January 2012

ACORN Sues Whistleblowers for Exposing Its Wrongdoing in Scandal

by Hans Bader on September 24, 2009

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Healthcare, Legal, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Privacy, Sanctimony

ACORN is now suing the whistleblowers who allegedly filmed it promoting illegal sexual activities for $2 million! And not just them, but also the conservative web site that made the video public! ACORN seeks an injunction to silence them — a classic example of an unconstitutional prior restraint.

That’s a flagrant violation of the First Amendment, but the lawsuit was filed in state court in Baltimore, where the judges are very liberal, so who knows if ACORN’s lawsuit will be dismissed. Even if it is, the lawsuit will cost the whistleblowers thousands of dollars in lawyers’ bills. The Baltimore City prosecutor has already expressed hostility to the whistleblowers who exposed ACORN’s wrongdoing, threatening to prosecute them under a state “privacy” law restricting audiotaping.

(Similar “privacy” laws in Massachusetts have been used to shield kidnappers calling in ransom demands, and police abusing motorists!).

I earlier discussed some of the First Amendment issues here. A commenter at National Review argued that the lawsuit is meritless even if you ignore the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court has held that privacy lawsuits, and lawsuits in general, can’t be based on protected speech, in cases like Bartnicki v. Vopper.  That principle was extended by today’s appeals court ruling in Snyder v. Phelps overturning a Maryland jury’s $5 million damage award for intrusion-upon-seclusion, and an earlier ruling limiting state audiotaping laws in Jean v. Massachusetts State Police (2007).

The IRS just ended its controversial relationship with ACORN, which earlier had its housing funds cut-off by Congress over a recent controversy, and is now embroiled in a tax evasion scandal.

ACORN has long received taxpayer money despite a history of financial fraud and voter registration fraud. ACORN helped spawn the mortgage crisis by promoting “liar loans.”

ACORN is a left-wing group that launched Obama’s career as a community organizer. He has long-standing ties to ACORN, and an ACORN affiliate received received $800,000 from Obama’s campaign. ACORN stands to profit greatly from Obama’s financial-regulation proposals, which would strengthen the Community Reinvestment Act (The Community Reinvestment Act is extremely harmful to banks and prudent lending, pressuring banks to make risky, low-income loans).

ACORN affiliates would also likely profit from Obama’s health-care plan, which contains subsidies for community organizers. (Obama’s health care plan would raise taxes, break promises, increase the deficit, destroy many inexpensive health-care plans, and take away important freedoms.)

Put the Fanny State Behind

by Angela Logomasini on September 24, 2009 · 1 comment

in Environment

In the interest or saving trees, the legacy of Mr. Whipple (please don’t squeeze the Charmin!) could be a thing of the past. The greens have already succeeded in taking away well-functioning toilet bowls, why not soft toilet paper? Michael Fumento notes today on his blog how the greens want to ban soft toilet paper (see Washington Post story). Instead, we will only be able to buy toilet paper made with recycled materials, which might make fine-toothed sand paper feel smooth in comparison. They also want your soft tissues. Imagine wiping your sick child’s sore little nose with nasty, rough recycled-content tissues.

Greens say the soft stuff is bad because it comes from old growth trees. So what? Forests change over time as older trees die or are harvested for products. This process has been going on for centuries. The key is not to abandon forestry and live inferior, less-pleasant lifestyles, it’s to operate forests  in a truly sustainable way. And contrary to the “politically green” approach, the true way to do this is through private forestry that uses, manages, and re-grows forests. Since we began to sustainably harvest and use forests on a private basis, we actually have more forests in the United States than we did at the turn of the century.  In contrast, in places where the government owns and manages the forests “for nature,” we have major mismanagement problems, pest problems, and fires, which wreak far more havoc for wildlife than harvesting and replanting on private land.  Developing nations might not have privately managed forests yet, but we should work toward that with them rather than abandon trade.  The greens’ no-trade, approaches only leave developing nations in the dark ages, perpetuating poverty and environmental destruction.

It might sound silly to worry about toilet paper, but letting the greens have their way will this “fanny-state” regulation will mean even more intrusions to our freedom in the future. It’s time consumers started watching their backs—or there will be no freedoms left behind.

DC Councilman Graham’s Chief of Staff Indicted on Bribery Charges Related to Taxi Legislation

by Ivan Osorio on September 24, 2009

in Features, Mobility, Politics as Usual, Regulation, Zeitgeist

Yesterday, I strongly criticized the taxicab medallion system proposed for the District of Columbia by council members Jim Graham and Muriel Bowser as protectionist, economically illiterate, and so incredibly stupid as to defy reason. Today, an explanation for this idiocy may be at hand — Graham’s chief of staff, Ted Loza, has been indicted on bribery charges relating to the taxicab legislation.

This cannot but help remind me of the happy conclusion of CEI’s dinner video this year, “It’s a Wonderful Institute.” To paraphrase: The money was in the chief of staff’s proverbial basement!

No data, no science

by Marlo Lewis on September 24, 2009 · 3 comments

in Global Warming, Legal

In “The Dog Ate Global Warming,” published yesterday in National Review Online, Cato Institute scholar and climatologist Patrick J. Michaels delivers a body blow to the “science is settled” dogma.

There are three core issues in climate change science: detection (Is it warming, and if so by how much); attribution (What’s causing the warming we observe?); and, sensitivity (How much warming will a given increase in greenhouse gas concentrations produce?). As I argue in a previous post, all of these issues remain unsettled, and more so today than at any time in the past decade.  

Although climate sensitivity is the most important issue (because if climate sensitivity is low, then there is no “planetary emergency,” hence no need for “urgent action”), detection is in a sense primary, because without reliable temperature data it is impossible to resolve the other two issues.

The claim that the latter half of the 20th century was warmer than any comparable period during the past 1300 years is largely based on surface temperature records subject to several well-known warming biases. Urbanization generates artificial “heat islands.” Agriculture and irrigation in places like California’s Central Valley also produce local warming effects. Retired meteorologist Anthony Watts has documented that nearly nine out of every 10 U.S. weather stations fail to meet the U.S. Weather Service’s minimum requirement that temperature sensing equipment be placed at least 30 meters (about 100 feet) away from artificial heat sources such as air conditioner exhaust vents, waste water treatment plants, and parking lot pavements.

Michaels now exposes the shocking fact that the data allegedly underpinning the most influential surface temperature record are missing and apparently have been destroyed. The record is known as Jones-Wigley for its authors, Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) and Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). The IPCC relied exclusively on this record until its 2001 report.

For years, Jones and Wigley declined to share the raw data from which they constructed their record. Recently, however, Jones told University of Colorado Professor Roger Pielke, Jr. that they could not share their data with him, because the data no longer exist:

Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality-controlled and homogenized) data.

 Michaels says the “data storage availability” excuse is “balderdash,” since “All the original data could easily fit on the 9-inch tape drives common in the mid-1980s.”

The bigger point, of course, is that if other scientists cannot examine the raw data, they cannot assess the accuracy and objectivity of the “value-adding” adjustments Jones and Wigley made to produce their global temperature record.

In addition to providing another reason to reject the “science is settled” dogma, disappearance of the Jones-Wigley data is of direct relevance to EPA’s pending endangerment finding. The Jones-Wigley temperature record is part of the evidence on which EPA bases its judgment that “air pollution” from greenhouse gas emissions “endangers public health and welfare.”

Use of the Jones-Wigley temperature record in a rulemaking clearly flouts federal data quality standards. Under OMB guidelines implementing the Federal Data Quality Act, data quality consists of four elements: objectivity, utility to users, integrity of information, and reproducibility in the case of “influential scientific or statistical information.”

Now, if the original Jones-Wigely data have been destroyed, then it is impossible to assure “integrity of information.” For all we know, Jones and Wigley goofed in their calculations or choice of methodologies, or even manipulated the data to produce a pre-determined result. By the same token, it is impossible to “reproduce” the Jones-Wigley temperature record, because there are no data to reproduce it from. Yet, as a factual basis of both the IPCC reports and the EPA endangerment finding, Jones-Wigley indisputably qualifies as “influential scientific or statistical information.”

Michaels’s terse conclusion speaks volumes: “No data, no science.” For decades, Jones-Wigley has been a mainstay of the alleged ”scientific consensus” supporting Kyoto-style energy rationing. Warmists have a lot of explaining to do.

PNAS: Peer Review or Old Boy Network?

by Marlo Lewis on September 23, 2009 · 1 comment

in Global Warming

On February 25, 2009, Dr. James Hansen of Columbia University’s Earth Institute and Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville testified on “Scientific Objectives for Climate Change Legislation,” before the House Ways and Means Committee.

Dr. Hansen is probably the world’s most influential scientist in the climate alarmist camp. His 1988 congressional testimony, which projected significant increases in global temperatures over the next two decades, gave birth to the warming movement.

At the Ways and Means hearing, Christy testified that datasets he and his colleagues have developed contradict the climate model hypotheses and surface temperature records on which alarmism rests. His leading example was the discrepancy between Hansen’s 1988 model forecasts and actual temperatures as measured by two independent satellite monitoring systems.

christy-observations-vs-hansen-1988-models1

“GISS” A, B, and C are Hansen’s 1988 global warming model projections. “A” and “B” are model projections assuming business-as-usual emission levels similar to what happened (actually a bit lower than what occurred). ”C” is a model projection assuming drastic CO2 cuts. ”UAH” and “RSS” are, respectively, the University of Alabama in Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems satellite records.

Christy comments:

All model projections show a high sensitivity to CO2 while the actual atmosphere does not. It is noteworthy that the model projection for drastic CO2 cuts still overshot the observations. This would be considered a failed hypothesis test for the models from 1988.

 Ancient history, you say? Maybe, but Christy also compared the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report’s (AR4) climate model warming projections with actual temperature data.

christy-observations-vs-ipcc-models

The red and orange lines mark the upper and lower bounds of 95% of the global warming projections calculated by 21 IPCC AR4 models for multi-year segments ending in 2020. The blue and green lines show temperature trends calculated from the UAH satellite record and the U.K. Hadley Center surface temperature record, respectively.

Christy comments:

The two main points here are (1) the observations are much cooler than the mid-range of the model spread and are at the minimum of the model simulations and (2) the satellite adjustment for surface comparisons is exceptionally good. The implication of (1) is that the best estimates of the IPCC models are too warm, or that they are too sensitive to CO2 emissions.

By now you may be wondering what any of this has to do with peer review at the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). Patience, grasshopper.

At the hearing, Hansen declined to address Christy’s critique of model sensitivity assumptions on the merits. Rather, he asserted that climate sensitivity is “crystal clear,” and advised the Committee to ask the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to produce a report and accept its verdict as “authoritative.”

Now, if you’re like me, you probably assume that the National Academy insists on the most rigorous standards of peer review for PNAS, the organization’s flagship publication. But an article in the current (19 September 2009) issue of Science magazine (subscription required) suggests otherwise.

The article, “PNAS Nixes Special Privileges for (Most) Papers,” reports that:

National Academy members, as elite scientists, could shepherd their own work through peer review with less vetting than at other publications by “contributing” a paper. They could also “communicate” a paper on behalf of colleagues who had not been elected to the academy’s august ranks.

The article goes on to explain that:

In practice, “communicating” a colleague’s paper meant that a member lined up referees to review it before PNAS ever saw it. This increased the chance of a favorable reception — and looked suspiciously like cronyism to outsiders.

Because of that perception, PNAS announced last week that it will end the “communicated” option for submitting papers by July 2010. However, Science reports, “The move will not affect the privileges of academy members to line up reviews before they submit their own papers to PNAS …”

I don’t know about you, but my college GPA would have been higher had I been allowed to ”line up” friends to grade my term papers and tests. And wouldn’t it be nice if, during job performance reviews at work, we could “line up” allies to decide whether we deserve a raise and a bonus?

Science further reports that the “rejection rate for communicated or contributed papers that reach the PNAS is a few percent, whereas the rejection rate for standard submissions is 80%.” Membership doth seem to have its privileges at the National Academy.

Having spent a few years in institutions of higher learning, both as a student and a teacher, I have seen how our alleged bastions of academic freedom breed conformity and group-think. 

First, there’s the quest for tenure. A young professor serious about his career dare not challenge the methodological or ideological pieties of his colleagues, lest they deny him the coveted job security he seeks. And if the acolyte makes it into the ranks of the tenured, he will think twice about offending colleagues with whom he may be stuck for decades, and he’ll take care not to jeopardize his department’s research contracts and grants by offending the political pieties of grantmakers in Washington, D.C.

Most people admitted into the august ranks of the National Academy will have been shaped by the conformity mills that our institutions of higher learning have become. Moreover, once ensconced in the club, they will be loathe to offend other members, many of whom may have voted to admit them in the first place.

So it should come as no surprise that “the rejection rate for communicated or contributed papers that reach the PNAS is a few percent, whereas the rejection rate for standard submissions is 80%.” 

Even apart from these considerations, cronyism seems to be a significant problem in climate-related research. The IPCC reports are collections of literature reviews in which the lead authors often review their own work. Statistician Edward Wegman noted in his assessment of the infamous “hockey stick“ reconstruction of global temperatures (which allegedly proved that 1998 was the warmest year of the past 1,000 years) that “authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they seem on the surface.” 

So when National Academy member James Hansen declines to debate John Christy on the merits, and instead advises Congress to let the NAS decide the scientific basis of climate legislation, he is actually asking Congress to let the old-boy network to which he belongs call the shots.

That Hansen would proffer such self-serving advice rather than debate the core issue on the merits is reason enough to be skeptical of the science he espouses.

Selling the Rope, as Lenin Predicted

by Ivan Osorio on September 23, 2009

in Culture, Politics as Usual, Sanctimony

The old saying that, “The problem with socialism is socialism; the problem with capitalism is capitalists” proves itself true time and again. So does Lenin’s claim that the capitalists would sell the Bolsheviks the rope with which to hang them. Thus, I’m not too surprised at The Los Angeles Times‘ brief profile of one capitalist doing just as Lenin expected:

He’s been called a bully and a monopolist. Al Gore once labeled him “Darth Vader.” The Wall Street Journal described him as “ruthless” and alleged “self-dealing” in a maze of complicated business transactions. He is a master of the tax-free deal, completely disdains government and most federal regulations, and has expressed a fondness for Rush Limbaugh. This summer he was slapped with a $1.4-million fine by the Justice Department for illegal stock purchases.

Sounds like the perfect target for a hard-hitting Michael Moore documentary, no? But no, we’re talking about Moore’s latest sugar daddy: cable mogul John Malone.

That’s right, Moore’s “Capitalism: A Love Story” is being co-financed and distributed domestically by Overture Films, which is a unit of Malone’s Liberty Media. Moore, who has been railing against Big Media during press junkets promoting the movie, is in bed with the Goldman Sachs of the media world.

Unsurprisingly, Moore tries to excuse this incongruity by appealing to some corporatist state ideal.

Moore, through a spokesman, isn’t making any apologies for having one of Malone’s companies as a backer of his film. “The movie is about HOW people make their money, and specifically criticizes the beast, our out-of-control economic system. …  And for those folks who make their money in ways that don’t exploit or hurt others, then they should be giving a lot more back in tax dollars to help support a more just and fair society. People like John Malone, myself and others who have been blessed, we all ought to be in a 70% tax bracket with the money being used to provide such important services as a real universal and affordable single-payer healthcare system.”

Of course, there is nothing preventing Michael Moore from writing a check to the IRS surrendering the 70 percent of his enormous income, which, by his own view, he does not deserve. As for Malone, the question of “how” posed by Moore’s spokesman should be asked of him. And I’d love to hear his reaction to his business partner’s 70-percent tax proposal.

This isn’t meant to single out Malone, though. As a story published by the Business Journal chain notes, this is part of a wider phenomenon:

Such relationships aren’t unusual in Hollywood, where populist rabble rousers, dreamers and captains of finance long have been united in pursuit of art and profit.

“That’s more the norm than not,” said Michael Taylor, a movie producer, and chairman of film and television production at the School of Cinematic Arts at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.

Moore’s films have been indictments of broad aspects of American culture: the auto industry in “Roger and Me,” U.S. gun culture in “Bowling for Columbine,” the Bush presidency in “Farenheit 9/11” and the health care system in “Sicko.” The latter three are among the six highest-grossing documentary features in history.

His ability to draw large audiences is why a large media company founded by someone like Malone — who battled regulation to make TCI into a cable TV empire, and whose Libery Media recently started a $50,000 annual prize for journalism covering economic freedom — embraces entertainment without regard to its political viewpoint.

“One of the features, I suppose, of being a titan of industry on that scale is to not micromanage these things and get in the way,” Taylor said.

Yet there is a very big difference between getting in the way and not knowing — or caring — what it is you’re backing.

Fittingly, this week The Economist launched a new business column named “Schumpeter,” after the great economist of entrepreneurship, Joseph Schumpeter. This is timely, because Schumpeter’s dire warning about the future of the free market is one we should always keep in mind. As the column notes:

The prophet of capitalism’s creative powers also understood the precariousness of the capitalist achievement. He pointed out that successful firms depend upon a complex ecology that has been created over centuries. He wrote extensively about the development of the joint-stock company and the rise of stockmarkets. He also understood that capitalism might be destroyed by its own success. He worried that a “new class” of bureaucrats and intellectuals were determined to tame capitalism’s animal spirits.

Today, we can look back and see the rise of that “new class” happening alongside the rise of the state over the last century. Entrepreneurs — Business Journal describes Malone as “libertarian” — should know better than to support the kind of intellecutal poison that seeks to do them in. (Thanks to Margaret Griffis for the LA Times link.)

“No Way” to San Jose

by Angela Logomasini on September 23, 2009 · 3 comments

in Environment

In recent years, the San Jose City Hall has led the way in stupid environmental policies.  Several years ago, they were among one of the first cities  (along with San Francisco and Salt Lake City) to ban bottled water in government agencies based on questionable environmental claims.  Now they are banning stores from giving away shopping bags of any kind.  Plastic bags will be banned altogether and stores providing paper bags must charge a fee only provide bags made with 40 percent recycled material.

As detailed before, banning plastic bags won’t help the environment because they are more energy efficient than paper and do not pose any significant problems when properly disposed.  However, this law also targets paper bags based on the assumption that people either don’t need bags or can bring canvas or other reusable bags.  But there are problems with that approach as well: reusable bags can become riddled with dangerous bacteria.

Surely, every choice in life carries risks and benefits.  The idea that government regulators–starting in crazy places like San Jose–should be granted the right to trump our freedoms and decide what risks are worth taking is frightening, particularly since they so often mess up.  Unfortunately, lawmakers love copying bad ideas.  After San Jose and San Francisco banned plastic bottles, many other places followed suit.  This time, consumers in other cities would be wise to say “no way” to this silly San Jose nanny-state regulation.

Image attribution:  San Jose City Hall taken from ktadeo’s photostream on Flickr.

The Economics of Net Neutrality

by Ryan Young on September 23, 2009

in Economy, Regulation, Tech & Telecom

Over at the Washington Examiner‘s Opinion Zone, I apply what  I learned back in Economics 101 to the net neutrality debate. It’s all about scarcity.

Hard-Left Obama Policies Draw Criticism for Undermining Democracy, Security, and the Rule of Law

by Hans Bader on September 23, 2009

in Bailout Watch, Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Energy, Environment, Global Warming, Healthcare, International, Labor, Legal, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Sanctimony, Stimulus to Nowhere, Trade

In his 2008 campaign, Barack Obama talked a lot about “bipartisanship,” but in office, he has governed from the far left, on both domestic and foreign policy, by meddling overseas in favor of left-wing would-be dictators, and at home in support of powerful left-wing unions, at the expense of taxpayers, airline security, the Constitution, and the rule of law.  (One possible exception to his left-wing path is his support for the obscene Wall Street bailouts, which disgusted left and right alike, although those bailouts showered billions of dollars on the liberal Wall Street firm Goldman Sachs, which was so rich that it didn’t even need the money).

The Wall Street Journal criticizes Obama for seeking to force Honduras to accept the return of its ex-president and would-be dictator, Manuel Zelaya, a demand backed by left-wing Latin American dictators. “Mr. Zelaya was deposed and deported this summer after he agitated street protests to support a rewrite of the Honduran constitution so he could serve a second term. The constitution strictly prohibits a change in the term-limits provision. On multiple occasions he was warned to desist, and on June 28 the Supreme Court ordered his arrest. Every major Honduran institution supported the move, even members in Congress of his own political party, the Catholic Church and the country’s human rights ombudsman. To avoid violence the Honduran military escorted Mr. Zelaya out of the country. In other words, his removal from office was legal and constitutional, though his ejection from the country gave the false appearance of an old-fashioned Latin American coup. The U.S. has since come down solidly on the side of—Mr. Zelaya.”

The Weekly Standard criticizes Obama for blocking travel to the U.S. by Hondurans, even while inviting to the White House, and giving a visa to, an official of Burma’s genocidal government, which has used mass rape and massacres against ethnic minority groups, and used torture and murder against Buddhist monks protesting oppression. The Obama Administration earlier imposed travel sanctions on the people of Honduras to punish them for their Supreme Court’s ruling refusing to allow the return of Honduras’s ex-president dictator to office.  Michael Barone, the dean of American political commentators, chides Obama for undemocratically “opposing the elected Congress, courts and civil society of Honduras.”

The Washington Times calls it “the worst foreign policy ever.” It notes that Obama has bullied “Honduras, which is desperately trying to stave off a socialist takeover by an anti-American autocrat whom the State Department has concluded is worthy of full U.S. support. This has delighted Cuban dictators Raul and Fidel Castro and Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez, who are very willing to let the United States carry their water. Venezuela, meanwhile, has signed a major arms deal with Russia, continues to build the anti-Gringo “Bolivarian” bloc, bullies U.S. ally Colombia and plans to launch its own nuclear program.” (Obama’s actions have also emboldened Nicaragua’s corrupt, bullying President Daniel Ortega to behave dictatorially).

The Washington Times reports that “President Obama’s diversity czar at the Federal Communications Commission” has praised Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez and his crackdown on independent media, in remarks in which he “described Hugo Chavez’s rise to power in Venezuela as ‘an incredible revolution.’” (Chavez recently closed 240 radio stations in Venezuela, and his regime has shot unarmed demonstrators).  Other Obama appointees have Marxist roots or sympathies.   Obama’s green jobs czar was the race-baiter Van Jones, “a self-avowed communist” who remained in office for months, desite controversy, until revelations that he was a Truther who believed that George Bush may have been behind the 9/11 attacks. Obama’s nominee to be Assistant Secretary of State, Arturo Valenzuela, has a reputation as a loud defender of Venezuelan dictator Chavez’s terrible record on freedom of the press.

The Times also criticizes Obama’s congressional allies for moving to unionize airline security screeners and authorize collective bargaining at the TSA, making it more difficult for lazy or careless employees to be fired for incompetence.  The unions have “urged TSA Acting Administrator Gale D. Rossides to suspend use of the agency’s skills test for screeners. Failure rates this year reached more than 50 percent and were as high as 80 percent at some airports. The skills test shows that large numbers of airport screeners are failing at jobs that are intrinsic to keeping our airports and commercial airplanes secure, and the union’s response is to get rid of the test. The government employees union is also pushing to have failed screeners’ records cleared because pay and bonuses are tied to performance and unsatisfactory employee records prevent those who were fired for poor performance from being reinstated. So much for worker accountability.”

Obama also wants to introduce union-backed collective bargaining at the TSA. (A study found that the TSA is more than twice as likely to fail to detect a bomb as the private security firms it replaced. And TSA’s failure rate is three or four times as high as the few remaining private firms still allowed to handle airline security.)

The Obama administration is also undermining the security of railroad passengers by gutting an expert, highly-rated, anti-terror agency at Amtrak, which Amtrak’s unions hate, despite its efficiency, because it is not unionized.  Political cronyism is also playing a role in the gutting of Amtrak’s Office of Security Strategy and Special Operations (OSSSO).  Ultimately, OSSSO’s “highly-specialized officers” will likely be replaced by unionized employees with ”alarmingly low pass rates” in “basic” classes.

Earlier, the Obama administration ripped off taxpayers and retirees in the General Motors and Chrysler bailouts, in order to enrich the left-wing United Auto Workers union, in unnecessary bailouts that have cost at least $70 billion, drawing criticism even from the liberal Washington Post.  Many commentators argued that the auto bailouts were illegal, such as the Heritage Foundation and Clinton administration Labor Secretary Robert Reich.

In the Washington Post, George Will criticizes Obama for caving in to demands by left-wing unions for protectionist policies like tire tariffs that will harm consumers without saving jobs.   The stimulus package passed earlier this year contained protectionist provisions that backfired, destroying thousands of U.S. jobs by triggering massive retaliation against our export industry while doing little to reduce imports.

The Obama administration has now ordered a private provider of Medicare Advantage services to remain silent about how the Obama health-care plan would destroy the Medicare Advantage programs relied on by millions of seniors.  Eugene Volokh, a leading expert on First Amendment law, says that this violates the First Amendment.

Obama’s congressional allies have decided to conceal the exact language of their health-care bill until after it is voted on in committee, preventing the public from learning about controversial provisions buried in it.  (Earlier versions of ObamaCare have contained lots of provisions that do nothing to enhance health care, like racial preferences that were criticized as unconstitutional by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights).

Obama’s Energy Secretary likens the American people to unruly “teenage kids” who don’t know what’s good for them, and need to be told what to do.  (The cap-and-trade bill he backs to fight global warming would be devastating for the economy and do nothing to protect the environment).

Obama’s health care plan would raise taxes, break promises, harm people with insurance, explode the budget deficit, destroy many inexpensive health-care plans, and take away important freedoms.

Gypsy Cabs Coming soon to DC?

by Ivan Osorio on September 23, 2009 · 2 comments

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Mobility, Regulation

If you’ve ever been to Brooklyn, you’ve almost certainly seen firsthand the shortage of taxis that has been created by New York City’s licensing restrictions, known as the “medallion” system. Under this system, only a limited number of licensed cabs are allowed to run in the city. You’ve probably also seen how the locals get around these restrictions: through the use of unlicensed taxis, known as “gypsy” cabs, and car services, which are technically limo services which you have to call for pickup.

I’ve used car services and have found them a good solution for getting around Brooklyn quickly, but having to call for a car and wait for it is nowhere near as fast or convenient as simply flagging down a passing taxi. Gypsy cabs face a competitive disadvantage in that they have to operate more discreetly than do licensed cabs, which can pick up passengers at high-traffic points like hotels, airports, and train stations. This all makes a New York taxicab medallion highly desirable, but acquiring use of one can be extremely expensive.

Taxicab medallion restrictions result in artificially high entry costs for new drivers and lower quality service for passengers. Yet, two District of Columbia city council members, Jim Graham and Muriel Bowser, are trying to impose a similar system in the nation’s capital. The idiocy of such a proposal almost defies belief. The only sensible explanation for it would be that cab drivers who face less competition would support medallion proponents. But yesterday, the cabbies said, “No, thanks.” The Washington Post reports:

About 1,000 taxi drivers went on strike Tuesday in response to a D.C. Council bill aimed at establishing a taxi medallion system or a taxi vehicle certificate system, organizers said. If passed, cabdrivers fear, the bill could substantially increase the cost of operating a taxi in the District.

And for what? The Washington Examiner reports:

“The problem we’re facing right now is the increasing number of people trying to enter this system,” said D.C. Councilman Jim Graham, D-Ward 1, who chairs the Public Works and Transportation Committee.

I’ve long been accustomed to hear politicians utter economically illiterate statements, but to describe supply arising to meet demand for a service as a “problem” is astounding even by that sorry standard. As Reason‘s Ron Bailey comments:

Just exactly why would DC residents want to have fewer taxis? If more drivers are entering the market doesn’t that suggest strongly that supply has not yet equalled demand?

That’s a good question; I’d like to hear Graham’s and Bowser’s answers. The costs of their proposed scheme would be huge indeed. According to the Examiner:

Medallions in some major cities cost tens of thousands of dollars, and can be auctioned off for hundreds of thousands if there’s a limit on the number of cab drivers in the area. Because of the moratorium on the number of cabs in New York City, medallions there sell for more than half of a million dollars.

In fact, New York taxi medallion are so valuable, that, as CEI’s Eli Lehrer has pointed out, they are often used as collateral for loans. Leave it government to give value to something that should be completely unnecessary.

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →