January 2012

The Occupy movement is planning to force a shutdown of West Coast ports, claiming they are standing in solidarity with the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) over the group’s ongoing labor dispute at the Port of Longview, Washington. But as I previously noted, the ILWU has called on the Occupiers to stand down and to stop interfering in their affairs. Now a second major labor organization is condemning the Occupiers’ planned blockade, which is scheduled for this coming Monday:

Alameda County Building and Constructions Trades Council, which represents unions whose workers are employed by companies serving the Port of Oakland, joined the International Longshore and Warehouse Union in rejecting calls by protesters to have organized labor’s support in blocking work at the ports on Dec. 12.

The council’s move widens the division between labor groups and an Occupy movement that claims to speak for the principles and goals of union workers. The announced effort to shut down ports up and down the U.S. West Coast would be the most ambitious effort yet by a protest that began in New York as Occupy Wall Street.

“Unions affiliated with this council represent hundreds of workers who are working and have worked at the Port of Oakland. Not one of these unions has endorsed the call to shut down the port,” the San Francisco Bay-area trades council stated Friday.

While the Council notes that it supports many of the claimed goals of the Occupy movement, “the call to shut down operations at the Port of Oakland, where many of our unemployed workers and newly-indentured apprentices have recently been able to get back to work, makes no sense.” Jeff Smith, president of ILWU Local 8 in Portland, told the Portland Tribune that his members will not honor the Occupiers’ picket lines: “This is a third-party strike. We have to go to work.”

There has been some internal dissent within the ranks of the Occupy movement, but the realization that they will be actively fighting against the very people they claim to support does not yet appear to be widespread.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear challenges to life sentences without parole for teenage murderers, in Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs, two cases in which teen killers argue that such sentences always violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment, no matter how horrible the crime. 

In Graham v. Florida (2010), the Supreme Court, in a 5-to-4 vote citing “international opinion,” outlawed life imprisonment without parole for juveniles who commit rape, torture, and other non-homicide crimes, ruling that such sentences violate the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment. In Roper v. Simmons (2005),  the Supreme Court struck down the death penalty for juveniles in all cases, including homicide cases, citing the “overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty,” although its ruling cited the existence, as a reasonable alternative to the death penalty, of the “punishment of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole,” which was “itself a severe sanction.”

Left-wing lawyers would like to ban life sentences even for adults who repeatedly torture other people to death. Earlier, New Zealand was pressured to end life without parole for adults who commit “the worst” murders, based on a supposed rule of “customary international law” against life imprisonment without parole. Citing Spanish law and supposed international human-rights norms, Spain now refuses to extradite terrorists who plot mass murder to the United States unless the U.S. agrees not to seek life imprisonment without parole.

In relying on “international opinion” to decide the case, the Supreme Court set a dangerous precedent for civil liberties, since foreign legal systems and international lawyers are often hostile to free speech, religious freedom, and other basic civil liberties, and the right of homeowners to defend themselves against criminals by wielding a knife or gun in self-defense. The U.N. Human Rights Council says there is no human right to self-defense, and that, quite the contrary, international human rights norms require “very severe gun control.”

The libertarian Cato Institute, which frequently files amicus briefs in the Supreme Court seeking to promote civil liberties and privacy rights, joined an amicus brief in the Graham case asking the court not to rely on “international norms,” since doing so would “undermine the democratic process and rule of law, casting considerable uncertainty over many U.S. laws.”   The Competitive Enterprise Institute also joined that brief.

[click to continue…]

Some recent goings-on in the world of regulation:

At Bloomberg News, Virginia Postrel writes about how federal subsidies intended to make college more affordable have instead encouraged rapidly rising tuitions, in a column entitled, “U.S. Universities Feast on Federal Student Aid.” Education analyst Neal McCluskey links to four studies showing that increased government spending on student aid results in large tuition increases. As Postrel notes, talk of a “higher education bubble” is now common: “As veteran education-policy consultant Arthur M. Hauptman notes in a recent essay: ‘There is a strong correlation over time between student and parent loan availability and rapidly rising tuitions. Common sense suggests that growing availability of student loans at reasonable rates has made it easier for many institutions to raise their prices, just as the mortgage interest deduction contributes to higher housing prices.’”

Subsidies for colleges also divert young people away from vocational training that receives fewer subsidies but leads to jobs with better pay and more value for America’s economy. In City Journal, Joel Kotkin writes about the increasing demand (and correspondingly attractive pay) for workers in manufacturing, who often need vocational training rather than college educations. As George Leef of the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy notes, “even with politicians continuing to prattle on about how the country ‘needs’ more college graduates, the market is bound to lead many young people — who until recently would have followed the herd into college — to find vocational training programs for high-paying jobs like welding instead.”

States spend billions of dollars operating colleges that are little better than diploma mills in terms of academic rigor, yet manage to graduate few of their students — like Chicago State University, “which has just a 12.8 percent six-year graduation rate,” and UT El Paso, which graduated only “1 out of 25 students in a timely manner.” As state send more and more mediocre students to college, students learn less and less. “Our colleges and universities are full to the brim with students who do not really belong there, who are unprepared for college and uninterested in breaking a mental sweat.” “Nearly half of the nation’s undergraduates show almost no gains in learning in their first two years of college, in large part because colleges don’t make academics a priority,” according to a widely-publicized January report from experts like NYU’s Richard Arum. “36% showed little” gain after four years. Although education spending has exploded in recent years, students “spent 50% less time studying compared with students a few decades ago, the research shows.” “32% never took a course in a typical semester where they read more than 40 pages per week.” As George Leef notes, “long-term average earnings for individuals with BA degrees have not risen much and in the the last few years have dipped. Also, degree holders seem to be learning less, as shown by the National Assessment of Adult Literacy.”

Today, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) announced that it has decided to drop its case against Boeing, over the airplane manufacturer’s opening of a plant in South Carolina, a right to work state. The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), which originally brought the complaint, asked the NLRB to drop the case after an overwhelming majority of its members approved a contract that increases production in Seattle.

While the NLRB’s announcement today is good news for Boeing workers in South Carolina who saw their jobs threatened, this case should never have gotten as far as it did. By agreeing to pursue the IAM’s complaint over the South Carolina plant, the NLRB set a destructive precedent. The Board functioned as a negotiating weapon for the union to pressure the employer, over a matter on which labor law has no bearing: where to locate.

Unless Congress reins in this agency, unions will now have every reason to take their disputes with employers to the NLRB, which, by taking on the IAM’s complaint over a plant’s location, has signaled that just about anything is fair game.

For more on labor, see here.

Over at National Review Online, I have an op-ed up explaining why fiscal conservatives should oppose House Republicans’ plan to direct oil and gas royalty revenue into the Highway Trust Fund:

A quick, temporary fix would be to raise federal fuel-tax rates, but this is a political non-starter in the current political and economic climate. If House Republicans are truly serious about improving our nation’s highway infrastructure without increasing federal tax rates on fuel, they could devolve more transportation funding responsibility to the states and support more tolling. They could also rein in the waste and abuse of highway-user revenues at the hands of pro-mass-transit special interests and their enabling politicians.

Instead, House Republicans appear ready to undermine one of the more fiscally conservative funding mechanisms in existence. A provision of the 1974 Budget Act requires that the Highway Trust Fund receive 90 percent of its revenue from users in order to maintain its exemptions from appropriations meddling. Assuming drilling royalty revenues are great enough to close the near-term funding gap, the House Republicans’ proposal would push the percentage of user-based Trust Fund revenue to well below 80 percent.

Weakening this standard calls into question the purpose of having a federal trust fund in the first place. If that were to happen, the chorus for abolition of user-pays and a reactionary reversion to general-revenue funding of highways would only grow louder. Rather than learning from our previous mistakes, we would be making them all over again.

The whole thing is here. Here’s my OpenMarket blog post on the same subject.

What’s worse than the federal government deliberately arming gangsters? Answer: The federal government deliberately arming gangsters with the express intent of undermining the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution; you know, the Amendment which guarantees that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Such is the nauseating narrative of the rapidly unfolding “Fast and Furious” scandal. As CBS News, which has been doing yeoman’s work on this repulsive episode, reported on December 7:

Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation ‘Fast and Furious’ to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.

In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the “big fish.” But ATF whistleblowers told CBS News and Congress it was a dangerous practice called “gunwalking,” and it put thousands of weapons on the street. Many were used in violent crimes in Mexico. Two were found at the murder scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

ATF officials didn’t intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called “Demand Letter 3″. That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or “long guns.” Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.

If these allegations are true, it is a scandal far, far worse than, say, Watergate, which brought down and entire presidency. I mean, let’s face it — even Nixon’s hotel shenanigans never resulted in actual casualties. Fast & Furious is an impeachable offense if ever there was one, and I’m not the only one who thinks so: Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) at a House Judiciary Committee hearing pointedly threatened Attorney General Eric Holder with just such an injunction: ‘”If we don’t get to the bottom of this,” Sensenbrenner told Holder, “there is only one alternative that Congress has, and it’s called impeachment.”

[click to continue…]

Have a listen here.

The REINS Act would require Congress to vote on all economically significant regulations — rules that cost at least $100 million per year. The House passed the bill yesterday, and now it moves on to the Senate. Vice President for Policy Wayne Crews talks about the impact REINS could have on increasing transparency and accountability. He also offers up a few more ideas for further regulatory reform.

Post image for Over-The-Counter Plan B? What Would Jed Bartlet Do?

Back in March 2009, President Obama issued a memorandum on scientific integrity to the heads of executive branch agencies and departments. It announced that “[s]cience and the scientific process must inform and guide decisions of [his] Administration on a wide range of issues.” And in a statement to the press, Obama insisted that “Our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values.” Previous administrations (and one in particular – nudge nudge, wink wink … Know what I mean?) had let politics interfere with what should have been purely science-driven decisions by expert agencies. But that just wasn’t going to happen in the Obama administration.

I guess Kathleen Sebelius didn’t get the memo.

Yesterday, HHS Secretary Sebelius publicly overruled a decision by the Food and Drug Administration to make the Plan B emergency contraceptive available to girls under age 18 without a prescription. According to The New York Times, “Dr. Margaret Hamburg, the F.D.A.’s commissioner, issued a lengthy statement saying it was safe to sell Plan B over the counter, while Ms. Sebelius countered that the drug’s manufacturer had failed to study whether girls as young as 11 years old could safely use Plan B.” Commissioner Hamburg’s public letter on the decision explains that:

“Our decision-making reflects a body of scientific findings, input from external scientific advisory committees, and data contained in the application that included studies designed specifically to address the regulatory standards for nonprescription drugs.  [FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research] experts, including obstetrician/gynecologists and pediatricians, reviewed the totality of the data and agreed that it met the regulatory standard for a nonprescription drug and that Plan B One-Step should be approved for all females of child-bearing potential.”

[click to continue…]

Here’s a letter of mine responding to Andy Stern’s recent op-ed that ran in today’s Wall Street Journal:

If America is indeed a free-market fundamentalist nation, it sure has a funny way of showing it. Federal, state and local governments combine to spend roughly 40% of GDP, and that doesn’t count the cost of compliance with federal regulations.

In his eagerness to attack free markets, Mr. Stern has confused the mixed economy’s crony capitalism with the real thing.

Ryan Young
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Washington