Politico

Broken Window Fallacy: Hurricane Irene Edition

by Ryan Young on August 29, 2011 · 1 comment

in Economy, Stimulus to Nowhere

Huricane Irene largely spared the East Coast’s larger cities from the worst of its wrath. It still cut off power to about 4 million people. And it cost 25 lives. But there is a sunny side to the billions of dollars of destruction! Politico’s Josh Boak quotes the University of Maryland’s Peter Morici:

Morici said there could be some economic growth at the end of this year and the beginning of next year, because with the rebuilding, “largely what we’re going to get is a private-sector stimulus package.”

Morici fell for the broken window fallacy; if a kid (or a hurricane) breaks a window, it creates a job for the repairman. He then spends his wages on other things, and the economy gets a boost. Why not break every window in the entire country, then? Think how much wealthier everyone would be if only a hurricane would come along and level the entire nation!

[click to continue…]

More Corporate Welfare on the Way?

by Ryan Young on February 17, 2011 · 1 comment

in Bailout Watch, Economy

Politico headline from today: “Qualcomm exec calls for small-business research funding.”

Alternative headline: “Businessman asks government to give money to businesses.”

Government should not give money to private businesses, period. Businesses should compete in the marketplace, not Washington. There is a lot of money to be made by selling people things they want. Companies that do a good job of that deserve every cent they earn.

Subsidies are not earned. Nor are they given to companies make things people want. Companies already doing that don’t need handouts. In short, corporate welfare is allocated by politics instead of economics.

What Mr. Jacobs is asking for would be a boon for lobbyists and politically favored businesses. But it would be a drag on everyone else. And not only because they would be paying for the handouts. Lost innovations are part of the price. The money spent on corporate welfare is money not spent on more worthy projects.

See also Wayne Crews and I on corporate welfare in the new edition of CEI’s Agenda for Congress.

The Washington Version of Spending Cuts

by Ryan Young on November 10, 2010

in Economy

Here’s a letter I sent to Politico:

Editor, Politico:

The title of your November 10 article, “Panel leaders propose Social Security cuts,” is inaccurate. A cut is when spending goes down. Social Security spending will go up if Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson’s recommendations are enacted. They would increase spending at a slower rate than under current policy. But it would still increase.

An increase is not a cut. Not even in Washington.

Ryan Young
Fellow in Regulatory Studies
Competitive Enterprise Institute

Voting the Bums Back In

by Ryan Young on August 12, 2010

in Politics as Usual, Zeitgeist

Many people think change is in the air. Voters are angry. And they want to throw the bums out. That’s the dominant narrative this election cycle. But at least during primary season, that narrative is fitting poorly with actual election results. Politico reports:

Six incumbents have lost this season: Sens. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) and Bob Bennett (R-Utah) and Reps. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.), Bob Inglis (R-S.C.), Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-Mich.) and Parker Griffith (R-Ala.). Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia, pointed out in Arena that factoring for those losses translated into a 98.3 percent win rate for incumbents so far in 2010.

That 98.3 percent win rate will drop on Election Day. But probably not by much. Not even if one or both chambers switch parties. In 2008, incumbents running for re-election had a 94.9 percent success rate. In 2006, when Congress changed parties, the re-election rate was still right around 94 percent. The last time re-election rates went as low as 90 percent was in 1992 — nearly two decades ago.

The sad truth is that incumbents are safe. It doesn’t matter that Congress’ approval ratings are in the low teens. Voters just aren’t going to throw out very many bums. Voters may despise Congress as an institution, but most people have positive opinions of their own representative.

That’s why the average tenure in the House is more than 14 years, or seven terms. And most turnover isn’t from losing elections. It’s from retirement, or running for other office, or death; for many, politics is literally a lifelong career.

So expect a lot of familiar faces to be sworn in when the 112th Congress convenes in January, even if power changes hands.

Though I will, of course, be very happy if events prove me wrong.

LibertyWeek 83: What Would Reagan Do?

by Richard Morrison on March 8, 2010

in CEI Projects, Podcast

Richard Morrison, Jeremy Lott and Marc Scribner collaborate to bring you Episode 83 of the LibertyWeek podcast. We cover the ever-growing deficit, the Reagan legacy, Cablevision v. ABC, the RNC’s fundraising strategy and David Paterson on scandal watch.

Regulation of the Day 88: College Football’s Playoff System

by Ryan Young on December 21, 2009

in Culture, Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Nanny State, Regulation, Regulation of the Day, Zeitgeist

“College football is bringing big bucks to K Street as lawmakers take aim at dismantling the Bowl Championship Series,” says a story in Politico.

A six-figure sum is being spent lobbying what really shouldn’t be a government issue. Millions more are being spent on other issues affecting college sports.

There’s even a PlayOff PAC that gives money to politicians who take an active stance on college football playoff reform.

True, the BCS playoff system could definitely use an overhaul. But that’s a job for the NCAA. Not Congress.

On the other hand, legislators do considerably less harm when they spend their time on college football instead of, say, health care or fiscal stimulus.

LibertyWeek 55: The Health Care Mob Is Coming!

by Richard Morrison on August 11, 2009

in CEI Projects, Podcast, Zeitgeist

Your host Richard Morrison welcomes back returning guest co-host Jeremy Lott and distinguished special guest David Mark of the Politico for Episode 55 of the LibertyWeek podcast. We start with reports of unrest over health care in the provinces, the U.S. Postal Service’s death spiral and the globe trotting ways of members of Congress. We continue with some sadly familiar antitrust murmurs regarding Apple and Google, a classic union corruption scandal out of New York City and some inspiring and heroic Paralympic News.

Does the ethanol mandate increase CO2 emissions?

by Marlo Lewis on May 27, 2009

in Ethanol, Global Warming, Odds & Ends

That may seem counter-intuitive, because burning ethanol merely puts back into the air the carbon dioxide (CO2) that corn crops recently pulled out of it, whereas burning gasoline liberates carbon that had been stored in geologic deposits for millions of years.

But other factors come into play, such as the fossil energy inputs required to produce the corn, turn it into ethanol, and deliver the ethanol to market. 

In addition, as EPA argues in its proposed rule to implement the renewable fuel standard program established by the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), expanding corn production into forest and grass lands can release substantial amounts of carbon stored in soils and trees.

Similarly, when U.S. farmers grow corn in areas previously used to produce soy beans, for example, farmers in Brazil have an incentive to convert forest land into soy plantations.

As you might expect, EPA’s use of life-cycle analysis, although required by EISA, drives the ethanol lobby and its congressional allies up the wall. They claim it is ridiculous to link increased corn production here to increased CO2 emissions in developing countries.

But, as my colleague, agricultural commodity analyst Dave Juday, demonstrates, the numbers paint a very clear picture. With Dave’s permission, I reproduce below an email he sent around earlier today.

*  *  *

With regard to GHG and the EPA’s RFS [renewable fuel standard] 2 rule, … the concept of “indirect land use changes” (ILUC) get criticized for being faulty, but it actually is pretty sound.  

Consider, if ethanol drives up US corn  plantings (which it did) and drives down US soybean plantings and production (which it did, because the US – the largest producer and exporter – has only so much farm land and not much tillable acreage to expand) and thereby raises the world price of soybeans, it raises the incentives to grow soybeans elsewhere in the world.  It just so happens Brazil – which is the world’s second largest producer and exporter – is the most likely place where additional soybeans will be grown on virgin land because that is where the virgin land is. 

The real weak link in this GHG lifecycle emissions concept is the ability to measure and value the carbon emissions and sequestration and the process by which “value” gets assigned to practices and manufacturing processes.  Yet, as might be expected from ethanol advocates, it is the simple, fundamental, and rational economic concept that is argued against.    Consider the perspectives shared by a lobbyist and a US Senator on the issue of “indirect land use changes” driven by US biofuel policy:

  •  Basically, the EPA has determined that the production of ethanol in America is forcing land use changes in Brazil and other foreign countries to destroy their valuable rain forests to produce farm commodities to make up for reduced exports of these commodities from the United States. Mr. Chairman, I have been in Washington for a long time, but I have never heard of a more bizarre concept. – Tom Buis, CEO, Growth Energy
  •  Every chance I get, I’m going to bring this issue up. It’s so obvious that the EPA’s rationale doesn’t meet the common sense test.  It’s ridiculous to think that Brazilian farmers are looking to see what Iowa farmers are doing to determine how they run their own business, and quite frankly it’s plain unfair to farmers. –  Honorable Charles Grassley, US Senator (R-IA)

Addressing these comments above is one of those cases where a picture is indeed worth 1,000 words:

corn-and-soy-us-and-brazil

SOURCE: USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service: Production, Supply, and Distribution Online

Added: May 29, 2009

Lisa Lerer delves into the ”life cycle analysis” controversy in the May 26 issue of Politico.  Farm state Democrats are threatening to oppose the Waxman-Markey bill if, as required by EISA, EPA considers the indirect impacts on land-use changes abroad when determining the life-cycle CO2 emissions of domestic ethanol production. 

The same lawmakers enthusiastically supported the EISA renewable fuel program as a global warming policy when they thought it would rig the market in favor of corn farmers. Now they’re threatening to derail Obama’s cap-and-trade initiative if EPA follows the law they helped enact. 

Obama campaigned on a platform of CHANGE, but he may find that in Washington still, Pork Rules and Corn Is King.

With news coverage like this…

by Ivan Osorio on March 17, 2009

in Economy, Labor

…does organized labor need a PR operation? In today’s Politico, Jeanne Cummings repeats — without qualification — the half-truth that supporters of the so-called Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) have been peddling recently: that EFCA would give workers the choice of whether to organize through a secret ballot election or through a card check procedure, in which employees sign union cards out in the open, usually at the urging of union organizers.

The legislation doesn’t prohibit the traditional process of elections and secret ballots. If a majority of workers want to proceed that way, they still could.

Cummings leaves out an important detail: if the union lets them.

EFCA imposes no time limit on the period during which union organizers may collect signatures on cards and no limit on how and where they may do so. Organizers can go back to try to get workers to sign again and again, and wherever they can — including at workers’ homes.

As a result, unions will have zero incentive to turn in cards until they get the requisite 50 percent-plus-one of employees to sign, which requires the National Labor Relations Board to certify the union as exclusive employee bargaining agent.

Therefore, while EFCA may not explicitly prohibit secret ballot organizing elections, it makes secret ballots a dead letter through the legal organizing regime it sets up. Under EFCA, the choice of whether to hold an election will rest with union organizers alone, who always prefer card check.

On the other hand, Cummings is correct to note that EFCA opponents, seeing the bil losing support, should not celebrate yet. She also presents a good summary description of the debate, and how it has shifted. This isn’t over by a long shot.