Juan Carlos Hidalgo
Nick Miroff of the Washington Post rightly credits Chile’s free-market system for the country’s stability, low unemployment and corruption, and for producing Latin America’s wealthiest society. But he also states that this economic model “has given Chile some of the highest levels of inequality in the developed world.” Thus, he adopts the narrative of the Chilean left that blames free markets for producing social inequality and argues that the model needs fixing through higher taxation and government intervention in the economy. Four points need clarification:
First, high levels of inequality existed in Chile prior to the implementation of the free market reforms that began in 1975. A recent book by economist Claudio Sapelli of the Catholic University shows that Chile’s Gini index coefficient* was higher in 1970 than what it is today (see graph below). Inequality dropped significantly between 1970 and 1975 as everyone became poorer (the average annual inflation rate in that period was 124.2% and by 1975 over 50% of Chileans lived below the poverty line). Inequality rose again in the second half of the 1970s as the economy recovered and people’s incomes began growing at different paces. As Luis Larraín of Chile’s Libertad y Desarrollo institute points out in a recent book, “It is a well-known fact that fast-paced processes of growth, in the early stages of development, create a worse distribution of income, as the example of China shows today”.
Source: Claudio Sapelli, Chile: ¿Más Equitativo?, Ediciones Universidad Católica de Chile, 2011.
Second, inequality is decreasing in the Andean nation. Income disparity reached a zenith in the late 1980s and has decreased since then. Data from the UN Commission for Latin American and the Caribbean (ECLAC) shows that in 1990 Chile had a Gini index coefficient of 0.55 while in 2011 (latest year available) it was 0.51. In the last two decades of the free-market system, inequality has actually come down somewhat. Interestingly, Chile has less inequality than Brazil, but not many people blame the latter’s income disparities on its bloated big government development model.
Third, inequality in Chile will continue to go down since income distribution significantly improves among the young. Sapelli shows that Chile’s Gini index coefficient goes down with age (see graph below) as more Chileans, especially younger generations, have access to health care and education (which, as Miroff notes, are highly privatized). For example, the percentage of people aged 25-64 who have received high school education in Chile is 68%, lower than the OECD average of 71%. But when he looks at the generation aged 25-34, he notes that the rate goes up to 85%, not only higher than the OECD average of 80%, but also superior to the rates of the Netherlands, Norway and Australia. Today, 1.1 million students are enrolled in higher education (45% coverage) compared to just 200,000 in 1990. Over 70% of these students are the first generation in their families to receive higher education.
Source: Sapelli, 2011.
Fourth, some of the policies announced by the newly inaugurated president Michelle Bachelet, supposedly aimed at rescuing Chilean capitalism “from its excesses” (as Miroff puts it), would actually benefit the richest segments of society. A study by the Libertad y Desarrollo institute found that if higher education were “free” in Chile (and by “free” read “paid by taxpayers”), 41% of the resources would go to finance the education of the richest 20%, and only 9% would go to the poorest 20%. As Miami Herald columnist Andrés Oppenheimer has repeatedly documented, “free” higher education in Latin America disproportionately benefits the well-off (and adversely affects the quality of the education).
The reasons behind Chile’s left-turn have been explained elsewhere. But for the sake of Latin America’s most prominent success story, and the example it provides to the rest of the region, it’s important to tackle the myth propagated by the left that Chile’s free-market system is something that needs a radical fix through higher taxes and government intervention.
*In the Gini Index, zero implies perfect equality, while one represents perfect inequality.
Andrew J. Coulson
The U.S. Department of Education has just released 2013 results for the National Assessment of Educational Progress—aka, “The Nation’s Report Card.” The scores are for 12th grade reading and mathematics, and neither has changed since the last time they were administered a few years ago. But of course what we really want to know is how well students are performing today compared to those of a generation or two ago. That would tell us if our education system were improving, staying the same, or declining in performance.
The trouble is, “The Nation’s Report Card” doesn’t go back very far. The reading results reach back to 1992 (since which time, there has been a slight but statistically significant decline), but the math results only reach back to 2005 (since which time, there’s been a slight but statistically significant increase). It’s just not that long of a time period to assess trends.
Wouldn’t it be great if there were a different set of NAEP tests, called the “Long Term Trends” series, that reached back all the way to the early 1970s! And wouldn’t it be even better if we could find out how much we’ve spent per pupil over that same time period, so that we could figure out if our schools are getting more or less efficient with our dollars? Well, what do you know, there is, and we can!
But here’s the thing. Some people look at that national trend chart and think: but my state is doing much better than that! Is it? Is it really? I decided to find out, for all fifty states. The result is my recent, mysteriously-titled paper: State Education Trends. Drop by and check out how your state has done over the past 40 years.
[Note to readers: The state charts look at changes in annual per pupil spending over time, whereas the national chart above looks at the change over time in the total cost of a full K-through-12 education, so the spending trend lines are not directly comparable].
In a huge victory for the First Amendment, a Wisconsin federal judge has ordered a halt to a wide-ranging secret prosecutorial probe aimed at groups supporting Gov. Scott Walker. From pp. 1-2 of the court opinion (which is short enough to read, here): “Defendants instigated a secret John Doe investigation replete with armed raids on homes to collect evidence that would support their criminal prosecution.” Judge Rudolph Randa goes on to cite stunningly abusive conduct by the secret prosecutors and law enforcers under their command. (This article has more on Wisconsin’s distinctively broad law allowing so-called John Doe proceedings intended to determine whether a crime has been committed.)
“The subpoenas’ list of advocacy groups indicates that all or nearly all right-of-center groups and individuals in Wisconsin who engaged in issue advocacy from 2010 to the present are targets of the investigation,” the judge writes. At the homes of targets across the state in the predawn hours of Oct. 3, 2013, “Sheriff deputy vehicles used bright floodlights to illuminate the targets’ homes. Deputies executed the search warrants, seizing business papers, computer equipment, phones, and other devices, while their targets were restrained under police supervision and denied the ability to contact their attorneys.” Target groups were also ordered to turn over essentially their entire records of public advocacy activity over a period of years.
I covered the probe and raids earlier at Overlawyered here, here, and most recently here. One of the most remarkable and harsh aspects of the raids was that they included gag orders forbidding the targets to talk about the episode with anyone other than their lawyers. That is one reason the story seeped out to the public only slowly and partially over a period of months. The Wall Street Journal editorial page helped bring the raids to national attention a month and a half after they took place, and has continued to follow the story since.
The citizens of Wisconsin must now demand a full accounting of how these raids could have happened. They should also insist on changes in state law, in particular the “John Doe” law, aimed at ensuring that nothing like them ever happens again.
In order to govern the sprawling reach of the U.S. administrative state—its countless agencies, bureaucracies, departments, and other regulatory bodies—our courts have come to rely greatly on what is called Chevron analysis. Taking its name from the 1984 Supreme Court case in which it was pronounced, Chevron v. National Resources Defense Council, this doctrine advises when and to what extent courts are to defer to agency actions.Since agencies can only exercise the legislative powers granted to them by Congress, Chevron counsels that where Congress has spoken clearly on an issue, the statutory text controls, but where Congress is ambiguous or silent, the agency is permitted to fill the gap with its own rules and decisions. Naturally then, agencies that want more rulemaking power than has been “clearly” granted to them by Congress—so, all of them—find ways to invent ambiguity. In a recent ruling, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit appears to be trying to help them. Here’s the case: Seeing that the IRS’s definition of “taxable compensation” differed from Congress’s, BNSF Railway sought a refund of overpaid taxes on certain elements of its employee compensation plans—and won on all counts before the district court. On appeal, however, a Fifth Circuit panel reversed, employing the “dictionary rule”—a truncated version of the full, traditional statutory analysis typically required, and an approach that has already been rejected by an en banc (full) Fifth Circuit. This short analysis skips the important, rigorous examination into whether Congress has spoken on the issue (an examination required by Chevron) and looks merely to see if the word can have more than one dictionary meaning. As tends to be much more likely with this type of scant analysis, the Fifth Circuit panel found that Congress was ambiguous, which in turn allowed the IRS’s discretionary definition to prevail. BNSF has now filed for a rehearing of the case before the en banc Fifth Circuit. Cato has filed a brief supporting this request, joined by tax law expert Patrick J. Smith and administrative law professors Michael Moreland, Jeffrey Pojanowski, and Nathan Sales. As the administrative state continues its unending spew of rules and regulations, the role of the courts as a gatekeeper of administrative authority becomes increasingly vital to maintaining any kind of sanity. That role requires courts to apply Chevron diligently and not to skimp on the considerable duty of determining where Congress’s authority ends and the domain of unelected bureaucrats begins. By failing to make a rigorous examination, the Fifth Circuit panel adopted an approach that, if allowed to gain a foothold, could threaten a (further) massive shift of governing power away from our elected Congress to a faceless, hardly accountable bureaucracy. In our brief, we urge the Fifth Circuit to send the message that it takes Chevron and its job of checking agency authority seriously by rehearing the case and reversing the panel decision. The Fifth Circuit will be deciding later this spring whether to take up BNSF Railway Co. v. United States. If it doesn’t, the next step is a petition to the Supreme Court. This blogpost was coauthored by Cato legal associate Julio Colomba.
Juan Carlos Hidalgo
Panamanians voted on Sunday against the efforts of their president, Ricardo Martinelli, to stay in power even though he was constitutionally barred from seeking reelection. It’s not an overstatement to say that in doing so, Panama overcame the greatest challenge in it’s 25 year-old democracy.
For several years Martinelli looked for a way to get rid of the constitutional ban on reelection. He couldn’t do it through a constitutional amendment since the vote of two separate legislatures is required to change the Constitution. And since polls consistently showed that public opinion was firmly against the idea of introducing consecutive presidential reelection, a referendum was also out of the question. Thus, Martinelli tried to pack the Supreme Court with three new justices. The idea was that a friendly Supreme Court would rule that the ban on reelection was unconstitutional (as occurred in the case of Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua). However, Panamanians took to the streets and Martinelli backtracked. Then he opted for a less overt strategy: supporting a successor and appointing his wife as his vice-presidential candidate. As Mary O’Grady of the Wall Street Journal pointed out [$], Martinelli moved his queen to stay in power.
Despite a legal prohibition to do so, Martinelli actively campaigned for his candidate José Domingo Arias and his wife, while viciously attacking their rivals. His government spent millions of dollars in publicity and the president toured the country giving away goodies such as digital TV boxes and inaugurating infrastructure projects (he ordered that the new metro in Panama City not charge a fee until after the election). It is ironic that while Panama has been the most outspoken critic of Venezuela in Latin America, Martinelli’s government engaged in similar electoral tactics as those of Chavismo.
Fortunately, it didn’t work. Juan Carlos Varela, who is Martinelli’s vice-president turned bitter rival, handily defeated Arias by 39.1% versus 31.7%. Panama City’s former mayor, Juan Carlos Navarro, came in third with 27.9%. Even though Martinelli accepted his candidate’s defeat, he didn’t call Varela on Sunday to congratulate him, claiming he had lost his phone number. That doesn’t bode well for a smooth transition. Martinelli is well-known for holding bitter grudges. After splitting with Varela, the National Assembly he controls voted to increase taxes on liquor sales to fund a subsidy for elderly people. As it happens, Varela’s family owns a rum-distillery.
One of the areas where Varela could find a nasty surprise is in public finances. Total government debt (in absolute terms) has increased by 70% during Martinelli’s watch and it wouldn’t be too surprising if the incoming administration finds that the fiscal figures have been doctored to make them look less grave. The Martinelli administration has already engaged in accounting tricks such as postponing payments, relying on turnkey projects to build infrastructure, and taking public enterprises off the books to feign a lower fiscal deficit.
The high levels of government spending have been masked by the fact that the economy grew at an annual average rate of 8% for the last 5 years. While the economy was growing at such a high pace, the fiscal deficit and the public debt (as a percentage of GDP) seemed under control. However, now that the economy is decelerating, the fiscal iceberg is becoming more apparent: the central government deficit was 4.4% of GDP last year. And, after years of declining thanks to high growth rates, total public debt as a percentage of GDP (39% by the end of 2013) is expected to start rising again in 2014.
Varela will also have to deal with the cronies that Martinelli placed in several key posts such as the Comptroller General, the Attorney General and the head of a recently created tax authority with vast powers. Varela will also face a National Assembly with a majority that belongs to Martinelli’s party.
If Panamanians want to avoid having a president with authoritarian leanings, they should look at amending the Constitution (but not holding a Constituent Assembly as some propose) so the executive doesn’t enjoy so much power in appointing key officials in the government. For example, the next president will be able to appoint four Supreme Court Justices (out of nine), one Electoral Court Justice, and six board members to the Canal Authority (out of eleven), among others. It’s too much power to place in a single person. The constitutional reform should also grant greater independence to the Judiciary.
Panamanians dodged a bullet on Sunday. But their ability to do so in the future depends on restructuring their institutions in order to have a weaker president and a stronger republic.
Steve H. Hanke
On May 21, 2014, Leszek Balcerowicz will receive the 2014 Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty during a dinner at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York. The prestigious annual award by the Cato Institute carries with it a well-deserved check for $250,000.
For those who might have forgotten the accomplishments of my long-time friend, allow me to suggest that, in Balcerowicz’s case, a picture is literally worth a thousand words.
But, before the picture, a little background.
In 1989, Balcerowicz became Poland’s Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister in Eastern Europe’s first non-communist government since World War II. Balcerowicz held these positions from 1989 through 1991, and again from 1997 through 2000. Subsequently, in 2001, he became the Chairman of the National Bank of Poland, a post he held until January 2007.
A student of the “Five P’s”: prior preparation prevents poor performance; Balcerowicz was ready when he first took office in 1989. Indeed, he pulled his comprehensive economic game plan to liberalize and transform the Polish economy out of his desk drawer and proceeded to implement what became known as the “Big Bang”. As they say, the rest is history.
The results of the “Big Bang” speak for themselves in the accompanying chart. Poland’s economy has more than doubled since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1992, growing at an average annual rate of 4.42%.
What about neighboring Ukraine? The contrast with Balcerowicz’s Poland couldn’t be starker. As Oleh Havrylyshyn, the former deputy finance minister of Ukraine, spells out in his classic book – Divergent Paths in Post-Communist Transformation: Capitalism for All or Capitalism for the Few – Ukraine rejected the Big Bang, free-market approach to reform. In consequence, it has taken a road to nowhere, remaining in the shadow of a corrupt communist system.
Unlike Poland’s prosperity, Ukraine has witnessed a post-Soviet contraction in its economy. Yes, the Ukrainian economy has been contracting at a real annual rate of almost 1% since the fall of the Soviet Union. Accordingly, it is smaller today in real terms than it was in 1992.
Many think the International Monetary Fund, which just ponied up $17 billion for Ukraine, will turn things around. Don’t hold your breath. Over the years, the IMF has dispensed its medicine and money in Ukraine with negative results.
When it comes to much-needed liberal economic reforms, one has to do something big; something that captures the public’s imagination and garners wide support. Unfortunately, Ukraine lacks a clear economic game plan – one with wide popular support.
There are plenty of reasons to support the Second Amendment’s guarantee of our right to bear arms, but an expectation of being the victim of society-collapsing chemical warfare shouldn’t be one of them. Wayne LaPierre, CEO and executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, recently said at the organization’s annual meeting:
“We know, in the world that surrounds us, there are terrorists, home invaders, drug cartels, carjackers, “knock-out game”-ers, rapers [sic], haters, campus killers, airport killers, shopping mall killers, and killers who scheme to destroy our country with massive storms of violence against our power grids or vicious waves of chemicals or disease that could collapse the society that sustains us all.”
People tend to overestimate their vulnerability because politicians, reporters, and interested individuals like LaPierre stand to gain from such misperceptions. My colleague John Mueller reported that as recently as late 2011, 75 percent of Americans polled believe that another terrorist attack causing large numbers of American lives to be lost in the near future is somewhat or very likely. The reality is much tamer: outside of war zones, Islamist terrorism claims about 200 to 400 lives each year worldwide. And the United States is less violent now than it has been in years. In the short 35 years between 1973 and 2008, murder dropped by over 40 percent. Rape dropped by 80 percent over the same period.
The mismatch between perceived vulnerability to violence and reality is one of several public misconceptions that the website HumanProgress.org hopes to amend. This is not to say that the right to self defense is superfluous—quite to the contrary, it is fundamental and firearm ownership is an important component of securing that right. That alone is justification for the right to defensive weapons. But there is no need to exaggerate dangers such as probable and imminent threats from terrorists and psychopaths.
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.”
The Obama Administration this week is set to release the latest version of the National Climate Assessment—a report which is supposed to detail the potential impacts that climate change will have on the United States. The report overly focuses on the supposed negative impacts from climate change while largely dismissing or ignoring the positives from climate change.
The bias in the National Climate Assessment (NCA) towards pessimism (which we have previously detailed here) has implications throughout the federal regulatory process because the NCA is cited (either directly or indirectly) as a primary source for the science of climate change for justifying federal regulation aimed towards mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. Since the NCA gets it wrong, so does everyone else.
A good example of this can be found in how climate change is effecting the human response during heat waves. The NCA foresees an increasing frequency and magnitude of heat waves leading to growing numbers of heat-related deaths. The leading science suggests just the opposite.
Case and point. Last week, we had an article published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Nature Climate Change that showed how the impacts of extreme heat are often overplayed while the impacts of adaptation to the heat are underplayed. And a new paper has just been published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives that finds that the risk of dying from heat waves in the U.S. has been on the decline for the past several decades.
By now, this should be rather unsurprising as it has been demonstrated over and over again. Not only in the U.S. but in Europe (and yes, Stockholm) and other major global cities as well.
The idea that human-caused global warming is going to increase heat-related mortality is simply outdated and wrong. In fact, the opposite is more likely the case—that is, a warming climate will decrease the population’s sensitivity to heat events as it induces adaptation. We described it this way in our Nature Climate Change piece:
Some portion of this response [the decline in the risk of dying from heat waves] probably reflects the temporal increase in the frequency of extreme-heat events, an increase that elevates public consciousness and spurs adaptive response. In this manner, climate change itself leads to adaptation.
…Our analysis highlights one of the many often overlooked intricacies of the human response to climate change.
But this information often falls on deaf ears—especially those ears responsible for developing the NCA.
Here is what the Executive Summary of the draft version had to say about heat-related mortality:
Climate change will influence human health in many ways; some existing health threats will intensify, and new health threats will emerge. Some of the key drivers of health impacts include: increasingly frequent and intense extreme heat, which causes heat-related illnesses and deaths and over time, worsens drought and wildfire risks, and intensifies air pollution.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency takes the same outlook (of course since it is based heavily on the National Climate Assessment). The EPA leaned heavily on heat-related mortality as one the “threats” to public health and welfare in its justification for pursuing greenhouse gas emissions restrictions. From the EPA’s Technical Support Document for its greenhouse gas “Endangerment Finding”:
Severe heat waves are projected to intensify in magnitude and duration over the portions of the United States where these events already occur, with potential increases in mortality and morbidity, especially among the elderly, young, and frail. [emphasis in original]
Now compare the Administration’s take with the latest findings on the trend in heat-related mortality across the United States as published by a research team led by Harvard School of Public Health’s Jennifer Bobb. Bobb and colleagues found that the risk of dying from excessive heat events was declining across the U.S. And further, that most of the overall decline was coming from declines in the sensitivity to extreme heat shown by the elderly population (75 and older). In fact, the Bobb team found that the risk in the older population has dropped so far that it is now indistinguishable from the risk to the younger populations. Adaptation is a beautiful thing!
From Bobb et al.:
While heat-related mortality risk for the ≥75 age group was greater than for the <65 group at the beginning of the study period, by 2005 they had converged to similar levels.
In other words, all the EPA’s talk about an increasing threat from heat waves and a growing elderly population combining to negatively impact the public health and welfare has been wrong up to now and almost assuredly will be so into the future as we continually look for ways to avoid dying avoidable deaths (e.g., those from heat waves).
Bobb and colleagues summarize this way:
This study provides strong evidence that acute (e.g., same-day) heat-related mortality risk has declined over time in the US, even in more recent years. This evidence complements findings from US studies using earlier data from the 1960s through mid-1990s on community-specific mortality rates (Davis et al. 2003a; Davis et al. 2003b), as well as European studies that found temporal declines in heat-related mortality risk (Carson et al. 2006; Donaldson et al. 2003; Kysely and Plavcova 2011; Schifano et al. 2012), and supports the hypothesis that the population is continually adapting to heat.
As a note, we (Knappenberger and Michaels) were co-authors on the two Davis et al. studies cited in the above paragraph. Our work, first published more than a decade ago, was some of the first research into the declining trends in heat-related mortality across the U.S.
Clearly we have been saying all this stuff for a long time and even more clearly, the federal government hasn’t been listening for a long time. It is not what they want to hear.
Bobb, J.F., R.D. Peng, M.L. Bell, and F. Dominici, 2014. Heat-related mortality and adaptation in the United States, Environmental Health Perspectives, http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1307392
Davis, R.E., P.C. Knappenbergre, P.J. Michaels, and W.M. Novicoff, 2003a, Changing heat-related mortality in the United States. Environmental Health Perspectives, 111, 1712–1718.
Davis, R.E., P.C. Knappenbergre, P.J. Michaels, and W.M. Novicoff, 2003b, Decadal changes in summer mortality in U.S. cities. International Journal of Biometeorology, 47, 166–75.
Knappenberger, P.C., P.J. Michaels, and A.W. Watts, 2014. Adaptation to extreme heat in Stockholm County, Sweden. Nature Climate Change, 4, 302-303.
This is a difficult question to answer. As Matt Graham at the Bipartisan Policy Center has pointed out, the rate of internal removals as a percentage of all Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) removals has declined during the Obama Presidency. But this, in and of itself, doesn’t tell us much about the long run trends of internal enforcement. We need data from the past that we can compare President Obama’s immigration enforcement record to. We only have the rate of internal deportations for the last year of the Bush Administration. Cato has filed a FOIA to find out if the government kept statistics on internal versus border removals prior to 2008 but I’ve heard the data wasn’t kept.
Let’s assume that 63.6 percent of all ICE removals were internal from 2001 to 2007. I chose 63.6 percent because that was ICE’s internal removal rates in the year 2008 – the first year when that statistic is available. That means that the number of internal removals under the Bush administration was about 1.25 million. From 2009-2013, the Obama administration’s has removed just over 1 million from the interior of the United States. Of course, Bush had three more years to deport unauthorized immigrants. 660,000 people were removed from the interior of the United States during the first five years of the Bush administration.
Source: Department of Homeland Security, BPC, Author’s Calculations.
President Bush removed an average of about 250,000 unauthorized immigrants a year, an average of 160,000 of them annually were interior removals. President Obama has removed an average of 390,000 unauthorized immigrants a year, an average of 200,000 of them annually were interior removals.
Source: Department of Homeland Security, BPS, Author’s Calculations.
As I’ve written before, the best way to measure the intensity of immigration enforcement is to look at the percentage of the unauthorized immigrant population deported in each year.
Source: Department of Homeland Security, BPC, Pew, Author’s Calculations.
I focus on the internal removal figures as a percentage of the estimated unauthorized immigrant population and assume that the internal removal rate of 63.6 percent prevailed throughout the Bush administration. If that interior enforcement rate was steady, then the Bush administration deported an average of 1.43 percent of the interior unauthorized immigrant population every year of his presidency. President Obama’s administration has deported an average of 1.75 percent of the interior unauthorized immigrant population every year of his presidency. Even when focusing on interior removals, President Obama is still out-deporting President Bush - so far.
The Obama interior removal statistics certainly show a downward trend – especially in 2012 and 2013. However, the Obama administration has not gutted or radically reduced internal immigration enforcement no matter how you dice the numbers.
While the media attention will focus on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Town of Greece v. Galloway – the legislative-prayer case – the more interesting (and consequential) decision issued today was the Court’s denial of review in Drake v. Jerejian, the Second Amendment case I previously discussed here. In Drake, the lower federal courts upheld an outrageous New Jersey law that denies the right to bear arms outside the home for self-defense – just like the D.C. law at issue in District of Columbia v. Heller denied the right to keep arms inside the home – and today the Supreme Court let them get away with it.
Drake is but the latest in a series of cases that challenge the most restrictive state laws regarding the right to armed self-defense. Although the Supreme Court in Heller declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual constitutional right, lower federal courts with jurisdiction over states like Maryland and New York have been “willfully confused” about the scope of that right, declining to protect it outside Heller’s particular facts (a complete ban on functional firearms in the home). It’s as if the Supreme Court announced that the First Amendment protects an individual right to blog about politics from your home computer, but then some lower courts allowed states to ban political blogging from your local Starbucks.
Yet each time, the Supreme Court has denied review.
New Jersey’s is perhaps the most egregious restriction. In the Garden State, local law enforcement officials have full discretion to grant or deny a license to carry a firearm, which they “may issue” only if the applicant can prove a “justifiable need” (which in practice means a specific, immediate threat to one’s safety that can’t be avoided in any way other than through possession of a handgun). Then, even if a local police chief approves a carry permit, the application goes to a judge for a hearing, during which the local prosecutor can oppose the permit. And even if the would-be gun-owner can successfully run that gauntlet, she gets a permit for two years, at which point she must repeat the entire process.
The “dual review” by two different branches of goverment is unusually burdensome, to say the least, and distinguishes New Jersey’s approach – in addition to the extreme definition of “justifiable need” – from every other permitting regime in the country. Can you imagine the exercise of any other constitutional right being handled this way?
The effect of this regulatory scheme is that virtually nobody in New Jersey can use a handgun to defend themselves outside their home. The state law inverts how fundamental rights are supposed to work – that the government must justify restrictions, not the right-holder the exercise – and apparently the Supreme Court has no problem with that.
The lower court in Drake applied a deferential review far from the heightened scrutiny normally due an individual right enshrined in the Bill of Rights. It also assumed the legislature’s good faith without requiring the state to show any evidence that a prohibitive-carry regime lowers the rate of gun crime, and excused what constitutional infringements the law causes because legislators acted before Heller clarified that the Second Amendment protected an individual right. To continue my previous analogy, it’s like a state law banning political blogging survived judicial review because the definitive Supreme Court ruling finding an individual right to political blogging didn’t come down till after the state law was enacted.
What kind of a bizarro world are we living in where this is ok?
In Cato’s amicus brief in Drake, we posed an alternate “question presented” (legalese for the issue that a brief asks a court to resolve):
Was this Court serious in District of Columbia v. Heller when it ruled that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms?
Today we learn that the answer, unfortunately, is no.
Daniel J. Mitchell
Which nation is richer, Belarus or Luxembourg?
If you look at total economic output, you might be tempted to say Belarus. The GDP of Belarus, after all, is almost $72 billion while Luxembourg’s GDP is less than $60 billion.
But that would be a preposterous answer since there are about 9.5 million people in Belarus compared to only about 540,000 folks in Luxembourg.
It should be obvious that what matters is per-capita GDP, and the residents of Luxembourg unambiguously enjoy far higher living standards than their cousins in Belarus.
This seems like an elementary point, but it has to be made because there have been a bunch of misleading stories about China “overtaking” the United States in economic output. Look, for instance, at these excerpts from a Bloomberg report.
China is poised to overtake the U.S. as the world’s biggest economy earlier than expected, possibly as soon as this year… The latest tally adds to the debate on how the world’s top two economic powers are progressing. Projecting growth rates from 2011 onwards suggests China’s size when measured in PPP may surpass the U.S. in 2014.
There are methodological issues with PPP data, some of which are acknowledged in the story, and there’s also the challenge of whether Chinese numbers can be trusted.
But let’s assume these are the right numbers. My response is “so what?”
I’ve previously written that the Chinese tiger is more akin to a paper tiger. But Mark Perry of the American Enterprise Institute put together a chart that is far more compelling than what I wrote. He looks at the per-capita numbers and shows that China is still way behind the United States.
To be blunt, Americans shouldn’t worry about the myth of Chinese economic supremacy.
But that’s not the main point of today’s column.
Instead, I want to call attention to Taiwan. That jurisdiction doesn’t get as much attention as Hong Kong and Singapore, but it’s one of the world’s success stories.
And if you compare Taiwan to China, as I’ve done in this chart, there’s no question which jurisdiction deserves praise.
Yes, China has made big strides in recent decades thanks to reforms to ease the burden of government. But Taiwan is far above the world average while China has only recently reached that level (and only if you believe official Chinese numbers).
So why is there a big difference between China and Taiwan? Well, if you look at Economic Freedom of the World, you’ll see that Taiwan ranks among the top-20 nations while China ranks only 123 out of 152 countries.
By the way, Taiwan has a relatively modest burden of government spending. The public sector only consumes about 21.5 percent of economic output. That’s very good compared to other advanced nations.
During this period of fiscal restraint, you won’t be surprised to learn that the burden of government spending fell as a share of GDP.
And it should go without saying (but I’ll say it anyhow) that because politicians addressed the underlying disease of government spending, that also enabled big progress is dealing with the symptom of government borrowing.
Look at what happened to spending and deficits between 2001 and 2006.
P.S. You probably didn’t realize that it was possible to see dark humor in communist oppression.
P.P.S. But at least some communists in China seem to understand that the welfare state is a very bad idea.
P.P.P.S. Some business leaders say China is now more business-friendly than the United States. That’s probably not good news for America, but my goal is to have a market-friendly nation, not a business-friendly nation.
There is a trade off between the number of lower skilled guest worker visas and the number of unauthorized immigrants. More lower skilled guest workers means fewer unauthorized immigrants. Fewer guest workers mean more unauthorized immigrants. We just have to look back to the Bracero program to see this relationship.
The number of removals and returns is an approximation of the stock of the unauthorized immigrant population and flows. Many, but not all, of those removed or returned during this time period were funneled into guest worker visas. Beginning with the adoption of the Bracero program and the H2 visa in the early 1950s, there was a flurry of removals and returns whereby many migrants were funneled into the guest worker visa programs. After that, my thesis is that the large numbers of work visas decreased the number of apprehensions by shrinking the pool of unauthorized immigrants and channeling future ones into the legal system. After Bracero was ended in the mid-1960s, the number of removals and returns began a steady increase along with an increase in the stock and flow of unauthorized immigrants deprived of their previous lawful means of entry and work.
Ending the lower skilled guest worker visa programs preceded the modern increase in unauthorized immigration.
Source: Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Naturalization Service annual reports.
The more low skilled guest workers there are, the fewer unauthorized immigrants there are to deport.
One legal worker on a visa seems to be worth more than one unauthorized immigrant worker – meaning a pretty favorable trade off in numbers for those concerned about the numbers of immigrants. In 1954, 1 guest worker visa replaced 3.4 unauthorized immigrants, meaning that one legal worker seemed to be equal to more than three illegal workers. If an important goal of a lower skilled guest worker visa is to eliminate the American economic demand for unauthorized immigrants, relatively few guest worker visas can replace a much larger unauthorized immigrant population.
Increases in Border Patrol and border enforcement are also unnecessary to get this result. By allowing unauthorized immigrants to get the work visas, by not punishing them or employers for coming forward, and by making work visas available to those who want to enter, almost all future and current unauthorized immigrants can be funneled into the legal market without a large increase in enforcement. This was the policy followed in the 1950s and it appears to have worked:
Sources: Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Naturalization Service annual reports.
This chart zooms in on the 1942 through 1965 time period when the Bracero guest worker visa was in effect:
Sources: Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Naturalization Service annual reports.
This is not to say that Bracero was a perfect program and that it should be replicated today. There were a lot of problems with it, namely that migrants were constrained in changing employers, migrants were limited to working only in agriculture, and the work visa was annual – all issues that should be fixed in any new lower skilled guest worker visa adopted. A lower skilled guest worker visa is indispensable to vastly reduce or even halt unauthorized immigration.
Nothing brings out the well-tailored lobbyists in Washington quite like a threat to corporate welfare. With the Export-Import Bank’s legal authorization set to run out this year, the Chamber of Commerce recently led a Big Business march on Capitol Hill to protect what is known as Boeing’s Bank.
Over the last eight decades ExIm has provided over a half trillion dollars in credit, mostly to corporate titans. Congress should close the Bank.
The agency was created in 1934 to underwrite trade with the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, ExIm is not free, as claimed. Recently made self-financing, the agency has returned $1.6 billion to the Treasury since 2008.
However, economists Jason Delisle and Christopher Papagianis warned that the Bank’s “profits are almost surely an accounting illusion” because “the government’s official accounting rules effectively force budget analysts to understate the cost of loan programs like those managed by the Ex-Im Bank.” In particular, the price of market risk is not included. Delisle and Papagianis figured ExIm’s real price to exceed $200 million annually.
Economist John H. Boyd took another approach, explaining: “For an economic profit—that is, a real benefit to taxpayers—ExIm bank’s income must exceed its recorded expenses plus its owners’ opportunity cost, a payment to taxpayers for investing their funds in this agency rather than somewhere else.” He figured the Bank’s real cost at between $521 million and $653 million in 1980. The corresponding expense today likely is much higher.
The Bank claims to create jobs. No doubt, ExIm financing makes some deals work. But others die because ExIm diverts credit from firms without agency backing.
Economists Heywood Fleisig and Catharine Hill figured that channeling resources to exports reduces “domestic investment, consumption, or government expenditure.” Thus, they explained, while export subsidies will increase employment in export firms, they will do so “at the expense of employment elsewhere.”
ExIm also sells itself as necessary to promote trade. But exports should not an end in themselves irrespective of cost. Anyway, the Bank supports only about two percent worth of exports, barely a blip in a $17 trillion economy.
The Bank contends that it corrects market failures when U.S. exporters can’t get credit. However, international financial markets are sophisticated.
Moreover, it’s impossible to know just how many of the deals currently financed by American taxpayers wouldn’t go through absent the subsidy. Everyone—borrower, banker, exporter, bureaucrat—has an incentive to claim ExIm played a vital role.
The agency says it supports all businesses, including small ones. However, candidate Barack Obama was right in 2008 when he described the Bank as “little more than a fund for corporate welfare.”
The most money always goes to Big Business. Boeing alone typically accounts for more than 40 percent of the Bank’s credit activities. Veronique De Rugy of the Mercatus Center figured that the top ten recipients collect 75 percent of ExIm’s benefits.
Finally, ExIm’s warns that if the U.S. government doesn’t provide cheap credit, American companies will lose out to foreign firms subsidized by their governments. In this way the Bank claims “to help level the playing field.”
However, less than half of ExIm credit is even directed in this way, let alone proven necessary. Moreover, as I point out in my new Forbes online column: “The fact that other governments are willing to hurt their peoples by channeling credit away from worthier firms in the marketplace in favor of politically well-connected exporters is no reason for America to do the same.”
A better way to help promote trade would be to strengthen the economy generally. Lower and rationalize business taxes. Cut and streamline regulation. Reduce tariffs, especially on widely used imports, such as steel. Discourage frivolous litigation. Stop subsidizing the defense of prosperous, populous trade competitors.
It’s time to kill the agency. Let exporters pay to generate their own profits.