Out of the Storm News
Whitney L. Ball, who died Sunday at 52, was one of the true heroes of the conservative movement. Like just about everyone else who heads a conservative organization, I have plenty of nice things to say for the way she worked tirelessly to advance liberty and help build just about every conservative organization in town. (R Street included.)
I’d like to share a more personal story that I hope shows her human side, too. While I had “known” Whitney as a face at conservative gatherings for over a decade, I don’t think I ever sat down with her for an extended conversation until shortly after I co-founded R Street.
We met for breakfast at an Alexandria hotel. After some pleasantries and launched into a discussion that ended up focusing on the philosophical roots of R Street and the history of the intellectual conservative movement. She was quizzing me intensively; probably testing to see if I really had the chops to run a think tank.
Our food came. A grapefruit on my plate, which looked fine, tasted awful; I took one bite, probably grimaced a bit and continued a rather intense discussion about Hayek. At a first-ever business meeting, I decided it would be unbecoming to complain about the food. In any case, she appeared not to notice.
However, when a waiter came to refill our drinks, she was firm. Very gently and politely, she said: “I think there is something wrong with my friend’s breakfast; his grapefruit isn’t very good.” The waiter fixed things quickly. I’ll never forget it: In a moment of intense conversation about weighty issues, she had taken the time to care about a tiny annoyance I was facing.
We had breakfast a few more times over the years and I always walked away impressed and energized. She’ll be missed.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
From Huffington Post:
Intriguingly, gender doesn’t appear to play a significant role in the study’s findings. For instance, an 18-year-old woman and an 18-year-old man will both pay 18 percent more for their own policies. This is probably the result of two factors — paperwork and risk, says Eli Lehrer, president of the nonprofit R Street Institute.
“A separate policy should, one assumes, (cost) a little bit more just because it requires additional paperwork, mailings and the like,” Lehrer says. “That said, the underwriting risk is more or less the same.”
…Lehrer says, “Young drivers are probably better off being added to their parents’ policy, regardless of where they live.”
WASHINGTON (Aug. 18, 2015) – The option to use carbon fees to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan could allow some states to offset a significant portion of their tax burdens, according to an R Street Institute policy brief released today.
Authored by R Street Senior Fellow Josiah Neeley, the brief examines EPA data for each of the 50 states to determine the “shadow price” of carbon imputed from emissions-reduction goals called for in the CPP. Neeley then extrapolated from that price and each state’s projected 2030 emissions to determine how much revenue could be generated by using fees, rather than regulatory dictates, to come into compliance.
Texas would generate the most in carbon fee revenues, with $2.5 billion generated per year if the state hits its 2030 reduction limits. That amount is larger than what the state currently collects in taxes on insurance; natural-gas production; cigarettes and tobacco; alcoholic beverages; hotels; or utilities. Carbon-fee collections could be used to offset tax breaks in any number of those areas.
“The revenues that would be generated by carbon fees on an ongoing basis would be sufficient to reduce or eliminate various state taxes in a number of states,” said Neeley. “In Texas alone, insurance and utilities taxes could be phased out entirely, and still leave $45 million to apply toward the state’s $267 million in miscellaneous taxes.”
Neeley cautioned that these estimates do not represent projections about the total cost of the CPP to the wider economy.
“How costly the CPP ultimately proves to be will depend on how each state chooses to go about meeting the required reduction goals,” said Neeley. “The estimates do, however, provide a sense both of how costly meeting the CPP goals via a carbon fee would be, and how much revenue would potentially be available for offsetting tax cuts.”
For a full chart on potential costs and revenues across all states, see the charts in the policy brief.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released the final version of its Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units. Known colloquially as the “Clean Power Plan,” the rule sets standards for carbon-dioxide emissions from existing power plants.
The CPP calls for an overall reduction in CO2 emissions of 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. However, it applies different standards to each state depending on what prescriptions, in the EPA’s view, are technically feasible. The CPP proposed two alternative standards for each state: a mass-based standard that limits the total amount of CO2 emitted, and a rate-based standard that would be applied to average emissions per kilowatt-hour of electricity.
The final rule does not set standards for Alaska or Hawaii, as the EPA claimed it lacked sufficient technical information for those two states. In addition, the CPP sets no emissions-reduction standards for Vermont, which receives its electricity largely from Canadian hydroelectric power. But each of the other 47 states are required to develop a plan to meet reduction goals, while retaining discretion as to the methods used to achieve those goals.
Of particular interest to those who prefer a market-based approach, the final rule stipulates that the plan “could accommodate imposition by a state of a fee for CO2 emissions from affected EGUs [electric generating units].”
Most economists view a carbon fee as a more efficient way to achieve emissions reductions than regulatory mandates or subsidies. A carbon fee has the additional advantage that it can be paired with equivalent cuts to existing taxes. Depending on the type of taxes involved, making a carbon fee revenue-neutral could largely or entirely offset the economic damage that would otherwise would stem from higher energy costs imposed by the CPP.
‘Shadow’ carbon prices
In order to estimate how much revenue a CPP-compliant carbon fee would generate, we looked to EPA modeling on the implicit carbon price needed in each state to achieve the required emissions reductions. For the calculations, we relied on the EPA’s mass-based standards, rather than the rate-based standards, as outlined in the EPA’s state-specific fact sheets.
From this modeling, the “shadow” carbon prices can be combined with state-specific limits for the amount of CO2 that can be emitted under the CPP. We used this to estimate the revenue that would be generated from a carbon fee that complies with the CPP.
Figure 1: State ‘shadow’ carbon prices for 2030
SOURCE: R Street analysis of EPA data
This shadow carbon price varies considerably across the states, from $26 a ton for Utah to $0 a ton for Delaware, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Washington state.
Importantly, these calculations assume the carbon fee applies only to emissions from the power sector, rather than being an economy-wide carbon tax. An economy-wide price on carbon would be substantially lower than one applied only to electric-generating plants, as it would apply to a much broader tax base. This briefing makes no attempt to calculate what economy-wide carbon fees each state would need to adopt to meet its CPP reduction goals, as such fees ultimately would generate equivalent revenue.
Carbon fee revenues
The amount of revenue each state would get annually from a CPP-compliant carbon fee is listed in Table 1. Based on the fees that would be collected should the state hit its 2030 emissions targets, the highest annual revenue is generated by Texas, at $2.5 billion, followed by Indiana, at $1.3 billion; Florida, at $1.3 billion; and Ohio, at $1 billion.
Table 1: Projected state-by-state carbon-fee revenuesState
Emissions (millions of tons)
Projected revenues ($M)
SOURCE: R Street analysis of EPA data
Revenues from a CPP-compliant carbon fee exceed many individual state taxes. Many states would be able to reduce or eliminate state corporate, income, gasoline or other taxes if they adopted a tax-swap approach.
For example, in Texas, revenue from a CPP-compliant tax would be greater than what the state currently collects in taxes on insurance; natural-gas production; cigarettes and tobacco; alcoholic beverages; hotels; and utilities. The fees could offset a 9 percent cut in the sales tax; a 52 percent cut in the franchise tax; a 59 percent cut in motor-vehicle sales and rental taxes; a 64 percent cut in the oil-production tax; or a 75 percent cut in the fuel tax. The insurance and utilities taxes could be phased out entirely, and still leave $45 million to apply toward the state’s $267 million in miscellaneous taxes.
It should be stressed that these estimates do not represent projections about the total cost of the CPP to the wider economy. How costly the CPP ultimately proves to be will depend both on how each state chooses to go about meeting the required reduction goals. The estimates do, however, provide a sense both of how costly meeting the CPP goals via a carbon fee would be, and how much revenue would potentially be available for offsetting tax cuts.
The California Earthquake Authority – the state’s quasi-public earthquake insurance pool – long has had a problem with take-up. Only about 10 percent of homeowners in this most seismically active state actually buy coverage for the biggest catastrophic peril they face.
But new policy options and a sizeable rate reduction has the CEA’s CEO – former North Dakota Insurance Commissioner Glen Pomeroy – very excited. Before a crowd of hundreds of industry representatives and regulators at last week’s National Association of Insurance Commissioners conference in Chicago, Pomeroy outlined the changes that he hopes will drive California’s earthquake insurance take-up rate to a hitherto unknown high.
The CEA has been busy under Pomeroy. In 2014, it worked with Assemblyman Ken Cooley, D-Rancho Cordova, to improve the language of the mandatory offers its members use as their principle outreach tool to the public. The offers, which accompany renewal notices for residential insurance policies, had gone unrevised for decades.
Benefitting from lower reinsurance premiums and the availability of alternative financing mechanisms like catastrophe bonds, the CEA also was able to file for a 10 percent rate reduction last year with the California Department of Insurance. In addition, the CEA sought newly flexible options for structuring earthquake policies. Lower and separate deductibles were proposed, in addition to higher policy limits and mitigation discounts of up to 20 percent. Those changes, now approved, will go into effect at the stroke of midnight as the calendar turns to 2016.
Remarking on the changes, Pomeroy observed that “all of this moves into hyperspace next year when we begin to offer new options.”
But while the CEA counts down its launch into hyperspace, it does so while crewing a ship of humble design. That’s because, as Pomeroy emphasized to the Chicago audience, the CEA was created to forestall a collapse of California’s homeowners’ insurance market and not to actually cover a meaningful number of residents. In other words, the CEA exists to provide a mechanism for red-blazered professionals to find Californians their dream homes, not to rebuild those homes.
The Golden State is home to $1.6 billion of the nation’s $2 billion in annual earthquake insurance premiums; a testament to the value of the CEA. But the startlingly unserious approach with which California has heretofore approached seismic peril stands in contrast to the dire risk that earthquakes pose.
Addressing the threat posed by seismic vulnerability will require cultivating much greater private stakes in earthquake peril. The ultimate solution to achieve that goal is to require seismically vulnerable properties to maintain earthquake insurance as a precondition for obtaining publicly backed mortgage loans, just as flood-prone properties must maintain flood insurance. Unfortunately, that’s a solution for which neither Democrats nor Republicans have shown any appetite.
The foundational problem for how to account for earthquakes is epistemological, a problem of knowledge. At the conclusion of his remarks, Pomeroy reflected on that problem. He quoted Kathryn Schulz’s recent work in The New Yorker, titled “The Really Big One.”
On the face of it, earthquakes seem to present us with problems of space: the way we live along fault lines, in brick buildings, in homes made valuable by their proximity to the sea. But, covertly, they also present us with problems of time. The earth is 4.5 billion years old, but we are a young species, relatively speaking, with an average individual allotment of three score years and ten. The brevity of our lives breeds a kind of temporal parochialism—an ignorance of or an indifference to those planetary gears which turn more slowly than our own.
In this context, Pomeroy’s allusion to hyperspace is apt. Convincing people to purchase earthquake insurance – convincing them that they want to purchase earthquake insurance – is a matter of bending space and time. It requires connecting the comfortable present with a desperate future. Marketing and Hollywood blockbusters strive to do just that, but it is not without a dose of irony, and certainly cold comfort to Pomeroy himself, that the best promotional tool available to the CEA are earthquakes themselves.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
California’s reaction to the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan has been a collective mix of self-congratulation and confidence in the state’s ability to comply with the rule’s demands. But while the Golden State largely has moved away from the coal power plants which are the CPP’s principle target, California will not be unaffected by the new regulations.
That’s because California relies heavily on natural gas. Since 2013, more than half of the nation’s added natural-gas generation capacity has come from California. This development has been far more crucial to the state’s much-ballyhooed emissions reductions than the simultaneous expansion of its renewable-generation portfolio. It’s an inconvenient truth that California’s “green” transformation absolutely reeks of natural gas.
Burning natural gas produces fewer carbon emissions than burning coal, but it still produces carbon emissions. Natural gas has always been considered a “bridge” to cleaner energy-generation systems. The CPP effectively blockades that bridge.
Unlike the draft CPP, the final rule projects that renewable sources of electricity, not natural gas, will be used to replace the dirtiest sources of power. Gov. Jerry Brown and Senate Pro Tempore Kevin De Leon will no doubt celebrate that development, since both men propound the belief that a full 50 percent of California’s electricity will come from renewables by 2030. But their effort to hit that grand target will actually by hindered by a move away from natural gas.
Renewable energy, for all its environmental benefits, fails to deliver the same reliability as natural gas. The reason is simple enough: when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t beating down, wind and solar power shut down. Natural gas, on the other hand, can produce power on-demand whenever necessary. Short of an enthusiastic adoption of nuclear power or the discovery of a long-awaited power-generation holy grail, burning natural gas is the only way to provide Californians uninterrupted modernity.
In other words, as California adopts more renewable sources of generation, the relative significance of gas-powered generation will increase in importance. This will come at just the moment that the CPP curtails the technology’s expansion. This also is all happening just as many of California’s gas plants are reaching their golden years and will require reinvestment to continue operational reliably. Those plants offer irreplaceable capacity that, even under Brown and De Leon’s vision, will be necessary for the foreseeable future.
California may intend to comply with the CPP’s requirements, but successfully doing so will require an “all of the above” approach that those in state office lament. In fact, to keep the lights on and simultaneously reach its environmental goals in a responsible manner, California must avoid thwarting efforts to renew, refurbish or expand natural-gas facilities. In fact, it may need to actively contravene the CPP and increase its reliance on natural gas.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
The U.S Postal Service reported a third-quarter loss of more than $500 million. If you are wondering whether this is news you’re already heard, it is. The USPS has been running deficits for years.
But this was not how the Postal Service was supposed to work. Congress abolished the tottering old Post Office Department in 1971 and replaced it with the USPS. An “independent establishment of the executive branch,” the Postal Service was designed to be self-sustaining. Toward this end, it has more operational freedom than a typical government agency. It can, for example, sell unneeded real estate with relative ease. The agency also has managed, to its credit, to downsize its workforce by 225,000 persons over the past decade.
So why is the agency losing money? Four charts explain the Postal Service’s financial struggles.
Figure 1: Mail volume is down 60 billion pieces since 2007 (Billions of pieces)
Mail volume plunged not long after the Great Recession hit in late 2007. The reason is simple: more than 90 percent of mail is sent by businesses. In the years since, mail volume has not grown. It remains more than 25 percent below its peak and a high percentage of mail volume is advertising mail, which is not very profitable.
Figure 2: Fewer mail pieces means lower revenue ($1B)
Figure 2 tells the tale; between 2007 and 2012, the USPS’ annual revenues fell from about $75 billion to $65 billion. Increased postage rates and carrying more parcels has bumped up the Postal Service’s revenues the past two years, but not by enough. As Figure 3 below shows, the rate increases, which came under a special legal provision, will expire in early 2016.
Figure 3: USPS has not cut expenses quickly enough ($1B)
Postal unions will tell you the USPS is in financial trouble because Congress forced it to pre-fund its current employees’ future retirement health benefits. It’s true these costs are significant, at more than $5 billion per year. Yet even if one wished away these employee compensation costs, the USPS still has not been able to keep revenues above costs. USPS, by the way, has not made a payment to its Retiree Health Benefits Fund since 2010 due to insufficient cash on hand.
Figure 4: USPS debt has spiked ($1B)
The Postal Service had no debt in 2005. Come 2012, it had hit its $15 billion legal debt cap. With too little revenue coming in and expenses too high, debt piled up. Even without paying into its Retiree Health Benefits Fund, the service’s debt grew another $3 billion over the past three years.
With $6 billion in cash on hand, the Postal Service might make the $5.7 billion RHBF payment due Sept. 30. But it probably won’t, as operating with low cash on-hand is a perilous business practice. Moreover, the agency has put off capital upgrades and needs to replace its aging vehicle fleet, 140,000 of which are more than 20 years old.
Congress is struggling to find consensus on postal reform. Some reform proposals would have the USPS try to bolster its revenues by going into non-postal lines of business. Certainly, there is no harm in allowing the USPS to contract with a state to sell fishing licenses at its post offices. But it would be a big mistake to permit the USPS to enter fields such as banking, where the private sector is well-established. And it is highly unlikely that the USPS would earn the billions in revenues needed to right its fiscal ship.
Unfortunately, Congress to date has shown little appetite for reckoning with USPS’ fundamental business challenges: high debt, decreased demand for postal services, and excessive overhead costs. Until it does, it’s highly unlikely the situation will improve.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
From the Washington Post:
A new study by R Street, a D.C.-based libertarian think tank, analyzed every regulatory deadline mandated in law by Congress in the last 20 years. Agencies blew through 1,400 required deadlines of the 2,684 that had specific dates attached, according to the research. That’s a less than 50 percent success rate.
Why doesn’t Congress enforce its own deadlines? For one, no one is really checking. And, although it’s the law, there’s not much Congress can do beside sending strongly-worded letters and berating officials at public hearings.
“Congress puts things in laws and then washes it’s hands of it. There’s no system for tracking how many deadlines have been given to agencies, there’s no spreadsheet where they could even keep track of it to know if someone has been late or not late,” said Kevin Kosar, R Street’s governance project director. “They just put the number in there and whatever happens, happens.”
Some regulations that went way over schedule? A 1992 law required new pipeline safety regulations by 1995. There wasn’t even a public meeting on it until 2005. Federal regulations for catfish inspections, vending machine foods, and hazard material transportation all came in way after deadline. Kosar points to one slow to finish regulation on commercial fishing to reduce accidental deaths of bottlenose dolphins.
Many fans of smaller government would probably cheer the slow pace of creating more government regulations. But government’s inaction and dysfunction has consequences. Just the mere threat of a regulation can affect businesses, and the uncertainty of when and how it will be implemented makes it difficult to plan ahead.
“It’s not a healthy long-term habit,” Kosar told the Loop. “I don’t know anyone who would want to work for a boss that gives them random deadlines and then doesn’t pay attention to whether you meet them …it’s operational chaos.”
Solution? For Kosar – who used to work at the Congressional Research Office before quitting and penning a long Washington Monthly article about Capitol Hill dysfunction and its impact on nonpartisan research – it’s ironically more government.
He’s a proponent of a Congressional Regulatory Office, an idea that’s been tossed around for years to no avail.
But as difficult as it is to get rid of an existing federal program, it’s just as challenging to start a new one. Kosar conceded that the “optics” of a creating a new government bureaucracy isn’t a great political selling point, especially when it would require funding.
R Street Governance Project Director Kevin Kosar sat down with Dubai’s Al Arabiya news network — one of the largest news sources in the Arab-speaking world — to discuss Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and the rest of the 2016 presidential field. You can watch the clip (still in the original Arabic) below.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Hydraulic fracturing – the process of extracting oil and gas resources that requires breaking rock through the high-pressured injection of liquid into the ground, popularly known as “fracking” – has caused an uptick in the number of earthquakes that are occurring across the nation. That was the conclusion of a panel of experts, including one associated with the natural-gas industry, during the Center for Insurance Policy Research session at this month’s meeting of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners in Chicago.
It was not without some irony that that conclusion was proffered at an event hosted by Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner John Doak. His department, along with the Pennsylvania Insurance Department, circulated bulletins to insurers early in 2015 disputing the connection between seismic activity and injection. Oklahoma’s bulletin states:
At present, there is no agreement at a scientific or governmental level concerning any connection between injection wells or fracking and earthquakes…In light of the unsettled science, I am concerned that insurers could be denying claims based on the unsupported belief that these earthquakes were the result of fracking or injection well activity. If that were the case, companies could expect the Department to take appropriate action to enforce the law.
While delineating between natural and induced seismic activity is a difficult task, the clear increase in the number of documented earthquakes led the panel to attribute the change to saltwater injection and disagree with the bulletin’s conclusion.
There have been regulatory efforts to ask insurers not to enforce policy exceptions for “triggered earthquakes.” But this could mean claims that are higher than those that would be supported by approved rates and forms out. Joseph Kelleher, an attorney with Dinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP pointed out that insurers simply hadn’t priced for such expansive liability.
In terms of the induced earthquakes themselves, to date, they have not been particularly severe. The panel’s consensus was that the average has been around magnitude 3.0. When asked whether it is possible for fracking to induce a high-magnitude seismic event, the panel equivocated, noting that such events appear unlikely, since no such event has been observed to-date. Nonetheless, Steve Horton of the University of Memphis’ Center for Earthquake Research suggested that caution demands that extraction efforts should avoid known areas of major fault lines, like New Madrid.
The good news for residents near injection sites, their insurers and those in the gas-extraction business is that it is possible to curtail so-called “induced seismic activity” through better liquid-disposal techniques. Water disposal is crucial, given that gas wells – measured proportionally by their output – are actually water wells. In Oklahoma, the Mississippian Lime oil play averages 9.8 barrels of water for every equivalent barrel equivalent of gas. That average is indicative of a national trend.
Waste water from injection wells is often pumped back into the earth. The more water that is pumped into disposal wells, the greater the risk of seismic activity. To reduce that risk, the panel suggested recycling and reusing the water. In combination with such technical changes, the panel reported that Arkansas had enjoyed a decrease in seismic activity since it opted to prohibit exploration within 1 mile of known faults.
The insurance industry is in an interesting position when it comes to induced seismic events. It stands to gain from the continued adoption of energy generated through natural gas, because of the fuel’s net positive impact on climate change. But policy creep enforced by regulators to cover an increasing number of seismic events endangers both the industry’s underwriting flexibility and the accuracy of its prices.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Eli Lehrer, president of the R Street Institute, a conservative think tank, cautions that policy changes directed at reducing prison time for violent offenders must be handled carefully.
“The reports should be viewed with skepticism,” Lehrer said. “There are certainly too many people in jail today, but if you go back to 1980 or 1975, there were too few. The idea that the policies haven’t done any good is also wrong.”
Are taxis becoming extinct? Is creative destruction a good thing? Are Uber and Lyft drivers fulltime employees entitled to benefits or are they independent contractors? Should municipalities cap the number of drivers? Will other industries incorporate characteristics of the sharing economy?
There has been much debate about ridesharing and its implication on the marketplace and political landscape. Policymakers and candidates have taken different approaches to addressing these questions. In fact, we at R Street have contributed extensively to this discussion about the sharing economy in general.
While talking heads and editorial boards continue to discuss the implications of the sharing economy, it is important to hear the voices on the front lines, the actual drivers (both Uber and taxi).
Recently Zach Weissmueller of Reason TV filmed interviews with Uber and taxi drivers as he commuted around Los Angeles. The 10-minute video includes footage of interviews with three Uber drivers who have very different perspectives on their work and the political cloud swirling around the company. The video also interviews two individuals within the taxi industry.
I think the perspectives manifested in the video reflect what I have encountered using the service in D.C. The first driver described driving for Uber as a fun “part-time hustle,” but wouldn’t recommend it as a full-time job because the driving “really kills your car for only $10 an hour (after taxes).” At the other end of the spectrum was an immigrant who is satisfied with his work as an Uber driver because it enables him to send extra money back to his family in Africa.
Zach also interviewed William Rouse, general manager for Yellow Cab Los Angeles, to discuss the differences between the background check process Uber utilizes and that of Rouse’s own company. The video also documents an encounter with a taxi driver who preferred not to discuss anything with the Reason film crew.
In my time as an urban commuter, using both taxi services and ridesharing apps (both Lyft and Uber), I have encountered drivers with a wide array of personalities, perspectives on the latest developments in commuting options and driving abilities. This video was a helpful introduction to the many different types of drivers out there.
Next time you hail a cab or summon an Uber, take the opportunity to learn about your drivers, asking questions like Zach does in the video. Most of the drivers I have met are happy to talk about their experiences. It’s a fun and informative way to meet people and gain anecdotal perspective on the ridesharing discussion.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Last month, as but one marker of the sudden and somewhat unexpected public outcry to remove from all manner of public life flags and memorials honoring the Confederacy, the Memphis City Council voted unanimously to reverse a decision made by their forebears 110 years ago.
The council determined that Memphis, the city where Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in 1968, will remove the memorial to Confederate Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest that stands currently in the city’s Health Sciences Park (known, until 2013, as Forrest Park) and return the remains of Forrest and his wife, which are contained in the statue’s base, to Elmwood Cemetery, where they originally were laid to rest 140 years ago.
Many Americans might recognize Forrest’s name from the brief reference to him at the beginning of the film “Forrest Gump.” He otherwise is not today the household name that his contemporaries Robert E. Lee, J.E.B. Stuart and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson have remained. As a military tactician, he may well have been their superior.
He also was a prosperous slave trader, committed atrocities during the war that today we would consider war crimes and, in the war’s aftermath, became the first-ever grand wizard of the terrorist organization known as the Ku Klux Klan.
The council may have been unanimous in their decision, but the broader community of the American South has not been. Within two weeks of the vote, Council Chairman Myron Lowery reported that he’d already received 500 emails on the subject, estimating that “98 percent of [them were] from Forrest’s supporters…living outside of Memphis.”
Tensions have heightened somewhat as plans to remove the memorial move forward, but there is no question that it is going to happen. Earlier this week, the memorial was vandalized, with the slogan “Black Lives Matter” spray-painted on its base. Just yesterday, Thomas Robb – national director of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan – announced his offer to pay to transport Forrest’s remains to Boone County, Ark., to be buried near Robb’s Christian Revival Center, where he serves as pastor. Perhaps that would be appropriate.
I have lived in “The South” for more than a decade now – first, in Virginia and now, in Florida. But I am not a Southerner. I was raised in the North. My mother is an immigrant and my ancestry in this country on my father’s side does not extend beyond the early 20th century. Just as I cannot, as a white person, truly understand what it is to be confronted by symbols of slavery and white supremacy, nor can I say I know what it is to look at the rebel flag or Confederate memorials and regard them as symbols of “heritage.”
What I can imagine is that, after decades of a culture war consisting of occasional skirmishes punctuated by long periods of stasis, for those whose perspective on Confederate pride is markedly different from my own, the massive shift in public attitudes we’ve seen in recent months and weeks is almost certainly both dizzying and stupefying. Just a decade ago, an earlier measure proposing to rename Forrest Park and remove the memorial was passed narrowly by the Memphis City Council but vetoed by Willie Herenton, the city’s first black mayor. It seemed, for a long time, that’s the way things would remain.
That’s not how things have gone, and all indications are that’s not how things will go in the near future. The flags are coming down. The memorials are being decommissioned. The rallying cry of “heritage” – for so long, given deference as a serious stance for serious people to take in serious public debates– has been, overnight, rendered laughable, a pathetic justification for an impermissible attitude.
By and large, these are developments I cheer. I think symbols matter. I think history matters. I think we as Americans are long overdue for a genuine reckoning with our past, with what it says about us today, with how it shapes the directions we may head tomorrow.
My concern is that the speed with which we are disposing of these relics does not actually permit that kind of reckoning. Confronting the past, after all, must include remembering why the memorials and the monuments were created to begin with. It was not, as some would have it, simply to honor the sons of a nation that went to war and fought for a losing cause. It was, almost universally, to perpetuate a system of continuing terrorism against American citizens, a system which conspired for more than a century after slavery to deny them basic rights to assemble, to buy property, to vote and to enjoy police protection and equal treatment under the law.
The line between erasing misplaced honor and erasing history itself can be awfully thin. In our haste to correct past sins, we might just obliterate it. I have a side in the cultural debate, and I think my side is certainly right, but the debate itself also matters. Take down the memorials, where it is appropriate, but remember that they were there and why they were erected in the first place.
I’ll give the last word on the matter to Nate DeMeo, creator of the amazing podcast The Memory Palace. His most recent episode is about the Forrest memorial, and consists largely of him proposing a plaque that should be placed alongside the statue, wherever it ultimately ends up. The whole story is only about ten minutes long, and absolutely is worth hearing in its entirety, but I’d just like to include his conclusion here:
Maybe it should just say – maybe they should all say, the many, many thousands of Confederate memorials and monuments and markers – that the men who fought and died for the CSA – whatever their personal reasons, whatever was in their hearts – did so on behalf of a government formed for the express purpose of ensuring that men and women and children can be bought and sold and destroyed at will. Maybe that should be enough.
But I want people to know about those Memphians in 1905, who wanted people to remember Forrest and why, who wanted a symbol to hold up and revere, to stand for what they valued most. I want people to know that statute stood in downtown Memphis for 110 years. And to remember that memorials aren’t memories; they have motives. They are historical; they are not history itself.
And I want them to know why it was moved. That in 2015, after Clementa Pinckney and Sharonda Coleman-Singleton and Tywanza Sanders and Ethel Lance and Susie Jackson and Cynthia Hurd and Myra Thompson and Daniel Simmons Sr. and Depayne Middleton-Doctor were murdered in a church in Charleston, South Carolina, there were people in Memphis who were done with symbols…and ready to bury Nathan Bedford Forrest for good.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
The following piece was co-authored by Google Policy Fellow Sasha Moss.
Michael Corleone would understand. Just when music companies and their performance-rights organization (PROs) thought they were getting out from under supervision by the U.S. Department of Justice, the DOJ may be about to pull them back in.
For some time now, the DOJ’s Antitrust Division has been investigating whether to modify the special antitrust consent decrees that govern the two leading PROs: the American Society of Composers And Publishers (ASCAP) and Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI). These broad settlements, originally reached in 1941, were designed to prevent anti-competitive behavior by the music publishers and set the rules for how the PROs can operate. This includes licensing on non-discriminatory terms (preventing the PROs from blocking a radio station or music service from playing their songs).
The consent decrees have been modified before; BMI’s was amended in 1994 and ASCAP’s in 2001. But some music publishers argue these agreements are showing their age. The publishers and the PROs are hoping (and expressly asking) the DOJ to agree with their view that, here in the Internet Era, digital music doesn’t need so much government intervention. Some suggest the DOJ’s antitrust lawyers have shown sympathy to arguments for a “partial withdrawal” of digital copyrights from the consent-decree framework.
But new arrangements to replace that framework ultimately may pull the labels and PROs back in. Billboard reported recently that the DOJ may be considering revisions that impose an even tighter regulatory scheme. According to the report, the Justice Department circulated a letter letting ASCAP and BMI know it is considering allowing any single co-owner of a “split work” — also known as a “fractional, “co-authored” or “co-pub” composition — to issue a license for 100 percent of the work. This is in contrast to the current practice in the music industry, whereby everyone who has a piece of the copyright needs to agree to license the work. The music companies have let their resulting unhappiness be known, albeit only off-the-record.
Not everyone has been so unhappy with the DOJ trial balloon on split works. Billboard quoted streaming service Pandora as saying: “We appreciate that the Department of Justice is taking steps to prevent further anti-competitive behavior in music licensing.” Matt Schruers of the Disruptive Competition Project has framed the reported DOJ inquiry as actively pro-competition. Per Schruers, the music industry has created “artificial gridlock” among its rights-holders by allowing each co-author the power to unilaterally veto, but not unilaterally authorize, the license to use a copyrighted song. This means that a single rights-holder with only a small percentage of ownership in the work may pull the work when a licensing agreement ends, or deny a license to begin with.
These sorts of unilateral decisions by fractional rights-holders have been costly to services like Pandora Radio. Two years ago, Universal Music Publishing Group, owners of at least fractional rights in 20 percent of the music in the BMI catalog, withdrew its digital rights from BMI, a move that was followed by doubling the rates it sought to charge Pandora. And in another example, a different publisher, BMG, also withdrew its rights, but in this instance the result was Pandora took down all of BMGs wholly owned works and Pandora’s customers were cut off from a substantial trove of the BMG catalog
Is this what Congress intended with its last major revision of the Copyright Act, back in 1976? It doesn’t appear so. Contemporary reports from the U.S. House summarizing the changes conclude:
“Under the bill, as under the present [pre-1976] law, coowners of a copyright would be treated generally as tenants in common, with each coowner having an independent right to use or license the use of a work, subject to a duty of accounting to the other coowners for any profits.”
That’s not always how split works licensing model operates today, as the UMPG example demonstrates. To license use of a song, Internet companies may end up having to cut separate deals with each fractional rights-holder. More deals mean more transaction costs, as well as more potential dissenters with the power to scuttle those deals. The process is particularly onerous for new potential entrants to the digital market, and the leverage enjoyed by the major labels and publishers only grows as they continue to consolidate. Today, Sony alone controls nearly half of all royalties collected.
The purpose of copyright is not merely to provide monopoly revenue streams to content companies, but to ensure that creative works actually reach the public. Thus, for the DOJ to clarify obligations under the decades-old consent decrees could make sense. Allowing fractional rights-holders to authorize use of a work unilaterally is one potential avenue to untangle the complex web of rights in music and bring the licensing system more in-line with those of other copyrighted works with multiple authors.
To be clear, no one is asking to eliminate the consent decrees, even though all sides officially say they favor competition and the free market. Ironically, those who laud the competition they say would follow from allowing rights-holders to “partially withdraw” digital music rights tend to fear simplification of the system as a whole, precisely because would make competition among rights-holders more likely.
For instance, they oppose allowing fractional rights-holders to license joint-authored songs on grounds that this would create a “race to the bottom” in digital copyright licensing, lowering prices that could be commanded on the open market. Publishers and PROs thus must find a way to thread the needle in arguing both that the free market commands we let them partially withdraw digital rights and that the free market is lousy when co-authors compete with one another on price.
Any recommended modifications by the DOJ would have to be agreed to by the PROs and then approved by a court. In the meantime, we need a more robust public conversation around how to handle thorny issues like split works. Of course there’s an irreducible tension between (a) the “exclusive rights” held by rights-holders in their “writings and discoveries” (“exclusive rights” just means the power to “exclude” non-rights-holders’ use) and (b) the goal of the U.S. Constitution’s Progress Clause, which gives Congress the power to grant such rights to “promote the progress of science and the useful arts” for rights-holders and non-rights-holders alike.
There are a few things about which almost everyone in this conversation already agrees: markets should be competitive; the public has an interest in copyright; and public policy should meet its Constitutional aim to encourage both creative and technological innovation. We can’t help but wish, in navigating this thicket of thorny issues, we were discovering simpler arguments and simpler solutions.
From the AP Planner:
President of R Street Institute Eli Lehrer meets with Republican activists to discuss an alternative solution to climate change: carbon pricing as part of broader tax reform. Prior to meeting Lehrer is avail for interview
Event Start Date: 2015-08-14
Event End Date: 2015-08-14
Event URL: http://www.nwf.org
Event time: 09:00 EDT
From the New York Times:
Kevin R. Kosar, a former analyst at the Congressional Research Service who worked on postal issues, said he found it surprising that the Office of Inspector General redacted the information about the national security mail covers in the first place.
“I think it’s symptomatic of our overclassification of information in the government,” he said. “There is nothing here that compromises any law enforcement activities. In fact, there is very little information.”
WASHINGTON (Aug. 13, 2015) – It’s crucial that public pension funds focus on shareholder-wealth maximization and not furthering a political agenda, concludes a policy brief released today by the R Street Institute.
In the new brief, which builds on earlier R Street research about proxy-access proposals in the 2015 proxy season, Associate Fellow Bernard S. Sharfman analyzes the recent effort by New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer to sponsor proposals at 75 publicly traded companies. By Stringer’s own admission, the companies were targeted for being involved in climate change-related industries, lacking board diversity or having inflated executive compensation.
“A public pension fund has a duty to its beneficiaries to answer one question before deciding to submit a proposal on proxy access: will the proxy access add or to or subtract from shareholder wealth?,” said Sharfman. “It’s clear that Stringer’s initiative did not ask that question, but instead assumed the conclusion that the ability to nominate directors is a fundamental shareholder right.”
Sharfman particularly questioned New York City comptroller’s decision, given that the city’s pension funds are underfunded by $46 billion.
Sharfman notes that proxy access opens opportunities for shareholders to issue annual threats to nominate candidates unless the board provides concessions to the shareholder’s favored stakeholders, such as labor unions.
“The lesson here is that the best case to be made for proxy access is not about increasing shareholder rights or even using the rights shareholders already have, but about shareholder-wealth maximization,” said Sharfman. “Using proxy access for other purposes is harmful to the beneficiaries of a public-pension fund.”
Shareholder-wealth maximization generally is accepted as the default objective of an investment fund, though there are exceptions to the rule. For example, an investment adviser might create a fund with the purpose of only investing in companies that meet stringent criteria on greenhouse-gas emissions. Investors who decide to invest in this type of fund are revealing a preference for sacrificing returns in order to have their noneconomic investment objectives met.
However, for a public pension fund with thousands of current and future beneficiaries who count on the fund’s performance to support them in retirement, it’s hard to envision any other feasible objective but shareholder-wealth maximization.
During the recent proxy season, Scott Stringer – comptroller of New York City and the custodian and investment adviser to the New York City Pension Funds – took advantage of an amended Securities and Exchange Commission rule to submit 75 of the 108 proxy-access proposals that were received by publicly traded companies. From Comptroller Stringer’s perspective, he was wildly successful. Of the 75 proposals submitted, 63 went to a vote, with 56 percent average support. Of those 63, 41 received majority support. Moreover, at six companies where withdrawal of the proxy access proposal was negotiated, management agreed to adopt proxy access or put forward a management-sponsored proposal next year.
But was it a win for beneficiaries of the New York City Pension Funds or for shareholders in general? As discussed below, the answer is very much in doubt.
Optimal corporate governance
Proxy access is the ability of shareholders to have their own slate of director nominees included in a publicly traded company’s proxy-solicitation materials – the proxy statement and proxy voting card. Traditionally, this has not been allowed, as the nomination of directors has been under the control of the board of directors and its nominating committee.[i] This meant that only candidates that had been screened by the board nominating committee and approved by the full board would appear in the company’s proxy-solicitation materials for purposes of electing directors at the annual meeting.
Since shareholders could not place their slate of nominees in the company’s proxy materials, the only alternative was to go through the cost-prohibitive process of creating their own proxy materials to nominate their slate. Therefore, board nominees nearly always were assured of winning election.
This may surprise many readers, but from the perspective of optimal decision-making efficiency, this was and is a reasonable corporate-governance arrangement. The board nominating committee is in the best position to determine which nominees are the most qualified candidates to serve as directors, as it has the greatest informational advantage in understanding the needs of the company. As I explained in an article published in the Journal of Corporation Law:
The Board nominating committee has an informational advantage over even the most informed shareholders because of the inside information it has on how the current board interacts with each other and executive officers, expectations on how a particular nominee will meld with other board members and executive officers, and the needs of the corporation in terms of directors, based on both public and confidential information. Shareholders who want to take advantage of proxy access do not have this information available to them.
Proxy access undercuts the informational advantages held by “the nominating committee by failing to assign it any role in screening or approving shareholder nominations.” Moreover, the board nominating committee and the board as a whole must adhere to the fiduciary duties of care and loyalty that are imposed by corporate law, duties that shareholders who participate in the nomination process do not have.
That a board has a decided informational advantage over shareholders is a presumption also found in corporate law, which is governed at the state level. In corporate law, statutory default rules are used to provide boards with ultimate decision-making authority. Corporate law recognizes that a centralized, hierarchical authority is necessary to be successful in managing all the information that flows through a large for-profit organization. It may not be a fair arrangement, but corporate governance is not about fairness to shareholders; it’s about maximizing their wealth.
Beginning in 1947 and ending in 2011, the ability to exclude shareholder proposals on proxy access from a company’s proxy-solicitation materials was explicitly enforced under federal law through SEC regulation, most recently under SEC Rule 14a-8(i)(8). However, in 2011, the SEC used authority granted by Section 971 of the Dodd–Frank Act to modify Rule 14a-8(i)(8) so as to allow shareholder proposals on proxy access to become part of these materials.
Public pension funds and proxy access
When a public pension fund decides to submit a shareholder proposal on proxy access, it should do so for purposes of maximizing shareholder wealth. The fund has a duty to its beneficiaries to answer the following question: will proxy access add to or subtract from shareholder wealth? To answer that question, the fund must focus on the decision-making process of a public company’s board.
Given that a board’s decision-making authority is presumed to have great value, the process of deciding whether to submit a shareholder proposal ought be based on the following formulation from Stephen Bainbridge of UCLA School of Law: the “preservation of managerial discretion should always be the null hypothesis.” For purposes of proxy access, this should mean clear evidence of a governance breakdown in the nomination of board members at the board level.
It’s clear that Scott Stringer’s proxy-access initiative did not ask the question about shareholder wealth or apply Bainbridge’s approach. Instead, the analysis begins by assuming the conclusion that the “ability to nominate directors is a fundamental shareowner right.” Unfortunately, while that sentiment may have a vaguely constitutional ring to it, it offers no tangible guidance in terms of shareholder value.
The rest of Stringer’s analysis does not improve on that inauspicious start. Of the 75 companies targeted by the comptroller, 33 were targeted because they were in industries directly related to climate change; 24 for a lack of board diversity; and 25 were cited for having received “significant opposition to their 2014 advisory vote on executive compensation.” According to a press release announcing the comptroller’s proxy-access initiative:
Resolutions were filed at companies where we see risks associated with climate change, board diversity and excessive CEO pay. Especially when it comes to the environment, business as usual is no longer an option. To effect true change, you need the ability to hold entrenched and unresponsive boards accountable and that is what we are seeking to do.
Stringer declared that “we expect to see better long-term performance across our portfolio” because of the initiative, which is a worthy objective. But there’s no evidence linking the analysis used to target firms to that stated objective. As reported in a recent study, “the firms targeted by the NYC Comptroller did not exhibit statistically significant stock market underperformance relative to the control group.” Clearly, other objectives were in play when the comptroller went about targeting companies for proxy access.
The lesson here is that the best case to be made for proxy access is not about increasing shareholder rights or even using the rights shareholders already have, but about shareholder-wealth maximization. Using proxy access for other purposes is harmful to the beneficiaries of a public-pension fund. Implementing proxy access with any goal but to maximize shareholder wealth creates a needless change in a target company’s corporate-governance arrangements that may be wealth-reducing, as less appropriate candidates may be elected to the board.
Proxy access also may allow a shareholder to issue annual threats to nominate candidates unless the board provides concessions to the shareholder’s favored stakeholders, such as labor unions. These concessions would come directly out of the pocket of shareholders and ultimately harm public-pension-fund beneficiaries. Firms with risk-averse boards who are uncertain about their own nominees’ election prospects would be particularly vulnerable to such rent-seeking behavior.
Finally, given the $46.6 billion underfunded status of New York City’s pension funds, one would think that shareholder-wealth maximization would be the comptroller’s top, if not only, priority when getting involved in the area of corporate governance. This does not appear to be the case. It’s no secret that the comptroller is an elected official and that political considerations may play a role in his proxy-access initiative. In a heavily Democratic city, it’s helpful for a politician to establish a populist track record on such issues as climate change, board diversity and executive pay before the next or subsequent elections.
Scott Stringer might be an excellent politician and perhaps a future mayor of New York City or even governor of New York. But for the sake of the beneficiaries whose interests he is sworn to uphold, he should restrain himself from getting involved in the corporate governance of public companies. That’s an area in which he clearly should defer to those who have the most expertise — the board.
Now that we’re a good two-and-half months into hurricane season, it would be a good time to check in on the financial situation of the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association, the state-run agency that provides windstorm insurance to residents of designated counties along the Texas coast.
TWIA has a longstanding problem, in that the rates charged by the agency for its policies are not nearly enough to meet expected future claims. The agency has been making progress, however, with a series of rate increases that have reduced TWIA’s underfunding from 40 percent below actuarially sound levels to just 22 percent. And earlier this month, TWIA announced another 5 percent rate increase, further reducing its funding gap.
The Texas Windstorm Insurance Association board voted to approve a rate hike for property owners in coastal communities, despite opposition from legislators.
The 5 percent hike in premiums was approved on a 5-4 vote during the board’s meeting Tuesday in Galveston. It is the fifth consecutive year the board has approved a 5 percent increase.
This current increase is the last time TWIA will have an opportunity to consider rates before a legislatively mandated restructuring goes into effect in September.
As you may recall, one of the key points of contention over TWIA during the last legislative session had to do with the make-up of TWIA’s board. As originally conceived, TWIA’s restructuring would have increased the relative power of coastal residents (who have traditionally been hostile to rate increases). It was widely thought that such a move would have all but foreclosed any further rate increases. Ultimately, the enacted legislation reduced board representation for both the insurance industry and coastal residents, leaving neither side with a clear majority.
Whether the new board continues to move toward rate adequacy will be a key indicator of TWIA’s long-term sustainability. Of course, before we get to that point, we have to make it through another storm season.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
USA Today recently proclaimed “the golden age of muscle cars is now.” Based upon sales numbers of large-displacement and high-power motors, it’s hard to say they’re wrong.
New automotive “legends,” like the 707 horsepower Dodge Hellcat twins, happily convert rubber into smoke, noise and an aroma only gearheads can love, by way of a 6.2 liter, supercharged motor. New car types are driving the trend toward enhanced muscle.
Consider the Mercedes-Benz CLA AMG. The swooping lines of this Teutonic sedan don’t scream “power!” like the current crop of American offerings, yet it generates 355 horsepower with a 2.0 liter, turbocharged motor, less than one-third of the Hellcats’ displacement.
Got up market and even Ferrari, which intends to make the most driver-focused cars on the road, has succumbed to the trend of forced-induction and used it to squeeze more power (and much more torque) out of a smaller and more efficient engine. Thus, while the 458 Italia had a 4.5 liter naturally-aspirated V8 making 562 horsepower and 398 pound feet of torque, the next iteration of the vehicle out of Maranello, the 488, by contrast, has a 3.9 liter turbocharged V8 making 661 horsepower and 561 pound feet of torque.
Last month, the National Automobile Dealers Association released full-year sales projections showing the industry will sell 17.2 million vehicles in 2015, the first time sales have topped 17 million since 2001. June figures from Autodata Corp. show the Chevy Camaro, Dodge Challenger and Ford Mustang all saw gains, with the Mustang having its best June since 2007.
Growing popularity of new, more powerful cars is not what you’d expect in an era of high gas taxes, federal emissions regulations and so-called “combined fleet average efficiency standards.” In fact, we can thank America’s environmental stewards, the Environmental Protection Agency, for this power revolution and for the attendant interest in driving it has generated.
It may be surprising to some, but the interests of gearheads and the EPA are fundamentally aligned. Both want motors that are more capable. Granted, the EPA wants motors that are capable of doing more with less fuel, while the enthusiast community simply wants motors that are capable of more power. But for automotive engineers, the technical route to each destination runs through a series of the same stops.
For instance, higher engine-compression ratios allow fuel to be burned at higher temperatures which creates more power per-piston stroke. The environmentally conscious get smaller and smaller displacement motors capable of going further and further distances, while driving enthusiasts get more power out of motors of all sizes. The EPA knows this full well and has floated the terrific idea of mandating higher-octane fuel at the pump, because it burns hotter and provides for higher compression.
That’s right, the EPA wants your car filled with something approaching racing fuel for the sake of the environment.
Even the EPA’s mileage requirements have unwittingly saved relatively unsophisticated large displacement motors. The introduction of cylinder deactivation technologies, coupled with ever more efficient transmissions, allow vehicles that truly are “gas guzzlers” to avoid the tariff. As a bonus, those automatic transmissions are capable of transferring an engine’s power to the road with less power lost in translation. The standard for a fast zero-to-60 time has dropped from five seconds a decade ago to just four seconds today.
Performance benefits have accrued from even less likely sources, like hybrid technology. When it isn’t powering a hit-parade of uninspiring vehicles like the Prius, the Volt or the i3, hybrid tech allows performance vehicles to embrace surges of instant torque hitherto unavailable with gasoline powertrains.
The point is that while the EPA can strive to constrict and constrain, it can’t ultimately change consumer preferences and behavior. The underlying American desire to go fast has not been diminished by the regulator’s desire to make us all better. As the EPA continues its push toward a green nirvana, driving enthusiasts will be along for the ride because, paradoxically, green tech is performance tech.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.