Monthly Archives: January 2015

Court Strength In The Constitution

30 Friday Jan 2015

Posted by in Judicial Branch

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

santorumandi

An important function of the judicial branch of government is to defend the U.S. Constitution and the constitutional rights of individuals. In my view, deference on the part of courts to legislative decisions or to court precedent should be viewed with skepticism. The plain text of the Constitution should always come first. Beyond that, however, judges should not interject their personal opinions into decisions. Does this position support so-called “judicial activism”, or “judicial restraint”? Many legal thinkers reject that dichotomy because it embodies contradictions, failing to reliably categorize my position combining constitutional precedence with a rejection of political preference in jurisprudence. The pairing seems natural enough to me.

“Judicial activism” is often used as a pejorative, as Randy Barnett says at the link above, quoting a Boston Globe article that quotes him:

” ‘Most people who use the term don’t provide a coherent definition of it. It typically means judicial opinions with which they disagree,’ says Randy E. Barnett, a law professor at Boston University who considers himself a libertarian and a defender of ‘original intent’ in Constitutional matters. [He should have written ‘original meaning’ not “original intent” –RB.]”

According to Reason‘s Damon Root, Rand Paul calls himself a judicial activist. It would be interesting to hear exactly how he defines it, but he also purports to be something of a strict constitutionalist. In “Why Rand Paul’s Case for ‘Judicial Activism’ Scares Both Liberals and Conservatives“, Root discusses the interesting coincidence that contrary to Paul, both traditional conservatives and progressives seem to believe in judicial restraint. His explanation:

“What these two views share in common is that they each support what amounts to virtually unchecked majoritarian rule over certain aspects of American life. For conservatives, judicial deference means that lawmakers get the last word when it comes to banning birth control and prohibiting ‘homosexual conduct.’ For liberals, judicial deference means that lawmakers get the last word when it comes to bulldozing private property in the name of eminent domain. Each approach demands judicial passivity in the face of its preferred forms of government action.”

Of course, there are lovers of government power on both the left and the right. Rand Paul wants to distance himself from their kind, but many libertarians do not believe he will stick to principles of limited government as he campaigns for the GOP nomination.

Fifty Ways To Wreck Your Health Care

29 Thursday Jan 2015

Posted by in Obamacare

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

health care wait times

It’s getting to be a challenge to keep track of the myriad ways in which Obamacare is screwing up the medical insurance and health care markets. This is a government initiative, after all, but was there ever a law so rife with unintended consequences, or a law implemented with such stunning incompetence? I’ve posted on the fallout from the so-called Affordable Care Act (ACA) a number of times in the past, but there’s always some new revelation at which to marvel. Here’s one you might not have heard, but it actually contains a bit of good news: some people are refusing Obamacare exchange subsidies, despite the sometimes strange fact that they qualify at all, which of course is the bad news.

“… some people who qualify for subsidies based on their income could afford to pay their own way. ‘There is no question that we are enrolling  people through these programs who would otherwise be considered middle-class or even affluent,’ says Ed Haislmaier, a senior research fellow for health policy studies at the right-leaning Heritage Foundation think tank. ‘We are seeing people with enrollment in these programs that have significant assets, but for whatever reason – usually a temporary reason – fall below the income line.’ Those reasons could range from early retirement to a midcareer job change. But whatever the case, some of those who are turning down subsidies are aware others are gaming the system, and they think it’s wrong.”

Well, apparently there is still some honor in the world, even in the face of seduction by the welfare state.

Obamacare contained provisions on electronic health records (EHRs) and was expected to leverage a separate federal initiative on EHRs in the 2009 economic stimulus bill. This too is proving disastrous. Beyond the privacy implications of making medical records accessible to the prying eyes of government bureaucrats and potential hackers, the mandate faced by providers to convert to the EHR system necessitates an extremely time-consuming and costly effort. And the penalty for failing to meet deadlines is a cut in Medicare payments to the provider. No one seems to have considered the supply-side incentive this might create:

“It would thus appear that one method for avoiding the fine would be to stop serving Medicare patients altogether. Well, that’s one way to ration care for the elderly.”

So, in the fashion typical of central planners, the bureaucrats have failed to consider the effects of their policies on real market conditions. The author quotes a recent piece in Politico on the EHR mandate:

“Rather than saving physicians and health care money, the program in effect has created a new industry — the medical scribe. About 100,000 of these glorified typists are expected to be working for doctors by 2020. ‘After five years I can’t really do anything I couldn’t do before the program started,’ says Martin O’Hara, a cardiologist who practices in northern Virginia. Computers make everything more legible, O’Hara says, but otherwise the payoff has been slim. At one hospital in the D.C. area, administrators were pulling their hair out over the huge fees charged to transmit data including routine lab and radiology tests. ‘I talk to EHR vendors all day long and many of them have these criminal-like practices of setting whatever price tag they want because they can,’ said a medical informatics officer who spoke on condition he not be named. … The slow progress of health IT has also put a drag on research.”

Finally, in a post on some basics of good (and bad) health care reform appearing in Mises Daily, Matt Battaglioli discusses the unavoidable reliance on arbitrary methods of rationing in centrally-planned health care systems. (I like that cartoon above, but it’s no joke.) That need is created by a mis-pricing of services. Subsidies prevent consumers from seeing the real cost of routine and non-catastrophic medical services as well as the ex ante, actuarial cost of catastrophic services. Then, unfortunately, the resultant excess demand tends to push costs upward without the natural restraint of a well-functioning market price mechanism. Battaglioli also bemoans the obstacles to competition in the medical field due to licensing requirements and their impact on the supply of care.

Obamacare is under threat on several fronts, including Congress, the courts, consumers, providers, and it’s own clumsy architecture. Apparently congressional Republicans will soon reveal their “one plan” (as described by John Boehner) for health care reform to replace Obamacare. We’ll see if they can do much better.

The Dire Wolf’s Collectivist Dues

24 Saturday Jan 2015

Posted by in Taxes

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

wolf mask

Inequality does not imply poverty for anyone, and inequality is a reasonable outcome of voluntary economic interactions between individuals who vary in their ability to create value. But inequality arising from artificial advantages conferred by the force of government and cronyism is indefensible. Sheldon Richman draws this useful distinction between the market’s distribution of rewards, which is a consequence of an unequal distribution of value-creating energy, ingenuity and talent, as opposed to the unequal rewards of a system of centralized control in which subsidies flow to cronies, monopolists are protected, barriers to activity are erected and political elites enjoy the fruits of value-destroying privilege. Here’s a sample from Richman’s post:

“Unlike market inequality, political-economic inequality is unjust and should be eliminated. … How? By abolishing all direct and indirect subsidies; artificial scarcities, such as those created by so-called intellectual property; regulations, which inevitably burden smaller and yet-to-be-launched firms more than lawyered-up big businesses; eminent domain; and permit requirements, zoning, and occupational licensing, which all exclude competition. …

Instead of symbolically tweaking the tax code to appear to be addressing inequality—the politicians’ charade—political-economic inequality should be ended by repealing all privileges right now.”

And yet we get fatuous rants from Obama about the ravages of market inequality and more tweaking of the tax code. Tweaking is too kind a word. The State of the Union address last week was a collectivist’s wet dream, replete with visions of central planning and a long list of non-neutral incentives and favors for the president’s base. He did his best to stoke the flames of class division and envy. One must ask: how long can the surviving market economy and a shrinking share of actual taxpayers support the growing dependent class and the nonproductive state apparatus?

In “Uncle Sam Is Coming After Your Savings?“, Megan McArdle warns of the dire wolf waiting at the door of every hopeful saver and middle class taxpayer. She cites Obama’s proposed tax on college savings plans (529s) as one piece of evidence, and asks “How would you feel if they did this to Roth IRAs”?

“… the very fact that we are discussing taxation of educational savings — redistributing educational subsidies downward — indicates that the administration has started scraping the bottom of the barrel when seeking out money to fund new programs. Why target a tax benefit that goes to a lot of your supporters (and donors), that tickles one of the sweetest spots in American politics (subsidizing higher education), and that will hit a lot of people who make less than the $250,000 a year that has become the administration’s de facto definition of ‘rich’?”

Then there’s the proposed elimination of the stepped-up tax basis at death, covered a few days ago at this blog, and the increase in the tax rate on capital gains and already double-taxed dividends from 24% to 28%. Of this, and the more general issue of investment incentives and efficient revenue generation, McArdle says:

“… we don’t try to tax the bejesus out of capital income, much as many would like to; old capital flees, and new capital doesn’t get formed, as savers decide it’s not worth it.”

No we don’t, for now, but that lack of capital formation is a dire implication of heavier taxes for the economy. It is an achilles heal of the redistributionist policy agenda, as a lack of new capital undermines productivity, income growth and opportunity across the board. Middle-class economics? Please, no. Glenn Reynolds has some additional thoughts on McArdle’s column:

“The truth is, in our redistributionist system politicians make their careers mostly by taking money from one group of citizens that won’t vote for them and giving it to another that will. If they run short of money from traditional sources, they’ll look for new revenue wherever they can find it. And if that’s the homes and savings of the middle class, then that’s what they’ll target.

For the moment, Americans are safe. With both houses of Congress controlled by the GOP, Obama’s proposals are DOA. But over the long term, the appetite for government spending is effectively endless, while the sources of revenue are limited. Keep that in mind as you think about where to invest your money … and your votes.”

Statistics on inequality are brandished by progressives as if to prove the existence of a great market malfunction, but as Richman points out at the link given above, an extreme form of inequality is an inevitable outcome of privilege conferred by the state. On the other hand, market inequality is no tragedy for humankind. It is an artifact of the most peaceful, productive system of social coordination ever devised. Market inequality is not related in any way to the absolute welfare of the median earning family or the least fortunate, as Robert Higgs explains in this interesting essay:

“Probably no subject in the social sciences has created so much unnecessary heat. Yet, at the same time, economists actually know a great deal about it and can dispel the public’s confusion about it if they try.” [Emphasis added]

Step-Up, Pay-Up & Shut-Up

23 Friday Jan 2015

Posted by in Taxes

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

obama-harry-potter-tax-increases-political-cartoon

Predicting support among relatively affluent leftists for President Obama’s proposed elimination of the step-up in tax basis at death is probably a simple matter of knowing whether they have a surviving parent or whether they have a bequest motive of their own. Perhaps I’m too cynical: it probably depends on age as well (as that may influence awareness of the tax provision). Still, I’ll bet my predictions would be highly accurate for “affluent leftists of a certain age”.

A technical digression: the cost basis of an asset is the price originally paid. The tax basis is the same until the owner’s death. When the asset is ultimately sold, the gain over and above the tax basis is taxed at the capital gains tax rate, now 20% (plus a 3.8% Medicare surtax for incomes greater than $200,000). However, under current law, when an asset is held until death, an heir’s tax basis is “stepped-up” from cost to the asset’s value at that time. No income tax is owed at the time of the inheritance even if the asset is sold immediately. The estate tax still applies to the asset’s value (depending on the size of the estate and whether there is a surviving spouse), but there is no capital gains tax liability until an heir sells the asset at a price greater than the stepped-up tax basis.

Our rhetorically-inclined president calls this feature of the income tax code a “loophole,” despite the fact that it is a legal feature of our ridiculously-complicated income tax and that inherited assets are still subject to the estate tax.

Obama’s proposal would eliminate the stepped-up basis at death. The increase in value would be subject to the capital gains tax at the time of inheritance (even if the asset is not sold) and subject to the estate tax (40%) if the size of the estate exceeds a threshold (about $5.4 million per individual). In addition, the President wants to increase the capital gains tax rate to 24.2% (plus 3.8% yields the oft-quoted 28%). These points are generally unaffected by whether the asset is held in trust for the full benefit of the heir. There are some exemptions in Obama’s proposal to eliminate stepped-up tax basis for small, family-owned businesses and for gains on primary residences. Also, gains would be taxed only after the first $100,000 per individual and only at the time of the second death for a couple.

The double taxation of capital gains in large estates might not evoke much sympathy, but it would ultimately have negative consequences for the economy. It would bleed capital out of productive, employment-generating private investments to feed a resource-hungry Leviathan, notwithstanding Obama’s high-minded pretensions. Perhaps worse is the impact on smaller estates held by conscientious middle-class savers who have understood the magic of compound growth. The aggrieved children of many such savers would find themselves in the grips of a significant income tax liability, which might require a fire-sale of assets in order to make payments to the IRS.

Complex features like the stepped-up basis are not hallmarks of a well-designed tax system. They tend to be promulgated as a way of offsetting other features of the tax code that would otherwise be punitive. If anything, this web of features is an impediment to efficient revenue generation. A simple tax code would minimize compliance costs and eliminate the many provisions that distort economic decisions. But complexity lends itself to political manipulation, which is the subtext for President Obama’s failure to propose any sort off meaningful tax simplification. Instead, he proposes even more complexity to be administered by that most trusted of institutions: the IRS. Fortunately, the president’s tax package stands no chance of becoming law, but it is illustrative of his statist agenda and his economic ignorance.

This post at Reason critiques this and other aspects of the President’s tax plan. This note in Forbes gives more detail about the proposal but is just a bit too optimistic about its potential to benefit the middle class. For a variety of reasons, the middle class is unlikely to benefit in the long-run. Slower economic growth will take its toll, and the sad truth is that Obama is seeking to increase middle-class dependence on the state.

Statists Make a Mess of Markets

20 Tuesday Jan 2015

Posted by in Markets, Regulation

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

132678_600

Government is not well suited to regulate markets in many respects. In the first place, regulation is never absent from free markets: consumers, competitors, technology and all factors of production such as labor ultimately represent a network of forces that regulate market outcomes. The power of market self-regulation, and the often destructive results of government regulation, are discussed by Howard Baejter in “There is No Such Thing as an Unregulated Market“. Beyond the efficiency with which markets direct resources, Baejter notes that markets regulate the quality and pricing of goods and services. Mark Perry reviews Baejter’s post approvingly and adds some thoughts of his own:

“… the ruthless consumer-regulators also waste no time praising, endorsing and recommending the products, restaurants, movies, services, sellers, contractors and businesses they like, both by supporting them with plenty of their regulatory certificates of approval (dollars), and by giving them positive, sometimes even glowing reviews on Amazon, Yelp, Rotten Tomatoes, eBay, Angie’s List, Uber, etc….”

Baejter’s concluding section covers some ways in which government regulation short-circuits healthy market regulation. Regulatory actions not only impose significant compliance costs, but they often have the effect of suspending market price signals and hampering voluntary adjustments to change that would otherwise lead to improved welfare. Furthermore, regulated firms are often successful in “capturing” regulators, enabling the most powerful players in an industry to manipulate and obtain regulatory treatment that blunts competition. As Baetjer says:

“… government regulation often “crowds out” regulation by market forces and consumer-regulators, and markets therefore operate less efficiently because the interests of the producers take priority over the interests of consumers…”

The Mises Daily ran a post in early January by Patrick Barron in which he elaborates on the truism that peaceful, voluntary exchange necessarily improves well-being relative to third-party interference. Such interference may take the form of forced exchanges, rules, mandates, price controls, or distortions from taxation. A recent post on Sacred Cow Chips, “The State and the Invisible Future Lost“,  emphasized the sacrifice of human well-being brought on by over-regulation. From that post:

“Our society routinely destroys economic opportunities as a matter of policy. This includes immediate discouragement of economic activity via tax disincentives and regulatory obstacles as well as lost capital investment and innovation. And it includes actions that grant protected status for monopolists, a steady by-product of the regulatory state.“

Record Hot Baloney

18 Sunday Jan 2015

Posted by in Global Warming

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

warmist_year_evah_scr

It’s easy to make big headlines that serve a policy agenda when you can control the process generating “scientific” data. Here’s the latest in an ongoing fraud perpetrated by NASA, NOAA and a few other organizations. The disinformation is happily scooped up and reported by the unsuspecting news media, in this case The Wall Street Journal. The headline says that 2014 was the warmest year on record back to 1980, but there are several important respects in which the report from NASA and NOAA is misleading.

The surface temperature records maintained by NASA and NOAA (and others) utilize the same source data (despite NASA’s claim that the two series are “independent”), but they are heavily adjusted by the respective agencies. We can all probably agree that more recent temperature measurements (the raw data) are more reliable due to the availability of better and more numerous instruments (particularly for ocean surface temperatures). However, combining recent measurements with older data in a way that assures comparability is difficult over more than a few decades. Weather stations come, go, and relocate, environmental conditions around stations change with urbanization and airport expansions, and new measurement techniques are introduced.

Constructing a consistent temperature series over 130+ years at the world or regional level is therefore subject to much controversy. Here is a page with links to several good posts of the problems inherent in these efforts. Data is “infilled” and sometimes deleted, and statistical techniques are often applied in an effort to achieve consistency over time. However, it is curious that the NASA and NOAA adjustments over time seem to pivot around the levels of the 1950s and 1960s, as if to suggest that the temperatures measured in those decades are the most reliable part of the series. Take a look at the “gifs”in this post, which show temperatures before and after adjustments. An apparent consequence of the NASA / NOAA statistical techniques, which may seem even more curious to the casual observer, is that new observations can influence the entire temperature series. That is, adding 2014 temperatures to the series may lead to fresh downward adjustments to 1936 temperatures, if it suits the agencies. By the way, 1936 was a very warm year, but according to these agencies, it’s been getting less warm.

Another fascinating aspect of the report on 2014 temperatures is the obvious attempt to propagandize. This Bob Tisdale post sheds light on three serious omissions in the report and the related effort to “spin” the findings for the press:

1)  The range of uncertainty cited by NOAA in background documents indicates that the small margin (0.04 deg C for NOAA, 0.02 deg C by NASA) by which the reported 2014 global temperature exceeds the previous high is within the confidence interval around the previous high. By their own standard, it was “more unlikely than likely”that the 2014 temperature was the warmest on record, but that is not what the agencies report in their “Highlights.”

2) The report states that “This is the first time since 1990 the high temperature record was broken in the absence of El Niño conditions at any time during the year in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean….” Yet there were El Nino conditions elsewhere in the Pacific in 2014.

3) “NOAA failed to discuss the actual causes of the elevated global sea surface temperatures in 2014, while making it appear that there was a general warming of the surfaces of the global oceans.”

Tisdale notes elsewhere that the tiny margins of “record warmth” reported by NASA and NOAA contribute to a growing disparity between reported “actual temperatures” and those projected by climate warming models. The “Warmist” community will view the NASA / NOAA findings favorably, as the new “record high” supports their narrative,” providing new fodder for the agenda to end the use of fossil fuels and to regulate activities deemed “unsustainable.” Unfortunately, the misleading reports are likely to seem credible to the general public, which is largely ignorant of the agencies’ rampant manipulation of temperature data.

Hat Tip: Watts Up With That? and cartoonist Josh!

Francis’ Statist Vision Not Shared By Venezuelan Clergy

16 Friday Jan 2015

Posted by in The Road To Serfdom

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

140627_600

Some people lament our tolerance in the U.S. for “religious crazies.” Of course, these misgivings might reflect a certain view that religious people are crazy to begin with, as well as an outright hostility to constitutional protections of religious freedom. Do they mean that religious speech should not be protected? That one’s religious beliefs should not inform their political views? That religious freedom should not exempt anyone from rules imposed by government (the dispute in King vs. Burwell)? These possibilities cover a lot of ground, but none of them stands up to scrutiny in a free and liberal society. In fact, the apparent resentment of the Left toward “religious crazies” largely misses the point: the very expansion of government activity, in kind, degree and complexity, often brings the state into conflict with religious imperatives. And regardless of one’s stance on the taxation of religious activity, exemptions necessarily become more controversial in the sort of high-tax environment needed to fund big government.

But it is not just the secular Left that fails to recognize the inherent conflict between big government and religious liberty. Pope Francis himself seems oblivious to the dangerous implications of big government for religious freedom. His apostolic exhortation for greater reliance on the state to care for the poor simultaneously embraces socialism and condemns capitalism. I take no issue in principle with the provision of a social safety net, but the Pope should be more results-oriented in assessing different forms of social organization and their impacts on poverty. Big government typically fails to achieve the kinds of humane objectives usually espoused by the Left. The sad “road to serfdom” has played out many times in the past. In fact, in an apparent rebuff, Pope Francis’ Venezuelan Archbishops just issued a strong condemnation of socialist solutions to poverty. From Investors.com:

“The Venezuelan archbishops make the useful observation that if capitalist economies have problems, socialist alternatives are far worse for the poor and needy. Could it be the pope’s Latin American colleagues on the ground in the cesspool of communism are the ones who can get through to the holy father on economics?”

The Pope would do well to listen to his Venezuelan flock or to this great economic thinker, Thomas Sowell, who emphasizes the inability of government to craft solutions that “do no harm.”

Apart from lousy economic results, basic freedoms are seldom immune to compromise under the grip of big government. These reports from China should give the pontiff pause. The Chinese Communist Party is said to feel “threatened” by the growth of Chinese Christianity, and the government is cracking down, dismantling religious symbols and even destroying some churches. Similar outcomes have followed authoritarian governments many times in the past, and of course this isn’t the first crackdown on “religious crazies” under Chinese communism. No one should be surprised. Capitalism, with its miracle of market self-regulation, is the only economic system that is truly consistent with freedom and diversity of religion.

The EU Opts For Agro-Federalism

14 Wednesday Jan 2015

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

MOHR-europe-law

An opinion piece by Matt Ridley in The Times (UK) alerted me to the European Union’s imminent decision to allow member states to adopt their own rules regarding the planting and cultivation of genetically modified crops. The measure was approved overwhelmingly by the EU Parliament today. The talking points released by the EU emphasize that a member country can ban a GM crop even if it has been approved by the EU’s food safety authority. And the rules state:

“While cultivation is recognised to be an issue with strong national or local dimensions, current EU legislation on GMOs offers limited possibilities to Member State to decide on GMO cultivation on their territory.”

It is likely that the additional flexibility for members to impose their own bans will lead to more flexibility in the process of authorizing new varieties at the centralized level. Contrary to much of the reporting offered by Greens, who would have us believe that GE crops are all but prohibited in Europe, there are many varieties of GE crops that are already authorized by the EU. If you don’t believe it, this database may convince you.

Ridley provides an interesting account of the politicking that led to the legislation. Among EU members, the UK and Spain are the most eager to expand cultivation of GE crops, while other nations supported the measure since it seems to enhance their own sovereignty on an important agricultural issue. Nevertheless, critics of the legislation complain that it is poorly worded. Greens are unhappy because they see it as an entry for GE crops through the “back-door.” One biotech group complained that the law allows members to ban GE crops on “non-scientific grounds.”

Ridley also emphasizes some changes in thinking among traditional opponents of GE in Europe. The Greens are aware that the use of pesticides might be curtailed by the use of GE varieties. The yield-challenged organic movement also has much to gain via adoption of GE crops, and Ridley points out the inherent fallacy at the root of their past opposition:

“Ironically, the organic movement happily uses crops whose genetic material has been modified in a much less careful way — by gamma rays or chemical mutagens — for these are categorised as ‘conventional’ crops and lightly regulated. Golden Promise barley, used by organic brewers, for example, was made in a nuclear reactor.”

Federalism is a good way to promote the union of sovereign entities with disparate views on a range of issues, such as agricultural practices. However, sustaining a federalist approach requires a determination to restrain central government bureaucrats and busy-bodies who cannot control their urges to control others. For the good of humanity, let’s hope the EU can succeed in this instance.

Community College Free-For-All

12 Monday Jan 2015

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Funny-Obama-Photo-With-Bear

Obama keeps puffing on the horn of taxpayer plenty, this time proposing free tuition at community colleges for all comers. This is a misapplication of the empirical observation that earned income is positively related to the level of education.

Supporters of “college for all” naively assume that enabling college enrollment will always translate into actual learning and success on the job market, or that college is always a good idea. Those assumptions are incorrect. Not everyone is capable of benefitting from higher education. It is a disfavor to them, and to their more academically competitive peers, to encourage them to enter an environment in which they are likely to fail or benefit less than in other pursuits, and where they will absorb scarce educational resources such as facilities, equipment, and instructor time and effort. And if less capable individuals are allowed to “succeed” under more relaxed standards, the degrees they earn will be degraded. Moreover, as Peter Theil has emphasized, we tend to think “too highly of higher eduction,” as if it is always one’s best option. In fact, that may not be true for even the most talented individuals, who may be capable of accomplishing greater things without it, and sooner!

But what real costs and benefits can be expected from Obama’s latest proposed giveaway? Scott Shakford at Reason summarizes and critiques the program, explaining that community college administrators are likely to be the chief beneficiaries. Shakford also notes that the program is likely to encourage grade inflation, based on the minimum GPA requirements built into the program. This op-ed in the Digital Journal points out that Obama’s plan will also encourage grade inflation at the high-school level, so as not to “unfairly” deny students their new opportunity to matriculate into community college.

Shakford at Reason puts the total cost to taxpayers at $34 billion, but it is based on an administration estimate that 9 million students could attend community college free-of-charge. It is not clear whether that number is net of those already attending for free. Tyler Cowen offers links to some good discussions of the plan, one of which notes that community college is already free on average for low income students via Pell grants. Higher income students obviously stand to gain, however, so the plan’s targeting of benefits is perverse. Community college completion rates are already quite low, and Cowen notes that the rate for marginal students pulled in by Obama’s program is likely to be even lower, which would further diminish the value of the degree on the labor market.

“Free stuff” always sounds so good and well-intentioned that is it difficult for many to oppose. But free stuff generally means that resources must be diverted from more highly-valued uses for little or no gain. After all, the value of the freebie to beneficiaries of a politician’s scheme can be minimal and they’ll still be takers. Taxes to fund the diversion of resources creates other perverse incentives.

Funding the education of promising but needy students may be quite worthwhile, but offering a free post-secondary education for all will grossly misallocate resources and carry a high social cost.

Big Daddy Wants To Neutralize Your Net

09 Friday Jan 2015

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Net-Neutrality

Once again, President Obama is trying his hand as populist candyman, now pressing the FCC to adopt “net neutrality” rules for regulating internet service providers (ISPs) as common carriers. Net neutrality refers to regulations on ISPs that would prohibit different treatment of different types of internet content, matters that are better left to market participants. Obama has no idea what he’s doing or who he’ll be hurting (hint: internet users of all stripes). The candy is an illusion. Peter Suderman’ has an aptly titled article on this topic at Reason: “Will 2015 Be the Year the FCC Regulates the Internet Back to 1934?” He offers some background on the history of U.S. telecommunications regulation and explains the context within which FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and the Commission will deal with the issue. Suderman closes with this thought:

“If Wheeler does take this route (reclassification of ISPs as common carriers], as he now seems to determined (sic), we’ll end up with an Internet that is more regulated, more subject to regulatory uncertainty in the near-term, and more like a public utility from another era than an information delivery service for the modern age. It’ll be 2015—but for the Internet, it’ll be 1934 all over again.”

Wired also gives its perspective but implies that Wheeler is seeking ways to reclassify the ISPs, impose neutrality rules, while also creating sufficient exceptions to mollify the ISPs, avoiding litigation as well as market disruption. That would be nice as far as it goes.

Net neutrality is a misnomer, as Sacred Cow Chips has discussed on two previous occasions in “The Non-Neutrality of Network Hogs“, and “Net Neutrality: A Tangled Web“. A lowlight is the corporate cronyism inherent in calls for net neutrality. The biggest beneficiaries are not consumers, but large content providers such as Netflix and Google, though the latter has altered its position on neutrality now that it is entering the market as an ISP. Another lowlight is the disincentive for network expansion created by forced subsidies to the large content providers, who are extremely heavy users of internet capacity.

Jeffrey Eisenach at AEI picks apart the arguments in favor of internet regulation. He also counters assertions that consumers are likely to benefit from internet regulation. Here are two choice quotes:

“And while much is made of consumers’ limited choices, the broadband market is actually less concentrated than the markets for search engines, social networks, and over-the-top video services: discriminatory regulation of ISPs cannot be justified on the basis of market power.”

“Finally, there’s the argument about fast lanes and slow lanes, or, in regulatory jargon, “paid prioritization.” The simple reality is that edge providers like Netflix require prioritization for their services to work. It’s just the “paid” part they don’t like.”

Finally, Don Boudreaux provides two relevant quotes on regulation, one from the great Ronald Coase, along with some of his own thoughts. I close with Boudreaux’s summation:

“Government imposition of “net neutrality” will substitute bureaucrats’ politically poisoned judgments on what are and what are not appropriate business practices for the market-tested judgments of legions of suppliers competing for the patronage of hundreds of millions – indeed, often billions – of consumers.“