Over at RealClearPolicy, I review Bill Clinton’s latest book, Back to Work.
One of the book’s main themes is contrasting the philosophies of “you’re on your own” and “we’re all in this together.” This is, of course, a false dichotomy.
This immediately made me think back to that bible of “you’re on your own” free-market thought, Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations. It spends over 1,000 pages proving that if man were on his own, he would starve. People need to cooperate and exchange to prosper. Free trade, division of labor, and other Smithian concepts are inherently “we’re all in this together.” People can only achieve great things by working together. I have yet to see anyone actually argue “you’re on your own,” ever.
The review is mostly about the book’s philosophy and rhetoric. I have further thoughts about its suggested economic policies, which I will post about soon.
The California Legislature is considering a “Public Employee Bill of Rights” that (among other things) would restrict the state’s ability to hire outside contractors and swell SEIU’s membership in the Golden State.
California’s public employee union, SEIU Local 1000, is actually co-sponsoring the bill according to Assembly member Roger Dickinson’s website.
The irony is that SEIU Local 1000 currently stands accused of violating the First Amendment rights of the public employees it is supposed to represent.
The First Amendment reads “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” Legally speaking, that’s pretty cut-and-dry. That’s why the Supreme Court has so roundly rejected prior restraint, flag-burning laws, and campaign finance restrictions.
It’s clear that the court respects the individual voice, especially in a political context. But what if an individual prefers to remain mute?
Political speech permeates every activity of a union, and since unions are statutorily mandated in many states and enjoy the protection of federal law, they argue that their political activities are essential to ensuring their survival.
So essential, they argue, that they are entitled to use agency fees (paid by non-union workers represented by the union in collective bargaining cases — also known as “fair share fees”) for political purposes.
[click to continue…]
The California State Assembly is considering sweeping legislation aimed at protecting the “rights” of state employees.
According to its sponsor, Assemblyman Roger Dickinson (D-Sacramento), the bill will “ensure that essential working conditions are met, enhance and clarify the expectations of employees and management alike, and improve the working relationship between rank and file workers and state managers. In turn, these changes will result in improved worker productivity and more harmonious personnel relations.”
Of course, the notion that a bill that would bar California from imposing work quotas on public employees, would keep supervisors from “unreasonably prevent[ing] the employee from using his or her daily rest and lunch periods,” and says “an employee shall not be compelled to perform extra work” will improve productivity is dubious at best.
What does the bill define as “extra work?” Anything that is not described in the “current, detailed, and accurate job description” that the state would be required to provide “at the onset of employment” and at “regular intervals” to employees. The content of that job description, and all performance reviews, would be required to take “significant input” from “peer review committees” that will be “authorized to have regular input regarding the operation of the workplace.”
In the “harmonious” workplace that Assemblyman Dickinson envisions, workers will be afforded every possible legal advantage over the state. If the state misses any deadline in responding to any complaint filed by any employee, the grievance “shall be considered to have been resolved in favor of the employee.”
[click to continue…]
My colleagues David Bier and Ryan Radia contributed to this post.
Per the scenario in a previous post, it’s April 2012. You are a conscientious congressional staffer who still takes seriously the need to be a steward of taxpayers’ money. (Yes, I know for a fact, there are more than a few of these folks around on Capitol Hill.) You are watching closely events surrounding an “omnibus” or “minibus” spending bill deemed even by conservative Republican members as “must-pass” because it funds the military as well as other parts of government.
Suddenly, you hear about an outrageous earmark about to be slipped into the bill that would enrich a Fortune 500 company. You decide to alert a network of fiscal watchdogs you’ve met with over the years to wage an instant campaign against this piece of corporate welfare.
You have all the information in the e-mail and are about to hit “send.” But then you remember something from a briefing you attended a couple days ago. The subject was the STOCK (Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge) Act – aimed at stopping “insider trading” by members and employees of Congress – that your boss and nearly every other member of Congress voted into law in February.
At the time, you didn’t think the law would affect you since the only trading you do is indirect, through your mutual funds and pension. You were surprised to learn, however, that you now have a broad “duty of confidentiality” that encompasses not just trading on “material, nonpublic information,” but disclosing information to those who might.
You sit back and think, “It is indeed possible that someone I send this to could buy stock in the company, or could short the company based on the coming outrage.” You stare at the computer screen wondering how virtually no one noticed how this law could have potentially criminalized an act of whistleblowing as abetting “insider trading.”
Such a scenario is almost certain if House and Senate versions of the STOCK Act are not modified before a final bill is sent to President Obama. The House passed the bill yesterday with a 417-2 vote after a similarly overwhelming 96-3 Senate vote last week. Both bills must go to “conference” to produce a final identical bill to be voted on by both houses, giving members an opportunity for a fix to help make sure that whistleblowing and routine communication with outside groups from being caught in the law’s web.
[click to continue…]
“It launched a hundred ‘anti-bullying’ initiatives at all levels of government, but much of what you think you know about” the Tyler Clementi case “is probably wrong,” notes legal commentator Walter Olson at Overlawyered, the world’s oldest law blog. Andrew Sullivan discusses this as well, linking to Ian Parker’s article in The New Yorker.
We wrote earlier about how the current panic over bullying is leading to attacks on free speech, political debate, and free association in the schools; political pandering; dishonest stretching of existing federal laws by federal officials; and violations of basic principles of federalism.
Reason’s Jacob Sullum writes about New Jersey’s massively-long “Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights,” enacted after Clementi’s suicide at New Jersey’s Rutgers University, and how it infringes on free speech and imposes illegal unfunded mandates. When New Jersey passed this incredibly complicated anti-bullying law, which contains 18 pages of “required components,” that gave a huge boost to a burgeoning “anti-bullying” industry that seeks to define bullying as broadly as possible (to include things like “eye-rolling,” or always associating with the same group of friends) in order to create demand for its services. Hundreds of New Jersey schools “snapped up a $1,295 package put together by a consulting firm that includes a 100-page manual.”
[click to continue…]
It’s April 2012. You are a conscientious congressional staffer who still takes seriously the need to be a steward of taxpayers’ money. (Yes, I know for a fact, there are more than a few of these folks around on Capitol Hill.) You are watching closely events surrounding an “omnibus” or “minibus” spending bill deemed even by conservative Republican members as “must-pass” because it funds the military as well as other parts of government.
Suddenly, you hear about an outrageous earmark about to be slipped into the bill that would enrich a Fortune 500 company. You know how these things work; once the bill hits the floor, it’s very hard to excise one provision. So you decide to alert a network of fiscal watchdogs you’ve met with over the years to wage an instant campaign against this piece of corporate welfare.
You have all the information in the e-mail and are about to hit “send.” But then you remember something from a briefing you attended a couple days ago. The subject was the STOCK (Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge) Act – aimed at stopping “insider trading” by members and employees of Congress – that your boss and nearly every other member of Congress voted into law in February.
At the time, you didn’t think the law would affect you since the only trading you do is indirect, through your mutual funds and pension. You were surprised to learn, however, that you now have a broad “duty of confidentiality” that encompasses not just trading on “material, nonpublic information,” but disclosing information to those who might.
You sit back and think, “It is indeed possible that someone I send this to could buy stock in the company, or could short the company based on the coming outrage.” You stare at the computer screen wondering how virtually no one noticed how this law could have potentially criminalized an act of whistleblowing as abetting “insider trading.”
[click to continue…]
As a Bloomberg News commentary notes, large numbers of people who are not poor are getting food stamps, due to perverse incentives that encourage states to deliberately classify people as eligible in order to draw federal money to their state. People are eligible in some states even if they are not poor at all, but merely received an “informational brochure” for welfare, or a tiny amount of state money that the state deliberately gave them that they didn’t even need, in order to qualify them for food stamps:
As the article notes, food stamp rolls have risen by 29 million people in recent years:
[A] troubling reason for the increase is that state governments have found it easy to get their constituents federal money — that is, money mostly raised from current and future taxpayers in other states — by making more people eligible for food stamps. According to a mid-2010 report from the Government Accountability Office, 35 states have no limit on the amount of assets a food-stamp recipient can possess. More and more states — the count was 36 at the time of the report — are providing “categorical eligibility” for food stamps to anyone who receives welfare services. Merely getting an informational brochure from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program counts as receiving a service.
Another way that states and localities can get federal money flowing to them is by providing token amounts of assistance with home heating bills. Even a dollar of energy subsidies can make someone eligible for food stamps, or increase the benefit level for someone already on SNAP. Vermont, for example, sends $5 checks to public-housing residents, even though their subsidized rent already covers heating, to qualify them for food stamps. Liberal activists call this strategy for getting federal money “heat and eat.”
[click to continue…]
In his State of the Union address, President Obama decried skyrocketing college tuition, attempting to take advantage of public anger over the steadily-worsening college tuition bubble. This was ironic, since his own administration has done much to foster rising college tuitions.
For example, it imposed the 90-10 rule, which forced low-cost educational institutions to raise their tuition to comply with a new federal regulation requiring them to charge enough over federal financial aid so that at least 10 percent of education costs don’t come from financial aid. For example, Corinthian College had diploma programs in health care and other fields that can be completed in a year or less. Until 2011, many of those programs had a total cost of about $15,000, which meant that federal grants and loans could cover nearly 100 percent of their cost. In response to the Education Department’s rule, the college raised tuition to comply with the 90/10 rule. The net result of the Obama Education Department’s rule was to “create a perverse, no-win ‘Catch-22’ that could prevent low-income students from attending college,” by encouraging such colleges to raise tuition to outstrip rising financial aid by more than ten percent. Administration allies like Senator Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) are now pushing a new rule, the 85-15 rule, that would require low-cost institutions to further raise tuition so that at least 15 percent of education costs aren’t covered by financial aid. (With this kind of mentality, it is no wonder that college graduation rates have actually “fallen somewhat since the 1970s” “among poor and working-class students.”)
[click to continue…]
There has been much waxing in the last few days about how unfair it supposedly is that Mitt Romney was taxed at around 15 percent. And that Warren Buffett supposedly pays a lower tax rate than his beleaguered secretary does.
But as my colleague Trey Kovacs and I pointed out in a Wall Street Journal op-ed this week, these “low” tax rates are a charade. This is because “our tax code layers taxation of dividends and capital gains on top of a top corporate tax rate of 35%—which even President Obama acknowledges [he, in fact, did so in the State of the Union] is one of the highest in the world … The law taxes corporations as if they were separate beings from the shareholders who own them and then levies a separate tax on shareholder payouts and gains. This double taxation brings the effective tax rate on investment income to as much as 44.75%.” In fact if you factor in the estate tax or “death tax,” the rate goes to 64 percent on this income. And that doesn’t even include state and local taxation.
As we note in the op-ed, “The most popular tax reforms—from the “9-9-9 plan” of former candidate Herman Cain to flat tax proposals—all have in common the reduction or elimination of double taxation on investment.”
My friend and mentor the late Richard Nadler found a few years back that polling showed that middle-class investors had “internalized their new role as capitalists” and “display favorable attitudes toward programs that reduce taxes on savings and investment.” New research seems to confirm this middle-class savers still retain these views even after the financial crisis.
[click to continue…]
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
Twitter 
Facebook 
CEI.org 
WorkPlaceChoice.org 
GlobalWarming.org 
CEI On Demand Video 
Liberty Week Podcast 