Christopher A. Preble
It is good to know that President Obama is opposed to sending U.S. troops into Iraq, though hardly surprising. (I was shocked to hear a reporter ask the president after his remarks if he was reluctant to do so. How could he not be?)
As Chuck Todd noted today on MSNBC, and here, 59 percent of Americans believe that the war in Iraq was not worth it. Does anyone seriously believe that a well-crafted Obama sales pitch could convince a majority of Americans to change their minds? I don’t.
Among the many maddening aspects of this story—and there are many—I’m most frustrated by the claim that the United States should have left a residual force in Iraq after 2011. There are actually three problems with this claim. First, it is NOT a partisan issue. Bush attempted to negotiate a deal that would have left forces in Iraq, and failed. Obama tried, and failed. The claim that one or the other failed because he didn’t try hard enough is just foolish. A sufficient number of Iraqis didn’t want U.S. troops to stay there (albeit for different reasons) that the failure to achieve a status of forces agreement (SOFA) can hardly be blamed on either Bush or Obama for a lack of effort.
So what these people are really saying is that we should have left U.S. troops in Iraq without a SOFA, in the face of Iraqi opposition. We are told that the troops left behind wouldn’t be engaged in combat, so they really wouldn’t have been in danger. That is what Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said on MSNBC just after the president’s statement. I think this ignores that the U.S. presence was a source of violent resistance in the first place, so it is hard to see how U.S. troops wouldn’t have been subject to at least the risk of regular attacks.
Besides, SOFAs do not protect U.S. troops from security threats, but rather from the vagaries of foreign justice systems. So it is easy to see how a peaceful, non-threatening, U.S. military operation–e.g., a roadblock searching for bad guys–can turn south in a hurry. Maybe a husband and wife fail to stop at the roadblock, and they are shot. Maybe they are killed. Without a SOFA that extends standard legal protections to U.S. servicemen, the troops manning that roadblock would be subject to Iraqi justice, forced to stand accused of murder before Iraqi judges. Is that really what Senator McCain and others want? We don’t leave U.S. forces in foreign countries without a SOFA for a reason.
Lastly, the claim that a residual force would have convinced Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to govern better/more inclusively, and that a residual force today might do the same (although McCain allowed today that Maliki might simply need to be replaced; by whom he did not say) ignores that a far larger force, including some of the largest concentrations of U.S. troops in 2008 and 2009, did NOT convince Maliki to cut deals with his political opponents and stab his political supporters in the back. So why would anyone think that a smaller force would have succeeded, or would succeed now?
The breakup of Iraq that many predicted before the war may now be happening. Maybe the country will be partitioned—an idea that previously was ridiculed. Maybe the Iraqi military will turn things around and crush the insurgency. I don’t know whether any of these things will happen. But I will go out on a limb and predict that the U.S. military won’t be sorting out these things. And for that, we should all be grateful.
Paul C. "Chip" Knappenberger and Patrick J. Michaels
Global Science Report is a feature from the Center for the Study of Science, where we highlight one or two important new items in the scientific literature or the popular media. For broader and more technical perspectives, consult our monthly “Current Wisdom.”
A week ago, the White House released a report on the health consequences of global warming that was meant to supplement and reinforce the heath benefit claims made during the roll-out of new Environmental Protection Agency regulations aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants.
Those claims, which border on the bizarre, were met with a great deal of pushback—and deservingly so.
The supplemental White House report didn’t make things better. Take for example, how they handle extreme heat events and heat-related mortality.
To say that we are disappointed with how the White House/EPA presents the data on heat-related mortality is an understatement. No matter how many times we point out—through official means, op-eds, blogs posts, etc.—that they are mishandling the data to such an extent that they present the opposite conclusion from that reached in the scientific literature, it never gets better.
In fact, it seems to be getting worse.
Below the jump, in its entirety, is the section on heat waves from the new White House report, The Health Impacts of Climate Change on Americans:
Figure 1. Observed U.S. temperature change (source: White House report).
Notice that there is not a single study cited that links changes in heat waves to changes in heat-related mortality. Instead, it is strongly implied that increasing heat will lead to increasing deaths. We can’t think that any reader would reach the opposite conclusion given the White House discussion and presentation. And yet, that is precisely the case that scientific study after scientific study finds. Despite rising heat, fewer American’s die from heat-related causes (when properly adjusted, of course, for population increases and changes in age stricture).
But such information is nowhere to be found in the White House report. Instead, the section on extreme heat events shows a map of temperature trends across the United States and then goes on to say that extreme heat causes death, leading the readers to a false conclusion.
Here is a similar but more complete presentation from a scientific study looking at trends in temperature and trends in heat-related mortality across the United States.
Figure 2. Annual heat-related mortality rates (excess deaths per standard million population on days in which the decadal-varying threshold apparent temperature (AT) is equaled or exceeded) by city and decade, and long-term trend in summer afternoon AT. Each histogram bar indicates a different decade: from left to right, 1960s–1970s, 1980–1989, and 1990–1998. Decades without histogram bars exhibit no threshold ATs and no heat-related mortality. Decades with gray bars have mortality rates that are statistically significantly different from the decades indicated by black bars. The average excess deaths across all 28 cities is shown at the lower left. AT trends are indicated beneath each city abbreviation (from Davis et al., 2003).
The map in Figure 2 shows trends in summer time apparent temperature (AT)—a combination of heat and humidity—indicated by the small symbol under each city and explained by the right-hand legend. It indicates basically the same thing as the White House map—that summer temperatures are on the rise across the country. But this map also superimposes the trends in heat-related mortality on the trends in temperature (the bar charts for each city).
What it shows is that annual heat-related mortality was on the decline across the United States from the mid-1960s through the late 1990s (the end of the data used in this study). More recent studies confirm that the downward trend in heat-related mortality has continued even in the face of rising temperature (can you say “adaptation”?).
This more complete presentation of the data tells the exact opposite story than the one that the White House (mis)leads you to believe.
You have to ask yourself why the White House finds it necessary to lead you away from the best science in order to drum up support for its energy policies (another example here).
Bobb, J.F., R.D. Peng, M.L. Bell, and F. Dominici. “Heat-Related Mortality and Adaptation in the United States.” Environmental Health Perspectives, 2014. Online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1307392.
Davis, R.E., P.C. Knappenbergre, P.J. Michaels, and W.M. Novicoff. “Changing Heat-Related Mortality in the United States.” Environmental Health Perspectives 111: 1712–18 (2003).
Kalkstein, L.S., Greene, S., Mills, D.M., and Samenow, J. “An Evaluation of the Progress in Reducing Heat-Related Human Mortality in Major U.S. Cities.” Natural Hazards 56(1): 113-29 (2011).
The Senate voted 93-3 on Wednesday to expand health care spending for veterans. Under the Senate bill, veterans would be able to access health care services from facilities outside the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) system.
The headlines from the last few weeks clearly illustrate the need to reform this massive system, but the Senate’s rushed plan would dramatically increase veterans’ health care spending without tackling needed fundamental reforms.
Just before the vote, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a preliminary estimate of the bill’s costs. Because of the hurried nature of introduction and debate, CBO was not able to fully review and estimate costs.
CBO says that the new program would increase spending by $35 billion over 10 years. But that doesn’t tell the full story. CBO expects initial set-up of the new program would take several years with veteran enrollment ramping up over time. And the bill just authorizes the new spending until 2016. So it appears that the CBO estimate of $35 billion just includes the cost over the first three years.
Over the longer term, CBO estimates that added annual spending would be $50 billion a year. So if the current bill is enacted and the added spending extended in the future, it would raise federal spending by about $385 billion over the next decade, as illustrated in the chart below the jump.
The $385 billion figure is likely conservative because it assumes that costs stay flat over time. But as more veterans enroll and health care costs increase, the figures could grow larger. CBO says that its estimates are “highly uncertain,” which is one reason why the Senate’s rush to push the bill through was so irresponsible.
The VA is already the fifth largest federal agency. If the new spending is made permanent, VA’s total budget would grow by about one-third and VA health care spending would roughly double.
During debate on Wednesday, several senators raised concern over the dramatic increase in VA spending without any offsetting cuts, but 75 senators swiftly brushed it aside. Allowing any debate about large expansions of government is apparently out of style in the Senate. But what’s needed in the VA is fundamental restructuring, not an ill-planned gusher of new spending.
Political crises are always the most dangerous time for the growth of government. The VA crisis is proving to be no different.
1) In the city of Detroit, more than one violent crime per day now takes place at a gas station. Specifically, reports the Detroit News, “Police have investigated nearly 700 violent crimes at Detroit gas stations during the past year, prompting city officials and citizen patrol groups to try to quell the steady beat of murders, carjackings, shootings and armed robberies.”
2) The Detroit city government does an astoundingly poor job of protecting gas stations, their customers, and pretty much everyone else from crime. It suffers from notoriously poor police response times (58 minutes for serious crimes) and closure rates on crime investigations (8.7 percent rate of solving cases). According to Motor City Muckraker, the Detroit Police Department has quietly discontinued putting out its “Major Crime Summary Report” and instead now puts out a summary report of cases that have resulted in arrests, which is better for its image.
3) The city council’s response? It’s to load new legal burdens on the gas stations, specifically by way of “a recent ordinance requiring owners to install security cameras by Aug. 31.” While some stations say they’re already doing that, Auday Arabo, the head of a dealer association, says the requirement “would present a financial hardship for many station owners”: “Is this what government is supposed to do? Mandate you become the surveillance company for the government?”
That’s certainly what Detroit seems to be doing. Strange how when governments fail utterly at their claimed core function of preventing violence, they so often can be found muscling into entirely new areas of coercion at the same time.
The programs, regulations, and laws that define most federal activities are so numerous and complex that it strangles effective governance. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is no exception. During the Hurricane Katrina disaster, DHS officials were in a fog of confusion, overwhelmed by events and all the complicated emergency rules and procedures.
A key marker of excess bureaucracy is the generous use of acronyms. In government, acronyms are used to identify the building blocks of bureaucracies, such as agencies, committees, programs, job titles, procedures, rules, and systems.
Recently, I’ve looked at aid-to-state programs run by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which is part of DHS. Acronyms abound at FEMA. To get a sense of the bureaucracy, I looked for acronyms in this 84-page Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) for one of FEMA’s many aid programs.
Below is a list of all the bureaucratic structures that were capitalized and had acronyms in this document for one program. Actually, I left out some common acronyms that many people already know, including OMB, FBI, CDC, CBP, EIN, DOT, EMS, IED, FTE, MSA, DOL, GIS, FCC, TDD, and NIST. So the list below mainly includes specialized acronyms that workers in this policy area would need to know. Many of the acronyms refer to government structures that have their own lengthy documents full of acronyms.
H.L. Mencken said “The true bureaucrat is a man of really remarkable talents. He writes a kind of English that is unknown elsewhere in the world, and he has an almost infinite capacity for forming complicated and unworkable rules.”
DHS must be full of “true bureaucrats” because by the time I read to the end of this document, I had counted 113 acronyms. That is an impressive achievement in True Bureaucratic Excellence (TBE).
Bureaucratic Structures with Acronyms in the FOA for the HSGP
Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP)
State Homeland Security Program (SHSP)
Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI)
Operation Stonegarden (OPSG)
Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA)
State Preparedness Report (SPR)
National Preparedness Report (NPR)
Information Bulletin (IB)
Investment Justification (IJ)
State Administrative Agency (SAA)
Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC)
National Incident Management System (NIMS)
Federal Emergency Response Official (FERO)
Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS)
Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG)
Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act (PKEMRA)
Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Activity (LETPA)
Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation (EHP)
Border Patrol (BP)
Federal Financial Report (FFR)
Biannual Strategy Implementation Report (BSIR)
Initial Strategy Implementation Plan (ISIP)
Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP)
Planning, Organization, Equipment, Training, and Exercises (POETE)
Grants Program Directorate (GPD)
Grant Adjustment Notice (GAN)
Centralized Scheduling and Information Desk (CSID)
Unified Reporting Tool (URT)
Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS)
System for Award Management (SAM)
Grant Reporting Tool (GRT)
Statewide Communication Interoperable Plan (SCIP)
Statewide Interoperability Coordinator (SWIC)
Statewide Interoperability Governance Board (SIGB)
State Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (HIRA)
Critical Operational Capability (COC)
Enabling Capability (EC)
Information Sharing Environment (ISE)
Training and Exercise Plan (TEP)
Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP)
Training and Exercise Planning Workshop (TEPW)
National Exercise Scheduling System (NEXS)
After Action Report/Improvement Plan (AAR/IP)
Public Health Emergency Preparedness (PHEP)
Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR)
Hospital Preparedness Program (HPP)
Senior Advisory Committee (SAC)
Port Security Grant Program (PSGP)
Nonprofit Security Grant Program (NSGP)
Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP)
Area Maritime Security Committee (AMSC)
Regional Transportation Security Working Group (RTSWG)
Homeland Security Advisor (HSA)
Emergency Management Agency (EMA)
Emergency Medical Services for Children (EMSC)
Cities Readiness Initiative (CRI)
Baseline Assessment and Security Enhancement (BASE)
National Capital Region (NCR)
Community Emergency Response Team (CERT)
Integrated Planning Team (IPT)
Emergency Systems for Advance Registration (ESAR)
Volunteer Health Professional (VHP)
Metropolitian Medical Response System (MMRS)
Cyber Security Framework (CSF)
Citizens Corps Program (CCP)
Core Capabilities Tool (CCT)
National Terrorism Advisory System (NTAS)
National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP)
Logistic Management Directorate (LMD)
Operational Pack (OPack)
Western Hemispheres Travel Initiative (WHTI)
Driver’s License Security Grant Program (DLSGP)
National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP)
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA)
National Crime Information Center (NCIC)
Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS)
Fusion Liaison Officers (FLO)
National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF)
National Emergency Family Registry and Locator System (NEFRLS)
National Emergency Medical Services Information System (NEMSIS)
Regional Resiliency Assessment Program (RRAP)
Communications Assets and Mapping (CASM)
Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network (NPSBN)
National Counter-IED Capabilities Analysis Database (NCCAD)
Multi-Jurisdictional IED Security Planning (MJIEDSP)
Corrective Action Plan (CAP)
Continuity of Operations/Continuity of Government (COOP/COG)
Medical Reserve Corps (MRC)
Volunteers in Public Service (VIPS)
National Preparedness Directorate (NPD)
Technical Assistance (TA)
Authorized Equipment List (AEL)
Center for Domestic Preparedness (CDP)
Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP)
Field Intelligence Group (FIG)
Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTF)
Office of Emergency Communications (OEC)
Personnel Reimbursement for Intelligence Cooperation and Enhancement (PRICE)
Bomb-Making Materials Awareness Program (BMAP)
Responder Training Development Center (RTDC)
National Training and Education Division (NTED)
National Domestic Preparedness Consortium (NDPC)
Rural Domestic Preparedness Consortium (RDPC)
Emergency Management Institute (EMI)
Point of Contact (POC)
Single Point of Contact (SPOC)
Training Point of Contact (TPOC)
Maritime Security Risk Analysis Model (MSRAM)
Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC)
Urban Area Working Groups (UAWG)
Emergency Operation Plan (EOP)
Tactical Interoperable Communications Plan (TICP)
When I’m out at trade events, people in the trade world often ask me, as a Cato person, what the tea party thinks of free trade (libertarians are unfamiliar to many of my friends in the trade world, and I’m their only link to such views, so they come to me with anything vaguely related to these issues). I usually say something along the lines of: it’s complicated and nuanced, there are a range of views, and that I’m still trying to find out myself!
Dave Brat, who is associated with the tea party, just made headlines by defeating House Majority leader Eric Cantor in a Republican primary. I was thinking about ways to ask him his views on trade, but then Chuck Todd beat me to it (starts at 4:02 of the video):
Chuck Todd: Let me ask you about trade agreements. There’s a couple of big ones likely to come for you to vote on…A big one with Europe, and a big one with Asia. In general, what are your views of trade agreements, are you open to big free trade agreements or not?
Dave Brat: Yeah, I’m a free trader. After World War II, the GATT brought tariffs roughly from 50% down to about 4% or less today. And that’s been good for European trade with us. We set up our arch-enemies Japan and Germany after the war, started trading with them, and it enriched all of us. I have a win-win positive view about relationships with other countries that respect the rule of law. So we have to move forward on that front.
A couple noteworthy things about this response.
First, he doesn’t leave much doubt about his view that free trade, in the form of lower tariffs, is good. That’s not too surprising, given his background as an economics professor. (Although on immigration, his economics fails him.)
Second, he focuses his discussion on tariffs. But trade agreements go far beyond tariffs these days. What does he think about provisions in trade agreements that strengthen intellectual property protection, set binding labor and environment rules, and allow foreign investors to sue governments in international tribunals? I’m curious about his take on the nuances of today’s trade agreements. The question from Chuck Todd does refer to the trade talks with Europe and Asia, which have all these new rules in them, so you could take his response to mean he is fine with everything that might be in the Pacific and European trade agreements under negotiation. But I wouldn’t be sure until he gets asked more directly.
And third, he does note that these views apply to “countries that respect the rule of law.” I’d like to know who he thinks fits that description and who does not.
0.02°C Temperature Rise Averted: The Vital Number Missing from the EPA’s “By the Numbers” Fact Sheet
Paul C. "Chip" Knappenberger and Patrick J. Michaels
Global Science Report is a feature from the Center for the Study of Science, where we highlight one or two important new items in the scientific literature or the popular media. For broader and more technical perspectives, consult our monthly “Current Wisdom.”
Last week, the Obama Administration’s U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unveiled a new set of proposed regulations aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions from existing U. S. power plants. The motivation for the EPA’s plan comes from the President’s desire to address and mitigate anthropogenic climate change.
We hate to be the party poopers, but the new regulations will do no such thing.
The EPA’s regulations seek to limit carbon dioxide emissions from electricity production in the year 2030 to a level 30 percent below what they were in 2005. It is worth noting that power plant CO2 emissions already dropped by about 15% from 2005 to2012, largely, because of market forces which favor less-CO2-emitting natural gas over coal as the fuel of choice for producing electricity. Apparently the President wants to lock in those gains and manipulate the market to see that the same decline takes place in twice the time. Nothing like government intervention to facilitate market inefficiency. But we digress.
The EPA highlighted what the plan would achieve in their “By the Numbers” Fact Sheet that accompanied their big announcement.
For some reason, they left off their Fact Sheet how much climate change would be averted by the plan. Seems like a strange omission since, after all, without the threat of climate change, there would be no one thinking about the forced abridgement of our primary source of power production in the first place, and the Administration’s new emissions restriction scheme wouldn’t even be a gleam in this or any other president’s eye.
But no worries. What the EPA left out, we’ll fill in.
Using a simple, publically-available, climate model emulator called MAGICC that was in part developed through support of the EPA, we ran the numbers as to how much future temperature rise would be averted by a complete adoption and adherence to the EPA’s new carbon dioxide restrictions*.
The answer? Less than two one-hundredths of a degree Celsius by the year 2100.
0.018°C to be exact.
We’re not even sure how to put such a small number into practical terms, because, basically, the number is so small as to be undetectable.
Which, no doubt, is why it’s not included in the EPA Fact Sheet.
It is not too small, however, that it shouldn’t play a huge role in every and all discussions of the new regulations.
* Details and Additional Information about our Calculation
We have used the Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change (MAGICC)—a simple climate model emulator that was, in part, developed through support of the EPA—to examine the climate impact of proposed regulations.
We analyzed the climate impact of the new EPA regulations by modifying future emissions scenarios that have been established by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), to reflect the new EPA proposed emissions targets.
Specifically, the three IPCC scenarios we examined were the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) named RCP4.5, RCP 6.0 and RCP8.5. RCP4.5 is a low-end emissions pathway, RCP6.0 is more middle of the road, and RCP8.5 is a high-end pathway.
The emissions prescriptions in the RCPs are not broken down on a country by country basis, but rather are defined for country groupings. The U.S. is included in the OECD90 group.
To establish the U.S. emissions pathway within each RPC, we made the following assumptions:
1) U.S. carbon dioxide emissions make up 50 percent of the OECD90 carbon dioxide emissions.
2) Carbon dioxide emissions from electrical power production make up 40 percent of the total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions.
Figure 1 shows the carbon dioxide emissions pathways of the original RCPs along with our determination within each of the contribution from U.S. electricity production.
Figure 1. Carbon dioxide emissions pathways defined in, or derived from, the original set of Representative Concentration pathways (RCPs), for the global total carbon dioxide emissions as well as for the carbon dioxide emissions attributable to U.S. electricity production.
As you can pretty quickly tell, the projected contribution of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from electricity production to the total global carbon dioxide emissions is vanishingly small.
The new EPA regulations apply to the lower three lines in Figure 1.
To examine the impact of the EPA proposal, we replace the emissions attributable to U.S. power plants in the original RCPs with targets defined in the new EPA regulations. We determined those targets to be (according to the EPA’s Regulatory Impacts Analysis accompanying the regulation), 0.4864 GtC in 2020 and 0.4653 GtC in 2030. Thereafter, the U.S. power plant emissions were held constant at the 2030 levels until they fell below those levels in the original RCP prescriptions (specifically, that occurred in 2060 in RPC4.5, 2100 in RCP6.0, and sometime after 2150 in RCP8.5).
We then used MAGICC to calculate the rise in global temperature projected to occur between now and the year 2100 when with the original RCPs as well as with the RCPs modified to reflect the EPA proposed regulations (we used the MAGICC default value for the earth’s equilibrium climate sensitivity (3.0°C)).
The output from the six MAGICC runs is depicted as Figure 2.
Figure 2. Global average surface temperature anomalies, 2000-2100, as projected by MAGICC run with the original RCPs as well as with the set of RCPs modified to reflect the EPA 30% emissions reductions from U.S power plants.
In case you can’t tell the impact by looking at Figure 2 (since the lines are basically on top of one another), we’ve summarized the numbers in Table 1.
In Table 2, we quantify the amount of projected temperature rise that is averted by the new EPA regulations.
The rise in projected future temperature rise that is averted by the proposed EPA restrictions of carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants is less than 0.02°C between now and the end of the century assuming the IPCC’s middle-of-the-road future emissions scenario.
While the proposed EPA plan seeks only to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, in practice, the goal is to reduce the burning of coal. Reducing the burning of coal will have co-impacts such as reducing other climatically active trace gases and particulate matter (or its precursors). We did not model the effects of changes in these co-species as sensitivity tests using MAGICC indicate the collective changes in these co-emissions are quite small and largely cancel each other out.
I was as surprised as everybody else by David Brat’s defeat of Eric Cantor yesterday. But I’m not really surprised that Tea Party-type voters were tired of Cantor’s voting record. In 2010, I noted that Cantor, Rep. Kevin McCarthy, and Rep. Paul Ryan had published a book, Young Guns, which cast the Republican congressional leaders who preceded them as a group that “betrayed its principles” and was plagued by “failures from high-profile ethics lapses to the inability to rein in spending or even slow the growth of government.”
But, I wondered, how credible were the messengers? Once you ruin a brand, it can take a long time to restore it. And part of the solution is owning up to your own errors, not just pointing the finger.
Sadly, I discovered at the time that the authors didn’t have very clean hands when it came to the overspending and overregulation of the Bush years. Most relevantly for today, I found that Rep. Cantor voted for the Bush administration’s No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, expanding federal control over education. He voted for the costly Iraq war in 2002. He voted for the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act in 2003, which was projected to add more than $700 billion to Medicare costs over the following decade. He voted for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which included the $700 billion TARP bailout.
To be fair, he did get A’s and B’s in the annual ratings of Congress by the National Taxpayers Union, which means he had a better record on spending than most of his colleagues. But as the Tea Party’s been complaining, that’s not saying much.
David Brat, a professor of economics, promised in his campaign to “fight to end crony capitalist programs that benefit the rich and powerful.” While I’m disappointed in his opposition to sensible immigration reform, I hope that if he does get to Washington he’ll bring a revitalized Tea Party message of fiscal responsibility and opposition to big business cronyism.
Today, thousands of drivers of London’s iconic black cabs are taking part in a possibly illegal demonstration in response to how Transport for London (TfL), the city’s transportation agency, is treating Uber. The drivers plan to cause congestion which Kabbee, a mini cab app company, believes will cost the London economy an estimated £125 million. Licensed taxi drivers are also holding protests related to Uber across other European cities today.
The Licensed Taxi Drivers Association (LTDA) believes that Uber, the San Francisco-based transport technology company, is operating illegally in London. Thanks to the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998, it is illegal for a London vehicle with a private hire vehicle license to have a taximeter. Up until yesterday Uber’s website stated that anyone who wanted to be an Uber driver in London must have a private hire vehicle license. Today those requirements remain the same, however in response to the London protest Uber has opened to licensed black cabs.
TfL disagrees with LTDA and believes that the phones used by Uber should not be considered taximeters because they are not physically attached to the vehicle:
Smartphones used by private hire drivers – which act as GPS tracking devices to measure journey distances and relay information so that fares can be calculated remotely from the vehicle – do not constitute the equipping of a vehicle with a taxi meter.
McNamara has used blunt language when discussing Uber and its presence in London:
This is not some philanthropic friendly society, it’s an American monster that has no qualms about breaching any and all laws in the pursuit of profit, most of which will never see a penny of tax paid in the UK.
Becoming a driver of one of London’s black cabs is a long process. In order to be a London black cab driver you need to pass “The Knowledge,” a rigorous test on London’s thousands of streets, roads, and landmarks, which takes years to prepare for. Not only do those hoping to become London cabbies have to spend years studying London, they also have to pay the relevant fees to complete the application process.
Speaking to the BBC, London black cab driver Lloyd Baldwin said:
Our beef with Uber is that these drivers have come straight into London, and have been licensed straight away by Transport for London. We’re regulated to within an inch of our lives.
We don’t do protests willy-nilly for petty things, we feel it’s our only course.
We just want them to be treated exactly the same as we are.
Baldwin’s frustrations make sense in light of the time and money invested into becoming a driver of one of London’s iconic taxis. But, as in other jurisdictions, the answer is not to make new and innovative companies like Uber conform to already out-of-date regulations and legislation, but rather to liberalize the market Uber and London black cabs are competing in. When the Private Hire Vehicles Act was signed in 1998 the iPhone was still nine years away, and “The Knowledge” test, which began almost 150 years ago, predates cell phones (never mind smartphones). Regulations such as the ban on private hire vehicle license holders from having taxi meters are out of date, and it is long past due for them to be repealed in order to allow traditional cabs to compete with companies like Uber.
My Daily Caller op-ed today looks at the website of a typical modern politician, Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY). His site is designed to impress voters and the media in his district with all the federal benefits he has brought home. Maloney is taking a pork and constituent service approach to gaining reelection.
There are other approaches to electoral success. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has a strategy of championing principles and specific issues that broadly resonate. The detail on Paul’s website is much better than most. Under “Issues,” he describes his general approach to each policy topic and discusses his stands on particular bills. Under “Budget” he provides a 106-page plan to cut spending.
Looking at Rep. Eric Cantor’s (R-VA) website, you can see that he followed neither the pork nor the principled approach. If Cantor brought pork home to his district, he does not do a very good job telling people about it.
Regarding big ideas or describing his positions on issues, Cantor’s congressional website is nearly empty. Unlike most members, he does not even have an “Issues” section to explain his approach to tax reform, the budget, economic growth, civil liberties, energy, or other policies. His website is fluff.
Cantor’s primary defeat seems partly due to a lack of trust, meaning that voters in his district did not really know where he stood on issues or how he would vote. His website seems to have reflected his strategy of not taking hard stands and having few guiding principles. In his district, that ended up being a losing strategy.
(As majority leader, Cantor also runs this website. But for all the resources that office must have, this site is also very fluffy).
Andrew J. Coulson
FDA: You know that artisanal cheese you love, that you have to age on wood planks? That’s dangerous and we don’t approve.
Fancy Cheese Lovers: Hey, FDA, these cheese wheels will be your tombstones.
FDA: Oh. What? Did you think we meant we were going to regulate your much loved, centuries-old practices out of existence just because we’re a regulatory agency that stops people from doing things for a living? Of course we’re not doing that… right now… while the media spotlight is so bright it’s hurting our eyes… but you’d better convince us we should allow you to do that anyway.
The latter bit is what has apparently played out this morning, according to Forbes online.
But as Cato’s Walter Olson explains, this apparent victory for sanity and liberty may simply be due to the fact that the usual advocates of regulatory encroachment in every aspect of our lives happened to have been personally inconvenienced this time around, and may have had the subject-area knowledge to realize how ridiculous this encroachment was. So, for once, they pushed back instead of rooting for leviathan.
If so, let’s hope they learn a broader lesson from this experience: maybe other people should also be left to make their own choices in the areas about which they care deeply. Maybe all that stifles is not gold.And if you call Uber or Lyft to pick up your fancy cheese in Virginia, be prepared to get busted…they’re still banned.
Mark A. Calabria
Recently the City of Los Angeles filed suit against JP Morgan Chase. The suit alleges “the bank engaged in discriminatory lending, which the City contends led to a wave of foreclosures that continues to diminish the City’s property tax revenues and increase the need for costly City services.” So the City’s logic basically goes like this: the housing market was humming along just fine, kicking off lots of property tax revenue allowing the City to spend like there’s no tomorrow, then evil JP Morgan comes in and lends to borrowers with the intention of pushing those borrowers into default, which pushed down housing prices, reducing property taxes and causing the city to cut “essential services”.
So let’s start with the facts upon which I assume everyone can agree on. Los Angeles experienced a massive boom in housing prices starting in the late 1990s (see chart below). Rather than see this boom as temporary, the City increased property tax revenues as prices soared. it spent those property tax revenues (have these people never heard of a rainy day fund?). As the boom was building in 2002, according to the Census Bureau Los Angeles collected about $850 million in property tax revenue. At the peak of the market in 2006 Los Angeles was collecting over $1 billion in property tax revenue, an increase of around 17% over four years.
Then the market begins to slow in 2006, prices decline and surprise property revenues decline as well. A central flaw in Los Angeles’ logic is that the inflection point in prices came before that in delinquencies. Put simply, Los Angeles has their causality wrong. Price declines drove foreclosures. Yes, I suspect there was a feedback from foreclosures to prices, but the temporal order of events strongly suggests price declines was the driver here.
Now one could argue that loose lending drove up prices in the first place. But then that would mean that LA owes mortgages lenders for all that extra property tax revenue it collected during the boom. Somehow I suspect they aren’t interested in sharing the up-side of boom/busts, just the downside. And if LA believes that foreclosures drove down prices and hence revenues, why isn’t the city suing all the borrowers who walked away from their homes? After all, under the City’s theory these delinquent borrowers cost the City tax revenues. But since some of these borrowers are voters, I doubt we’ll see any consistency from the City there.
At the end of the day this suit appears little more than cheap pandering meant to distract from the dysfunctional governance of Los Angeles. If mortgage lenders had any sense they’d just cut off lending to LA altogether, but then they’d probably get suited by DOJ for discriminating. Can’t win either way.
Steve H. Hanke
In my misery index, I calculate a ranking for all countries where suitable data from the Economist Intelligence Unit exist. My misery index — a simple sum of inflation, lending rates, and unemployment rates, minus year-on-year per capita GDP growth — is used to construct a ranking for 89 countries. The table below is a sub-index of all Latin American countries presented in the world misery index.
A higher score in the misery index means that the country, and its constituents, are more miserable. Indeed, this is a table where you do not want to be first.
Venezuela and Argentina, armed with aggressive socialist policies, end up the most miserable in the region. On the other hand, Panama, El Salvador, and Ecuador score the best on the misery index for Latin America. Panama, with roughly one tenth the misery index score of Venezuela, has used the USD as legal tender since 1904. Ecuador and El Salvador are also both dollarized (Ecuador since 2000 and El Salvador since 2001) – they use the greenback, and it is clear that the embrace of the USD trumps all other economic policies.
The lesson to be learned is clear: the tactics which socialist governments like Venezuela and Argentina employ yield miserable results, whereas dollarization is associated with less misery.
Andrew J. Coulson
A superior court judge has ruled in Vergara v. California that the state’s laws regulating tenure, dismissals, and last-in-first-out layoffs are all unconstitutional. The judge ruled that these laws impede administrators’ efforts to improve the quality of the teaching workforce, and that the harm falls disproportionately on poor, minority students. Naturally, the reformers who brought and supported the suit are elated.
The decision will almost certainly be appealed, but even if it is upheld it seems to me unlikely to accomplish as much as its supporters hope. I wrote about the reasons why in a piece earlier this year, concluding that:
Lawsuits can redress specific legal wrongs, like compelled segregation, but they can’t produce educational outcomes that require the coordination and relentless dedication of thousands or even millions of people, year after year.
For those who really want to maximize the quality of education offered to disadvantaged and minority students—indeed to all students—the best hope is to study the different sorts of education systems that have been tried around the world and across history, and then ensure universal access to the best among them: a free educational marketplace.
If you want people to relentlessly search for better and more efficient ways to serve families, you have to give them the freedom, the encouragement, and the incentives to do so. Liberate, respect, and reward education entrepreneurs, and they will strive to the utmost to better educate your children. Don’t, and they won’t.
At Susquenita Middle School in Duncannon, Pa., a community 20 minutes north of Harrisburg, an eighth-grader chose to skip the National Junior Honor Society this year, reports Eric Veronikis at PennLive:
Leila May was drug-tested once during her fifth grade year, once in sixth grade and three times as a seventh grader because Susquenita School District randomly tests students in grades five through 12 who participate in extracurricular activities and apply for parking permits.
She always tested negative but her parents have tired of the intrusion and embarrassment and her mother Melinda says they’re weren’t willing to sign another consent form. “It’s sad that this is what we had to resort to. It’s ridiculous.”
Twelve years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Board of Education v. Earls (2002) that schools generally have discretion to impose drug testing on participants in extracurricular activities even without particularized suspicion, on the grounds that such activities are voluntary. It declined to follow an amicus brief in which the Cato Institute and other groups had argued that random suspicionless searches in this instance amount a Fourth Amendment violation, and pointed out that kids who join academic honors groups appear less prone to engage in drug abuse than their peers, not more. Instead the Court extended the reach of a 1995 precedent, Vernonia School Dist. v. Acton, which had approved a similar regime for high school athletes.
Even if the courts will not restrain the Susquenita district, common sense should. Stop the madness and let kids be kids.
K. William Watson
Up till now, the biggest concern of European cheesemakers in the U.S. markets has been to establish “geographic indicators” that would keep American companies from using names like gorgonzola, feta, or parmesan. But does it matter what the product is called if no one is allowed to eat it? A recent decision by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ban cheese aged on wooden boards could potentially shut out the bulk of imports from Europe.
The FDA’s recent move seems to be part of a bizarre crusade to ban flavorful cheese. Last year the FDA targeted mimolette cheese, inspiring informative commentary and a video by my Cato colleagues. The stated reason for the ban was that mimolette rinds might contain trace amounts of cheese mites, a harmless critter essential to the creation of certain cheese flavors.
Now the FDA has gone full throttle and banned all cheese aged on wood. According to the agency:
“The porous structure of wood enables it to absorb and retain bacteria, therefore bacteria generally colonize not only the surface but also the inside layers of wood. The shelves or boards used for aging make direct contact with finished products; hence they could be a potential source of pathogenic microorganisms in the finished products.”
Does placing food on wood really make it too dangerous for humans to eat?
While this is certainly a problem for artisanal cheese makers in the United States, it could have serious implications for cheese imports from Europe. According to the Cheese Underground blog, most cheeses imported into the United States are aged on wood.
Businesses in the United States often complain that European regulators are overly cautious when it comes to permitting new methods of producing food products with genetic modification or growth hormones. The most common complaint is that European regulations are based on irrational fear of new things and not based on hard science. Practices that are common in the United States are outlawed in Europe, preventing U.S. producers from selling their products overseas.
The FDA, apparently, is interested in eradicating the more traditional methods. Can “science” truly justify the criminalization of patently safe production techniques intentionally employed to improve product quality.
Regulatory differences are the most salient issue being addressed in ongoing negotiations toward a free trade agreement between the United States and the European Union. As U.S. negotiators push Europeans to adopt a more scientific approach to regulation, perhaps the EU negotiators should demand a bit more common sense.
A favorite refrain of Common Core advocates is that their opponents are peddling “misinformation.” Well Core fans are quite adept at doing the same thing, and as a new Washington Post article reinforces, no case of this is more egregious than pretending that Core adoption was supposed to be “state-led” and “voluntary,” and federal coercion was just unwanted Obama administration interference. That is simply not true: Core crusaders wanted federal involvement from before the Common Core was even given its name.
On numerous occasions I have cited the 2008 report Benchmarking for Success, from the Core-creating National Governors Association and Council of Chief State School Officers, as indisputable evidence that Core supporters wanted federal pressure to push state adoption of common, internationally benchmarked standards. That report – written before there was an Obama administration – says explicitly that Washington should “offer funds” and provide “tiered incentives” to push states onto common standards. It was a call reiterated on the website of the Common Core State Standards Initiative, though it was eventually removed.
Despite this crystal clear evidence, Core defenders have continued to imply that federal intervention has all been the unwanted, unappreciated pushiness of President Obama. Indeed, just last Friday, Michael Petrilli of the Core-supporting Thomas B. Fordham Foundation said it again in a discussion with AEI’s Mike McShane. Go to the 28:50 mark to hear Petrilli say, “I think many of us could make the argument that this whole thing would have played out very differently if the Obama administration had just stayed out of it.” And Petrilli is not alone in suggesting that the Core initiative was always supposed to be fed-free. Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin (R), signing a bill removing her state from the Core last week, implied the same thing, saying:
Unfortunately, federal overreach has tainted Common Core. President Obama and Washington bureaucrats have usurped Common Core in an attempt to influence state education standards. The results are predictable. What should have been a bipartisan policy is now widely regarded as the president’s plan to establish federal control of curricula, testing and teaching strategies.
Obviously, based on Benchmarking for Success alone, this is utterly misleading. But what the Washington Post has now reported, in a piece largely about the role of Bill Gates in pushing the Core, is that Core supporters not only suggested that there be federal incentives, they worked with the Obama administration to get them:
Duncan and his team leveraged stimulus money to reward states that adopted common standards.
They created Race to the Top, a $4.3 billion contest for education grants. Under the contest rules, states that adopted high standards stood the best chance of winning. It was a clever way around federal laws that prohibit Washington from interfering in what takes place in classrooms. It was also a tantalizing incentive for cash-strapped states.
Heading the effort for Duncan was Joanne Weiss, previously the chief operating officer of the Gates-backed NewSchools Venture Fund.
As Race to the Top was being drafted, the administration and the Gates-led effort were in close coordination.
Note that the article goes on to say that an early draft of RTTT mentioned the Core by name, but supporters objected that that would be too much for some states to handle. Instead, in contrast to what the article suggests, to be fully competitive for grants the regulations required adoption of standards common to a “majority” of states – not just “high” standards – a parameter that only included Common Core.
Now, I don’t think this will happen, but at this point it would at least clear the air for Core supporters to openly admit that they always wanted to employ federal pressure, and gladly worked with President Obama to get it. At the very least, it would make their own accusations of “misinformation” a little more tolerable.
Today Cato Senior Fellow Nat Hentoff is 89! Happy Birthday Nat!
Check out the documentary film on his civil liberties work and writings on jazz, The Pleasures of Being Out of Step.
Here is the trailer:THE PLEASURES OF BEING OUT OF STEP - Official Trailer
Today must be student loan day in President Obama’s “year of action” – also “year of midterm elections” – as the President announced he will expand eligibility for student loan repayment capping and forgiveness. In addition, this week the Senate is set to take up Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) bill to federally refinance student loans at lower interest rates, including truly private loans.
Let’s review the folly of such seemingly well-intentioned efforts:
- Making student loans cheaper, which includes indicating that Washington will always soften your loan terms if politically possible, mainly encourages students to demand more stuff, and colleges to charge more. They’re called “perverse incentives.”
- In the name of helping them, federal politicians, and many other people, massively oversell higher education to the detriment of students. Perhaps as much as half of people who enter college don’t finish; a third of people with a bachelor’s degree are in jobs not requiring the credential; underemployment is even worse for graduate-degree holders, and; cheap college has almost certainly fueled credential inflation, not major increases in knowledge or skills.
- Decreasing what borrowers will repay means taxpayers – who had no choice in whether the loans were made – have to make up the difference. And there is a little matter of being nearly $18 trillion in debt already.
- The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program encourages people to work for not-for-profit entities, especially government. As if government work were a major sacrifice, and things produced or operated for profit such as iPads, grocery stores, bicycles, door knobs, restaurants, books, airplanes, and on and on, didn’t make us better off.
Someday, I hope somebody’s “year of action” will finally deal with the crippling reality of federal student aid “help.” But that will only happen if the public gets tired of sweet-sounding “solutions,” especially in years of elections.
Marian L. Tupy
The American citizenry is already used to our progressive friends taxing the hell out of everything they don’t like: smoking, drinking, fatty foods, etc. But now, apparently, the hyper-progressive and very cash-strapped D.C. Council is seriously considering slapping a 5.75 percent tax on health club memberships. That is riveting stuff, considering how many progressives out there are urging the unwashed masses rest of us to eat our broccoli and get on that treadmill.
The nation’s capital is, of course, a temporary home to that most progressive and fittest of couples: POTUS and FLOTUS. There is a government website with a catchy name “Let’s move.” It features many a picture of our First Lady in a variety of physical activities. What fun!
Not to be outdone, the Exerciser in Chief can take pride in “The President’s Challenge,” which is “the premier program of the President’s Council on Fitness, Sports, and Nutrition.” The President’s Challenge, its website tells us, “helps people of all ages and abilities increase their physical activity and improve their fitness through research-based information, easy-to-use tools, and friendly motivation.”
The former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher used to say that “the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” And so it is with the D.C. council, which in its perpetual quest for more revenue might very well end up discouraging behavior that progressives claim to want to encourage.
Welcome to Absurdistan on the Potomac!