Archive for April, 2010
REAL ID Continues Its Long, Slow Failure
REAL ID continues its long, slow failure. The federal government’s national ID plans continue to bash against the shoals of state and popular opposition.
Late last month, the governor of Utah signed H.B. 234 into law. The bill prohibits the Utah driver license division from implementing REAL ID. That brings to 25 the number of states rejecting the national ID law, according to the Tenth Amendment Center.
And the State of Nevada, one of the few states that had been working to get in front of REAL ID, is reconsidering. With wait times at Las Vegas DMVs reaching two to four hours, the legislature may soon allow a temporary REAL ID implementation measure signed last year to lapse—this according to the Ely (NV) News.
Congress has attempted to circumvent the growing state opposition to REAL ID with the now-stalled PASS ID legislation. It basically would rename REAL ID so as to nullify the many state resolutions and laws barring implementation of the national ID law because they refer to the May 2005 “REAL ID” law specifically. But PASS ID is the same national ID, it has all the privacy issues of REAL ID, and its costs would be as great or greater than REAL ID.
That doesn’t mean national ID supporters in Congress won’t try to sneak the REAL ID revival bill into law sometime later this year, of course . . .
Deal or No Deal?
It appears that the United States has reached a temporary deal with Brazil over U.S. cotton subsidies, which were deemed illegal under world trade rules many years ago. (Here’s Cato adjunct scholar Dan Sumner on the case and its implications. Bloomberg’s Mark Drajem and the New York Times’ Sewell Chan have more details on the deal.)
This comes not a minute too soon from the U.S. perspective: the deal was reached just one day before Brazil was to begin imposing over $800 million worth of tariffs and WTO-approved intellectual property rights violations against American firms in retaliation for U.S. intransigence in complying. (Snarky aside: where’s your commitment to ”trade enforcement” now, Mr. Obama?)
What’s in the deal, you ask? Well, it is certainly not, as might have been hoped, an end to all cotton subsidies immediately. What it does include are some “interesting” sweeteners to Brazil. First, over $147 million in “technical assistance” to Brazilian cotton growers. In an excellent blog post at SFGate, Carolyn Lochhead makes the obvious-to-everyone-except-policymakers point that now taxpayers are paying for support to Brazilian farmers as well as American ones.
Second, the United States will make some changes to the export subsidy-esque parts of the cotton program, and promise to address some of the broader issues in contention as part of the next farm bill. (I’ll believe that when I see it.)
The third element, though, is pretty worrying. Apparently the United States has also agreed to evaluate whether a certain area of Brazil is “disease free,” so that farmers from that area can export their beef to the United States. The reason why I find that a concern is that under the terms of the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, recognizing disease-free areas on a scientific basis is an obligation the United States has to WTO members. The area is either disease free or it is not, and the United States should not be using it as a compensatory tool (nor should Brazil accept it as such) . The International Food and Agricultural Trade Policy Council’s Carlo Perez del Castillo (a former Uruguayan trade minister) put it well, if subtly: “[P]ublically linking what should really be a scientific issue of whether a specific state in Brazil is or is not free of certain animal diseases, to a more political agreement such as this one on cotton, is rather unusual.”
I’m not a trade lawyer, and I have no inside knowledge of Brazil’s long-term legal strategy here. But I sure hope this isn’t the end of the saga. If they have caved in to (1) a bribe that puts money in the hands of U.S. farming consultants, and out of the hands of U.S. taxpayers, (2) a good dose of ”your cheque is in the mail,” and (3) a final insult of “OK, as a special favour to you, we’ll do what we were supposed to have been doing all along,” then it’s a sad day for the WTO’s dispute settlement system.
My good friend, ex-Catoite, trade lawyer, and all around smart fellow Scott Lincicome offers his excellent-as-usual perspective on the deal here.
Mandate Denial
Supporters of ObamaCare are shifting into full-denial mode.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) recently told an incredulous town-hall crowd that ObamaCare does not, in fact, require you to purchase health insurance.
Rep. Wasserman Schultz’s announcement came as a surprise to those of us familiar with the bill, which added to Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code a new Chapter 48, whose first section (Section 5000A) is titled, “REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE” (see p. 126; all-caps in original). Subparagraph (b)(3) even provides for “PAYMENT OF PENALTY” if you don’t comply with the “REQUIREMENT.”
ObamaCare’s supporters are still looking for ways to hide what they’ve done.
Repeal the bill.
The Race to Declare Victory
There are some who might say that the New York Times is an unofficial press office for the Obama administration. I’m not going to say that, but a new Times editorial about the federal ”Race to the Top” education contest would certainly support such a characterization.
Today, it just so happens, I have piece on the Daily Caller pointing out how Secretary of Education Arne Duncan seems to think that just saying, constantly and unreservedly, that RTTT has worked will forestall any debate about whether that is actually the case. The Times‘ editorial uses exactly the same tactic.
First, here’s the big pronouncement that, no matter what actually ends up happening with RTTT, it is already a major success:
[E]ven if the program ended today, it already has had a huge, beneficial effect on the education reform effort, especially at the state and local levels.
Really?
To support it’s coronation of the program, the only statistic the Times offers of even slight heft is that “more than a dozen states adopted new laws intended to comply with the rules of the program.”
That is hardly impressive.
For one thing, there are fifty states — thirteen or so isn’t that many.
More importantly, as I point out in the Daily Caller and have noted previously, it appears that most of these legal changes that have been made will have scant practical impact beyond making states more competitive in the RTTT. And there is little reason to believe that even if the changes are potentially meaningful, states will enforce the changes once the states have gotten — or been turned down for — RTTT funds. After all, evasion of any real accountability has been the name of the game for decades.
Rasmussen Reports: Media Bias a Bigger Problem in Politics than Money
Today Politico Arena asks:
Is Media Bias Today a Bigger Problem than Money in Politics?
My response:
It’s hardly surprising that a new Rasmussen Reports survey shows that ”more than half of Americans think media bias is a bigger problem in politics today than the money that flows into campaigns.” After all, despite draconian restrictions imposed by modern campaign finance laws, individuals and organizations are still moderately free to contribute to campaigns. So liberty aside, the sheer volume of such contributions checks against ”corruption,” whatever some may believe.
Media “corruption,” by contrast, starts with the academic system that filters people into the media. And the academy, as has been documented countless times, is overwhelmingly of the left. Indeed, I lecture regularly at law schools, which are little different, ideologically, than journalism schools. And only this week I learned from a student who was in a position to discover the party registrations of his faculty that not a single professor at his school was a registered Republican — not one. Nearly all were registered either Democrat or Green. The Federalist Society, which sponsors my lectures and those of many other conservative and libertarian speakers, was created precisely to try to counter that institutional bias.
And that, one could say, is why Fox News was created as well — to try to bring a different view to American media. By the reaction of the ”mainstream media,” however, you’d think that someone had invited a skunk to the garden party. What better evidence of their bias? Not that Fox is always “fair and balanced,” mind you, but as compared to what? MSNBC? CBS? NPR? Pacifica Radio?! (That the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, including Pacifica, continues to receive taxpayer funding is nothing less than a scandal.) With the entrance of Fox, Americans have an alternative, and they’re turning to it in droves, which only further infuriates the establishment.
So yes, here again the people are ahead of — or perhaps more honest than — the establishment. They know bias when they see it, and there’s plenty to see in the mainstream media. Just ask Hillary Clinton about how she was treated during the primaries.
By Pulling His Punches, Bernanke Shatters ObamaCare’s Credibility
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke gave a speech in Dallas yesterday where he inadvertently discredited claims that ObamaCare would reduce health care costs and the federal deficit. According to The Washington Post:
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke warned Wednesday that Americans may have to accept higher taxes or changes in cherished entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security if the nation is to avoid staggering budget deficits that threaten to choke off economic growth…
While the immediate audience for the speech was the Dallas Regional Chamber, his message was intended for Congress and the Obama administration…
Bernanke has urged Congress to address long-term fiscal imbalances in congressional testimony before, but usually only when he is asked about them by lawmakers. His speech Wednesday aimed to reach a broader audience, steering away from technical economic speak and using plain, sometimes wry, language — a rare thing for a Fed chairman.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office projects the annual federal deficit will be at least $700 billion in each of the next 10 years. Deficit spending is a form of taxation without representation, because it increases the tax burden of generations who cannot yet vote (often because they are as yet unborn). Bernanke wants us to end deficit spending. Kudos to him.
But consider the timing of his speech. Why wait until April 7, 2010, to deliver that message directly to the public? Why not give that speech in January? Or February? Or any time before March 21?
The reason is obvious: Bernanke held back to appease his political masters.
Bernanke’s Hollow Deficit Warning
Even though I’ve been in Washington almost 25 years, I am endlessly amazed at the chutzpah of people who support higher spending and bigger government while piously lecturing the rest of us about the need to control deficits. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is a good (though “bad” might be a better term) example of this hypocrisy. He was an avid supporter of bailouts and so-called stimulus, yet the Washington Post reports that he is now hectoring us to be fiscally responsible:
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke warned Wednesday that Americans may have to accept higher taxes or changes in cherished entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security if the nation is to avoid staggering budget deficits that threaten to choke off economic growth. “These choices are difficult, and it always seems easier to put them off — until the day they cannot be put off anymore,” Bernanke said in a speech. “But unless we as a nation demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal responsibility, in the longer run we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth.”
No Authoritarians, Please, We’re Marxists
Corin Redgrave excelled as authoritarian figures, despite being a committed Marxist
Photo Credit: Moving Theatre Company Photo
Corin Redgrave, a great actor in a family of great actors, has died at 70. The Washington Post obituary includes a striking photo caption: “Corin Redgrave excelled as authoritarian figures, despite being a committed Marxist.”
Say what? As Rick Sincere said in a Facebook post: Surely the copy editor meant to say “because of” and not “despite.” After all, Redgrave was an advocate of abolishing private property and market relations and installing a dictatorship of the proletariat. And indeed, we’ve seen plenty of authoritarians in actual Marxist countries. Perhaps Marxist actors would indeed have an advantage in playing authoritarians.
Now, to be fair, I should note that this might be a misfire by the photo editor. The text reads, “Corin Redgrave . . . despite excelling as authority figures, was a committed Marxist.” “Authority figures” is a bit different from “authoritarians.” But still, plenty of authority figures in a Marxist country.
Let’s look at his roles. He played a corrupt police inspector, a sadistic prison warden, a snobbish aristocrat, the traitorous Benedict Arnold, and most recently the blacklisted writer Dalton Trumbo and the aging, angry tyrant King Lear. Let’s review: Are there corrupt and sadistic police officers, snobbish elites, traitors to freedom, blacklisted communist writers, and aging, angry tyrants in Marxist countries? Indeed it does seem that Redgrave’s dedication to Marxism might help him play such roles.
May he find peace and enlightenment in the next world. RIP.
HT: Ed Crane
The Biggest School Choice Rally in US History
Over 5,000 parents and children rallied on the Florida capital last week in support of a bill to expand that state’s k-12 scholarship donation tax credit program. Under the program, businesses that pay private school tuition for low-income children get a dollar for dollar tax cut. It saves the state $1.49 for every $1 it reduces revenue, according to the accountability agency of the Florida legislature.
There’s video, too:
The bill in question has already passed the Senate and seems likely to pass the House. 2010 is shaping up to be a very good year for educational freedom.
Thursday Links
- David Boaz on libertarian nostalgia: There’s no such thing as a golden age of lost liberty. “If you had to choose, would you rather live in a country with a department of labor and even an income tax or a Dred Scott decision and a Fugitive Slave Act?”
- Now that we’ve finished creating a new $1 trillion health care entitlement program, Washington has suddenly discovered that we are facing a crisis with—surprise—entitlement programs.
- Obama’s top economic adviser suggests that it’s time for America to adopt a VAT, or value-added tax. Here’s why imposing a VAT would pretty well finish the transformation of our country into a European-style slow-growth nation.
- On Stossel tonight: David Boaz, P. J. O’Rourke and Andrew Napolitano discuss libertarianism on Fox Business at 8pm & Midnight ET. Don’t miss it.
- Podcast: “Neutralizing Net Regulation” featuring Jim Harper.
A Little Less Poetry, a Little More Economics
A good friend sent me an article on “patient-centered health care” written by Dr. Donald Berwick, President Obama’s intended nominee for administrator of the Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services. What an improvement an administrator like this will bring compared to his predecessors! Right? The article is called What ‘Patient-Centered’ Should Mean: Confessions Of An Extremist (requires login).
I have no doubt of Berwick’s sincerity, but the essay gives me little hope for progress. It doesn’t mention, for example, parity in the tax treatment of employer-purchased and individually purchased health insurance.
Why don’t we talk about diner-centered restaurants or grocery stores? Because when consumers select restaurants and stores, choose their food, and pay for their choices, “diner-centeredness” is a given. To the extent non-diner-centered food outlets have come into existence, they’ve gone away again as a failed business model. Nobody has to discuss what it means or what artificial process they would use to deliver “diner-centeredness.”
“But health care is essential to life!” some might argue. ”Intellects and government officials must pay health care delivery special attention because without it people would die.”
Pray tell, good hearts, what is food other than an essential of life without which people would die? We regard food provision an “easy” problem because we haven’t made it hard by fettering the market for edibles the way we have health care.
Keep your eye on the ball. If you have to discuss how to get patient-centered health care, you’ve framed the problem wrongly. (The medical metaphor is talking about a symptom and not the disease.)
“Patient-centered” is implicit when the patient is actually at the center. Dr. Berwick should approach the health care delivery problem with a little less poetry and a little more economics.
John Stossel on Libertarianism
Don’t miss “Stossel” tonight on the Fox Business Network at 8:00 p.m. ET. He’ll be discussing “What’s a Libertarian?” with P. J. O’Rourke, Andrew Napolitano, and a panel including Cato senior fellow Jeff Miron and me. Here’s a column Stossel wrote after taping the show about his own evolution from “Kennedy-style liberal” to libertarian.
When I did talk shows after the publication of Libertarianism: A Primer, I was always asked, “What is libertarianism?” I said then, “Libertarianism is the idea that adult individuals have the right and the responsibility to make the important decisions about their lives. And of course today government claims the power to make many of those decisions for us, from where to send our kids to school to what we can smoke to how we must save for retirement.”
Here’s another way to put it, which I believe I first saw in a high-school libertarian newsletter from Minnesota: Smokey the Bear’s rules for fire safety also apply to government: Keep it small, keep it in a confined area, and keep an eye on it.
For more on libertarianism, check out Libertarianism: A Primer and The Libertarian Reader. For deeper thoughts, take a look at Realizing Freedom: Libertarian Theory, History, and Practice. Find an 80-minute interview on libertarianism here and a short talk here. And for a week-long seminar on libertarianism and our current crisis, come to Cato University this July at the beautiful Rancho Bernardo Inn outside San Diego.
Cato on Facebook
Cato on Twitter
Cato on Google+
Cato on YouTube
