January 2012

Blogger Kareem Amer Missing in Egypt

by Grant Babcock on February 9, 2011 · 2 comments

in International, Personal Liberty

Kareem Amer, noted Egyptian blogger and democratic activist has not been heard from since 11 PM on February 6. Recently released after four years of imprisonment, Kareem was last seen leaving Tahir Square, the center of the anti-government protests. His friends fear he may have been ambushed and arrested or kidnapped by supporters of Mubarak.

In a recent interview with CyberDissidents.org, Kareem remarked:

America must stop protecting the Egyptian regime. Don’t be fooled by Egyptian propaganda which suggests that the regime opposes Islamist extremism. In fact, fundamentalism is secretly supported by totalitarian regimes in the region, foremost among them Egypt. This is in order to say to the West, “Look, there are these fundamentalists, and our stable secular dictatorship is the only alternative.”

Islamic fundamentalist terrorism is the number one enemy of the United States. The primary driver of this radicalism, and what most increases their numbers, is the absence of freedom — social freedom, political freedom, freedom of speech, etc. People will take various routes to escape oppression, and one of the most dangerous routes is that of religious radicalism, especially since religion in our society is so deeply entrenched in popular culture…

…I totally disagree with the idea that the only alternative to the Egyptian regime is a warmongering theocracy that would threaten other countries such as Israel. The world shouldn’t be fooled by Egyptian propaganda produced for Western consumption that suggests that the current regime is, for example, the only one capable of protecting Israel.

As protests in Egypt grow, there will be temptation to say that Mubarak needs to remain in power until an orderly transition can take place, so as to avoid chaos ans a potential theocratic takeover. Nothing could be further from the truth. Kareem’s disappearance is evidence that rights abuses will continue until Mubarak is out of power. Moreover, negotiations with the Mubarak regime would be a tactical mistake for democratic forces at this point. In his book From Dictatorship to Democracy, Gene Sharp has a chapter about the dangers of negotiating with dictators. Here is an excerpt:

The offer by a dictatorship of “peace” through negotiations with the democratic opposition is, of course, rather disingenuous. The violence could be ended immediately by the dictators themselves, if only they would stop waging war on their own people. They could at their own initiative without any bargaining restore respect for human dignity and rights, free political prisoners, end torture, halt military operations, withdraw from the government, and apologize to the people.

When the dictatorship is strong but an irritating resistance exists, the dictators may wish to negotiate the opposition into surrender under the guise of making “peace.” The call to negotiate can sound appealing, but grave dangers can be lurking within the negotiating room.

On the other hand, when the opposition is exceptionally strong and the dictatorship is genuinely threatened, the dictators may seek negotiations in order to salvage as much of their control or wealth as possible. In neither case should the democrats help the dictators achieve their goals…

…The call for negotiations when basic issues of political liberties are involved may be an effort by the dictators to induce the democrats to surrender peacefully while the violence of the dictatorship continues.

As the continuing oppression in Egypt makes clear, “basic issues of political liberties” are exactly what is at stake here. Open and honest elections will only be possible after the Mubarak regime has been put out of power.

Socialist and theocratic elements will indeed pose a threat to the possibility of a free Egypt, and I don’t have any easy answers about how the U.S. might minimize their influence. But what stands to be gained, what Kareem hopes for, is too great of a possibility to let these dangers lead us to coddle Mubarak: we’re talking about a secular democracy in the Middle East, achieved through internal change, without the need for military intervention.

For years, the U.S. has supported monarchs and dictators in the Middle East as a “second best” option. With Mubarak’s repressive regime teetering on the brink of collapse, there can no longer be a humanitarian or a pragmatic argument for endorsing it.

To learn more about Kareem’s disappearance, and what you can do to help, read Urgent: Egyptian Blogger Kareem Amer Missing at CyberDissident.

Alcohol Regulation Roundup: February 9, 2011

by Michelle Minton on February 9, 2011 · 1 comment

in Economy, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Regulation

Connecticut: Two days after Super Bowl Sunday, Connecticut lawmakers held a hearing on one of the most contentious issues this session: whether consumers can buy beer and wine on Sundays at package stores. Convenience and grocery store owners support the measure, but the hearing had a “small army of package store owners” who claim, allowing Sunday sales and forcing them to stay open 7 days a week will cost revenue and jobs. But grocery stores, lawmakers, and consumers in the state see things differently. They want the customers, tax revenue, and convenience that Sunday sales will bring the state. Connecticut is one of 14 states that still prohibit hard liquor sales on Sunday and one of only three states that still disallow Sunday sales of beer. However, the other two states, Georgia and Indiana, are considering repealing their ban on Sunday sales as well.

While lawmakers have been unsuccessful in the past to repeal the state’s ban on Sunday liquor sales, this year their chances are better due to new Governor Dan Malloy, who has publicly stated that he would sign the repeal bill if it landed on his desk. Malloy previously called legalizing Sunday sales “a no brainer.”

Georgia: As mentioned above, this week Georgia lawmakers are considering repealing the state-wide ban on Sunday sales. Just today, the House Regulated Industries Committee gave its unanimous approval for the bill which would allow localities to attach referendums to election ballots on Sunday alcohol sales. A Senate committee already approved the measure and a similar billed passed the Senate State and Local Government Operations Committee. While a full Senate vote on the matter is a near certainty it is unlikely, they’ll allow this to be the first bill passed in the session.

Indiana: Last week Indiana lawmakers in the House passed a bill that would repeal current state law requiring store clerks to card customers regardless of their apparent age. If it passes in the Senate, HB 1325 will let clerks bypass carding customers who appear older than 40.

Alaska: Voters in Anchorage will get the chance this April to say whether or not they want a universal ID check in every liquor store. If the universal ID ban is voted down by citizens, it will be up to lawmakers to pass a bill allowing clerks to bypass carding certain types of customers.

Kansas: The Coalition for Jobs and Consumer Choice is pushing SB 54 in the Kansas state Senate, which would allow grocery and convenience stores to sell full-strength alcoholic beverages that are currently only available at one of the state’s 766 liquor stores (3.2 beer is available). Proponents say the change will net an increase of 15,367 jobs, $343.6 million in wages, and $72.5 million in tax revenue. Opponents of the change, of course, dispute those numbers.

Maryland: This article details the unintended consequence of disallowing direct shipping of wine in Maryland. Many wine aficionados who live in Maryland either work or have friends in Virginia or D.C. — which, unlike Maryland, allow wine shipping. As a result, Maryland residents are routinely breaking state law by having their wine shipped to these other locations and then driving the cases home-a misdemeanor offense that carries a fine of up to $10,000 and prison sentence of up to five years. Maryland is one of 13 states that prohibits wine shipping.

Transparency Bill Proposed Solution to Public Employee Pension Problems

by Kathryn Ciano on February 9, 2011

in Economy, Labor

At a House subcommittee meeting discussing one proposed solution for public employee pensions, a transparency bill designed to trace federal and state funds set aside to cover pension guarantees. Lawmakers and media types weigh in on taxes, Social Security, and how their interest groups are affected by pension cures.

Paul Ryan enters fresh from Bernanke’s hearing, to quote the Federal Reserve chair’s uncertainty as to when and how public employee pensions will be paid. This echoes Grover Norquist’s statement earlier in the same conference that everyone’s answer to the question of the day — Will public employees get the pensions promised them by their states? — is: We’re pretty sure.

Covering public employee pensions has become an enormous problem for states unable to cover even the going expense of running a government. California offered IOU’s to some employees this year, and state employees whose pensions are guaranteed by the state are subsisting on promises and guarantees, but many have not been paid. Arnold Schwarzenegger endorsed this transparency bill as he exited the office of governor, according to a presenting Ways and Means committee member.

Rep. Darrell Issa reminds the room that we will all pay for any failure. If one city or state fails, the entire country will bear the burden. Public employee pensions may not rise to the highest level on some conservative dockets, but as baby boomers retire, public budgets are braced to absorb the shock wave anticipated when the pension crisis hits.

As with every area of the economy, uncertainty quashes growth. As go public employees relying on a lifetime of pension pay-ins, so goes America, relying on receiving checks from social security, not IOU’s.

World Food Prices at an All-Time High Because of Subsidies

by Kathryn Ciano on February 9, 2011

in Agriculture, Economy, International, Trade

World food prices are at an all-time high, announced the FAO this week. Many experts are jumping to conclusions that this indicates a global food shortage on the horizon.

These numbers do not herald a food shortage. This simply illustrates what happens when food becomes a subsidized commodity. Analysts irritated that corn and sugar subsidies raise the price of those commodities are not merely thinking about Americans who will have to pay more; economic events are necessarily global, and subsidies in one country raise prices for that commodity for the entire world.

Look at the numbers. Food price is determined by examining what commodities go into a “food basket”: grains, milk, sugar — all the things that people eat, with enough diversity to include all of the bulk products that reflect all of the world’s food choices.

The two highest commodities are sugar and oilseeds. Only one of the commodity jumps, milk, rose because of cattle illness in parts of Asia and South America. The business of cattle is subsidized, but it’s stable, save illness or unforeseen events.

The world’s highest food prices ever are because governments have their fingers so deep in the business of edible commodities that there is no real market to speak of.

I wrote:

Food price index means very little out of context. Here’s The Economist’s index of all commodities (including food). Food is up, but everything is up, really.

Commodity prices don’t even take service industries into effect — and service dollars are a huge part of the world’s economy. We in the US are familiar with the importance of service dollars in the US economy (running on so much subsidy), but many developing nations also rely heavily on service industries, like tourism.

Don’t panic, but do appreciate this further illustration of cause and effect. If governments start paying into food groups with seemingly-unlimited funds, people will have to pay more to eat. If governments keep their hands off, food will be more easily traded.

Regulation without Representation

by Ryan Young on February 9, 2011 · 1 comment

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Regulation

Congress never actually votes on most regulations. Over 3,500 regulations hit the books most years. But Congress usually passes fewer than 200 bills. As Wayne Crews and I explain in today’s Investor’s Business Daily, this is regulation without representation.

Only Congress, and not agencies, have the power to legislate. But that is exactly what is happening now. Bills to regulate carbon emissions, regulate the Internet, and more all failed in Congress. But agencies are enacting rules. If you can’t legislate, regulate. This is wrong.

It allows politicians to escape blame for unpopular or controversial regulations. Don’t blame me, blame bureaucrats! It also gives agencies little incentive to rein in their worst impulses. If they can do whatever they want, they will work to expand their budget and authority.

The first step in solving the problem of regulation without representation is requiring Congress to vote on major regulations. Not all regulations — 3,500 votes is a bit much. And agencies do deserve some independence on administrative affairs and minor detail work.  But requiring 200 votes on major rules costing at least $100 million each is the least Congress should do.

The REINS Act, recently introduced by Rep. Geoff Davis and Sen. Rand Paul, would do just that. There are many facets to regulatory reform. There is much more to do. But putting a damper on regulation without representation is a good start.

You can read Wayne’s and my article here.

Morning Media Summary

by Lee Doren on February 9, 2011

in Economy, Energy, Environment, International, Legal, Personal Liberty, Regulation, Trade

Tech:

1Gbps Wi-Fi Soon Coming To a Billion Devices:
“Not only is 1Gbps heading for your Wi-Fi network by next year, it will be instantly über popular. The new 802.11ac 1G Wi-Fi standard hasn’t even been ratified by the IEEE yet and In-Stat predicts that by 2015, consumers will have bought nearly 1 billion devices that use it. 1G Wi-Fi, which will use radio spectrum in a range below 6GHz, will be embedded in mobile phones, e-readers and automotive infotainment systems, the study reports. It further predicts:”

Global Warming / Environment / Energy:

Global warming skeptics send letter to Congress urging members not give into climate ‘alarmists’:
“In response to a letter sent to members of Congress at the end of January, encouraging them to ignore global warming skeptics and “take a fresh look at climate change,” global warming skeptics sent their own letter to members Tuesday telling them not to be intimidated by claims of a “scientific consensus.””

WikiLeaks cables: Saudi Arabia cannot pump enough oil to keep a lid on prices:
“The US fears that Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest crude oil exporter, may not have enough reserves to prevent oil prices escalating, confidential cables from its embassy in Riyadh show.”

Insurance / Gambling:

Brewer files bill to require gambling costs-benefit analysis:
“Boston — Sen. Stephen Brewer, appointed to the Senate’s most powerful budget-writing post last month by Senate President Therese Murray, is backing legislation championed by anti-gambling forces that requires a detailed cost-benefit analysis as a prerequisite to the introduction of slot parlors or casinos.”

Health / Safety:

USDA: Eggs’ Cholesterol Lower Than Thought, Vitamin D Higher:
“The USDA announced today that eggs are significantly lower in cholesterol than previously thought. And, by the way, they are also quite a bit higher in vitamin D.”

Fixodent: Can Excessive Use of Popular Denture Cream Cause Nerve Damage?:
“Mark Jacoby had no idea why his body was failing. Symptoms appeared gradually, said the 41-year-old former construction worker from York, Pa.”

House seen blocking healthcare funds:
“”I expect to see one way or other the product coming out of the House to speak to that and to preclude any funding to be used for that,” Cantor said at a news conference, referring to an effort to block implementation of the health-care law.”

Economics:

White House plans phase-out of Fannie, Freddie:
“More than two years after the government seized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Obama administration will recommend phasing out the housing-finance giants and gradually reducing the government’s footprint in the mortgage market, according to people familiar with the matter.”

Flake Defies GOP on Cuts:
“Following a contentious vote Tuesday night, the House Appropriations Committee will move forward with a GOP proposal to cut tens of billions in federal non-security spending for the remainder of the fiscal year (through September). The move puts Republicans one step closer to bringing a continuing resolution to the floor that will replace the one that expires on March 4.”

Legal:

Move to extend Patriot Act under suspended rules fails in House: “U.S. Immigration and “An effort to quietly pass an extension of key provisions in the Patriot Act under the same rules the House uses to name Post Offices failed in a Tuesday night vote.””

Obama’s law professor: If the Supreme Court strikes down the mandate, they must be biased political hacks:
“One of the most pitiful, relentlessly irritating op-eds about O-Care that I’ve read since our long national nightmare began in summer ’09. To understand what makes it so grating, you need to know that the author, Laurence Tribe, is not only a Harvard Law prof who taught Obama but a bona fide titan of constitutional jurisprudence on the left. He wrote a famous treatise on the subject and was, in his younger days, a perennial candidate for the Supreme Court when Democrats were in the White House. You might also remember him as the guy who sneered, amusingly, in a letter to Obama that Sotomayor isn’t nearly as smart as she thinks she is, and who endorsed Kagan because he thought she’d be better able to keep Anthony Kennedy from “drifting” towards the right.”

Labor:

SEIU still plans to act on imposed contracts:
“The Service Employees International Union still is fighting contracts imposed on two of its units by McHenry County government, despite the contracts expiring later this year.”

Transportation/ Land Use:

White House announces $53B for rail:
“Speaking from Philadelphia’s 30th Street train station, Vice President Joe Biden joined by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, announced $53 billion over six years for new high-speed rail corridors and increased speeds on existing lines.”

iPhone 4 is All About Verizon, Not Apple

by Kathryn Ciano on February 8, 2011 · 1 comment

in Tech & Telecom

Design loyalists know it all begins and ends with Apple, the little tech company whose mission statement is “to change the world.” When it comes to phone users, design goes out the window: iPhone 4 converts are excited about Verizon, not Apple.

Verizon and Apple both launched Web sales of the iPhone 4 last week for existing Verizon customers, and are preparing for a Thursday store launch open to the general public. Sales during last week’s launch exceeded any previous Verizon launch, beating sales at the Droid launch by five times, according to JPMorgan Chase analyst Phil Cusick.

I wrote on launch day:

In this case it looks like folks switching phones are doing it for the service provider, not for the manufacturer. Despite its reputation for inflexible contract terms, Verizon enjoys the view from the top of the dependable-service-provider heap

Verizon seems preoccupied with their launch today. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs tweeted today that “WH unclassified email went down shortly before 8 AM. Verizon is working to solve the problem.

It’s not just web service and White House service that’s become spotty; Verizon is so concerned about the crush of demand anticipated for iPhone 4 that the company asked employees to hold off buying the phone for themselves or their families, citing “tight supplies” and the need to “put customers first.”

The launch crashed both the Verizon website and Verizon’s service to the White House. Let’s hope this doesn’t herald a new era of dropped calls and spotty connections for Verizon customers.

Verizon sold out of the iPhone within two hours on its Web launch day. Better line up now to get your Verizon-powered iPhone Thursday morning!

Natural Gas Vehicles and the EPA

by Brian McGraw on February 8, 2011 · 5 comments

in Energy

Much has been written in the media lately about EPA regulations that intend to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Might the EPA start by considering something that reduces the scope of government and greenhouse gas emissions? Vehicles can be converted such that they can run on compressed or liquid natural gas (CNG or LNG), which produces fewer GHGs than petroleum.

Given recent natural gas discoveries which have pushed prices lower, this might even be a natural market process if it weren’t for burdensome licensing requirements. The licensing of natural gas vehicle conversions are prohibitively expensive, with some estimates ranging up to $200,000 per engine class.

This estimate claims that licensing is even more expensive than listed above, as they must be consistently renewed and licenses only apply to a narrow range of vehicles. As a result, the equipment and installations required to allow your vehicle to run on natural gas are also expensive, ranging from $12,000 to $25,000 — rarely worth it for the average consumers. Though note that there are numerous high-mileage buses and delivery fleet vehicles that use natural gas, as it saves money.

This is yet another unfortunately example of what happens when the government steers and asks the market to row. The biggest alternative to petroleum is split between electric vehicles and biofuels. Both biofuels and electric vehicles have received enormous federal subsidies. Natural gas vehicles receive some (modest) subsidies, yet sit under costly and confusing regulations. As a result, the market has produced billions of gallons of harmful biofuels, which few outside of the political class support publicly. Despite all of this, there appears to be approximately 1,000 natural gas fueling stations in the United States, compared to approximately 2500 E-85 stations.

Unfortunately, few government agencies ever have the incentive to let go of responsibilities (“this is something we probably shouldn’t regulate so heavily”), even in situations where it would help fulfill their “mission”, as it reduces their relevance, budget, etc.

Common Sense: Making Union Officials Help Union Members

by Trey Kovacs on February 8, 2011 · 3 comments

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Labor, Regulation

Recently, there have been numerous protests about Republican legislation that it is supposedly anti-union and limiting the rights of workers. I don’t buy it. Let us take a look at what conservatives are pushing for.

In Idaho, the state and local governments are looking to eliminate project labor agreements, as well as eliminate union representatives being paid for negotiating union contracts on the taxpayers’ dime. In Idaho’s case this means allowing competitive bidding on government construction projects, not limiting bidding to union shops. Letting the free market determine the bids will save the state money. The proposal to do away with federal employees performing union work on taxpayer time is a no-brainer in this fiscal climate. This is a national bill proposal under the Federal Employee Accountability Act. These proposals seem to be motivated by fiscal responsibility, not resentment of unions or labor. The state cannot afford to pay more for a construction project than it has to and states cannot afford to pay public employees to negotiate contracts.

Another Republican proposal being introduced is performance-based pay for public school teachers. Again, this should not upset union officials and should delight their members. It enables union members to be paid by merit, which is how every private sector employee is judged. This allows for the best teachers to be paid more and incentivizes teachers to improve their performance. It is a win-win for the state and public employees. The state will have more competition for teaching positions, therefore states are able to hire better teachers. The public employees benefit by being paid based on merit and can achieve a higher status at an earlier point in their careers. Also, new effective and productive teachers would not be the first teachers laid off if cuts needed to be made, reducing the benefits of seniority and basing job security on performance.

Jim DeMint is proposing the National Right to Work Act, a bill strongly opposed by Big Labor. No matter how greatly union officials believe that the Right to Work law is a direct assault against Big Labor, that is simply not true. Well, maybe it is a direct attack against union officials, but not union members. The National Right to Work Act allows union members in right-to-work states to decide if they want to pay union dues or not. It does not get rid of unions. I compare the National Right to Work Law with merit-based pay for public school teachers. These proposals are beneficial for effective and valuable unions, teachers, and workers in general. The intention of the proposed laws is to keep teachers and unions accountable to their union members or to parents and students. If the unions or teachers are not producing, there needs to be a way to remove unproductive teachers and union meddling.

The upcoming proposed bills should be welcomed by the American labor force. Dues-paying union members need to have some recourse to defend themselves against union officials, who do not have union members’ best interest at heart. Similar to the outcry among progressives to increase regulation of Wall Street to protect consumers, these laws would create an atmosphere of accountability for government employees and union officials. No longer could these groups waste taxpayer money or spend union dues in ways that have negative impacts on the dues-paying members and American taxpayers.

Regulation of the Day 164: Panhandling

by Ryan Young on February 8, 2011 · 1 comment

in Regulation, Regulation of the Day

If Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett gets his way, panhandlers will need a government permit to ask people for money if they’re near a road. When panhandlers solicit motorists at intersections, they often have to step into the road. Leggett believes this is a safety hazard that requires a legislative fix.

Roadside panhandling is already illegal under Maryland state law, so the county ordinance is technically redundant. But the state ban appears to not be well enforced; hence the local law. Leggett’s permit proposal is likely a backdoor ban. The permits will exist, and panhandlers can apply for them. But none will be issued.

But suppose a permit does get approved. This would violate state law, would it not? Of course, people still panhandle at intersections anyway. So maybe neither the state nor the county ban matters so much.

(via Dan Mitchell)

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →