The good folks at Reason.tv have released an educational music video about the TSA featuring singer-songwriter-comedian Remy. Worth watching.
January 2012
Is the U.S. serious about trade or does the Obama administration just want to cater to union supporters and set up more obstacles for trade pacts? The latest of the delaying tactics is linking the renewal of Trade Adjustment Assistance — special aid for workers who purportedly lost their jobs because of international trade — with congressional consideration of the free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. When looking at the history of the three pending trade agreements, it seems obvious that U.S. trade unions are calling the shots.
The most egregious hold-ups relate to the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, which has been languishing for more than four years. In February 2006 the two countries announced that they had concluded their negotiations on the trade pact, and it was signed on November 22, 2006. Meanwhile, the other two trade agreements were progressing. Then what happened? The U.S. House of Representatives, under the leadership of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, decided that those agreed-upon and signed trade agreements needed to have more stringent environmental and labor provisions — despite the fact that those non-trade issues had already been included in the trade pacts. The so-called bi-partisan trade deal was touted by Pelosi in a statement, but the AFL-CIO reacted “coolly” to the changes that they had been advocating. Not enough, seemed to be their response.
Negotiators went back to the drawing boards and the U.S. strong-armed those countries into including the new provisions. On June 28, 2007, the United States and Panama signed a trade promotion agreement, followed a few days later by the signing of the U.S.- South Korea FTA on June 30, 2007. But the U.S. said that more had to be negotiated. In the case of the Korea agreement, issues relating to beef and autos required more high-level meetings; with Panama, tax transparency and labor issues were still the subject of talks; with the Colombia FTA, however, labor unions, not satisfied with the new labor provisions, still opposed that deal.
On April 6, a remarkable bill was quietly introduced in the Delaware state house. If it passes and is signed into law, House Bill 84 would allow small brewers to deliver their own product to licensed retailers of their beer. This would mean that, for small brewers like Dogfish Head, which is headquartered in Milton, Delaware, they could skip the onerous and expensive middle man (aka as a distributor or wholesaler) that is mandated in most other states. That is if they want to bypass the distributor.
Introduced by Republican Rep. Ruth Briggs King, HB 84 would essentially end the mandatory three-tier system for small brewers in Delaware. As both I and my colleague Angela Logomasini have written, the three-tier system is an archaic remnant of Prohibition. In an attempt to create a safe product and limit corruption in the wake of the mobs that grew up during the alcohol ban, lawmakers attempted to separate production, distribution, and sales of alcohol. The fear was that a large distributor of alcohol who also owned the production could shut out competition. Since the end of prohibition, the mandatory three-tier system has created the very powerful and profitable wholesaler industry. Producers of alcohol must contract a wholesaler who then finds the retail operations that will stock the producer’s products. Sometimes though, this doesn’t work out so well for producers — especially smaller ones — who often find that a wholesaler will do a poor job in distributing their products, perhaps to favor other more popular brands. In a system where they are forced to rely on middlemen to get their products in front of consumers, this sometimes leaves brewers with little or no recourse if their distributor underperforms.
Past attempts to end the three-tier system, or at least make it voluntary, have met with strong opposition from the powerful wholesalers lobby. They believe that if the system was switched to a voluntary basis, they would lose jobs, power, and money. Perhaps they are right. But is that reason enough to perpetuate an archaic, wasteful, and corrupt system?
Tech:
D.C. schools investigate security breaches in 2011 tests:
“D.C. school officials are investigating 14 security breaches by students and teachers during last month’s standardized testing, after throwing out last year’s scores from three classrooms with “evidence or a strong suspicion of a test security violation.””
Intel speeds up road map to tackle threat from ARM:
“Intel will dramatically shake up its microprocessor road map to meet the demand for very-low-power processors and to fend off the competitive threat from rival chip design company ARM, CEO Paul Otellini said Tuesday.”
Global Warming / Environment / Energy:
Keystone XL Suit: Environmental Groups Target Hillary Clinton Over Oil Pipeline Documents:
“A coalition of environmental and ethics groups sued Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the U.S. State Department on Wednesday over documents relating to a contentious oil pipeline that would link Canada’s oil sands to oil refineries in the southern United States.”
[click to continue…]
He writes:
But it’s insane to legalize an activity on the grounds that some tiny fraction of the people doing it are very successful at it. After all, the vast majority of poker players never go pro, and the vast majority of poker pros never become champions. Overall, the number of people who lose money playing poker is much larger than the number of people who make money at it.
It’s equally insane to outlaw an activity on the grounds that some tiny fraction of the people doing it are very unsuccessful at it. I realize he was responding to Steve Levitt, but the argument for the legalization of online gambling has very little to do with the fact that a subset of poker players are “professionals” who are able to make money consistently through gambling. The argument in support of online gambling (aside from the whole we live in a free society thing, which he casually tosses aside) is that its an activity that a large number of Americans clearly want to participate in. Gambling is a form of entertainment. I haven’t heard of many moviegoers who consistently turn a profit after a night at the cinema, yet we seem to still allow Americans to watch movies (these days you can even watch them online, which is again, something you lose money doing).
Continuing on:
The point here is that it’s the job of the government to look after the weakest members of society. Ultimately, if someone becomes a drug addict or loses their life savings gambling, it’s society as a whole which has to pick up the pieces and support that person. And so the government has an incentive to circumscribe such activities and even make them illegal — even if a handful of people could engage in them successfully.
It’s also the job of the government to protect the basic rights and freedoms of Americans. The paragraph here also implies that only a “handful” of people can engage in Internet gambling successfully, which is nonsense. Successful Internet gambling does not necessarily mean you won, it means you voluntarily choose to participate because its an enjoyable activity, just like regular casinos, which if Felix hasn’t checked are still quite popular in America. This link indicates that less than 1 percent of the adult population can be defined as having problems with gambling, so even if that’s off by a large amount its still a small fraction of the population.
Republicans in both Houses of Congress are answering the Obama administration’s overreach in union favoritism.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight Committee announced he was going to look into whether the National Mediation Board (NMB) was trying to “advance a partisan policy agenda.” Last year the NMB changed organization elections rules for the airline and railroad industry to ease union formation.
On Tuesday Issa and Rep. Dennis Ross (R-Fla.), chair of the House subcommittee on labor policy, sent a letter to the NMB Chairman Harry Hoglander, saying:
We are concerned by the National Mediation Board’s decision to advance a rule which allows a minority of employees to determine union representation,
For over 75 years, the board conducted union representation elections according to the principle that a union would be certified as the collective bargaining representative only if a majority of the eligible employees in the relevant craft or class voted in favor of union representation.
Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) praised the decision to investigate NMB releasing a statement Wednesday, saying:
I applaud the House Oversight Committee for investigating the National Mediation Board’s action that throws out 75 years of precedent and makes it easier for airline and railway employees to unionize,” Isakson said. “By taking this action without Congressional approval or adequate reasoning, the National Mediation Board has recklessly tossed aside fairness and impartiality to benefit their former bosses in the labor movement.
On Monday, Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), ranking member on the Heath, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, blasted the National Labor Relations Board’s attempt to prevent aircraft manufacturer Boeing from moving from the forced unionism state of Washington to the right-to-work state of South Carolina.
On Friday the 13th, just before happy hour, Colorado’s Governor John Hickenlooper signed into law a bill that reversed the only victory in years for those fighting to get full-strength beer in grocery and convenience stores.
Governor Hickenlooper’s intentions aren’t malicious. A former brewer, Hickenlooper is simply trying to preserve the system that his craft brewing constituents assert creates the best environment for craft beer. That system divides beer into two categories: low-alcohol or 3.2 beer, which grocery stores and convenience stores may sell, and high-alcohol beer, anything above 3.2, which liquor stores, bars, and restaurants may sell.
As I have written before, the craft brewers are mistaken in their assumption that grocery store sales would have a negative impact on craft beer in Colorado. And even the liquor stores, who assert that grocery store sales of beer would put them out of business, could thrive in a liberated market.
Grocery and convenience stores backed by consumers who want cheaper more convenient options have asking year after year for the state to have one definition for beer and to allow beer to be sold, regardless of the alcohol content, in grocery, liquor, and convenience stores, as well as bars and restaurants. Yet, for at least four years running, all the bills introduced in the state legislature to change the beer regulations have been knocked down. Until last year.
Frustrated with yet another failed attempt, proponents of “real beer” in grocery stores had an ally in the state legislature attach an amendment to another bill, which passed, forcing the state to begin enforcing all of its liquor laws to the letter. What this meant, in effect, was that bars, restaurants, and taverns were banned from selling low-alcohol beer. Though the rule had been on the books for a long time, the state had never enforced it.
The NFL’s protracted labor dispute with The Union Formerly Known As The NFL Players’ Association (TUFKATNFLPA) turned another corner yesterday. An Appellate Court ruling granted the NFL a stay of the District Court’s enjoining of their lockout… Yes, I know, I’ll explain this below. Suffice it to say for now that the Court’s decision has dealt a welcome blow against a union that has the legal deck stacked in its favor in its dispute with the owners.
The background: The NFL owners felt that under the previous collective bargaining agreement (CBA), they weren’t getting enough of pro football’s substantial revenue to allow further capital investment in teams (that’s why there hasn’t been a new privately funded stadium planned for about 15 years). So they announced their intention to renegotiate the revenue-sharing agreement with the players, as was their right. The players, however, were less anxious to give up their sweet deal, and failed to give enough ground during two-plus years of negotiations to reach a mutually agreeable conclusion.
Sounds like a pretty standard dispute so far, but here’s the kicker: Because the NFL is not a single corporate entity, but an alliance of sports teams that come together to form a league, our ridiculously outdated antitrust laws would normally treat it as a cartel. However, there are exemptions to antitrust law in the event of a collective bargaining agreement between multiple employers and a labor union (and the CBA in this case contained a clause that no player would sue the NFL for antitrust breaches). So, in the event of the labor union disappearing, the league automatically becomes a cartel once more, subject to antitrust law in all its terrifying fury.
This gave the NFLPA a nuclear option, which it quite happily deployed. On the day the collective bargaining agreement was due to lapse, the union decertified itself. In normal circumstances, a union decertifying indicates that its members have had enough of it and no longer need a go-between. But in this case, the NFLPA continues to exist, and is even handing out strike pay of $65,000 per player. The NFL objected to what it regarded as a sham decertification, and complained to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) about it.
In the Washington Examiner, I explain how the Education Department is both undermining protections for falsely-accused students and teachers, and reducing the accuracy of campus decisions in sexual harassment cases. This is occurring as a result of demands contained in an April 4 “Dear Colleague” letter sent by a political appointee (Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Russlynn Ali) to the nation’s school officials, who are now complying with those demands even though they lack a sound legal basis. In the Washington Post, attorney Wendy Kaminer wrote that “the Education Department’s new policies increase the risk that students wrongly accused of misconduct will be found guilty, suspended or expelled, and tarred as stalkers or rapists.”
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education took issue with the Education Department’s demands in this letter. The Daily Caller covers the controversy here.
George Mason University Law Professor David Bernstein comments here, observing that “the Department of Education has no business dictating” a lower evidentiary “standard to universities nationwide.” FIRE’s Samantha Harris and Erica Goldberg also comment on the controversy.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has filed a cloture petition on the pending nomination of Berkeley Law Professor Goodwin Liu to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. A vote on the nomination could come as early as tomorrow. The National Review‘s Ed Whelan comments here (Whelan is a former Justice Department lawyer). I earlier discussed the Liu nomination here. Liu has virtually no experience in the courtroom, and has argued that “‘free enterprise, private ownership of property, and limited government” are right-wing ideological “code words.”
Liu is a big supporter of race-based busing, arguing it should be required not merely within school districts, but across school district lines to create what are effectively region-wide racial quotas, a radical claim rejected by the Supreme Court long ago (the Supreme Court rejects busing across district lines even in desegregation cases). CEI filed an amicus brief in the Seattle Schools case against race-based school assignments within a school system (the racial percentages in that case were struck down in a 5-to-4 vote after being upheld by the Ninth Circuit, to which Liu has been nominated).
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
Twitter 
Facebook 
CEI.org 
WorkPlaceChoice.org 
GlobalWarming.org 
CEI On Demand Video 
Liberty Week Podcast 