January 2012

For the first time in U.S. history, the majority of the country’s union members work for government, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports. For the cause of limiting the size of government, the implications of this development are ominous. Because they depend on the growth of government to increase their membership over the long term, government employee unions function as a permanent lobby for bigger government — one that is organized, motivated and well funded. As Brian Johnson of the Alliance for Worker Freedom notes in The Washington Times:

There once was a day when working for the government meant a sacrifice for public service. Government employees didn’t face the vagaries of employment in the corporate sector, where jobs come and go, but in return government jobs didn’t come with the salaries and perks of the private sector, either.

Not anymore. The government unions want it all – high pay, stability and a growing work force. And they’re willing to use their growing political clout to get it. Public-sector unions ferociously lobby each level of government for increased spending and oppose tax reductions.

In Oregon, public employees unions spent almost $4 million supporting ballot initiatives to raise personal income and business taxes by $733 million. The Service Employee International Union (SEIU) spent millions in California campaigning for higher oil, gas and liquor taxes. In Arizona, the Arizona Education Association lobbied successfully against repealing a $250 million-a-year statewide property tax. Even in the conservative state of Alabama, the Alabama Education Association’s annual convention endorsed tax increases on businesses, cigarettes and soft drinks – while voting down measures supporting spending restrictions to combat the state’s budget shortfall.

And how great is unions’ involvement in politics? Six of the top 10 — and 12 of the top 20 — donors to political campaigns during from 1989 to the present are unions, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME) is the second overall donor shouldn’t be surprising. Unionization in government is greater at the state and local level, so AFSCME has the most to gain from government budget bloat.

Another top-10 heavy hitter is the Service Employees International Union, which is working to increase its presence in the public sector — which SEIU hopes will grow much larger through greater government involvement in health care. (Thanks to Iain Murray for the Opensecrets.org link.)

For more on public sector unions, see here and here.

For more on SEIU, see here, here, and here.

The Washington Examiner’s David Freddoso reports that Paddy Power, Ireland’s largest bookmaker, is taking bets on President Obama’s State of the Union speech tomorrow — from the first cliche uttered to the color of the president’s tie.

Why Ireland? Quite simply, because online gaming is an industry that the American government has literally chased out and away from our shores, for no good reason.

Meanwhile, back in America, all we can do legally is engage in drinking games.

For more on online gaming, see here.

John Delacey of St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada, received a court summons for keeping a car in his driveway and not driving it.

The car, which he bought for his daughter, needs new brakes. He claims it is otherwise in good condition, and not an eyesore. Delacey had been saving up money for the repair.

Here’s the really shameful part:

“City property inspectors became involved when someone in the neighbourhood complained about the car.”

It would have been considerate of the offended neighbor to talk to Mr. Delacey first. Maybe they could have come to a compromise (economist Ronald Coase‘s preferred solution). Instead, he went right to the authorities.

Take a look at some other St. John’s by-laws here.

(Hat tip to Jonathan Moore)

Seeking to recast himself as a fiscal conservative, Obama is projected to propose a freeze on discretionary spending – NPR, NEA, “green” jobs, “disaster” relief, foreign aid?  Well, perhaps, but before awarding him the 2010 “Wastrel Recovery” prize, consider the various ways government burdens the economy.  Limiting spending and government growth requires a systemic approach.  Consider the rich array of political means: taxes, regulation, guarantees, entitlements, inflation, monetary misallocation, and “discretionary” spending.  Tax cuts have been a conservative nostrum for many years and taxes can be costly but, too often, they’re paid for with debt or inflation.  The costs of inflation, regulation, guarantees are largely off-budget.  There are no “accounting” gains for cutting back on these interventions.   Entitlements such as social security and medicare (especially after the massive expansion of Bush and the Republican Congress) dwarf discretionary spending but Obama seems unlikely to challenge these sacred cows.

Still, better than nothing?  Perhaps, if Obama would cease campaigning for ever more costly regulations, halting the onslaught of financial, environmental and medical rules, or abolish Freddie, Fannie and the other TBTF faux capitalist GSEs cluttering the economic landscape, we’d have more confidence.  Why not get ahead of the game-do a “Nixon in China” and seek to privatize retirement and medicare?  Monetary policy is nominally the Fed’s but why not allow a “Taxpayer Choice of Currency” with each citizen designating their own tax metric, thus disciplining inflationary policies?

Yes, if NEA and NIH and NASA and the army of acronymic pigs at the public trough can be curbed, it would be good.  But, a starved program merely encourages the relevant interest groups to push back toward the trough.  Only abolishing programs can yield any significant results.  So let’s hope that Obama reaches for his roots and becomes an Abolitionist.  Till then, expect lots of rhetoric but not much hopeful change!

A question to Slate‘s “Green Lantern” environmental adviser:

Instead of glasses, I wear contact lenses. This means throwing out scraps of plastic (as well as their packaging) every two weeks, in addition to using cleaning fluid (which comes in plastic containers) and plastic lens cases. How much better would it be for the planet if I switched to glasses?

The response goes on for 10 paragraphs, essentially concluding “Don’t worry about it.” A better response: “Give me a break!”

Or how about this, “Say five ‘Our Gaias’” and go forth and sin no more.

The WHO has suddenly gone from a cackling Chicken Little crying “The Sky is Falling!” to squealing like a stuck pig, in response to charges (such as I’ve been making since day one) that it fabricated a pandemic. “The world is going through a real pandemic. The description of it as a fake is wrong and irresponsible,” the agency claims on its website.

A WHO spokesman declined to spell out whom the World Health Organization was responding to in its statement, saying merely that “this applies to anyone who believes it is not a real pandemic.”

But as I’ve previously noted, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, described as a “human rights watchdog” recently recommended that the European Union investigate WHO’s swine flu pandemic declaration to see if the health agency acted under undue influence. Indeed, the chairman of its influential health committee, who is an epidemiologist, has referred to what he calls the “false pandemic” as “one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century.”

To be sure, swine flu has proved to be vastly milder than ordinary seasonal flu. And in fact we knew that (and I wrote about it) before the WHO ever made its pandemic declaration. But spokesman Gregory Hartl told the AP this was irrelevant, because “A pandemic has nothing to do with severity or number of deaths,” rather it just means a global spread of a disease.”

But as I’ve written, that’s only because the WHO changed the definition of “flu pandemic.” “A previous official definition (and widely used unofficial one),” I noted, “required ‘simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.’ Severity – that is, the number – is crucial, because seasonal flu always causes worldwide simultaneous epidemics.

But [the definition] promulgated in April just days before the announcement of the swine flu outbreak, simply eliminated severity as a factor. They’re saying “We weren’t caught with our hands in the cookie jar because we labeled those Oreos ‘rocks.’”

Why? The initial reason is that this is the same WHO that for five years screamed that the sky was falling over avian flu – again even as people like me said it was nonsense. So when swine flu came along, they seized the opportunity to scratch out “avian” and insert “swine.” Add to that the obvious incentives for budget-enhancing and power grabbing. But bizarrely enough, the WHO even saw the chance for economic and social engineering.

In a September speech, WHO Director-General Chan said “ministers of health” should take advantage of the “devastating impact” swine flu will have on poorer nations to tell “heads of state and ministers of finance, tourism and trade” that:

  • The belief that “living conditions and health status of the poor would somehow automatically improve as countries modernized, liberalized their trade and improved their economies” is false. Wealth doesn’t equal health.
  • “Changes in the functioning of the global economy” are needed to “distribute wealth on the basis of” values “like community, solidarity, equity and social justice.”
  • “The international policies and systems that govern financial markets, economies, commerce, trade and foreign affairs have not operated with fairness as an explicit policy objective.”

This is no longer a health agency, it views its function as agit-prop. It’s time to start over with people who see disease as something to combat, not to exploit.

Last Thursday, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, introduced a resolution of disapproval, under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), to overturn EPA’s endangerment finding. Murkowski’s floor statement and a press release are available here.

As you’d expect, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and other apostles of Gorethodoxy were quick to condemn the resolution as an attack on the Clean Air Act, science, public health, and the children.

Rubbish!

At a press conference she organized on the same day the resolution was introduced, Boxer and others tried to spin the Murkowski resolution as a referendum on science – as if Congress, King Canute-fashion, could alter the results of scientific research.  

A strong case can be made that the endangerment finding is scientifically-challenged. But that’s not what the Murkowski resolution is about.

As the Senator made clear in her floor statement, and as you can see from the text, the resolution is a referendum on the propriety of EPA taking control of the economy without so much as a by-your-leave from the people’s elected representatives. The Murkowski resolution vetoes the endangerment finding’s regulatory force and legal effect, not its intellectual content.

EPA’s endangerment finding, as I explain in this column on Pajamas Media, would launch an era of runaway regulation without representation. The Murkowski resolution is a gutsy action to safeguard the economy, government’s accountability to the people, and the separation of powers under the Constitution.

Sit back for a moment and read the title of this blog post again. Let it sink in.

A new video just released by Econstories.tv, a project of The Mercatus Center, explores the basis of both Hayek and Keynes economic theories in classic west coast rap style.  Co-written by Russ Roberts, also host of the EconTalk podcast, this video is attempting something difficult: Finding  ways to expose a new audience to the philosophy of free markets.

Richard Morrison, Jeremy Lott and the American Spectator’s Jim Antle collaborate on Episode 78 of the LibertyWeek podcast. We cover the reverberations from Scott Brown’s Senate election, Obama’s 77% disapproval rating among investors, the 1st Amendment verdict in the Citizens United case, the shame of UN climate science and a new hope for Haiti.

Haggis is the national dish of Scotland. It has also been banned in the United States since 1989. Some of its ingredients are illegal for humans to consume in the U.S.

I won’t list what those ingredients are; they’re a bit hard to stomach (that would also be one of the ingredients). But having tried a small amount of haggis while in Scotland, I can testify that it doesn’t taste as bad as it sounds.

Fortunately, the haggis ban may soon be reversed. There has been no evidence of harm from eating offal ingredients. People have been eating haggis for centuries and been just fine. American shores may soon be teeming with the latest Scottish culinary innovations, including haggis nachos and haggis pizza.