This morning, I attended the Property Rights Alliance’s launch presentation of the 2011 International Property Rights Index. Overall, the United States declined to 18th place in the world (from 16th in 2010 and 14th in 2007, when the Index was originally created), losing out to top-ranked Finland.
The biggest contributor to the U.S.’s reduced standing was in the Physical Property Rights category (real property), which accounted for nearly half of the year-over-year decline in points. The variables for this category are protection of physical property rights, property registration, and access to loans. It is here where one might be surprised by some of the countries who rank ahead of the U.S. (ranked 25th) in terms of real property rights: Bahrain (5th), Saudi Arabia (8th), Oman (9th-tie), Botswana (21st-tie), and Tunisia (21st-tie).
The U.S. is still near the top when it comes to intellectual property protection (not that that’s necessarily good in my view), which in part saves the U.S. from even poorer rankings. But (real) property rights are what ground all of our rights — indeed, well-defined property rights are a prerequisite to any market-oriented liberal democracy. It is time for Americans to stop taking such a passive view when it comes to their fundamental individual right to hold and transfer private property as they see fit. To put this in the least hyperbolic way possible: the future of the country depends on it!
President Obama was in Brazil over the weekend:
“The United States doesn’t simply recognize Brazil’s rise; we support it enthusiastically,” Obama said in Brasilia, the capital, after meeting with President Dilma Rousseff as he began a five-day trip that also will take him to Chile and El Salvador.
This is true. The taxpayer is still sending Brazilian cotton farmers millions of dollars per year because the WTO ruled in favor of Brazil when they sued the United States over our farm subsidy program. Rather than try to support Brazil by ending this (which is, admittedly, likely impossible for President Obama at this time), meaningless speeches will be given and some silly inter-bureaucratic program will potentially be set up to focus on economic development.
Obama might also support ending the tariff on Brazilian ethanol (but please don’t do that without ending the renewable fuel standard).
The Obama administration’s recent push against “bullying” resulted in a letter to school officials that undermines both free speech and due process. On October 26, a political appointee in the Education Department sent a “Dear Colleague” letter to the nation’s school boards claiming that many forms of homophobia and bullying violate federal laws against sexual harassment and discrimination. But those laws only ban discrimination based on sex or race — not bullying in general. The letter from the Assistant Secretary of Civil Rights Russlynn Ali defined “harassment” so broadly as to reach both speech protected by the First Amendment, and conduct the Supreme Court says does not legally qualify as harassment.
The letter left the incorrect impression with some reporters that federal statutes already ban bullying and sexual-orientation-based harassment. For example, Keen News Service reported that the Education Department “issued guidance to all school officials in October 2010, reminding them that federal law requires schools to take action against bullying,” including “sexual harassment of LGBT students.” The letter was part of the Obamas’ PR campaign against bullying, that featured a “a high-visibility conference on bullying prevention March 10, with the President and first lady” and the introduction by Obama backers of “several LGBT-inclusive bills designed to address bullying of students.”
[click to continue…]
Over at the excellent NewGeography.com, Wendell Cox has an article about the battle over high-speed rail investment in Britain. As we’ve seen in the United States–and all over the world–Britain’s high-speed rail plans are propped up by incredibly optimistic cost and ridership projections. Of course, these initial estimates generally turn out to be radically different from reality as it unfolds:
The international record of high-speed rail projections is nothing short of horrific. Not only have costs proven far higher, but ridership and revenue have been less than projected. All of this means that taxpayers end up paying more.
Again, Britain is a prime example. The Eurostar London to Brussels and Paris continues to attract at least 50 percent less ridership originally projected. High speed rail systems in Taiwan and Korea have had similar ridership shortfalls.
[click to continue…]
File this under “Adventures on the Laffer curve.” The New Hampshire House is seeking to lower its cigarette tax from $1.78 per pack to $1.68. Almost every other state has increased cigarette taxes over the past few decades. In New York, an individual pays an extra $4.35 per pack (minimum, not including any local taxes) of cigarettes, about $.20 per cigarette.
Some legislators believe it will bring increased revenues, through increased cigarette sales and other economic activity near the border, among other things. The opponents do not believe this:
But state Rep. Christine Hamm, a Hopkinton Democrat, called the move “fiscally stupid.”
“No state has cut their tobacco tax and seen a revenue increase,” she said.
[click to continue…]
Have a listen here.
CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman talks about how ever-stricter energy efficiency regulations are making washing machines more expensive and less effective than they used to be. Sam recently wrote about the issue for The Wall Street Journal; you can read his article here.
Alcohol wholesalers have enlisted Mormon Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) to lead their quest for passage of anti-competitive liquor legislation during the 112th Congress [see a copy of the bill here]. Chaffetz is most likely a well-meaning guy who believes he can promote virtue with policies that make alcohol less accessible and more expensive. Publicly, he says that a federal alcohol law is necessary to protect “states’ rights.” Yet both views are wrongheaded.
First of all, representatives of the National Beer Wholesalers Association—the main force behind the bill—are not interested in virtue or states’ rights. They want government-secured profits. Accordingly, the bill is an attempt to grant states greater authority to regulate alcohol distribution to ensure that all—or at least most—sales go through wholesalers. As a result, consumers may eventually see fewer opportunities to order wine online or direct from wineries.
It’s foolish to believe that this legislation could serve any goal other than one of wholesaler special interest—let alone promotion of virtue and states’ rights.
After all, most people understand that true virtue requires the opportunity to make choices; you can’t merit grace by government regulation. Aristotle explained this well in Nicomachean Ethics: Virtue is “a state of character concerned with choice.” In a nation where the free exercise of religion is paramount and values differ across a wide spectrum, individual choices and ideas of virtuous living will vary.
[click to continue…]
Liberal “open government” advocates are giving the president a medal for supposedly promoting “government transparency.” He shares their liberal ideology, but not their alleged commitment to transparency. In reality, President Obama is so hostile to open government that “the Obama administration censored 194 pages of internal e-mails about its Open Government Directive,” according to the Associated Press. For example, “it blacked-out one e-mail discussing how to respond to AP’s request for information about the transparency directive.”
Moreover, “the Obama administration has developed a reputation for ruthlessly prosecuting whistleblowers for leaks to the press.” It recently demoted a whistleblower who revealed to Congress how the Department of Homeland Security was violating the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
The administration discriminates in responding to requests for documents under FOIA. It illegally forces its critics to wait years for the documents to which they are entitled — well beyond the 20-day legal deadline for responding — or refuses to even respond to their requests for documents. Meanwhile, it gives many of its supporters the documents they seek in just a few days. These are just a few of the ways that Obama has broken his promise to have the most transparent administration in history.
[click to continue…]
President Obama says that “the best economic policy is one that produces more college graduates.” No doubt this is best for colleges, which have been able to increase tuition faster than inflation, year after year, secure in the knowledge that they can rake in ever-rising government subsidies and skyrocketing tuition. Students have little choice but to pay inflated tuition bills to the education industrial-complex, as they vie with each other for scarce entry-level jobs by acquiring ever more degrees that show their ability to jump through hoops and master difficult (but largely useless) skills.
But is this educational arms race really good for America?
Does America really need 8,000 waiters with doctoral or professional degrees? Do 5,057 janitors really need their advanced degrees? Millions of Americans already have useless college degrees.
[click to continue…]
While you guzzled green beer and nursed the subsequent hangover, politicians and other interested parties were busy creating or preventing regulatory headaches of their own. In this post-St Patty’s edition of the alcohol regulatory roundup we see what’s on tap for booze regulation around the nation:
National news: In a one-two punch, the federal legislature and the U.S. Supreme Court took actions that could severely hinder interstate sales of alcohol; first with the rejection of an appeal in the courts and the introduction of legislation that would allow states to protect businesses from out-of-state competition:
The Supreme Court announced last week that it would not review a decision made by the Fifth Circuit. The appeal made by Wine Country Gift Baskets was to review the case of Wine Country Gift Baskets v. Steen—a decision that upheld a Texas law that was clearly discriminatory and meant to protect Texas’s in-state liquor retailers from out-of-state competition. As Cato’s Ilya Shapiro writes, the point of the Commerce Clause was to protect free trade.
[click to continue…]
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
Twitter 
Facebook 
CEI.org 
WorkPlaceChoice.org 
GlobalWarming.org 
CEI On Demand Video 
Liberty Week Podcast 