January 2012

Today’s Links: November 30, 2011

by Nicole Ciandella on November 30, 2011

in Odds & Ends

OPINION

NATE ANDERSON: “Complaint: Medical ‘Copyright Over Your Comments’ Contracts Are Illegal”
“When our own Timothy B. Lee stepped into a Philadelphia dentist’s office earlier this year, he had an unpleasant experience: the dentist required him to sign over control of all copyright in future online commentary related to that dentist. [...] bThe contract in question came from Medical Justice, which claims to be ‘relentlessly protecting physicians from frivolous lawsuits.’ Over the last few years, the company has pioneered a strange niche in the medical business: providing contractual templates that first barred patients from commenting about their doctors online and later gave doctors the power to veto negative reviews. Is this legal? The Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) filed a complaint today with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) arguing that Medical Justice was itself engaging in ‘deceptive and unfair business practices’ through the sale of these contracts.”

WALTER RUSSELL MEAD: “Grasshoppers in Winter: Quitting Time Postponed For Spendthrift Boomers”
“I don’t favor physical labor for nonagenarians, but having more people work longer in life is not a bad thing — for the country or for the people themselves.  Many of our nation’s economic problems could be solved by getting more people to work later in life. This is no terrible injustice; many people now remain in school well into their twenties — two generations ago many entered the workforce at sixteen. Paying for ten extra years of school when young with ten extra years of work at the end of life seems like a fair bargain. Changes in the American economy and the shift away from manual labor have made this bargain more attractive still. While it would be wrong to expect workers to continue to perform backbreaking labor in their late seventies, America’s economy is becoming increasingly service-based and much of our work can be done part time and from home.”

[click to continue…]

Barney Frank’s Committee Rebukes Dodd-Frank Derivatives Rules

by John Berlau on November 30, 2011

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Zeitgeist

There are other factors at play, but has anyone noticed how much the stock market has surged since Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) announced he is retiring? And for the U.S. economy this week, developments in the wake of Frank’s announcement just keep getting better.

Today, for instance, the banking committee that Frank used to chair with an iron fist is set for bipartisan votes that will be a substantial rebuke to his seminal legislation, the Dodd-Frank financial “reform.” According to American Banker, the bills set for markup this afternoon in the House Committee on Financial Services would “require regulators to rethink their approach to some of the thorny questions that have arisen during the implementation of the 2010 law’s new derivatives rules.”

In implementing derivative regulations pursuant to Dodd-Frank, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has taken actions that have stoked bipartisan outrage. Its definition of “swap dealers” facing costly new requirements was so broad that it may have ensnared even small farm co-ops. And at a time when American Airlines just filed for bankruptcy in part due to fuel costs, both airlines and manufacturers may have been require to lay out billions more in cash to buy derivatives to hedge oil prices.

[click to continue…]

NLRB Tempers Quickie Elections, Not Overreach

by Trey Kovacs on November 30, 2011

in Labor, Regulation

Yesterday, National Labor Relations Board Chairman Mark Pearce issued a statement describing the proposed rule changes to the union election process. The changes were expedited to guarantee approval before Board member Craig Becker’s term expires. Then the NLRB will consist of only two members, eliminating its rulemaking power.

Fortunately, the expedited proposal is a watered-down version of “quickie elections.” The provision that would have sped up the election process to 7-10 days after a petition for union representation was removed. Although the rule change is less egregious than originally anticipated, Chairman Pearce hopes to impose the original changes to union election procedures in the future — including speeding up elections to 7-10 days, allowing union’s access to employer’s facilities and workers contact information.

Today, the NLRB union election amendments are up for a vote that in effect is final. The only opposition to the pro-union policy, lone conservative Board member Brain Hayes, must resign. Seeing how Hayes’ resignation is unlikely before 2:30 today, it is important to understand the obstacles of the rule changes.

Employers and workers, don’t be fooled. Although the union election procedure was not significantly shortened, the new policy still diminishes workplace rights. Placing Big Labor rights above all others is a continuing trend under the Obama administration.

[click to continue…]

Deregulation Watch: Horsemeat

by Ryan Young on November 30, 2011

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Regulation

Post image for Deregulation Watch: Horsemeat

Unintended consequences are everywhere in the world of regulation. Some rules actually have the exact opposite of their intended effect. This happened after Congress passed a bill in 2006 banning horses from being slaughtered for human consumption. The goal was to improve the well-being of horses. But the rule actually made them worse off.

Some older horses unable to do farm work that would have been slaughtered were instead mistreated, neglected, or abandoned. Last year, about 138,000 horses were taken to slaughterhouses in Canada and Mexico, defeating the very purpose of the ban.

Recognizing its failure, the ban was lifted earlier this month. Congress and President Obama did the right thing. Now at least one slaughterhouse is expected to open in the next few months. That should create a few jobs at a time when a lot of people could really use one. Most of the meat will be exported to Europe and Asia, since horsemeat doesn’t appeal to American tastebuds.

Obama Administration Ignores Illegal Racial Discrimination In Voting Against Whites, Koreans, and Filipinos in Guam

by Hans Bader on November 29, 2011

in Legal, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Zeitgeist

Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Rice v. Cayetano (2000), racial exclusion from voting is unconstitutional, even when the victim is white, and the government claims the exclusion is needed to protect the interests of a local minority group.  Thus, there is no “affirmative action” exception allowing the government to deny non-minorities the right to vote.

But the Obama Administration continues to ignore the Supreme Court’s decision, and turned a blind eye to racial discrimination in voting against Koreans, whites, Filipinos, and Asians in the U.S. territory of Guam, who are excluded from voting in referendums based on their race. As a former Justice Department lawyer notes,

Once again, the Obama Justice Department is refusing to enforce federal voting-rights laws in a race-neutral manner.

On Monday, the Center for Individual Rights (in conjunction with J. Christian Adams, a former DOJ lawyer and author of Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department) filed a class-action federal lawsuit against the territory of Guam, alleging blatant racial discrimination against non-Chamorro residents of Guam in an upcoming election. CIR and Adams were forced to act because the Justice Department refused to do anything about this unlawful discrimination.

“Chamorro” is the racial designation given to the natives who originally inhabited Guam and constitute about 36 percent of the population. Guam is a territory that today has many residents of Western European, American, Asian, and Pacific Islander descent. But all of those other residents are barred by law and the Guam Election Commission from registering and voting on the plebiscite over Guam’s future relationship with the United States.

The plaintiff in the lawsuit, Arnold Davis, is a former Air Force officer who has been a resident of the island since 1977. When he tried to register for the plebiscite, his application was rejected and marked as “void” by the Guam Election Commission because Davis is white.  .  .

Guam . . . bars anyone who is white, Asian, or Filipino from voting in this plebiscite, and even makes it a crime for them to try to register.

Guam is unapologetically and unabashedly violating federal law. Section Two of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits the “denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” Section Two was derived from (and is authorized by) the 15th Amendment, the post–Civil War amendment that established that the right of American citizens to vote could not be “denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Both the Voting Rights Act and the 15th Amendment apply to all U.S. citizens, including residents of Guam. Further, the 1950 Organic Act of Guam . . . states that no “discrimination shall be made in Guam against any person on account of race.” . . .

Arnold Davis complained to the Obama Justice Department about this racial discrimination starting in 2009. A Justice Department source familiar with his complaint tells me that the word quickly came down from the political appointees in the front office of the Civil Rights Division that no action would be taken. As with the voter-intimidation lawsuit filed by the Bush administration against the New Black Panther Party — which was quickly dismissed by the Obama administration, even though the case had been won — Davis’s complaint was ignored.

DOJ declined to file a lawsuit under the Voting Rights Act . . .As we know from the sworn testimony of former Voting Section chief Christopher Coates before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, deputy assistant attorney general Julie Fernandes informed him that it was the policy of the Obama administration that the Voting Rights Act is not to be enforced against racial minorities, no matter how egregious the violation. As CIR president Terence Pell says, the fact that this racial discrimination “continues to take place under the nose of the U.S. Department of Justice is unconscionable.”

Today’s Links: November 29, 2011

by Nicole Ciandella on November 29, 2011

in Odds & Ends

OPINION

ELVIS COSTELLO: “Steal This Record”
“Unfortunately, we at www.elviscostello.com find ourselves unable to recommend [Costello's soon-to-be-released compendium] to you as the price appears to be either a misprint or a satire. [...] If on the other hand you should still want to hear and view the component parts of the above mentioned elaborate hoax, then those items will be available separately at a more affordable price in the New Year, assuming that you have not already obtained them by more unconventional means.”

VENKAT BALASUBRAMANI: “Court OKs Private Seizure of Domain Names Which Allegedly Sold Counterfeit Goods”
“Luxury brand Chanel has engaged in a fierce campaign against counterfeit websites in federal court in Nevada. It has seized approximately six hundred domain names in the last few months. [...] I’m sympathetic to the “whack-a-mole” problem rights owners face, but this relief is just extraordinarily broad and is on shaky procedural grounds.”

ILYA SHAPIRO & TREVOR BURRUS: “Rent Control Violates Property Rights and Due Process”
“Rent control is literally a textbook example of bad economic policy. Economics textbooks often use it as an example of how price ceilings create shortages, poor quality goods, and under-the-table dealings. A 1992 survey revealed that 93 percent of economists believe that rent control laws reduce both the quality and quantity of housing.”

[click to continue…]

Journalistic Humor

by Ryan Young on November 29, 2011

in Economy

An (intentionally?) humorous lede in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

The Internal Revenue Service office in Seattle is investigating an infestation of possible blood-sucking parasites — bedbugs — in its downtown office, after an employee complained of insect bites at work, federal officials said Monday.

Note the need to clarify that the parasites in questions don’t work for the IRS. I don’t think OSHA is in on the joke, though:
“It is alleged (that) management has known of the presence of these parasites for several weeks and has taken no action to remedy the situation,” OSHA said in a letter to the IRS dated Nov. 18.
My suggestion for getting rid of the parasites: simplify the 70,000-page tax code.

Farm Bill: Bailouts, Special Interests, and Pheasants

by Daniel Rivera Greenwood on November 29, 2011

in Agriculture, Features, Politics as Usual

Post image for Farm Bill: Bailouts, Special Interests, and Pheasants

The infamous “secret farm bill,” negotiated by the leadership of the agriculture committees with little transparency and discussion, will not pass as part of the debt-reduction “supercommittee” recommendations, since discussions between Democrats and Republicans in the committee broke down. This means that the covert farm bill will not enjoy fast-track approval in Congress.

Now the new farm bill negotiations will be made public, and the new bill, expected to be based on the “secret” one, will probably face stiff opposition from both Republicans and Democrats. The contents of that farm bill, negotiated by Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and House Agriculture Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), are still a mystery. They did not release the full details of their negotiations, even to their own committee members.

The Hill reported that the secret bill eliminated lump sum direct payments to farmers (which in some cases meant that farmers who didn’t produce agricultural goods still received them) and replaced them with a “revenue based supplement to traditional crop insurance.” This type of insurance system would reduce the cost of farm bill programs when prices are sufficiently high. However, if prices fall below a certain threshold, taxpayers will pay for this insurance and costs can rise significantly. Ultimately, this program amounts to a privatization of gains (if prices are good, farmers keep all profits) and a socialization of losses (if crop prices are low, taxpayers are on the hook for federal insurance).

[click to continue…]

Canada Cuts Tariffs, Endorses Free Trade — Imports Good, Exports Good

by Fran Smith on November 29, 2011 · 1 comment

in Economy, International, Trade

In a free-trade lesson the U.S. should study, Canada announced that it was eliminating tariffs on imports that Canadian manufacturers use to help spur the economy. Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty noted that tariffs would be cut on about 70 items, the latest in government moves to get rid of all tariffs by 2015. Already Canada has abolished tariffs on more than 1800 items — relief that is expected to provide about $423 million annually.

This strategy contrasts sharply with the U.S. mercantilist approach – exports good, imports bad – and the U.S. focus on trade deficits instead of also looking at the economic benefit of imports, as providing greater choice and lower-cost goods for consumers and critical inputs for manufacturers, who can create jobs.

As CEI’s Daniel Rivera Greenwood has noted:

 . . . there seems to be a correlation between large trade deficits and reduced unemployment, as well as a larger economic output. Why? One reason is that a large proportion of U.S. imports are actually manufacturing inputs, used to produce goods in the United States. In fact, the most recent data available from the U.S. Census Bureau (August 2011) shows that 57 percent (US$106 billion worth) of all U.S. imports are capital goods and industrial supplies materials, the basis of the domestic manufacturing sector.

Professor Mark Perry also makes those points well in an article today. As Perry notes:

We sometimes forget that “tariffs” and “duties” are really “taxes” on imports; and therefore eliminating or reducing tariffs or duties is the same thing as eliminating or reducing taxes on consumers and businesses buying foreign products.  In the same way that “tax cuts” can stimulate economic activity, “tariff cuts” do the same, and that’s the approach being taken in Canada.

That’s a good lesson in what free trade is all about.

Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis Continues to Advance Dangerous Big Labor Agenda

by Trey Kovacs on November 29, 2011 · 1 comment

in Features, Labor, Politics as Usual

Post image for Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis Continues to Advance Dangerous Big Labor Agenda

Yesterday, Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis wrote an indignant blog post titled, “Long Overdue: Winning Back Pay and Benefits for Workers,” in which she blasted employers for not making payroll.

She exclaims, “Workers deserve to keep the wages and benefits they earn. That may sound like an obvious statement, but to some employers, it’s not clear at all.” Secretary Solis cites $8 million in back pay and benefits that federal investigators recovered for workers. She maligns employers for not fully contributing to pension funds, as well as violating Service Contract Act and Employee Retirement Income Security Act (both laws increase government intervention and eliminate voluntary contracts).

General consensus holds that employers or any individual should fulfill voluntary contracts. Putting aside the fact these contracts are not voluntary, overall, employers do understand the simple concept of fulfilling contracts. Unfortunately, as in every other circumstance, bad actors will arise.

However, Secretary Solis’s only points out certain bad actors, specifically job creators, which makes her post come off as disingenuous and exposes her explicit pro-union bias.

Secretary Solis never scorns Big Labor fraud and worker abuse. In fact, she encourages it. Recent Department of Labor rulemakings have decreased union financial disclosure reporting. Secretary Solis did not give a blistering response to the $1 billion Long Island Railroad pension fund scam. The obvious reason for her silence being that union officials were involved in the scam. A pension scam amounting to $1 billion deserves greater reaction when compared to a measly $8 million in back pay spread over 2,000 employees.

[click to continue…]

← Previous Entries