It is no secret that the United States wants China to take a firmer stance toward its troublesome North Korean ally. That was true even before the North’s satellite launch/long-range ballistic missile test. And Chinese officials may be receptive to the argument that steps need to be taken to rein-in Kim Jong-un’s regime, even at the risk of destabilizing his government. But as I point out in a China-U.S. Focus article getting Beijing to accept the risks entailed in becoming more assertive toward Pyongyang will require some major changes in U.S. policy.
At a minimum, Washington will have to respond favorably to China’s long-standing demand that the United States be willing to engage North Korea in wide ranging negotiations to reduce tensions on the Korean Peninsula. Chinese officials are increasingly uneasy about Pyongyang’s behavior, especially the regime’s continued defiance of China’s warnings not to conduct more nuclear weapons or ballistic missile tests. But Chinese policymakers also still cling to the belief that much of North Korea’s belligerence and recalcitrance is the result of the U.S.-led campaign to isolate the country. Only by offering a comprehensive settlement to Pyongyang to finally end the state of war on the Peninsula, lift most economic sanctions, and establish diplomatic relations, will Washington convince Beijing that it truly seeks to an equitable outcome.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/getting-china-become-tough-north-korea
2016-02-22
Cato: Court Swats Away Immunity for Obviously Reckless Police Behavior
On Friday, a federal appellate court issued an opinion in Stamps v. Town of Framingham, holding that a SWAT team officer who points and accidentally fires a loaded semi-automatic weapon at a subdued 68-year-old grandfather is not immune from facing a lawsuit for using excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Eurie Stamps was the stepfather of Joseph Bushfan, whom the police suspected of dealing crack. Effectuating a search warrant on Stamps’s apartment, the SWAT team raided the apartment at midnight on January 5, 2011. Stamps—whose presence the SWAT team was aware of and who was not suspected of any wrongdoing—lay prostrate and motionless on the ground with his hands out while Officer Duncan guarded him. During the time that Duncan was guarding him, Duncan moved his finger to the trigger and accidentally fired, killing Stamps.
The real story is how this seemingly obvious outcome—that juries should be able to decide whether officers who finger the trigger of loaded guns pointed at non-threatening individuals use excessive force—even became an issue. At the district court, Officer Paul Duncan claimed that his actions aren’t subject to scrutiny because of a doctrine entitled qualified immunity.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/court-swats-away-immunity-obviously-reckless-police-behavior
Eurie Stamps was the stepfather of Joseph Bushfan, whom the police suspected of dealing crack. Effectuating a search warrant on Stamps’s apartment, the SWAT team raided the apartment at midnight on January 5, 2011. Stamps—whose presence the SWAT team was aware of and who was not suspected of any wrongdoing—lay prostrate and motionless on the ground with his hands out while Officer Duncan guarded him. During the time that Duncan was guarding him, Duncan moved his finger to the trigger and accidentally fired, killing Stamps.
The real story is how this seemingly obvious outcome—that juries should be able to decide whether officers who finger the trigger of loaded guns pointed at non-threatening individuals use excessive force—even became an issue. At the district court, Officer Paul Duncan claimed that his actions aren’t subject to scrutiny because of a doctrine entitled qualified immunity.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/court-swats-away-immunity-obviously-reckless-police-behavior
2016-02-20
Cato: Feds To Young Women: Don’t Even Touch Alcohol Unless You’re On Birth Control
With the passage of the Twenty-first Amendment in 1933, the United States enacted Repeal and abandoned its failed experiment with Prohibition. And that settled that, right? At least until this week:
"Women of childbearing age should avoid alcohol unless they’re using contraception, federal health officials said Tuesday, in a move to reduce the number of babies born with fetal alcohol syndrome.
“Alcohol can permanently harm a developing baby before a woman knows she is pregnant,” said Anne Schuchat, principal deputy director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “About half of all pregnancies in the United States are unplanned, and even if planned, most women won’t know they are pregnant for the first month or so, when they might still be drinking."
And more (emphasis added):
"Further, the report states that because half of all pregnancies in the United States are unplanned, it’s risky for women to drink any amount at any time during which she may intentionally or unintentionally become pregnant."
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/feds-young-women-dont-even-touch-alcohol-unless-youre-birth-control
"Women of childbearing age should avoid alcohol unless they’re using contraception, federal health officials said Tuesday, in a move to reduce the number of babies born with fetal alcohol syndrome.
“Alcohol can permanently harm a developing baby before a woman knows she is pregnant,” said Anne Schuchat, principal deputy director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “About half of all pregnancies in the United States are unplanned, and even if planned, most women won’t know they are pregnant for the first month or so, when they might still be drinking."
And more (emphasis added):
"Further, the report states that because half of all pregnancies in the United States are unplanned, it’s risky for women to drink any amount at any time during which she may intentionally or unintentionally become pregnant."
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/feds-young-women-dont-even-touch-alcohol-unless-youre-birth-control
2016-02-19
Cato: Europeans, not Americans, Should Spend More on Europe’s Defense
The U.S. plans on filling Eastern Europe with thousands of troops along with vehicles and weapons to equip an armored combat brigade. That will require a special budget request of $3.4 billion for next year.
An unnamed administration official told the New York Times, that the step “fulfills promises we’ve made to NATO” and “also shows our commitment and resolve.” Moreover, said another anonymous aide: “This reflects a new situation, where Russia has become a more difficult actor.”
However, the basic question remains unanswered: Why is the U.S. defending Europe? The need for America to play an overwhelming role disappeared as the continent recovered and the Cold War ended.
Today NATO involves collective defense, but “their,” not “our,” defense. Although the Europeans sometimes join America in “out of area” activities, for which no alliance is necessary, they have never come to, and are unlikely to ever come to, America’s actual defense. Applying Article 5 after 9/11 was a nice act of solidarity, but European support was never necessary to strike al-Qaeda and oust the Taliban.
Nor is there any serious military threat to Europe. Russia may be “a more difficult actor,” but it is not a suicidal aggressor. Russia has gone from Soviet Union back to Russian Empire.
Vladimir Putin’s Russia cares about border security. It wants to be respected and have its interests protected. It doesn’t act precipitously, but it does act.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/europeans-not-americans-should-spend-more-europes-defense
An unnamed administration official told the New York Times, that the step “fulfills promises we’ve made to NATO” and “also shows our commitment and resolve.” Moreover, said another anonymous aide: “This reflects a new situation, where Russia has become a more difficult actor.”
However, the basic question remains unanswered: Why is the U.S. defending Europe? The need for America to play an overwhelming role disappeared as the continent recovered and the Cold War ended.
Today NATO involves collective defense, but “their,” not “our,” defense. Although the Europeans sometimes join America in “out of area” activities, for which no alliance is necessary, they have never come to, and are unlikely to ever come to, America’s actual defense. Applying Article 5 after 9/11 was a nice act of solidarity, but European support was never necessary to strike al-Qaeda and oust the Taliban.
Nor is there any serious military threat to Europe. Russia may be “a more difficult actor,” but it is not a suicidal aggressor. Russia has gone from Soviet Union back to Russian Empire.
Vladimir Putin’s Russia cares about border security. It wants to be respected and have its interests protected. It doesn’t act precipitously, but it does act.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/europeans-not-americans-should-spend-more-europes-defense
2016-02-18
Cato: Who Will Stand Up for the Constitution?
The Constitution has gotten short shrift in the ongoing presidential debates, save for an occasional mention by Rand Paul. Now that he’s out of the race, Politico reports this morning, in a piece entitled “Ted Cruz, born-again libertarian,” that Cruz is scrambling for Paul’s supporters, claiming that he’s the one remaining “constitutional conservative.” That’s rich, and here’s why.
If there is any test of libertarian constitutionalism, it concerns the proper role of the courts in limiting legislative and executive excesses, federal, state, and local. Even many conservatives today are rethinking their earlier views and arguing now that courts need to be more engaged in the business of limiting government and preserving liberty. And no Supreme Court decision in our history more symbolizes the divide between the earlier conservatives and the libertarians who’ve gradually brought this re-thinking about than Lochner v. New York, where the Court in 1905 struck down an economic regulation because it violated the right to liberty of contract protected by the 14th Amendment.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/who-will-stand-constitution
If there is any test of libertarian constitutionalism, it concerns the proper role of the courts in limiting legislative and executive excesses, federal, state, and local. Even many conservatives today are rethinking their earlier views and arguing now that courts need to be more engaged in the business of limiting government and preserving liberty. And no Supreme Court decision in our history more symbolizes the divide between the earlier conservatives and the libertarians who’ve gradually brought this re-thinking about than Lochner v. New York, where the Court in 1905 struck down an economic regulation because it violated the right to liberty of contract protected by the 14th Amendment.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/who-will-stand-constitution
2016-02-17
Cato: What the President Should Do: End U.S. Support for the War in Yemen
Possibly the strangest foreign policy decision the Obama administration has made was their decision to support the Saudi-led war in Yemen. The White House has made quiet counterterrorism operations a key plank of its foreign policy agenda, and the administration includes a number of officials best known for their work on human rights issues, most notably Samantha Power. As such, the President’s decision to supply logistical, intelligence and targeting support for the Saudi-led coalition’s military campaign – a campaign which has been horrifically damaging to human rights inside Yemen, as well as detrimental to U.S. counterterrorism goals – was deeply surprising.
Less surprising was the fact that the conflict has turned into a disastrous quagmire. Yemen was already arguably a failed state when the intervention began in April 2015. The power transition negotiated in the aftermath of the Arab Spring was weak and failing, with Yemen’s perpetual insurgencies worsening the situation. Since the intervention began, the United Nations estimates that over 21 million Yemenis have been deprived of life’s basic necessities. Thousands have been killed. Even more concerning, United Nations monitors reported to the Security Council that they believed the Saudi-led coalition may be guilty of crimes against humanity for its indiscriminate air strikes on civilians.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/president-obama-can-end-war-yemen
Less surprising was the fact that the conflict has turned into a disastrous quagmire. Yemen was already arguably a failed state when the intervention began in April 2015. The power transition negotiated in the aftermath of the Arab Spring was weak and failing, with Yemen’s perpetual insurgencies worsening the situation. Since the intervention began, the United Nations estimates that over 21 million Yemenis have been deprived of life’s basic necessities. Thousands have been killed. Even more concerning, United Nations monitors reported to the Security Council that they believed the Saudi-led coalition may be guilty of crimes against humanity for its indiscriminate air strikes on civilians.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/president-obama-can-end-war-yemen
2016-02-16
Cato: Iowa Moonshine: The Sordid History of Ethanol Mandates
In recent years, politicians set impossibly high mandates for the amounts of ethanol motorists must buy in 2022 while also setting impossibly high standards for the fuel economy of cars sold in 2025. To accomplish these conflicting goals, motorists are now given tax credits to drive heavily-subsidized electric cars, even as they will supposedly be required to buy more and more ethanol-laced fuel each year.
Why have such blatantly contradictory laws received so little criticism, if not outrage? Probably because ethanol mandates and electric car subsidies are lucrative sources of federal grants, loans, subsidies and tax credits for “alternative fuels” and electric cars. Those on the receiving end lobby hard to keep the gravy train rolling while those paying the bills lack the same motivation to become informed, or to organize and lobby.
With farmers, ethanol producers and oil companies all sharing the bounty, using subsidies and mandates to pour ever-increasing amounts of ethanol into motorists’ gas tanks has been a win-win deal for politicians and the interest groups that support them and a lose-lose deal for consumers and taxpayers.
The political advantage of advocating contradictory future mandates is that the goals usually prove ridiculous only after their promoters are out of office. This is a bipartisan affliction. In his 2007 State of the Union Address, for example, President Bush called for mandating 35 billion gallons of biofuels by 2017, an incredible target equal to one-fourth of all gasoline consumed in the United States in 2006. Not to be outdone, “President Obama said during the presidential campaign that he favored a 60 billion gallon-a-year target.”
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/iowa-moonshine-sordid-history-ethanol-mandates
Why have such blatantly contradictory laws received so little criticism, if not outrage? Probably because ethanol mandates and electric car subsidies are lucrative sources of federal grants, loans, subsidies and tax credits for “alternative fuels” and electric cars. Those on the receiving end lobby hard to keep the gravy train rolling while those paying the bills lack the same motivation to become informed, or to organize and lobby.
With farmers, ethanol producers and oil companies all sharing the bounty, using subsidies and mandates to pour ever-increasing amounts of ethanol into motorists’ gas tanks has been a win-win deal for politicians and the interest groups that support them and a lose-lose deal for consumers and taxpayers.
The political advantage of advocating contradictory future mandates is that the goals usually prove ridiculous only after their promoters are out of office. This is a bipartisan affliction. In his 2007 State of the Union Address, for example, President Bush called for mandating 35 billion gallons of biofuels by 2017, an incredible target equal to one-fourth of all gasoline consumed in the United States in 2006. Not to be outdone, “President Obama said during the presidential campaign that he favored a 60 billion gallon-a-year target.”
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/iowa-moonshine-sordid-history-ethanol-mandates
2016-02-15
Cato: Financial Transaction Tax Would Be Damaging
An editorial in today’s New York Times calls for a financial transactions tax – a tenths of a percent charge on the market value of every trade of a stock, bond, or derivative. My Working Papers column two years ago described the pitfalls of such a tax. While tax rates in the range of tenths of a percent sound small they would have large effects on stock values. Bid-ask spreads are now 1 cent for large cap stocks. A 0.10 percent tax would add 5 cents to the spread for a $50 stock.
The alleged purpose of such a tax is to reduce the arms race among High Frequency Traders who exploit differences in the timing of bids and offers across exchanges at the level of thousandths of a second to engage in price arbitrage. In the Fall 2015 issue I review a paper that demonstrates that this arms race is the result of stock exchanges’ use of “continuous-limit-order-book” design (that is, orders are taken continuously and placed when the asset reaches the order’s stipulated price).
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/financial-transaction-tax-would-be-damaging
The alleged purpose of such a tax is to reduce the arms race among High Frequency Traders who exploit differences in the timing of bids and offers across exchanges at the level of thousandths of a second to engage in price arbitrage. In the Fall 2015 issue I review a paper that demonstrates that this arms race is the result of stock exchanges’ use of “continuous-limit-order-book” design (that is, orders are taken continuously and placed when the asset reaches the order’s stipulated price).
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/financial-transaction-tax-would-be-damaging
2016-02-13
Cato: Stop Reassuring Saudi Arabia, a Worse Threat to the Middle East than Iran
Secretary of State John Kerry recently traveled to Riyadh to reassure the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states that the U.S. stood with them. “Nothing has changed” as a result of the nuclear pact with Iran, he insisted.
Washington’s long relationship with Riyadh was built on oil. There never was any nonsense about sharing values with the KSA, which operates as a slightly more civilized variant of the Islamic State. The royals run a totalitarian system which prohibits political dissent, free speech, religious liberty, and social autonomy.
At a time of heavy U.S. dependence on foreign oil a little compromise in America’s principles might have seemed necessary. Today it’s hard to make a case that petroleum warrants Washington’s “special relationship” with Saudi Arabia. The global energy market is expanding; the U.S. will soon become a petroleum exporter. The royal regime cannot survive without oil money and has continued to pump even as prices have collapsed.
In recent years Washington also treated Riyadh as an integral component of a containment system against Iran. Of course, much of the “Tehran problem” was made in America: overthrowing Iranian democracy ultimately led to creation of an Islamist state.
Fears multiplied as Tehran confronted its Sunni neighbors along with Israel and continued the Shah’s nuclear program. Overwrought nightmares of Islamic revolution throughout the region encouraged America’s fulsome embrace of the KSA and allied regimes.
But this argument for supporting the Saudi royals has become quite threadbare. Saudi Arabia is well able to defend itself. In 2014 it came in at world number four with $81 billion in military expenditures, a multiple of Iran’s total.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/stop-reassuring-saudi-arabia-worse-threat-middle-east-iran
Washington’s long relationship with Riyadh was built on oil. There never was any nonsense about sharing values with the KSA, which operates as a slightly more civilized variant of the Islamic State. The royals run a totalitarian system which prohibits political dissent, free speech, religious liberty, and social autonomy.
At a time of heavy U.S. dependence on foreign oil a little compromise in America’s principles might have seemed necessary. Today it’s hard to make a case that petroleum warrants Washington’s “special relationship” with Saudi Arabia. The global energy market is expanding; the U.S. will soon become a petroleum exporter. The royal regime cannot survive without oil money and has continued to pump even as prices have collapsed.
In recent years Washington also treated Riyadh as an integral component of a containment system against Iran. Of course, much of the “Tehran problem” was made in America: overthrowing Iranian democracy ultimately led to creation of an Islamist state.
Fears multiplied as Tehran confronted its Sunni neighbors along with Israel and continued the Shah’s nuclear program. Overwrought nightmares of Islamic revolution throughout the region encouraged America’s fulsome embrace of the KSA and allied regimes.
But this argument for supporting the Saudi royals has become quite threadbare. Saudi Arabia is well able to defend itself. In 2014 it came in at world number four with $81 billion in military expenditures, a multiple of Iran’s total.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/stop-reassuring-saudi-arabia-worse-threat-middle-east-iran
2016-02-12
Cato: Will China Accept Taiwan’s Political Revolution?
In one of the least surprising election results in Taiwanese history, Tsai Ing-wen has won the presidency in a landslide. Even more dramatically, the Democratic Progressive Party will take control of the legislature for the first time. Tsai’s victory is a devastating judgment on the presidency of Ma Ying-jeou.
With the imminent triumph of the Chinese Communist Party, Chiang Kai-shek moved his government to the island in 1949. For a quarter century Washington backed Chiang. Finally, Richard Nixon opened a dialogue with the mainland and Jimmy Carter switched official recognition to Beijing. Nevertheless, the U.S. maintained semi-official ties with Taiwan.
As China began to reform economically it also developed a commercial relationship with Taipei. While the ruling Kuomintang agrees with the mainland that there is but one China, the DPP remains formally committed to independence.
Beijing realizes that Tsai’s victory is not just a rejection of Ma but of China. Support even for economic cooperation has dropped significantly over the last decade.
Thus, China’s strategy toward Taiwan is in ruins. In desperation in November Chinese President Xi Jinping met Ma in Singapore, the first summit between the two Chinese leaders. Beijing may have hoped to promote the KMT campaign or set a model for the incoming DPP to follow.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/will-china-accept-taiwans-political-revolution
With the imminent triumph of the Chinese Communist Party, Chiang Kai-shek moved his government to the island in 1949. For a quarter century Washington backed Chiang. Finally, Richard Nixon opened a dialogue with the mainland and Jimmy Carter switched official recognition to Beijing. Nevertheless, the U.S. maintained semi-official ties with Taiwan.
As China began to reform economically it also developed a commercial relationship with Taipei. While the ruling Kuomintang agrees with the mainland that there is but one China, the DPP remains formally committed to independence.
Beijing realizes that Tsai’s victory is not just a rejection of Ma but of China. Support even for economic cooperation has dropped significantly over the last decade.
Thus, China’s strategy toward Taiwan is in ruins. In desperation in November Chinese President Xi Jinping met Ma in Singapore, the first summit between the two Chinese leaders. Beijing may have hoped to promote the KMT campaign or set a model for the incoming DPP to follow.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/will-china-accept-taiwans-political-revolution
2016-02-11
Cato: Will Voters Commit Regicide against King Ethanol in Iowa?
Until now, conventional wisdom held that candidates of both major parties had to back ethanol welfare to win the Iowa caucuses. Like cotton was in the antebellum South, corn–in the form of ethanol–is king in Iowa.
Most of today’s candidates have fallen into line. However, Sen. Ted Cruz has broken ranks to criticize farmers’ welfare. He holds a narrow polling lead over Donald Trump leading up to the upcoming caucuses. (Sen. Rand Paul also rejects the conventional wisdom, but he remains far back in the race.)
Cruz’s political strength has dismayed ethanol makers. The group America’s Renewable Future, whose state director is the governor’s son, is deploying 22 staffers in the presidential campaign. The lobby doesn’t want to look like a paper tiger.
Ethanol subsidies once included a high tariff and generous tax credits, both of which expired at the end of 2011. However, the Renewable Fuel Standard, which requires blending ethanol with gasoline, operates as a huge industry subsidy. Robert Bryce of the Manhattan Institute figured the requirement cost drivers more than $10 billion since 2007.
Ethanol is a political creation. Three decades ago, the Agriculture Department admitted that ethanol could not survive “without massive new government assistance,” which “cannot be justified on economic grounds.” What other reason could there be for an ethanol dole?
Petroleum is the most cost-effective energy source available for transportation, in particular. Ethanol has only about two-thirds of the energy content of gasoline. Given the energy necessary to produce ethanol—fuel tractors, make fertilizer, and distill alcohol, for instance—ethanol actually may consume more in fossil fuels than the energy it yields.
The ethanol lobby claims using this inferior fuel nevertheless promotes “energy independence.” However, ending imports wouldn’t insulate the United States from the impact of disruptions in a global market. Moreover, the price of this energy “insurance” is wildly excessive.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/will-voters-commit-regicide-against-king-ethanol-iowa
Most of today’s candidates have fallen into line. However, Sen. Ted Cruz has broken ranks to criticize farmers’ welfare. He holds a narrow polling lead over Donald Trump leading up to the upcoming caucuses. (Sen. Rand Paul also rejects the conventional wisdom, but he remains far back in the race.)
Cruz’s political strength has dismayed ethanol makers. The group America’s Renewable Future, whose state director is the governor’s son, is deploying 22 staffers in the presidential campaign. The lobby doesn’t want to look like a paper tiger.
Ethanol subsidies once included a high tariff and generous tax credits, both of which expired at the end of 2011. However, the Renewable Fuel Standard, which requires blending ethanol with gasoline, operates as a huge industry subsidy. Robert Bryce of the Manhattan Institute figured the requirement cost drivers more than $10 billion since 2007.
Ethanol is a political creation. Three decades ago, the Agriculture Department admitted that ethanol could not survive “without massive new government assistance,” which “cannot be justified on economic grounds.” What other reason could there be for an ethanol dole?
Petroleum is the most cost-effective energy source available for transportation, in particular. Ethanol has only about two-thirds of the energy content of gasoline. Given the energy necessary to produce ethanol—fuel tractors, make fertilizer, and distill alcohol, for instance—ethanol actually may consume more in fossil fuels than the energy it yields.
The ethanol lobby claims using this inferior fuel nevertheless promotes “energy independence.” However, ending imports wouldn’t insulate the United States from the impact of disruptions in a global market. Moreover, the price of this energy “insurance” is wildly excessive.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/will-voters-commit-regicide-against-king-ethanol-iowa
2016-02-10
Cato: The Syrian Civil War Just Became Even More Complex
Just when you thought the Syrian civil war couldn’t get any messier, developments last week proved that it could. For the first time in the armed conflict that has raged for nearly five years, militia fighters from the Assyrian Christian community in northern Iraq clashed with Kurdish troops. What made that incident especially puzzling is that both the Assyrians and the Kurds are vehement adversaries of ISIS—which is also a major player in that region of Syria. Logically, they should be allies who cooperate regarding military moves against the terrorist organization.
But in Syria, very little is simple or straightforward. Unfortunately, that is a point completely lost on the Western (especially American) news media. From the beginning, Western journalists have portrayed the Syrian conflict as a simplistic melodrama, with dictator Bashar al-Assad playing the role of designated villain and the insurgents playing the role of plucky proponents of liberty. Even a cursory examination of the situation should have discredited that narrative, but it continues largely intact to this day.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/syrian-civil-war-just-became-even-more-complex
But in Syria, very little is simple or straightforward. Unfortunately, that is a point completely lost on the Western (especially American) news media. From the beginning, Western journalists have portrayed the Syrian conflict as a simplistic melodrama, with dictator Bashar al-Assad playing the role of designated villain and the insurgents playing the role of plucky proponents of liberty. Even a cursory examination of the situation should have discredited that narrative, but it continues largely intact to this day.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/syrian-civil-war-just-became-even-more-complex
2016-01-30
Cato: The Mideast’s Problem Is Politics, Not History
Chaos and conflict have become constants in the Middle East. Frustrated U.S. policymakers tend to blame ancient history. Said President Barack Obama in his State of the Union speech, the region’s ongoing transformation was “rooted in conflicts that date back millennia.”
Of course, war is a constant of human history. But while today’s most important religious divisions go back thousands of years, bitter sectarian conflict does not. The Christian Crusades and Muslim conquests into Europe ended long ago.
All was not always calm within the region, of course. Sectarian antagonism existed. Yet religious divisions rarely caused the sort of hateful slaughter we see today.
Tolerance lived on even under political tyranny. The Baathist Party, which ruled Iraq and Syria until recently, was founded by a Christian. Christians played a leading role in the Palestinian movement.
The fundamental problem today is politics. Religion has become a means to forge political identities and rally political support.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/mideasts-problem-politics-not-history
Of course, war is a constant of human history. But while today’s most important religious divisions go back thousands of years, bitter sectarian conflict does not. The Christian Crusades and Muslim conquests into Europe ended long ago.
All was not always calm within the region, of course. Sectarian antagonism existed. Yet religious divisions rarely caused the sort of hateful slaughter we see today.
Tolerance lived on even under political tyranny. The Baathist Party, which ruled Iraq and Syria until recently, was founded by a Christian. Christians played a leading role in the Palestinian movement.
The fundamental problem today is politics. Religion has become a means to forge political identities and rally political support.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/mideasts-problem-politics-not-history
2016-01-29
Cato: Supreme Court Should Police Class Action Settlements
In 2009, Duracell, a subsidiary of Proctor & Gamble, began selling “Duracell Ultra” batteries, marketing them as their longest-lasting variety. A class action was filed in 2012, arguing that the “longest-lasting” claim was fraudulent. The case was removed to federal court, where the parties reached a global settlement purporting to represent 7.26 million class members.
Attorneys for the class are to receive an award of $5.68 million, based on what the district court deemed to be an “illusory” valuation of the settlement at $50 million. In reality, the class received $344,850. Additionally, defendants agreed to make a donation of $6 million worth of batteries over the course of five years to various charities.
This redistribution of settlement money from the victims to other uses is referred to as cy pres. “Cy pres” means “as near as possible,” and courts have typically used the cy pres doctrine to reform the terms of a charitable trust when the stated objective of the trust is impractical or unworkable. The use of cy pres in class action settlements—particularly those that enable the defendant to control the funds—is an emerging trend that violates the due process and free speech rights of class members.
Accordingly, class members objected to the settlement, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in approving the agreement and failed to engage in the required rigorous analysis to determine whether the settlement was “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the settlement, however, noting the lack of “precedent prohibiting this type of cy pres award.”
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/supreme-court-should-police-class-action-settlements
Attorneys for the class are to receive an award of $5.68 million, based on what the district court deemed to be an “illusory” valuation of the settlement at $50 million. In reality, the class received $344,850. Additionally, defendants agreed to make a donation of $6 million worth of batteries over the course of five years to various charities.
This redistribution of settlement money from the victims to other uses is referred to as cy pres. “Cy pres” means “as near as possible,” and courts have typically used the cy pres doctrine to reform the terms of a charitable trust when the stated objective of the trust is impractical or unworkable. The use of cy pres in class action settlements—particularly those that enable the defendant to control the funds—is an emerging trend that violates the due process and free speech rights of class members.
Accordingly, class members objected to the settlement, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in approving the agreement and failed to engage in the required rigorous analysis to determine whether the settlement was “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the settlement, however, noting the lack of “precedent prohibiting this type of cy pres award.”
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/supreme-court-should-police-class-action-settlements
2016-01-28
Cato: Tug-of-War over Federal Lands Leads to Standoff
Lost in all the hoopla over “y’all queda” and “VanillaISIS” is any basic history of how public rangelands in the West–and in eastern Oregon in particular–got to this point. I’ve seen no mention in the press of two laws that are probably more responsible than anything else for the alienation and animosity the Hammonds felt towards the government.
The first law, the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978, set a formula for calculating grazing fees based on beef prices and rancher costs. When the law was written, most analysts assumed per capita beef consumption would continue to grow as it had the previous several decades. In fact, it declined from 90 pounds to 50 pounds per year. The formula quickly drove down fees to the minimum of $1.35 per cow-month, even as inflation increased the costs to the government of managing the range.
The 1978 law also allowed the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to keep half of grazing fees for range improvements. Initially, this fund motivated the agencies to promote rancher interests. But as inflation ate away the value of the fee, agency managers began to view ranchers as freeloaders. Today, the fee contributes will under 1 percent of agency budgets and less than 10 percent of range management costs. Livestock grazing was once a profitable use of federal range lands but now costs taxpayers nearly $10 for every dollar collected in fees.
Ranching advocates argue that the grazing fee is set correctly because it costs more to graze livestock on federal land than on state or private land. But the BLM and Forest Service represent the sellers, not the buyers, and the price they set should reflect the amount that a seller is willing to accept. Except in cases of charity, no seller would permanently accept less than cost, and costs currently average about $10 per animal unit month.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/tug-war-over-federal-lands-leads-standoff
The first law, the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978, set a formula for calculating grazing fees based on beef prices and rancher costs. When the law was written, most analysts assumed per capita beef consumption would continue to grow as it had the previous several decades. In fact, it declined from 90 pounds to 50 pounds per year. The formula quickly drove down fees to the minimum of $1.35 per cow-month, even as inflation increased the costs to the government of managing the range.
The 1978 law also allowed the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to keep half of grazing fees for range improvements. Initially, this fund motivated the agencies to promote rancher interests. But as inflation ate away the value of the fee, agency managers began to view ranchers as freeloaders. Today, the fee contributes will under 1 percent of agency budgets and less than 10 percent of range management costs. Livestock grazing was once a profitable use of federal range lands but now costs taxpayers nearly $10 for every dollar collected in fees.
Ranching advocates argue that the grazing fee is set correctly because it costs more to graze livestock on federal land than on state or private land. But the BLM and Forest Service represent the sellers, not the buyers, and the price they set should reflect the amount that a seller is willing to accept. Except in cases of charity, no seller would permanently accept less than cost, and costs currently average about $10 per animal unit month.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/tug-war-over-federal-lands-leads-standoff
2016-01-27
Cato: America’s Persistently Dependent Allies
The U.S. is allied with every major industrialized power on the planet. America’s friends in Asia and Europe generally are prosperous and populous. Yet decades after the conflicts which led to Washington’s security guarantees for them, the allied gaggle remains a bunch of “losers,” to paraphrase Donald Trump.
Last week North Korea staged its fourth nuclear test. Naturally, South Korea and Japan reacted in horror. But it was America which acted.
The U.S. sent a Guam-based B-52 wandering across South Korean skies. “This was a demonstration of the ironclad U.S. commitment to our allies in South Korea, in Japan, and to the defense of the American homeland,” opined Adm. Harry B. Harris, Jr., head of Pacific Command.
Unfortunately, the message might not work as intended. CNN’s Will Ripley reported from Pyongyang that “A lot of North Korean military commanders find U.S. bombers especially threatening, given the destruction here in Pyongyang during the Korean War, when much of the city was flattened.” Which sounds like giving the North another justification for building nuclear weapons.
Worse, though, reported Reuters: “The United States and its ally South Korea are in talks toward sending further strategic U.S assets to the Korean peninsula.” Weapons being considered include an aircraft carrier, B-2 bombers, F-22 stealth fighters, and submarines.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/americas-persistently-dependent-allies
Last week North Korea staged its fourth nuclear test. Naturally, South Korea and Japan reacted in horror. But it was America which acted.
The U.S. sent a Guam-based B-52 wandering across South Korean skies. “This was a demonstration of the ironclad U.S. commitment to our allies in South Korea, in Japan, and to the defense of the American homeland,” opined Adm. Harry B. Harris, Jr., head of Pacific Command.
Unfortunately, the message might not work as intended. CNN’s Will Ripley reported from Pyongyang that “A lot of North Korean military commanders find U.S. bombers especially threatening, given the destruction here in Pyongyang during the Korean War, when much of the city was flattened.” Which sounds like giving the North another justification for building nuclear weapons.
Worse, though, reported Reuters: “The United States and its ally South Korea are in talks toward sending further strategic U.S assets to the Korean peninsula.” Weapons being considered include an aircraft carrier, B-2 bombers, F-22 stealth fighters, and submarines.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/americas-persistently-dependent-allies
2016-01-26
Cato: High Turnover Among America’s Rich
Your odds of “making it to the top” might be better than you think, although it’s tough to stay on top once you get there.
According to research from Cornell University, over 50 percent of Americans find themselves among the top 10 percent of income-earners for at least one year during their working lives. Over 11 percent of Americans will be counted among the top 1 percent of income-earners (i.e., people making at minimum $332,000 per annum) for at least one year.
How is this possible? Simple: the rate of turnover in these groups is extremely high.
Just how high? Some 94 percent of Americans who reach “top 1 percent” income status will enjoy it for only a single year. Approximately 99 percent will lose their “top 1 percent” status within a decade.
Now consider the top 400 U.S. income-earners—a far more exclusive club than the top 1 percent. Between 1992 and 2013, 72 percent of the top 400 retained that title for no more than a year. Over 97 percent retained it for no more than a decade.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/high-turnover-among-americas-rich
According to research from Cornell University, over 50 percent of Americans find themselves among the top 10 percent of income-earners for at least one year during their working lives. Over 11 percent of Americans will be counted among the top 1 percent of income-earners (i.e., people making at minimum $332,000 per annum) for at least one year.
How is this possible? Simple: the rate of turnover in these groups is extremely high.
Just how high? Some 94 percent of Americans who reach “top 1 percent” income status will enjoy it for only a single year. Approximately 99 percent will lose their “top 1 percent” status within a decade.
Now consider the top 400 U.S. income-earners—a far more exclusive club than the top 1 percent. Between 1992 and 2013, 72 percent of the top 400 retained that title for no more than a year. Over 97 percent retained it for no more than a decade.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/high-turnover-among-americas-rich
2016-01-25
Cato: Unfair Postal Competition
With the rise of electronic communications, the volume of snail mail has fallen precipitously, and the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) has been losing billions of dollars. The 600,000-worker USPS is an unjustified legal monopoly that is heavily subsidized. It is a bureaucratic dinosaur that Congress should put on the way to extinction.
In April, I highlighted an excellent study by Robert J. Shapiro that described USPS subsidies in detail. The subsidies include: exemption from taxes, low-cost government borrowing, monopoly protections, and other special benefits.
Shapiro completed another study in October, which is a great addition to the postal debate. He details how government-conferred advantages have translated into cross-subsidies from USPS monopoly products to products sold in competitive markets. The USPS uses its monopoly over letters and bulk mail to unfairly compete with FedEx, UPS, and others on express mail and packages.
Shapiro finds that USPS raises prices on its monopoly products, and uses those extra revenues to artificially push down prices on its competitive products. For USPS, this makes sense because consumers are less price sensitive for the monopoly products than for the competitive products. Shapiro concludes, “USPS has strong incentives to cross-subsidize its competitive products with revenues from its monopoly operations,” and it does so by $3 billion or more a year.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/unfair-postal-competition
In April, I highlighted an excellent study by Robert J. Shapiro that described USPS subsidies in detail. The subsidies include: exemption from taxes, low-cost government borrowing, monopoly protections, and other special benefits.
Shapiro completed another study in October, which is a great addition to the postal debate. He details how government-conferred advantages have translated into cross-subsidies from USPS monopoly products to products sold in competitive markets. The USPS uses its monopoly over letters and bulk mail to unfairly compete with FedEx, UPS, and others on express mail and packages.
Shapiro finds that USPS raises prices on its monopoly products, and uses those extra revenues to artificially push down prices on its competitive products. For USPS, this makes sense because consumers are less price sensitive for the monopoly products than for the competitive products. Shapiro concludes, “USPS has strong incentives to cross-subsidize its competitive products with revenues from its monopoly operations,” and it does so by $3 billion or more a year.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/unfair-postal-competition
2016-01-24
Cato: Winning in Africa Might Not Be Worth the Cost to China
Nowhere is China’s growing reach more obvious than in Africa. President Xi Jinping just returned from a trip during which he promised African officials $60 billion in new investment. Beijing also has grown more active culturally, educationally, and even militarily.
The PRC’s increasing role has created unease in Washington. But China has run into many of the same sort of problems which faced America in the past.
The U.S. obviously fears losing business: African trade with China surpassed that with America in 2009. Beijing undermines Western pressure to improve democracy and human rights.
Yet the ultimate results of President Xi’s visit remain to be seen. The photo ops were impressive, but both the pictures and promises may fade over time.
Dealing with the continent remains a challenge. Many African nations remain in crisis. The November terrorist attack in Mali killed three Chinese citizens.
The PRC appears willing to ignore some risks which deter Western countries and companies. However, no money put into Zimbabwe—a large destination of Chinese investment—is likely to turn out well.
Osadebe Osakwe, managing director of North China Construction Nigeria, argued that “Unless the West changes its risk assessment, the Chinese will beat them to the African market.” But the market is not worth dominating at any price. Observed the New York Times: “Nigeria is a particularly shaky bet for China.”
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/winning-africa-might-not-be-worth-cost-china
The PRC’s increasing role has created unease in Washington. But China has run into many of the same sort of problems which faced America in the past.
The U.S. obviously fears losing business: African trade with China surpassed that with America in 2009. Beijing undermines Western pressure to improve democracy and human rights.
Yet the ultimate results of President Xi’s visit remain to be seen. The photo ops were impressive, but both the pictures and promises may fade over time.
Dealing with the continent remains a challenge. Many African nations remain in crisis. The November terrorist attack in Mali killed three Chinese citizens.
The PRC appears willing to ignore some risks which deter Western countries and companies. However, no money put into Zimbabwe—a large destination of Chinese investment—is likely to turn out well.
Osadebe Osakwe, managing director of North China Construction Nigeria, argued that “Unless the West changes its risk assessment, the Chinese will beat them to the African market.” But the market is not worth dominating at any price. Observed the New York Times: “Nigeria is a particularly shaky bet for China.”
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/winning-africa-might-not-be-worth-cost-china
2016-01-23
Cato: Free Speech Doesn’t Depend on the Eye of the Beholder
Nearly 40 years ago, the Supreme Court held in Wooley v. Maynard (1977)—the famous “Live Free or Die” case from New Hampshire—that the First Amendment protects against being compelled to convey a message displayed on a state-issued license plate. Nevertheless, the Denver-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently held that someone could not object to an image on Oklahoma’s license plate of the Sacred Rain Arrow statue, which depicts a young Apache warrior shooting an arrow into the sky as a prayer for rain.
The court’s decision turned on drawing a line between speech in the form of words and other kinds of expression. Keith Cressman had objected to the Oklahoma tag because of the history and origin of the Sacred Rain Arrow statue. The Tenth Circuit held that Cressman’s objection was not entitled to full First Amendment protection because images are not “pure speech” and must be analyzed under the less rigorous “symbolic speech” test.
The term “symbolic speech” may be an unfortunate misnomer—it doesn’t mean speech via symbols—but the Supreme Court has only ever used the phrase to refer to “expressive conduct.” That is, “symbolic speech” is conduct that conveys a message, such as burning one’s draft card in protest of war.
The Supreme Court has always regarded non-conduct forms of expression as “pure speech.” And that’s exactly as it should be: Government has no more ability to ban bumper stickers displaying a cross than ones referencing “John 3:16,” and the same must be true for ones depicting Da Vinci’s painting “The Last Supper.” Despite the Court’s consistency on this point, lower courts are split. While the Ninth Circuit has extended full First Amendment protection to tattoos and even the process of making them and the business of tattooing, other circuits have suggested that “pure speech” is limited to words. And of course the Tenth Circuit has now said that the First Amendment protects as symbolic speech at best.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/free-speech-doesnt-depend-eye-beholder
The court’s decision turned on drawing a line between speech in the form of words and other kinds of expression. Keith Cressman had objected to the Oklahoma tag because of the history and origin of the Sacred Rain Arrow statue. The Tenth Circuit held that Cressman’s objection was not entitled to full First Amendment protection because images are not “pure speech” and must be analyzed under the less rigorous “symbolic speech” test.
The term “symbolic speech” may be an unfortunate misnomer—it doesn’t mean speech via symbols—but the Supreme Court has only ever used the phrase to refer to “expressive conduct.” That is, “symbolic speech” is conduct that conveys a message, such as burning one’s draft card in protest of war.
The Supreme Court has always regarded non-conduct forms of expression as “pure speech.” And that’s exactly as it should be: Government has no more ability to ban bumper stickers displaying a cross than ones referencing “John 3:16,” and the same must be true for ones depicting Da Vinci’s painting “The Last Supper.” Despite the Court’s consistency on this point, lower courts are split. While the Ninth Circuit has extended full First Amendment protection to tattoos and even the process of making them and the business of tattooing, other circuits have suggested that “pure speech” is limited to words. And of course the Tenth Circuit has now said that the First Amendment protects as symbolic speech at best.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/free-speech-doesnt-depend-eye-beholder
2016-01-22
Cato: Vilsack to Congress: Give Me More Money or I’ll Let the West Burn
Congress rejected the Forest Service plan to give the agency access to up to $2.9 billion a year to suppress wildfires. In response, Secretary of Agriculture threatened to let fires burn up the West unless Congress gives his department more money. In a letter to key members of Congress, Vilsack warned, “I will not authorize transfers from restoration and resilience funding” to suppress fires. If the Forest Service runs out of appropriated funds to fight fires, it will stop fighting them until Congress appropriates additional funds.
This is a stunning example of brinksmanship on the part of an agency once known for its easygoing nature. Since about 1990, Congress has given the Forest Service the average of its previous ten years of fire suppression funds. If the agency has to spend more than that amount during a severe fire year, Congress authorized it to borrow funds from its other programs, with the promise that Congress would reimburse those funds later. In other words, during severe fire years, some projects might be delayed for a year–hardly a crisis.
Yet Vilsack and the Forest Service are intent on turning it into a crisis. In a report prominently posted on the Forest Service’s web site, the agency whines about “the rising costs of wildfire operations”–that cost not being the dollar cost but the “effects on the Forest Service’s non-fire work.”
Numerous graphs in the report show declines in inflation-adjusted funding for various line items–but, deceptively, none of the graphs have the Y-axis set to zero, thus exaggerating those declines. Moreover, many of those line items are ridiculous anyway: who cares of land-management planning budgets have declined? The Supreme Court decided in 1998 that land-management planning was a waste of time, so why are they still spending any money at all on it? In any case, most of the items tracked by the charts aren’t programs the Forest Service borrows against for fire, so creating the proposed $2.9 billion emergency fund would do nothing to stop the funding declines.
The question Vilsack should ask is not “Why won’t Congress give his agency a blank check?” but “Why does the Forest Service spend so much on fire anyway?” The answer to that question is complex but comes down to one simple thing: the Forest Service has no incentive to control costs as long as Congress keeps reimbursing them.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/vilsack-congress-give-me-more-money-or-ill-let-west-burn
This is a stunning example of brinksmanship on the part of an agency once known for its easygoing nature. Since about 1990, Congress has given the Forest Service the average of its previous ten years of fire suppression funds. If the agency has to spend more than that amount during a severe fire year, Congress authorized it to borrow funds from its other programs, with the promise that Congress would reimburse those funds later. In other words, during severe fire years, some projects might be delayed for a year–hardly a crisis.
Yet Vilsack and the Forest Service are intent on turning it into a crisis. In a report prominently posted on the Forest Service’s web site, the agency whines about “the rising costs of wildfire operations”–that cost not being the dollar cost but the “effects on the Forest Service’s non-fire work.”
Numerous graphs in the report show declines in inflation-adjusted funding for various line items–but, deceptively, none of the graphs have the Y-axis set to zero, thus exaggerating those declines. Moreover, many of those line items are ridiculous anyway: who cares of land-management planning budgets have declined? The Supreme Court decided in 1998 that land-management planning was a waste of time, so why are they still spending any money at all on it? In any case, most of the items tracked by the charts aren’t programs the Forest Service borrows against for fire, so creating the proposed $2.9 billion emergency fund would do nothing to stop the funding declines.
The question Vilsack should ask is not “Why won’t Congress give his agency a blank check?” but “Why does the Forest Service spend so much on fire anyway?” The answer to that question is complex but comes down to one simple thing: the Forest Service has no incentive to control costs as long as Congress keeps reimbursing them.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/vilsack-congress-give-me-more-money-or-ill-let-west-burn
2016-01-21
Cato: Propose Peace Treaty as North Korea Plans Party Congress
North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un has scheduled North Korea’s first communist party congress in decades in May. The U.S. should encourage reform by proposing talks on drafting a peace treaty and normalizing relations.
Dealing with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has taken on an air of futility in Washington. The Obama administration refuses to talk with North Korea unless the latter first “takes irreversible steps toward denuclearization.” Yet expecting Pyongyang to yield its most important security assets in return for conversation ensures continued failure.
The first party congress since 1980, when Kim’s grandfather, Kim Il-sung, ruled, portends significant policy changes. Kim Jong-un likely will formalize both consolidation of power and new economic initiatives.
The government has been pushing creation of a “knowledge economy.” Private enterprise is expanding. In this way, argued analyst Michael Bassett, Kim is “liberating” the DPRK.
A de facto property market has arisen in this once most tightly controlled society. Private financing has developed. North Korean and foreign banks are providing cash cards.
The number of official open-air private markets has more than doubled since 2010 to 406; another 1000 unofficial markets are thought to be operating. Eight of ten North Koreans have shopped at private markets.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/propose-peace-treaty-north-korea-plans-party-congress
Dealing with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has taken on an air of futility in Washington. The Obama administration refuses to talk with North Korea unless the latter first “takes irreversible steps toward denuclearization.” Yet expecting Pyongyang to yield its most important security assets in return for conversation ensures continued failure.
The first party congress since 1980, when Kim’s grandfather, Kim Il-sung, ruled, portends significant policy changes. Kim Jong-un likely will formalize both consolidation of power and new economic initiatives.
The government has been pushing creation of a “knowledge economy.” Private enterprise is expanding. In this way, argued analyst Michael Bassett, Kim is “liberating” the DPRK.
A de facto property market has arisen in this once most tightly controlled society. Private financing has developed. North Korean and foreign banks are providing cash cards.
The number of official open-air private markets has more than doubled since 2010 to 406; another 1000 unofficial markets are thought to be operating. Eight of ten North Koreans have shopped at private markets.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/propose-peace-treaty-north-korea-plans-party-congress
2016-01-20
Cato: What Is Real REAL ID Compliance?
This fall, the Department of Homeland Security and its pro-national ID allies staged a push to move more states toward complying with REAL ID, the U.S. national ID law. The public agitation effort was so successful that passport offices in New Mexico were swamped with people fearing their drivers’ licenses would be invalid for federal purposes. A DHS official had to backtrack on a widely reported January 2016 deadline for state compliance.
DHS continues to imply that all but a few holdout states stand in the way of nationwide REAL ID compliance. The suggestion is that residents of recalcitrant jurisdictions will be hung out to dry soon, when the Transportation Security Administration starts turning away travelers who arrive at its airport checkpoints with IDs from non-compliant states.
At this writing, DHS’s “REAL ID Enforcement in Brief” page lists just two non-compliant jurisdictions: Minnesota and American Samoa. You’d take this as a signal of broad compliance. But look closely at the list of “Compliant/Extension” jurisdictions, and you see that more than half of them are non-compliant and enjoying extensions themselves.
But here’s the kicker: Even the ‘compliant’ states aren’t compliant. DHS treats states as ‘compliant’ if they’re synched up with a pared-back “material compliance checklist.” It’s DHS reducing the obligations of the law by fiat, and it’s no different than extending the deadline indefinitely on a subset of the law’s actual requirements.
When DHS bureaucrats tell state elected officials that the agency can no longer offer them extensions, this is false. DHS is currently giving every state in the union, including the ones it calls “compliant,” extensions with respect to provisions of the law and regulations that don’t appear on its checklist.
To help clarify what REAL ID compliance actually is, we’ve compiled a list of REAL ID’s actual requirements, what the law and regulations would mean for states. REAL ID has nearly 100 requirements, ranging from very easy, standard ID-card practices to things that are currently impossible and ill-advised. States have to do all of them to be compliant.
We’ve grouped the requirements together for easy reading. Many are back-end mandates, requiring states to meet standards for facilities, data storage, employee background checks, and so forth. Notably, REAL ID requires states to make driver data available to every other state, which means that every DMV must open its state’s residents’ data to the risk of exposure to any state that lacks sufficient information controls. That ill-advised policy is currently impossible, luckily, because the data sharing network has not yet been built. Congress puts money into the project annually in the DHS appropriations bill.
The full REAL ID requirements make it easy to see why no state is in compliance today, and why no state should expend their taxpayers’ money on the onerous, complex scheme to implement the U.S. national ID law.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/what-real-real-id-compliance
DHS continues to imply that all but a few holdout states stand in the way of nationwide REAL ID compliance. The suggestion is that residents of recalcitrant jurisdictions will be hung out to dry soon, when the Transportation Security Administration starts turning away travelers who arrive at its airport checkpoints with IDs from non-compliant states.
At this writing, DHS’s “REAL ID Enforcement in Brief” page lists just two non-compliant jurisdictions: Minnesota and American Samoa. You’d take this as a signal of broad compliance. But look closely at the list of “Compliant/Extension” jurisdictions, and you see that more than half of them are non-compliant and enjoying extensions themselves.
But here’s the kicker: Even the ‘compliant’ states aren’t compliant. DHS treats states as ‘compliant’ if they’re synched up with a pared-back “material compliance checklist.” It’s DHS reducing the obligations of the law by fiat, and it’s no different than extending the deadline indefinitely on a subset of the law’s actual requirements.
When DHS bureaucrats tell state elected officials that the agency can no longer offer them extensions, this is false. DHS is currently giving every state in the union, including the ones it calls “compliant,” extensions with respect to provisions of the law and regulations that don’t appear on its checklist.
To help clarify what REAL ID compliance actually is, we’ve compiled a list of REAL ID’s actual requirements, what the law and regulations would mean for states. REAL ID has nearly 100 requirements, ranging from very easy, standard ID-card practices to things that are currently impossible and ill-advised. States have to do all of them to be compliant.
We’ve grouped the requirements together for easy reading. Many are back-end mandates, requiring states to meet standards for facilities, data storage, employee background checks, and so forth. Notably, REAL ID requires states to make driver data available to every other state, which means that every DMV must open its state’s residents’ data to the risk of exposure to any state that lacks sufficient information controls. That ill-advised policy is currently impossible, luckily, because the data sharing network has not yet been built. Congress puts money into the project annually in the DHS appropriations bill.
The full REAL ID requirements make it easy to see why no state is in compliance today, and why no state should expend their taxpayers’ money on the onerous, complex scheme to implement the U.S. national ID law.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/what-real-real-id-compliance
2016-01-19
Cato: Dumping Money on Fire
A bill before Congress would practically give the Forest Service a blank check for firefighting. HR 167, the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act, proposes to allow the Forest Service to tap into federal disaster relief funds whenever its annual firefighting appropriation runs out of money. It’s not quite a blank check as the bill would limit the Forest Service to $2.9 billion in firefighting expenses per year, but that’s not much of a limit (yet), as the most it has ever spent was in 2006 when it spent $1.501 billion.
Having a blank check is nothing new for the Forest Service. In 1908, Congress literally gave the agency a blank check for fire suppression, promising to refund all fire suppression costs at the end of each year. As far as I know, this is the only time in history that a democratically elected legislature gave a bureaucracy a blank check to do anything: even in wartime, the Defense Department had to live within a budget.
Due to rising firefighting costs, Congress repealed the Forest Service’s blank check in about 1978, giving the agency a fixed amount each year and telling it to save money in the wet years to spend in the dry years. The agency actually reduced its costs for about a decade, but then two severe fire years in 1987 and 1988 led the Forest Service to borrow heavily from its reforestation fund. Congress eventually reimbursed this fund, and costs have been growing ever since.
In the 1970s, when firefighting costs were so out of control that Congress repealed the blank check, the agency spent about 10 to 20 percent of its national forest management funds on fire. Today, even though the agency’s budget has kept up with inflation, more than half goes for fire.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/dumping-money-fire
Having a blank check is nothing new for the Forest Service. In 1908, Congress literally gave the agency a blank check for fire suppression, promising to refund all fire suppression costs at the end of each year. As far as I know, this is the only time in history that a democratically elected legislature gave a bureaucracy a blank check to do anything: even in wartime, the Defense Department had to live within a budget.
Due to rising firefighting costs, Congress repealed the Forest Service’s blank check in about 1978, giving the agency a fixed amount each year and telling it to save money in the wet years to spend in the dry years. The agency actually reduced its costs for about a decade, but then two severe fire years in 1987 and 1988 led the Forest Service to borrow heavily from its reforestation fund. Congress eventually reimbursed this fund, and costs have been growing ever since.
In the 1970s, when firefighting costs were so out of control that Congress repealed the blank check, the agency spent about 10 to 20 percent of its national forest management funds on fire. Today, even though the agency’s budget has kept up with inflation, more than half goes for fire.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/dumping-money-fire
2016-01-18
Cato: Excessive Fines Are Unconstitutional
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. In this case, the Palmetto State, following the lead of other state and federal regulators, has added a new twist to that old saying: fool no one, pay $124 million to the treasury.
Ortho-McNeil-Janssen (“Janssen”) is a pharmaceutical company that distributes a popular antipsychotic drug known as Risperdal. In the 1990s and early 2000s, Risperdal was in fierce competition for market dominance and made some questionable claims about the drug’s side effects. The FDA investigated and compelled the company to correct some defective warning labels.
South Carolina regulators, however, despite the FDA’s settlement of the matter, commenced state action against Janssen under the state’s Unfair Trade Practices Act. That action worked its way up to the state supreme court, which ultimately confirmed a $124 million penalty against the company. That massive fine was sustained on the theory that each labeling violation was its own violation of the statute, worth up to $5,000 each, rather than the overall labeling violation counting as one singular misdeed.
Such a large penalty, disproportionate to the actual harm caused (none) runs afoul of the Eight Amendment requirement that “excessive fines [not be] imposed.” Cato has filed an amicus brief calling for the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the decisions below and clarify the scope of the Excessive Fines Clause.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/excessive-fines-are-unconstitutional
Ortho-McNeil-Janssen (“Janssen”) is a pharmaceutical company that distributes a popular antipsychotic drug known as Risperdal. In the 1990s and early 2000s, Risperdal was in fierce competition for market dominance and made some questionable claims about the drug’s side effects. The FDA investigated and compelled the company to correct some defective warning labels.
South Carolina regulators, however, despite the FDA’s settlement of the matter, commenced state action against Janssen under the state’s Unfair Trade Practices Act. That action worked its way up to the state supreme court, which ultimately confirmed a $124 million penalty against the company. That massive fine was sustained on the theory that each labeling violation was its own violation of the statute, worth up to $5,000 each, rather than the overall labeling violation counting as one singular misdeed.
Such a large penalty, disproportionate to the actual harm caused (none) runs afoul of the Eight Amendment requirement that “excessive fines [not be] imposed.” Cato has filed an amicus brief calling for the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the decisions below and clarify the scope of the Excessive Fines Clause.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/excessive-fines-are-unconstitutional
2016-01-10
Cato: And on the Seventh Day You Can Rest (If You Want)
For 122 years, the California Labor Code has said that employees in all industries are “entitled” to a day of rest “one day therefrom in seven.” The statute also provides that “No employer shall cause his employees to work more than six days in seven.” Mendoza, a former Nordstrom employee, is arguing to the California Supreme Court that the Labor Code should be construed as flatly prohibiting employers from allowing an employee to work on the seventh day of a workweek. To make that argument work he must also convince the Court that the Labor Code prohibits employees from voluntarily choosing to work on a day otherwise scheduled for rest. This radically paternalistic argument not only flies in the face of the plain language of the statute, but it would hurt employees who may wish work on the seventh day of a workweek for innumerable reasons. In a brief filed in support of Nordstrom, Cato, joined by the National Federation of Independent Business, the Reason Foundation, and a handful of California employees, argues that there are many legitimate reasons why an employee might want to work on the seventh day of a workweek: to meet financial goals, to accommodate personal schedules, or simply to maintain flexibility to work when he wants.
Mendoza also argues that employers must require written waiver from employees before allowing them to work on the seventh day of a workweek. But nothing in the Labor Code suggests that there is any requirement for a waiver to be in writing, or for employers to maintain records whenever an employee should elect to work on a day otherwise scheduled for rest. We argue that it would be improper to read language into the statute that would impose such burdensome requirements on employers—both because it would violate first principles of statutory construction and because it would open unwitting businesses up to lawsuits. Moreover, such a paperwork requirement would be wholly impracticable when, for example, an exempt employee might choose to check a few emails on a Sunday evening, something that could be construed to violate the day of rest law.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/seventh-day-you-can-rest-you-want
Mendoza also argues that employers must require written waiver from employees before allowing them to work on the seventh day of a workweek. But nothing in the Labor Code suggests that there is any requirement for a waiver to be in writing, or for employers to maintain records whenever an employee should elect to work on a day otherwise scheduled for rest. We argue that it would be improper to read language into the statute that would impose such burdensome requirements on employers—both because it would violate first principles of statutory construction and because it would open unwitting businesses up to lawsuits. Moreover, such a paperwork requirement would be wholly impracticable when, for example, an exempt employee might choose to check a few emails on a Sunday evening, something that could be construed to violate the day of rest law.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/seventh-day-you-can-rest-you-want
2016-01-09
Cato: Finland to Break New Ground with Basic Income Experiment
Despite some of the breathless headlines, Finland is not adopting a national universal basic income. That is, Finland is not scrapping the existing welfare system and distributing the same cash benefit to every adult citizen without additional strings or eligibility criteria. Finland is moving forward with one of the most extensive and rigorous basic income experiments in decades, which could help answer some of the lingering questions surrounding the basic income. The failures of the current system are well documented, but there are concerns about costs and potential work disincentives with a basic income. Finland’s experiment could prove invaluable in trying to find an answer some of these questions, and whether it is possible some kind of basic income or negative income tax would be a preferable alternative to the tangled web of programs in place now.
The Finnish Social Insurance Institution (Kela) will lead a consortium of think tanks, universities, and businesses in surveying the existing literature, analyzing past experiments, and designing different models to test in Finland. They will present an interim report next March, where the government will decide which models to develop further. The consortium will present a final report in November, after which the government will choose which models to actually test. The experiment will begin in 2017 and last for two years, after which the consortium will begin to evaluate the results.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/finland-break-new-ground-basic-income-experiment
The Finnish Social Insurance Institution (Kela) will lead a consortium of think tanks, universities, and businesses in surveying the existing literature, analyzing past experiments, and designing different models to test in Finland. They will present an interim report next March, where the government will decide which models to develop further. The consortium will present a final report in November, after which the government will choose which models to actually test. The experiment will begin in 2017 and last for two years, after which the consortium will begin to evaluate the results.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/finland-break-new-ground-basic-income-experiment
2016-01-08
Cato: U.S. Should Leave NATO Instead of Expanding the Alliance
Is NATO a military alliance or social club? The “North Atlantic” Treaty Organization just invited Montenegro to join. With 2,080 men under arms, Podgorica is a military nullity.
As I point out on National Interest online: “Adding Montenegro to NATO is like accumulating Facebook Friends. They do little more than allow preening Washington officials to wander the globe gloating how popular the U.S. is.”
During the Cold War NATO was viewed as deadly serious. For years war seemed to be a real possibility.
Then the Soviet Union collapsed. The quintessential anti-Soviet alliance no longer had anything to defend or defend against.
As Public Choice economists would predict, institutional instinct took over. Supporters subordinated the military to the political, and NATO became a geopolitical Welcome Wagon for former Warsaw Pact members.
The good times came to a halt last year with the Ukraine crisis. The Baltic States suddenly looked vulnerable and alliance members remembered Article 5, which committed them to battle against a nuclear-armed power to protect largely indefensible nations. Americans and Europeans were expected to risk nuclear war as an act of international charity.
Proposals to add Georgia and Ukraine would multiply the dangers. Russian aggressiveness, though unjustified, illustrates how important Moscow views its influence in both nations. Nothing in Kiev or Tbilisi is worth a nuclear confrontation.
The problem is not just NATO’s recent expansion. Turkey also is undermining U.S. and European security.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/us-should-leave-nato-instead-expanding-alliance
As I point out on National Interest online: “Adding Montenegro to NATO is like accumulating Facebook Friends. They do little more than allow preening Washington officials to wander the globe gloating how popular the U.S. is.”
During the Cold War NATO was viewed as deadly serious. For years war seemed to be a real possibility.
Then the Soviet Union collapsed. The quintessential anti-Soviet alliance no longer had anything to defend or defend against.
As Public Choice economists would predict, institutional instinct took over. Supporters subordinated the military to the political, and NATO became a geopolitical Welcome Wagon for former Warsaw Pact members.
The good times came to a halt last year with the Ukraine crisis. The Baltic States suddenly looked vulnerable and alliance members remembered Article 5, which committed them to battle against a nuclear-armed power to protect largely indefensible nations. Americans and Europeans were expected to risk nuclear war as an act of international charity.
Proposals to add Georgia and Ukraine would multiply the dangers. Russian aggressiveness, though unjustified, illustrates how important Moscow views its influence in both nations. Nothing in Kiev or Tbilisi is worth a nuclear confrontation.
The problem is not just NATO’s recent expansion. Turkey also is undermining U.S. and European security.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/us-should-leave-nato-instead-expanding-alliance
2016-01-07
Cato: Supreme Court Blocks Race-Based Election
Readers have surely been disappointed at this blog’s recent dearth of Hawaiian constitutional news, but not to fear: the Aloha State doesn’t go too long without generating legal controversies worthy of national attention. The latest development comes from the Supreme Court, which blocked an election with racial qualifications that could eventually establish a new government for so-called “native Hawaiians.” (See this background on the ongoing legislative and regulatory saga surrounding this movement for ethnic separatism.)
The voters in the disputed election, once they establish certain ancestral lineage and affirm their belief in the “unrelinquished sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people,” are picking delegates to a convention that would write a new constitution for a new nation. The Obama administration supports this process as a prelude to the creation of a new government within but separate from the state of Hawaii, akin to an Indian tribe (which is an inappropriate analog).
A group of Hawaiians, led by Grassroot Institute president Keli’i Akina, sued to try to stop this election, which is being run by a private organization contracted by the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs. (Full dislosure: I’m on Grassroot’s very informal board of scholars.) While several of the plaintiffs have the qualifying ancestry, they complain that the race-based exclusion violates the Fifteenth Amendment. The election’s sponsors insist that it’s a private affair and therefore not subject to constitutional limitations. (See here and here for more background.)
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/supreme-court-blocks-race-based-election
The voters in the disputed election, once they establish certain ancestral lineage and affirm their belief in the “unrelinquished sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people,” are picking delegates to a convention that would write a new constitution for a new nation. The Obama administration supports this process as a prelude to the creation of a new government within but separate from the state of Hawaii, akin to an Indian tribe (which is an inappropriate analog).
A group of Hawaiians, led by Grassroot Institute president Keli’i Akina, sued to try to stop this election, which is being run by a private organization contracted by the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs. (Full dislosure: I’m on Grassroot’s very informal board of scholars.) While several of the plaintiffs have the qualifying ancestry, they complain that the race-based exclusion violates the Fifteenth Amendment. The election’s sponsors insist that it’s a private affair and therefore not subject to constitutional limitations. (See here and here for more background.)
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/supreme-court-blocks-race-based-election
2016-01-06
Cato: Food Labels Kill
The FDA likes to claim that its warnings on packs of cigarettes have saved thousands of lives in the last five decades. That may be true, but the increasing number of premature deaths caused by its food labeling standards could potentially outweigh those lives saved.
The issue is simple: The current food labelling standards provide a big nudge for people to eat less saturated fats and more carbohydrates, and an increasing body of scientific knowledge is telling us that this is a grievous mistake: saturated fats are much less deleterious to health than previously thought, while eating carbohydrates is the absolute worst thing that a person can do if he wants to control his weight.
The steady increase in obesity over the last two decades, which social scientists have blamed on a variety of social ills like urban “food deserts” and duplicitous marketing strategies by food producers is, it appears, actually a direct result of government intervention in the market. The Wall Street Journal recently laid out a scathing indictment of the failure of food labels at protecting consumers. If thousands of people have likely died prematurely owing to this policy, why on earth is it still being enforced?
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/food-labels-kill
The issue is simple: The current food labelling standards provide a big nudge for people to eat less saturated fats and more carbohydrates, and an increasing body of scientific knowledge is telling us that this is a grievous mistake: saturated fats are much less deleterious to health than previously thought, while eating carbohydrates is the absolute worst thing that a person can do if he wants to control his weight.
The steady increase in obesity over the last two decades, which social scientists have blamed on a variety of social ills like urban “food deserts” and duplicitous marketing strategies by food producers is, it appears, actually a direct result of government intervention in the market. The Wall Street Journal recently laid out a scathing indictment of the failure of food labels at protecting consumers. If thousands of people have likely died prematurely owing to this policy, why on earth is it still being enforced?
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/food-labels-kill
2016-01-05
Cato: The U.S.-Taiwan Relationship Needs a Change
Senators Benjamin L. Cardin and John McCain will soon get their wish for a U.S. arms sale to Taiwan. Last Wednesday, Josh Rogin of Bloomberg View reported that the Obama administration will formally announce a $1 billion arms sale in December. Congress has not been notified of a new arms sale to Taiwan in four years.
The changing balance of power in the Taiwan Strait warrants a serious examination of the existing U.S.-Taiwan security relationship, which is held up by two pillars: a U.S. commitment to sell “defensive” arms to Taiwan; and the pledge to take “appropriate action” in response to any “threat to the security…of the people on Taiwan.”
The arms sales and vague security pledge have contributed to peace in the Taiwan Strait, but the status quo may not last much longer. A recent RAND report concluded that China is catching up to the United States’ military capabilities to defend Taiwan. America could absorb the rising cost of defending Taiwan, but the reunification of Taiwan and mainland China is a core interest of the Chinese government. Since China has more at stake, it has an incentive to keep raising the costs of confrontation until the United States is no longer willing to absorb them.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/us-taiwan-relationship-needs-change
The changing balance of power in the Taiwan Strait warrants a serious examination of the existing U.S.-Taiwan security relationship, which is held up by two pillars: a U.S. commitment to sell “defensive” arms to Taiwan; and the pledge to take “appropriate action” in response to any “threat to the security…of the people on Taiwan.”
The arms sales and vague security pledge have contributed to peace in the Taiwan Strait, but the status quo may not last much longer. A recent RAND report concluded that China is catching up to the United States’ military capabilities to defend Taiwan. America could absorb the rising cost of defending Taiwan, but the reunification of Taiwan and mainland China is a core interest of the Chinese government. Since China has more at stake, it has an incentive to keep raising the costs of confrontation until the United States is no longer willing to absorb them.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/us-taiwan-relationship-needs-change
2016-01-04
Cato: No Longer a Hypothetical: Russian Plane Shot Down
Earlier today, Turkey, a NATO ally, shot down a Russian jet, killing at least one pilot, and leaving the other in the hands of insurgents on the ground (and possibly also dead). The Turks claim that the Russian jet was operating in Turkish airspace, and was warned away on numerous occasions. Thus, when its F-16 fighter jet attacked the Russian SU-24 bomber, it was a legitimate act of self defense. The Turks have called for a NATO meeting later today to explain their side of the story, and, presumably, game out next steps.
Russia claims that its plane was operating over Syrian airspace. It initially reported that it was downed by ground fire, but has since changed its story. Putin is calling it “a stab in the back,” but may stop short of using it as a pretext for substantially widening a conflict he may already regret having been dragged into. There are conflicting reports about whether Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has canceled a planned meeting in Turkey tomorrow.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/no-longer-hypothetical-russian-plane-shot-down
Russia claims that its plane was operating over Syrian airspace. It initially reported that it was downed by ground fire, but has since changed its story. Putin is calling it “a stab in the back,” but may stop short of using it as a pretext for substantially widening a conflict he may already regret having been dragged into. There are conflicting reports about whether Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has canceled a planned meeting in Turkey tomorrow.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/no-longer-hypothetical-russian-plane-shot-down
2016-01-03
Cato: Paris Changed Nothing. We Still Have Every Reason to Welcome Syrian Refugees
This week, we’ve heard calls from all quarters to close our doors to the modest number of Syrian refugees President Obama proposed welcoming to the United States. Thirty governors have vowed to bar Syrian refugees from entering their states; the House of Representatives voted 289-137 to place impossibly tight restrictions on admission of refugees from Iraq and Syria; and 2016 presidential candidates disingenuously decried the possible influx of “100,000,” “200,000” or even “250,000” refugees that no one has proposed — remember Obama only called for letting in 10,000 Syrians next year.
But after the Paris terrorist attacks of a week ago, not only should we not give in to this paranoia, we should offer entry to as many Syrian refugees as we can — it’s more important than ever to demonstrate to both our allies and our adversaries that America will live up to the values of sheltering innocents and constructively intervening to end civil war.
Not only that, in the long run, it’ll make us safer.
Last month, I called for the United States to end military intervention in Syria and take a more proactive role in developing a plan for the world to resettle all the refugees fleeing the that country’s civil war. On the surface, Paris looks like an argument to abandon such a strategy. A closer look, however, reveals that, fundamentally, nothing in my argument has changed — indeed, Paris makes the need for a change in direction of de-escalation, compassion and forward thinking all the more clear.
First, clearly, barring refugees would not prevent the Islamic State from conducting further attacks against Western targets. Those who argue that Paris proves taking in refugees is too great a risk are confusing refugees with terrorists. They point to reports that one of the suspected Paris terrorists came to Europe as a refugee. But refugees themselves are not a threat; the millions of Syrian refugees are fleeing from President Bashar al-Assad, the Islamic State and other terrorist groups, not sticking around to fight with them or branching out to carry the violence overseas.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/paris-changed-nothing-we-still-have-every-reason-welcome-syrian-refugees
But after the Paris terrorist attacks of a week ago, not only should we not give in to this paranoia, we should offer entry to as many Syrian refugees as we can — it’s more important than ever to demonstrate to both our allies and our adversaries that America will live up to the values of sheltering innocents and constructively intervening to end civil war.
Not only that, in the long run, it’ll make us safer.
Last month, I called for the United States to end military intervention in Syria and take a more proactive role in developing a plan for the world to resettle all the refugees fleeing the that country’s civil war. On the surface, Paris looks like an argument to abandon such a strategy. A closer look, however, reveals that, fundamentally, nothing in my argument has changed — indeed, Paris makes the need for a change in direction of de-escalation, compassion and forward thinking all the more clear.
First, clearly, barring refugees would not prevent the Islamic State from conducting further attacks against Western targets. Those who argue that Paris proves taking in refugees is too great a risk are confusing refugees with terrorists. They point to reports that one of the suspected Paris terrorists came to Europe as a refugee. But refugees themselves are not a threat; the millions of Syrian refugees are fleeing from President Bashar al-Assad, the Islamic State and other terrorist groups, not sticking around to fight with them or branching out to carry the violence overseas.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/paris-changed-nothing-we-still-have-every-reason-welcome-syrian-refugees
2016-01-02
Cato: China and Taiwan Meet: A Brief Opportunity for U.S. to Promote Peace?
Chinese President Xi Jinping and Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou recently met in Singapore. Never before has Beijing treated the island’s government as an equal. It was a small step for peace, but the circle remains to be squared.
China insists that Taiwan is a wayward province, while the vast majority of Taiwanese feel no allegiance to the People’s Republic of China. If, as expected, Taiwan’s opposition presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen wins in January, relations between the two states are likely to shift into reverse.
The island of Formosa, or Taiwan, separated from the mainland when the Kuomintang government relocated to Taipei following the triumph of the Chinese Communist Party. Taipei continues to promote a separate identity.
The PRC insists that the island should return to Beijing. China’s growing power has encouraged its leaders to press Taiwan to accept some form of “one country, two systems.”
The PRC has hoped that closer economic and cultural ties would move the two countries closer to union. Yet Taiwan is steadily moving away from the PRC. More than 80 percent of Taiwanese back independence—if it would not trigger Chinese military action.
Now the KMT is likely to lose the presidency and possibly the legislature. The opposition is unlikely to enter into serious negotiations leading to reunification.
Which leaves the PRC’s Taiwan strategy in ruins. This likely explains President Xi’s decision to meet with President Ma. The former presumably hoped the meeting would encourage Taiwanese to vote for the KMT in order to further reduce cross-strait tensions.
What happens next remains up to the PRC. It has much at stake in maintaining a peaceful and stable order in East Asia. Nevertheless, nationalism runs deep and Taiwan is seen as part of China by most Chinese.
Moreover, Taipei is a security concern for Beijing, especially if allied with America. This concern may grow as the United States increasingly confronts Beijing over its territorial claims elsewhere in the region.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/china-taiwan-meet-brief-opportunity-us-promote-peace
China insists that Taiwan is a wayward province, while the vast majority of Taiwanese feel no allegiance to the People’s Republic of China. If, as expected, Taiwan’s opposition presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen wins in January, relations between the two states are likely to shift into reverse.
The island of Formosa, or Taiwan, separated from the mainland when the Kuomintang government relocated to Taipei following the triumph of the Chinese Communist Party. Taipei continues to promote a separate identity.
The PRC insists that the island should return to Beijing. China’s growing power has encouraged its leaders to press Taiwan to accept some form of “one country, two systems.”
The PRC has hoped that closer economic and cultural ties would move the two countries closer to union. Yet Taiwan is steadily moving away from the PRC. More than 80 percent of Taiwanese back independence—if it would not trigger Chinese military action.
Now the KMT is likely to lose the presidency and possibly the legislature. The opposition is unlikely to enter into serious negotiations leading to reunification.
Which leaves the PRC’s Taiwan strategy in ruins. This likely explains President Xi’s decision to meet with President Ma. The former presumably hoped the meeting would encourage Taiwanese to vote for the KMT in order to further reduce cross-strait tensions.
What happens next remains up to the PRC. It has much at stake in maintaining a peaceful and stable order in East Asia. Nevertheless, nationalism runs deep and Taiwan is seen as part of China by most Chinese.
Moreover, Taipei is a security concern for Beijing, especially if allied with America. This concern may grow as the United States increasingly confronts Beijing over its territorial claims elsewhere in the region.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/china-taiwan-meet-brief-opportunity-us-promote-peace
2016-01-01
Cato: A Government By And For People? Or By And For Cronies?
Occupational licensing is supposed to protect consumers against people who would practice a trade without the proper qualifications. In the first Supreme Court case on the question, Dent v. West Virginia (1883), the Court held that government may require people to be trained and educated before taking up the medical profession, because “such regulations” help “secure” the public “against the consequences of ignorance and incapacity as well as of deception and fraud.” But, the Court warned, if states impose licensing requirements that are not aimed at protecting “the general welfare of [the] people,” those restrictions “can operate to deprive one of his right to pursue a lawful vocation.”
But Dent was decided before the advent of “rational-basis scrutiny,” the rule under which courts today typically ignore violations of the right to earn a living. Under today’s law, state governments are given extremely broad power to limit economic freedom in whatever way lawmakers or unelected bureaucrats think best. That raises a crucial question—one on which the federal Courts of Appeals are now divided: may government restrict economic freedom, not to protect the public, but solely to protect the private benefits of a preferred group of people? Does such “mere protectionism” qualify as a “legitimate state interest” under the lenient “rational basis” rule?
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/government-people-or-cronies
But Dent was decided before the advent of “rational-basis scrutiny,” the rule under which courts today typically ignore violations of the right to earn a living. Under today’s law, state governments are given extremely broad power to limit economic freedom in whatever way lawmakers or unelected bureaucrats think best. That raises a crucial question—one on which the federal Courts of Appeals are now divided: may government restrict economic freedom, not to protect the public, but solely to protect the private benefits of a preferred group of people? Does such “mere protectionism” qualify as a “legitimate state interest” under the lenient “rational basis” rule?
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/government-people-or-cronies
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)