CEI

Defending Economic Freedom: Charles Koch in the WSJ

by Fran Smith on March 1, 2011

in Culture, Economy, Features, Odds & Ends, Zeitgeist

Post image for Defending Economic Freedom: Charles Koch in the WSJ

Charles Koch provides a strong defense of economic freedom and an attack on crony capitalism in an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal today. Koch, chairman and CEO of Koch Industries, Inc., and his brother David have been vilified by the left for their contributions to organizations that defend the free market, most notably in a hit piece last summer in The New Yorker magazine. More recently, the Kochs have been accused of being the power behind the Tea Party and the Wisconsin union initiatives.

Koch Industries is the one of the largest privately held companies in the U.S., and the two brothers are billionaires who have a long history of donations to libertarian groups as well as philanthropic and cultural causes.

[click to continue…]

CEI Podcast for February 17, 2011: Let the Best Bulb Win

by Ryan Young on February 17, 2011

in Energy, Podcast, Regulation

Have a listen here.

Brian McGraw, a policy analyst for CEI’s Center for Energy & Environment, talks about the coming incandescent light bulb ban, who it benefits (bulb manufacturers), and who it hurts (consumers who no longer have a choice). Brian also touches on the important distinction between pro-business and pro-market thought. Pro-business thinkers would tend to support an incandescent ban, given what it could do for bulb manufacturer’s bottom lines. Pro-market thinkers, prefer an open, competitive market process where consumers decide which type of bulb is best, instead of lobbyists and politicians.

Is Obamacare’s Government Healthcare Takeover a “Civil Right”?

by Hans Bader on December 14, 2010

in Healthcare, Legal, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Regulation

Doug Powers takes aim at the silly argument by the Obama administration that opposing Obamacare is analogous to opposing basic civil rights. As he and Michelle Malkin note, if Obamacare is such a civil right, why are employers — and even labor unions that backed the law — seeking waivers from its onerous requirements?

Yesterday, a federal judge in Richmond struck down Obamacare’s requirement that individuals buy health insurance in this ruling in Virginia v. Sebelius.  CEI joined that brief.  The judge’s ruling found that the requirement exceeded Congress’s power under the Interstate Commerce Clause, as I earlier explained.  As we previously noted, Obamacare harms medical advances, private employers, insurance-policyholders and health-insurance markets.

Ed Morrissey takes issue with another argument made by Attorney General Holder and HHS Secretary Sebelius.

Ruling in Virginia’s Challenge to Obamacare Individual Mandate Expected Today

by Hans Bader on December 13, 2010 · 1 comment

in Healthcare, Legal, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Regulation

A ruling in Virginia’s constitutional challenge to Obamacare’s individual mandate is expected later today.  The Competitive Enterprise Institute joined in an amicus brief filed in support of Virginia’s lawsuit by the Cato Institute and constitutional law professor Randy Barnett.  You can find that amicus brief at this link.

Earlier, I discussed why the health care law’s individual mandate (requirement that individuals buy health insurance) exceeded Congress’s power under the Interstate Commerce Clause.  You can find that discussion at this link.  (I was a lawyer in the last Supreme Court case that struck down a federal law under the Commerce Clause, United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000).)

The judge in the Virginia case, U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson, earlier rejected the government’s motion to dismiss Virginia’s lawsuit at a preliminary phase (a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss).

Update: Judge Hudson rules against the Obama administration, finding that the individual mandate is unconstitutional.

Earlier, I discussed some of the bad effects of Obamacare on patients, employers, consumers, and the insurance market.

Two GOP Senators Say Get Rid of Ethanol Subsidies; Gore Says His Support for Ethanol Subsidies a Mistake

by Fran Smith on November 23, 2010

in Agriculture, Energy, Environment, Ethanol, Global Warming

In the Washington Post’s “Plum Line” column today Greg Sargent focuses on two GOP senators’ campaign to get rid of the ethanol subsidies that are due to expire at the end of the year. It’s likely that the issue will be a divisive one on the Republican side, because some strong supporters of ethanol subsidies want to extend the 45-cent-a-gallon tax credit for blenders of ethanol and the tariff on ethanol imports.

Influential Republican Senators Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn are arguing that a clear message in the recent elections was that Americans want to reduce government spending, and the ethanol programs should be on the cutting block.

A surprise new opponent of ethanol subsidies from the other Party is former Vice President Al Gore, who was quoted as saying: “It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for (U.S.) first generation ethanol.” Gore noted that ethanol as a fuel has a small energy conversion ratio. He also explained his earlier support for ethanol subsidies as a product of his political ambition to become president:

“One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president.”

Many environmental and food aid groups – some of which had originally supported corn-based ethanol production - turned against this technology because of the diversion of corn crops from food to fuel production as well as the environmental damage of its production. CEI early on – in 2006 — called attention to the land and environmental costs of expanded ethanol production because of the subsidies and other incentives, especially the renewable fuels mandate. In 2007, CEI pointed to the unintended consequences of the ethanol program. Check out CEI’s global warming website for news about CEI’s continued efforts to get rid of the ethanol mandate, subsidies, and tariffs.

CEI Podcast — November 23, 2010: The Crusade Against Alcohol Energy Drinks

by Ryan Young on November 23, 2010

in Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Regulation

Have a listen here.

Baylen Linnekin, author of the recent CEI On Point “Extreme Refreshment Crackdown: The FDA’s Misguided Campaign Against Alcohol Energy Drinks” and contributor to the food regulation blog Crispy on the Outside, looks at the recent push to ban alcoholic drinks that contain caffeine.

Baylen believes that regulators are over-reacting. Alcohol energy drinks typically contain no more caffeine than a cup of coffee, and their appeal to underage drinkers is overstated.

Regulation of the Day 158: Preparing Taxes

by Ryan Young on November 10, 2010

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Regulation, Regulation of the Day

The IRS wants to require all tax preparers to register with them, pass an exam, and take continuing education classes. Over at Investor’s Business Daily, Caleb Brown and I explain why that would hurt consumers and taxpayers. Our main points:

  • Since the IRS has the power to revoke registrations, tax preparers will have to be careful not to advocate too aggressively for their clients.
  • There are at least 600,000 unregistered preparers. Many of them are retirees. Others have jobs, but prepare taxes on the side to help make ends meet. Still others are volunteers. They give their services for free to people who can’t afford a tax preparer. How many will give up, rather than jump through the proposed regulatory hoops?
  • Big firms — with more than 500 employees — pay $7,755 per employee per year to comply with federal regulations. Their smaller rivals have to pay a whopping $10,585 per employee per year. That’s a built-in competitive advantage of nearly $3,000 per employee, courtesy of Washington. No wonder so many businesses have D.C. offices these days.
  • H&R Block alone spent nearly $1 million on lobbying in the last half of 2009, much of it pushing for these very tax-preparer regulations. It wants the deck stacked even further in its favor.
  • The best solution to this problem is simplifying the tax code. There is no legitimate reason for the tax code to be so complicated that most people have to turn to others for help.

New CEI Podcast — October 25, 2010: Regulating Every Room

by Ryan Young on October 25, 2010

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Energy, Regulation

On this episode of the CEI Podcast, “Regulating Every Room,” CEI’s Senior Fellow in Environmental Policy Ben Lieberman explains how new energy regulations affect every room in your house. These new regulations will hit consumers throughout their homes, from the basement to the bathroom to the kitchen and beyond.

New CEI Podcast — October 21, 2010: Relic of Prohibition

by Ryan Young on October 21, 2010

in Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Podcast, Regulation

Have a listen here.

CEI Director of Insurance Studies Michelle Minton analyzes proposals to privatize Virginia’s liquor stores. Virginia is one of 18 states where the government holds a legal monopoly on the sale of spirits.

The East German Immigration Model

by Ryan Young on October 19, 2010

in Economy, International, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual

A U.S. Senate candidate in Alaska thinks that the U.S. should follow East Germany’s example when it comes to immigration. GOP nominee Joe Miller told a town hall audience, “The first thing that has to be done is secure the border. . .  East Germany was very, very able to reduce the flow.  Now, obviously, other things were involved.  We have the capacity to, as a great nation, secure the border.  If East Germany could, we could.”

He’s darn right “other things were involved.” See CEI’s video on the Berlin Wall for details. What a terrible choice of example.

Miller also forgets that East Germany’s 858 miles of fence weren’t meant to keep people out. That fence was meant to keep people in. Against their will. On pain of death.

It’s almost certain that Miller doesn’t really want the full-on East German border enforcement model. It was probably just a tasteless slip of the tongue. But he clearly favors a border fence. Which, of course, he should oppose if his goal is actually to reduce illegal immigration.

Many undocumented immigrants only stay in the U.S. for a few months. Get a job, make some money, go back home and share it with family. A border fence will keep a lot of people like that out, yes. But it also keeps current undocumented immigrants in. Unwillingly, in many cases.

If Miller wins his election, there is a lot he can do to reduce illegal immigration. Building an American version of the Berlin Wall is not one of them. As Alex Nowrasteh and I wrote, “The immigration black market only exists is because the government has made the legal market as cumbersome as it can.”

Miller should make legal immigration less cumbersome. People will come to America, no matter what. That’s what happens when you have one of the freest, richest, most dynamic nations on earth. That’s a fact of life that our broken immigration system does not take into account.

Neither, apparently, does Joe Miller.

← Previous Entries