing wrong with being opinionated. But ask yourself whether someone with such hostility can be impartial when doing straight news stories.

My major point is about policy. Why is my concern about the size of government characterized as “ideology” while we’re supposed to believe CBO’s analysis is “scrupulously impartial” even though it produced analysis which implies you maximize growth with 100 percent tax rates?!?

If my views are blind ideology, then why is there research showing the economic damage of excessive government from international bureaucracies such as the World Bank and European Central Bank? And why are there studies about the harmful economic impact of government spending from the International Monetary Fund and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development? Nobody has ever accused these institutions of being hotbeds of libertarian thought.

But perhaps I’m not being fair to CBO. Did the bureaucrats really imply, as part of their analysis on what would happen to the economy if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire, that you maximize growth with 100 percent tax rates?

You can read my original post, which holds up very well four years later. And here’s some of what I wrote yesterday to someone who asked me to justify my views on the issue.

…let’s focus on the “subsequent years,” when CBO projectst that GDP would be lower with extended tax cuts. …I’m happy to be corrected, but my reading is that CBO was stating that fiscal balance is the tail that wags the economic dog. The extended tax cuts cause larger deficits, and CBO says that these larger deficits will divert national saving from productive investment and lead to lower output. But if the tax burden is higher, as in the baseline forecast, then deficits are lower and more saving is available for productive investment and output is higher. As far as I’m aware, CBO didn’t have any limiting language back then to suggest that higher tax rates led to growth, but only up to X point. So I think I was on solid ground in asserting the CBO’s analysis implied that ever-higher tax rates led to ever-higher growth.

Seems reasonable. Moreover, I strongly suspect the Wonkblog reporter would have found several people to condemn me had I over-stated the implications of CBO’s analysis.

Now let’s return to the issue of whether Mr. Elmendorf should be re-appointed. Which fiscal conservatives are correct, the ones who want to keep him or the ones who want him replaced?

I’m in the latter category, as explained here, but Elmendorf’s defenders make plenty of good points.

The bottom line is that he is a nice guy (based on my limited interactions), a thoughtful economist, and he has been a big improvement over his predecessor. Indeed, he’s almost certainly the best CBO Director ever appointed by Democrats.

Here’s an analogy that may help make sense of this issue. Elmendorf’s predecessor was a doctrinaire leftist named Peter Orszag. If Orszag’s policy views were a country, they would be France or Greece. By contrast, I’m guessing that Elmendorf would be like Sweden or Germany.

In other words, he wants more government than I do, but at least Elmendorf basically understands that there’s no such thing as a free lunch. He realizes 2+2=4, and he’s aware that there are tradeoffs. And since his arrival, CBO has been much better on issues such as the adverse impact of higher marginal tax rates and the debilitating effect of higher transfer payments.

That being said, while it’s much better to be Sweden rather than Greece, I obviously would prefer to be Hong Kong (or, even better, pre-1913 America).

Though, to continue the analogy, the best I can probably hope for is that Republicans appoint someone akin to Australia or Switzerland.

P.S. For more information about the economics of deficits and fiscal balance, here’s a video I narrated for the Center for Freedom and Prosperity.

Deficits are Bad, but the Real Problem is Spending

P.P.S. The Congressional Research Service made the same argument about higher taxes being pro-growth, asserting in 2010 that “The expiration of the tax cuts would nevertheless reduce the budget deficit, absent other policy changes, which economic theory predicts would have a positive effect on the economy in the long run.”

Neal McCluskey

Walk around a random college campus, and the odds are good the first student you’ll run into will be female. 57 percent of college students are women, versus 43 percent men, a 14 point gap. Look at Advanced Placement exams – those College Board tests that enable high-scoring takers to get college credit – and you’ll find that 56 percent of students taking the exams are girls, creating a 13 percent gap favoring women. But fear not! University of Miami president Donna Shalala assures us that the Common Core national curriculum standards will help address the “gender-based inequities” crushing female students.

Um, what?

As the data make obvious, there is no college-readiness gap unfavorable to women. Yet Shalala proclaims that, “These uniform, more rigorous K-12 education standards have the potential to reduce gender-based inequities by ensuring that every young woman receives the educational foundation she needs to be successful in college and career.”

Okay, maybe Shalala doesn’t really mean to suggest – as the quote does – that the Core will fix overall gaps. Maybe she only means differences in subjects like computer science and engineering that, as she writes, do lean male. But as Core proponents will point out if you assert the standards are too broad, the Core only furnishes math and English guidelines, not engineering or computer science. More important, of the two areas the Core tackles, AP-taking suggests women dominate one and hold their own in the other. 62 percent of students taking the AP English exams in 2014 were female, while 48 percent of Calculus AB takers were girls. At the very least, these figures belie any accusations of systematic efforts to exclude women from college-prep courses, even if girls tend to choose different courses than boys.

Sadly, superficial argumentation for the Core is widespread, if rarely quite so egregious as this. More common is proclaiming that “higher standards” will, simply by virtue of being higher, drive greater achievement and make the country economically triumphant.  This despite what the research actually says about national standards.

Ironically, Core supporters love to take opponents to task for being misinformed, and they are sometimes right: Core opponents do too often ascribe curricula they don’t like, or malevolent motives, to the Core and its creators. But supporters have been just as untethered to reality despite, often, having been involved with the Core for years, unlike lots of parents forced to scramble for information after the standards suddenly showed up at their doors demanding their children.  In the case of Shalala, at the very least she signed the Shanker Institute’s “manifesto” applauding the Core – and calling for an explicit national curriculum – in 2011.

Defense of the Common Core has too often come in the form of platitudes and ungrounded assertions. This latest effort hasn’t improved upon that.

Doug Bandow

MOSCOW—Red Square remains one of the globe’s most iconic locales. Next to the Kremlin wall is a small, squat, pyramidal building:  Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov Lenin’s mausoleum.

Lenin is preserved within, dressed in a black suit, his face is grim and his right fist is clenched, as if he was ready to smite the capitalists who now dominate even his own nation’s economy.  He is one of history’s most consequential individuals. Without him there likely would have been no Bolshevik Revolution, Joseph Stalin, Cold War, and Berlin Wall.

Of course, without Lenin there still would have been a Bolshevik movement. But it would have lacked his intellect, tactical skills, and, most important, determination. So feared was he by his enemies that he became Germany’s secret weapon against Russia, sent back to Russia to spread the bacillus of radical revolution.

Lenin pushed the Bolsheviks toward power as the authority of the moderate Provisional Government, which had ousted the Czar, bled away. Lenin was no humanitarian whose dream was perverted by his successors. He insisted on solitary Bolshevik rule, brooked no dissent even within the party, established the Cheka secret police, and employed terror against opponents.

Lenin was left helpless by three strokes.  He died on January 21, 1924, just 53 years old. His body lay in state for four days, during which nearly a million people passed by.

Within a week of his passing the idea of preserving his body was broached. The mausoleum started as wood and turned into the current granite and marble structure in 1929.

Communist imagery, including Lenin’s mummy, came under attack with the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Moscow’s anti-communist mayor backed burying the corpse and restoring Red Square to its pre-revolutionary state. Boris Yeltsin, the first president of non-Communist Russia, also proposed to bury Lenin. But Yeltsin’s health faltered and political strength weakened.

In 2001 Yeltsin’s successor, Vladimir Putin, expressed fear that burial would suggest the Russian people had lived under “false values” all those years. He concluded in 2011 that the decision would be made when the time was right.

Yet the same year Vladimir Medinsky, then a leading member of Putin’s United Russia Party, proposed burying the corpse next to Lenin’s mother in St. Petersburg and turning the mausoleum into a museum. In 2012 Putin appointed Medinsky Minister of Culture, suggesting support for removing Lenin’s body. However, Putin failed to act and since has ignored the issue.

While Russia cannot escape its history, it should stop glorifying the country’s turn down one of humanity’s great deadends. Although an unjust despotism, Imperial Russia could have been transformed into some form of constitutional rule.

But by entering World War I the Czarist autocracy sacrificed that opportunity. The Provisional Government, led by liberal constitutionalists and democratic socialists, put the previous regime’s commitment to war before the Russian people’s interests.

Unfortunately, the victorious Bolsheviks suppressed free markets, stole private property, crushed political dissent, murdered political opponents, imposed materialist ethics, and exalted ruthless dictatorship. The result was a sustained assault on the history, traditions, ethics, and very essence of the Russian people. Although Russians finally were able to turn back from this deadly detour, the same old authoritarianism has been born again, repackaged to make it more palatable to Russians today.

As I point out on Forbes online, “Burying Vladimir Lenin would be a powerful symbolic gesture to close an era. That still might not help the West understand what Vladimir Putin is, but it would emphatically show what he is not. And that would be no small feat at a time of dangerously rising tensions between Russia and the West.”

Someday Russians will be free. Liberation will come only through the Russian people’s own efforts, however, not from the West. Only they can make their own future. The day liberty arrives will be the real Russian Revolution.

Doug Bandow

As U.S. relations with Russia go from bad to worse, even old agreements seem at risk.  Such as the INF (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces) Treaty.

The 1987 pact essentially cleared Europe of mid-range missiles (between 500 and 5500 kilometers).  But the State Department recently charged Moscow with violating the treaty.

The INF treaty has been to America’s advantage, since it does not cover U.S. military allies, such as Britain and France.  Even more important, the U.S. has no potentially hostile neighbors with such a capability, while Russia faces China, India, Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan.

Moscow officials have suggested that they may leave the agreement at some point.  To forestall that possibility the U.S. and Moscow should seek to include China and other regional powers in the pact.   

Although relations between Moscow and Washington obviously are strained, the U.S. should approach Russia about amending the INF Treaty to allow deployments in Asia, unless otherwise agreed.  The two governments should simultaneously propose that Beijing and its neighbors accede to the pact. 

Admittedly, winning signatures from other nations, especially China, would not be easy. The PRC believes its short- and medium-range missiles serve a significant security role. 

However, the PRC’s more aggressive approach to Asia-Pacific territorial issues has antagonized neighboring states.  Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, in particular, are likely to become increasingly interested in developing countervailing missile capabilities. 

In the future the PRC may face a plethora of countervailing weapons deployed by several states. Then Beijing might view a ban as more to its liking. 

Negotiations over expanding the INF Treaty would make Beijing a full global partner on arms control, recognizing the country’s rising international status.  Although the PRC has tended to view such limits as a means of maintaining U.S. “hegemony,” Washington could suggest accession as the best means to forestall any further increase in U.S. military presence in the region as part of the famed “pivot” or “rebalance.” 

Some analysts instead advocate responding to the PRC’s military build-up by withdrawing from the pact and introducing comparable missiles.  As an alternative, David W. Kearn, Jr. of St. John’s University suggested enhancing U.S. offensive capabilities in the region and defensive responses to missile attacks. 

However, as I point out in China-US focus, “nearby nations should be responsible for maintaining regional security.  American policymakers should use expansion of the INF Treaty as a means to reduce U.S. defense obligations.”

China’s growing missile force challenges America’s dominance in Asia—most directly the ability to project power—not America’s survival at home.  The most likely contingency is an attack on Taiwan, which is quite different from a strike on the U.S.  The Cold War justification for America’s extensive military presence in the region has disappeared.

America’s friends and neighbors, no less than China, have prospered and are able to defend themselves.  That obviously is best for the U.S., since Beijing will always have an incentive to spend and risk more in its own neighborhood than will America. 

Restricting Washington’s role also would reduce the potential for a superpower confrontation over less than vital interests.  Ironically, America’s conventional superiority inflates the danger of a great power confrontation.  Explained Kearn:  “in a crisis or a conflict, regional adversaries may have incentives to escalate (or threaten escalation) against U.S. forces in the region or U.S. allies to de-escalate the crisis and ensure regime survival once the United States has become involved.”

Expanding the INF Treaty to Asia would help reduce growing military tensions and dampen geopolitical competition, especially over territorial issues.  Achieving this end won’t be easy, but it is an area where the U.S. and Russia can cooperate.  While China might initially be wary of joining such an effort, a new arms control regime would ultimately offer Beijing significant benefits as well.

Brink Lindsey

There are five new essays today in the Cato Institute’s online growth forum:

1. Ryan Avent argues against restrictive zoning.

2. Jagadeesh Gokhale makes the case for tax and entitlement reforms.

3. Michael Strain wants to put America back to work.

4. Karl Smith thinks about how to counter slowing labor force growth.

5. Robin Hanson calls for the meta-policy of decision markets.

Chelsea German

The state of the world is improving. Child mortality, poverty, and violence are declining, while life expectancy, incomes, and education are increasing. While many problems remain, most indicators of human well-being are trending in the right direction—especially in the developing world.

If you are interested in a realistic look at the state of humanity, then I highly recommend that you watch this video:

The Fate of Our World

Learn more.

Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. "Chip" Knappenberger

You Ought to Have a Look is a feature from the Center for the Study of Science posted by Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. (“Chip”) Knappenberger.  While this section will feature all of the areas of interest that we are emphasizing, the prominence of the climate issue is driving a tremendous amount of web traffic.  Here we post a few of the best in recent days, along with our color commentary.

Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. Knappenberger

One of the planet’s most prolific weather and climate Tweeters is Florida State PhD and WeatherBell wizard Dr. Ryan Maue (rhymes with zowie). Ryan’s initial claim to fame was his analysis of tropical cyclone (e.g., hurricane) activity that shows, over the past 45 years, lots of variability but no overall change.  Originally published in 2009, it flies in the face of global warming doomsayers who predict increases in all manner of extreme weather events including hurricanes and their tropical brethren. As a young scientist, going against the grain is not typically a good career move (which is why the global warming establishment is self-perpetuating), but Ryan is driven more by the truth than by political correctness. In fact, political correctness is an antonym of Ryan.

He has risen to prominence as the creator of the amazing analyses and graphics produced by the private weather forecasting firm WeatherBell Analytics. Many of these products find their way onto Ryan’s Twitter page along with some insightful (and often witty) commentary. His analysis of current weather events is unparalleled. If you’ve heard of the “polar vortex,” you can thank (or blame) Ryan: he first popularized this arcane professional term last winter.

This past week he has been active, covering the humongous lake-effect snows burying parts of greater Buffalo, the cold outbreak setting all-time monthly low temperature records in the Eastern United States, and pushing back against the growing tide of media that so desperately wants to link it all to global warming.

From our standpoint, Ryan is one of the best young weather/climate guys out there. If you don’t want to limit yourself to only encountering  Ryan’s analysis on the Drudge Report (which actually isn’t too limiting since his work is frequently featured there), then you ought to have a look for him on Twitter and become another of his more than 13,000 followers. To tune in to Ryan telling it like it is, check out @RyanMaue.

Also worth noting is that the deadline for the public to comment on the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants is December 1 (yes, that’s the Monday after Thanksgiving). This legislation is the crème-de-le-crème of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan and seeks to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants to 30% below the emission level in 2005 by the year 2030.  According to the EPA, that will result in a reduction of 730 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, equivalent to taking 150 million cars off the road.

While that sounds like a lot, it really is a very little, especially when it comes to the climate impact. In public comments we are about to submit, we calculated that these emissions reductions would avert only 0.02°C of projected global warming by the end of the century—a value too little to care about (and assuming a warming that is way too much). That is, unless you care about the price. Then you come to realize just how much  pain this insignificant gain costs.

Just this week, an economic analysis from Energy Venture Analysis was released examining the impact of the proposed EPA regulations on energy prices. From the report’s press release:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed carbon rule is the latest in a series of regulations alongside rising natural gas prices that will increase the cost of electricity and natural gas by nearly $300 billion in 2020 compared with 2012, according to a study released today by Energy Ventures Analysis, Inc. The study, “Energy Market Impacts of Recent Federal Regulations on the Electric Power Sector,” demonstrates the heavy financial burden the EPA’s collection of regulations will force on American families, businesses and manufacturers through soaring energy costs.

The study found the typical household’s annual electricity and natural gas bills would increase by $680, or 35 percent, from 2012 compared to 2020, escalating each year thereafter as EPA regulations grow more stringent. The cost of electricity would increase the most in states that have implemented deregulation of wholesale electric power markets, where the price of electricity will rise to the marginal cost to support new generating capacity.

The full report, including an online tool to examine the impacts on a state-by-state basis, is available here.

If you wish to point out any of this to the EPA, or if you have other details (pro or con) that you feel worth mentioning, you can submit your comments at the website Regulations.gov. We are currently busy putting the final touches on ours!

And finally, a bit of a departure. While typically our focus here is on global warming, the bigger view of the Center for the Study of Science is examining how federal control of research dollars influences science. Global warming is a prominent (and popular) example, but it is by no means the only science topic that is co-opted by the government. 

We just came across this example even though it was reported on earlier this year: “Feds Accused of Steering Funding to Anti-pot Researchers.” As drug legalization is a major libertarian emphasis, we thought it was worth dusting off this article and mentioning it here. That the feds are apparently meddling in the scientific research process and favoring those researchers who will produce results that support the federal stance (in this case, that marijuana is bad) should hardly be surprising for anyone who follows us at the Center for the Study of Science.

From the article’s lead:

As the nation’s only truly legal supplier of marijuana, the U.S. government keeps tight control of its stash, which is grown in a 12-acre fenced garden on the campus of the University of Mississippi in Oxford.

From there, part of the crop is shipped to Research Triangle Institute in North Carolina, where it’s rolled into cigarettes, all at taxpayer expense.

Even though Congress has long banned marijuana, the operation is legitimate. It’s run by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which doles out the pot for federally approved research projects.

While U.S. officials defend their monopoly, critics say the government is hogging all the pot and giving it mainly to researchers who want to find harms linked to the drug.

For the rest of the story of the government bogarting the weed, be sure to check out the full piece.

That’s it for this week. We’ll be off for Thanksgiving next week, but we’ll be back with other interesting tidbits that you ought to have a look at come the first week of December.

Caleb O. Brown

This morning I sat down for a live online discusssion with Alex Nowrasteh to discuss the policy implications of President Obama’s plan to delay deportations for potentially millions of undocumented immigrants.

Cato Connects: Executive Action on Immigration

Patrick J. Michaels

So who hasn’t seen one of the bajillion recent stories saying 2014 is going to set the instrumental record for the highest average global surface temperature? May we throw a teense of cold water on that hot news?

Annual temperatures are calculated by averaging up monthly readings, so the last data point that we have is October. The National Climatic Data Center, a part of the Department of Commerce, estimates that global average temperature was a record high of 58.46°F. The previous record was 58.45°.

The key word is “estimates.” When a scientist measures something—with a ruler, a scale, or a thermometer, for example—there’s always a measurement error owing to properties of the measuring device or even the skill of the scientist. When it comes to global temperature, scientists are averaging data from over a thousand thermometers scattered about the planet. Some are well-taken care of, and some are not. Some may have traces of urban warming in them. Nor is the number of readings exactly the same from year to year, or even from month to month.

The result is that there is a central estimate (58.46°) and a 95% confidence range as to where the “true” value lies. 

The most recent and most transparent error analysis of global temperatures has been done by a group called Berkeley Earth. For October, they find that the 95% confidence range is 0.10°F, or +/- 0.05°.

So, using the normal rules of science, is 58.46° then distinguishable from 58.45°? In a word, “NO.”

Steve H. Hanke and Dr. Garbis Iradian

The haggling between Iran and the so-called P5+1—the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, plus Germany—is scheduled to come to a close on Monday, November 24th. The two parties each want different things. One thing that Iran would like is the removal of the economic sanctions imposed on it by the United States and its allies.

After decades of wrongheaded economic policies, Iran’s economy is in terrible shape. The authoritative Economic Freedom of the World: 2014 Annual Report puts Iran near the bottom of the barrel: 147th out of the 152 countries ranked. And the “World Misery Index Scores” rank Iran as the fourth most miserable economy in the world. In addition to economic mismanagement, economic sanctions and now-plunging oil prices are dragging Iran’s structurally distorted economy down. So, it’s no surprise that Iran would like one of the weights (read: sanctions) on its economy lifted.

Just how important would the removal of sanctions be? To answer that question, we use the Institute of International Finance’s detailed macroeconomic framework. The results of our analysis are shown in the table and charts below the jump.

 

The trade and financial sanctions imposed since early 2012 have inflicted heavy damage on Iran’s economy. Indeed, we estimate that Iran’s real gross domestic product has contracted by a cumulative 8.6 percent during the past two fiscal years (2012/13–2013/14). We estimate the forgone annual economic output to be a whopping $79 billion. That is slightly more than twice the size of the Jordanian annual GDP of $36 billion.

Without an agreement, the Iranian economy will remain weak. On the other hand, a comprehensive agreement—one in which existing sanctions would be lifted gradually—would allow for steady increases in oil exports to their pre-sanction levels by the end of 2017 and a possible restoration of access to the global financial system. The economy would boom: indeed, the real GDP growth rates during the fiscal year 2015/16 and 2016/17 would jump by 4.1 and 4.6 percentage points, respectively. And for those two fiscal years alone, the cumulative GDP would be $125 billion greater than if the painstaking sanctions were left in place.

So, the economic benefits dangling in front of the Iranians are enormous. The unanswered question remains: what are the costs of coming to an agreement, as seen by the Iranians? The answer will be revealed on November 24th.

 

Chelsea German

With the media frenzy over Ebola now thankfully fading, let us view the outbreak within the context of humanity’s continually improving ability to solve new problems.

Today, the world is better prepared than it has ever been to respond to an outbreak of an infectious disease. For example, there are more skilled medical professionals available to tend to the sick and conduct research on effective treatment. The number of physicians per person is rising globally.

While there is not yet a cure for Ebola, many people are hard at work coming up with one. Countless maladies that once were death sentences can now be treated. The development of effective antiretroviral drugs for HIV/AIDS, for example, serves as one of the great medical accomplishments of the past two decades.

Today, the tools to prevent transmission of disease are more accessible than ever. Ebola and many other diseases are partly spread through poor access to sanitation. Thankfully, more people are gaining access to improved sanitation facilities.

The Ebola threat should be viewed in the context of human ingenuity. As Princeton University professor and HumanProgress.org advisory board member Angus Deaton writes in his book The Great Escape, “Need, fear, and, in some circumstances, greed are great drivers of discovery and invention.”

Pages