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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)