May 2012

The proposed “Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act” would get rid of the short 180-day deadline for bringing pay discrimination claims that applies under some federal laws, like Title VII.  As I point out in today’s New York Times, that’s unnecessary, since another law, the Equal Pay Act, has a longer 3-year deadline for bringing claims (and other discrimination laws like 42 USC 1981 often have even longer deadlines, like 4 years).  My letter disagreeing with the New York Times’ editorial in support of the law also points out that the proposed “Fair Pay Act” would allow not just employees, but certain third parties, to sue over alleged pay discrimination, making it harder to negotiate settlements.  (The EEOC can sue even if an employee chooses alternative means to settle the dispute, like arbitration.  The bill would change current law to allow even some third parties other than the EEOC to sue).

In the Washington Post, David Drachsler, Vice Chair of the Virginia Council on Human Rights, debunks the Washington Post’s mistaken endorsement of the bill, noting that it would “permit an employee to file a pay discrimination lawsuit years after the pay decision was made, even if the employee was aware of that decision. Indeed, in Lilly Ledbetter’s case, her lower pay, compared with that of men doing similar work, was caused by low performance evaluations of which she was aware years before she filed her charge” of discrimination.

Effectively, the Fair Pay Act would abolish the statute of limitations, by potentially allowing an employee to sue forever as long as she receives a paycheck or pension payment that is supposedly affected by an alleged act of discrimination that occurred decades earlier.  That would allow stale claims of discrimination to be brought long after the alleged discriminator has died, leaving the employer unable to defend itself through exculpatory evidence or rebuttal testimony.

I earlier discussed the bill, which has 56 supporters in the Senate, here, and the dishonest and sensationalistic way that reporters and editorial cartoonists are covering the issue here.

Cellulosic ethanol—derived from wood scraps and other forms of inedible plant mass– may or may not turn out to be a real technological breakthrough.  On the one hand, it could reduce the ruinous impacts of grain-based ethanol on food prices.  On the other hand, the extensive set of federal mandates and subsidies for cellulosic ethanol is not a good omen—good technologies rarely need federal help, and the existence of federal aid is often a tip-off that a new technology is a loser.

But here’s another question: if cellulosic ethanol does take off, what impact would that have on the clichés we use?  Would we have to scrap the old saying about separating the wheat from the chaff, and instead talk about separating the chaff from the wheat?

A Chicago Tribune story notes that a few jurisdictions now ban discrimination against fat people (generally as part of general bans on discrimination based on physical appearance), and that Massachusetts is now considering specifically banning discrimination against fat people (as some municipalities do).  (The only federal law touching on the subject is the Americans with Disabilities Act, which some courts have said may cover “morbid obesity” (see Cook v. Rhode Island), but which does not cover ordinary fatness; moreover, some courts say that obesity is not a disability because it is a correctable condition, i.e., you can lose the weight if you try).

Quite apart from the fact that such legislation interferes with employers’ freedom of contract (is it really so unreasonable for a movie studio to cast a thin person rather than a fat person in certain roles, or for an airline to want a thin flight attendant who can move easily up and down the aisle and allow passengers to pass by rather than a fat flight attendant who will block the aisle?), it’s also not clear why such legislation should focus on fat people, who can often control their condition, rather than other people disadvantaged by mother nature, like short people.   (I became fat in 1993, but then lost the weight by eliminating alcohol, butter, and extremely fatty foods from my diet.  But short people cannot change the fact that they are short).

After all, most Americans are overweight, so it’s not as if fat people are a tiny minority.   And being fat is not as disadvantageous (at least for men) as being short.  For example, fat people of both sexes are more likely to get married than short men, and short people are less likely to get promotions than people of average height like me. 

A women’s studies professor quoted in the article supports fat discrimination legislation as a way of destigmatizing fatness.  (Some colleges now have “fat studies” programs, whose professors are often drawn from existing  women’s studies programs).  But even if that were truly possible, destigmatizing fatness might do more harm than good to public health.  In my wife’s native France, obesity rates are lower than in the U.S., and lifespans are longer (despite all the cheese, foie gras, and red meat they eat).  Part of the reason is that they simply eat less (not healthier).  Why do they eat less?  Partly due to the shame factor.  My French-born wife’s (thin) best friend told me, with disapproval, that in France, “it is a shame to be fat.”  Shame is not a pleasant emotion, but maybe it’s better to be shamed into losing weight than to be dead from obesity-related conditions, like diabetes, heart diseases, and weight-related cancers.  Those obesity-related conditions are a legitimate cause for concern for the insurers and employers who end up paying for them.

One of the most tragic manifestations of past racial discrimination has been the creation of a government-enforced racial spoils system in the name of affirmative action.  That has given rise to a professional class of racial profiteers, such as the late Ron Brown, who are ever ready to help whites win the financial benefit of regulations originally approved to aid minorities.

The demand on people and institutions to abandon the principle of nondiscrimination has been particularly strong in academia.  Although the U.S. Supreme Court has limited the role of race in admissions, the American Bar Association is now pushing to institutionalize de facto quotas.  University of San Diego law professor Gail Heriot writes about the plight of George Mason University law school, known for its more conservative political orientation:

If you have ever wondered why colleges and universities seem to march in lockstep on controversial issues like affirmative action, here is one reason: Overly politicized accrediting agencies often demand it.

Given that federal funding hinges on accreditation, schools are not in a position to argue. That is precisely why the U.S. Department of Education, which gives accreditors their authority, must sometimes take corrective action. George Mason University’s law school in northern Virginia is an example of why corrective action is needed now.

Doug,

Although I sympathize with your point of view, I think that your post about HSAs misses the fact that the HSAs we have right now were, basically, set up to fail. The Democrats’ proposal is, in the current context, pretty sensible. In fact, I believe that many people opposed to the idea of HSAs didn’t mind for the version of HSAs we passed in the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act because specifically because it’s so lame and will prove that HSAs “don’t work.” The current version of HSAs, like the HMO, a government-designed type of insurnace coverage that’s very attractive in the abstract and would work well in a free market but is almost sure to fail under government supervision.
Most importantly, the restrictions on the use of HSAs are basicaly backwards from a commonsense perspective. The government places extensive limitations on the way that they can be used to pay for medical care but none on how they can be invested. Most prominently, current policy lets people open HSAs only if they have very unattractive high deductible health insurnace plans (HDHPs) that few people want. On the other hand, no limitations exist on what people can do with the money inside HSAs: once they become eligible for Medicare or if they enroll in Medicaid, individuals can do anything they want with money in HSAs. Even people with HDHPs can invest the money in things–stocks, high yield bonds, mutuals–that are really contrary to the stability that 99 percent of the population wants from health insurance. (I agree that these investments should be allowed, just that if I were a legislator trying to compromise while designing HSAs, I’d much rather give up these options of questionable medical worth than create HSAs that needed to be paired with unattractive HDHPs.) As a result, plenty of already well off people use HSAs as a retirement planning vehicle–my broker sent me literature about how to do so–but they’re so unattractive that rather few people use them if given a choice. I tried one myself as a federal employee and it was unsatisfying in just about every way.
THe HSA, as designed by the government, has failed. We need a much freer version of it.

CNN founder and noted “Mouth of the South” Ted Turner recently claimed that he was doing better keeping his foot out of his mouth.  He hadn’t said anything “stupid” for ages, he explained.

Except in the same interview, when he exclaimed:

If steps aren’t taken to stem global warming, “We’ll be eight degrees hotter in 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow,” Turner said during a wide-ranging, hour-long interview with PBS’s Charlie Rose that aired Tuesday.

“Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals,” said Turner, 69. “Civilization will have broken down. The few people left will be living in a failed state — like Somalia or Sudan — and living conditions will be intolerable.”

 It’s a wonderful visual.  A few humans left in the midst of the wreckage of industrial civilization, eating the corpses of those who died before.  But even Al Gore hasn’t made claims as crazy as these. 

After all, there is no evidence of temperatures rising that fast.  In fact, they’ve gone roughly no where over the last decade.  And a carbon dioxide-rich environment should encourage plant growth.  But then, Ted Turner never was one to let the truth get in the way of politics.

Though a bit late in figuring things out, the steel industry in the European Union and a steel workers’ union have said that the EU’s proposals to cut CO2 emissions will have a devastating effect on their industry. According to a Reuters article today,

Europe’s steel industry joined forces with a workers’ union on Monday to warn that European Union efforts to curb climate change could put tens of thousands of steel industry jobs at risk.

The EU aims to cut CO2 emissions by at least one fifth by 2020 from 1990 levels, but several energy intensive industries say the cost of curbing emissions will make them uncompetitive against rivals from outside the bloc.

Check out what CEI was saying — way back in 1996 — about the costs of global warming policies. And one of the major costs projected was — jobs. Also check out CEI’s global warming website for up-to-date information.

But were afraid to ask can be found in Chapter Two of The Really Inconvenient Truths, which you can now get for free via this site. I’ll be on the Jim Bohannon Show tonight at 10pm talking about this and many other things the left doesn’t want you to know about the environment.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture features a Colombia “tariff ticker” on its website to illustrate in money terms how the pending U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement will benefit U.S. exports.  Currently, under preferential agreements, virtually all Colombian goods enter the U.S. duty-free, while U.S. exports face tariffs averaging 14 percent — and up to 80 percent for certain agricultural products, according to the U.S. Trade Representative.

The Colombia FTA will change that.  Tariffs on most U.S. products exported to Colombia would be duty-free immediately, with others phased out over ten years.

The Tariff Ticker shows that for the 524 days since the FTA was signed but not voted on by Congress, duties on U.S. exports to Colombia totaled over $988,000,000.  Those tariffs are ticking up in real time.

A graphic way to show how Congress’ deliberate delay in considering the trade pact is harming U.S. producers and businesses where it hurts.  See this and other previous posts on the FTA.