Out of the Storm News
Despite growing support from some conservative policy wonks, the idea of taxing carbon dioxide emissions, even as an alternative to the sort of heavy-handed greenhouse regulations promulgated by the Obama administration, has failed to garner much enthusiasm on the right.
The idea remains almost untouchable for Republican politicians, and the notion that there’s any chance that could change in the near future has been dismissed as “wishful thinking” by left-wing outlets like Mother Jones.
While this may be a fair assessment of the political facts as they stand, if progressives actually wanted to avert the various catastrophes that environmentalists say are inevitable without serious policy action—changes in growing seasons, collapse of certain fisheries, rising sea levels and possibly increases in certain types of natural disasters—there are ways they could help sell a carbon tax to the right.
Conservatives will never support a carbon tax so long as they fear it will be used to promote more intrusive government, more spending and more control over individuals’ lives. But if the left convincingly made the case that they are willing to give up new revenue, new regulations and new resource development restrictions to make it happen, conservative support for a carbon tax is within the realm of possibility. But progressives will have to make certain policy concessions to get there.
For those on the right who do support a carbon tax—primarily conservative and libertarian-leaning economists like Gregory Mankiw, Kevin Hassett and Irwin Stelzer—a primary attraction is the opportunity to use carbon tax revenues to cut taxes on productive activity, like labor and investment, and instead substitute a price on externalities that hurt the public. Adele Morris of the Brookings Institution has shown how a very modest carbon tax could easily help the United States bring its highest-in-the-world corporate income tax rates down to around the average for wealthy nations without eliminating the research and development tax credit and other widely supported tax breaks. The centrist environmental think tank Resources for the Future has done excellent work on how it might be used to cut payroll taxes.
The precipitating event that forces consideration of such trade-offs was the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision, more or less requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to restrict carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act. While there are reasons to question the court’s ruling, it will be nearly impossible to overturn. With bureaucrats set to regulate carbon dioxide, a carbon tax begins to look like an attractive alternative to the morass of costly regulations the Obama administration’s EPA intends to impose. The only other commonly discussed alternative—enacting a carbon-trading scheme, such as the cap-and-trade bill that passed the House in 2009—has proved nearly impossible to implement in any democracy. The European Union’s scheme has already collapsed twice, and a major one in California seems to be degenerating into a slush fund.
A carbon tax, properly constructed, could encourage energy producers to find the lowest-cost ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions while leveling the playing field for energy sources like nuclear, wind, solar and hydro. A first step might be for the EPA to allow states flexibility to pursue their own carbon taxes in lieu of subjecting themselves to new greenhouse gas regulation. Such an approach could prove a hugely attractive political option for Republican office-seekers, who would be able to promise cuts to state income, property or sales taxes, while giving the boot to EPA busybodies. In private discussions, OMB officials have made positive noises about the possibility of allowing this to happen under the current law, and states including Virginia and Washington have discussed the possibility. Rep. John Delaney, D-Md., has introduced a bill that would make state-level carbon taxes an option.
But all of these possibilities would require those on the left to come to the table by giving up their own dreams of recycling carbon tax proceeds into “green jobs” schemes and other boondoggles beloved of progressives. Some environmentalists are on board with the notion of a revenue-neutral carbon tax (although many insist on difficult-to-administer schemes that would provide a “dividend” to taxpayers), but that cohort shrinks significantly when it’s proposed that the tax replace EPA regulations, much less preempt energy-related regulations like fleet fuel-economy standards for automobiles. To have any chance of political success, a carbon tax would have to do exactly these things.
Finally, to bring conservatives around to the idea, a carbon tax should also be coupled with a general easing of restrictions on energy development, particularly natural gas. As research by the Berkeley Earth Group has shown, new natural gas development has done more than any other single factor to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the past decade. Allowing ample gas development over the next 50 or so years could do a lot to mitigate whatever energy price changes might come from a new carbon tax.
While a few environmental groups, most prominently the Environmental Defense Fund, have been willing to make common cause with the gas industry in some cases, they remain a minority. Many progressive groups, ranging from Greenpeace to MoveOn.org, oppose any new gas development and all other conventional energy development as well. This includes almost lockstep opposition by environmental groups to the much-debated Keystone XL pipeline, even though energy economists like MIT’s Chris Knittel have shown pretty convincingly that pipeline expansions would reduce overall carbon dioxide emissions.
With equally few exceptions—largely the progressive iconoclasts at the Breakthrough Institute—environmentalists have shown little enthusiasm for nuclear power, even though it’s one of only two viable forms of baseload power generation that emits no carbon dioxide at all. (The other is hydro, which is largely tapped out in the United States but might be developed for U.S. use in the Canadian north.)
Even with all of these inducements, it’s unlikely the conservative grassroots will embrace a carbon tax. No more than 2 percent of voters—nearly all of them on the left—tell Gallup pollsters the environment is their most important issue. Even environmental voters, furthermore, tend to be far more concerned with water and air quality than climate change.
Conservatives won’t make many sacrifices to get their desired climate policies because few voters—and almost no members of the conservative base—care about the issue. But given the right set of concessions from the political left, a carbon tax proposal could be crafted that would get a fair amount of political support.
Earlier this week, R Street Executive Director Andrew Moylan joined a Cato Institute-hosted “hangout” to discuss state regulations that restrict how auto-makers can sell their cars, which in many cases bar manufacturer-owned dealerships from competing with independent dealers. The issue has reemerged recently as New Jersey, Iowa, Michigan and other states have cracked down on the direct sales showroom model pioneered by Tesla, which doesn’t use independent dealers at all. Video of the full discussion is available below.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
On Aug. 6, a letter arrived at the U.S. Department of Justice from someone writing anonymously under the name John Doe. Mr. Doe was seeking to persuade the DOJ to protect his small business from an organization that was trying to bully him so aggressively into giving them money that he professed to prefer muggings. He wrote that he feared retaliation if he used his real name. Quoth the anonymous author:
I can confirm that it feels very much like a mafia-style shakedown…These threats sometimes rise to the level of a collection agent screaming over the phone. I have been mugged at gunpoint under circumstances that felt more polite.
Was this some branch of the mob? Perhaps the Crips or the Bloods? No. The organizations being referenced were none other than the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) and Broadcast Music Inc (BMI). It is the job of these Performance Rights Organizations, or PROs, to negotiate financial arrangement with anyone who might potentially play music published by the companies they represent.
John Doe’s letter was not received as part of a criminal investigation, but rather during the DOJ’s comment period on whether or not to allow ASCAP and BMI to withdraw from established “consent decrees” that have set the rates that must be paid on all the songs in their catalogue. These decrees were instituted primarily because the amount of music that ASCAP and BMI control rises to such a high level as to be considered an antitrust concern. With an eye toward potential revenues from digital streaming service like Pandora, ASCAP and BMI are seeking to be released from those decrees so they can renegotiate for higher prices.
John Doe is not alone in smelling the whiff of cartel-like behavior. In fact, the reason that ASCAP and BMI are seeking to be released from the consent decrees is because they already tried to get out of them in court and failed miserably. Judge Denise Cote wrote in her decision that ASCAP and BMI had used “mafia-style tactics” and had even written language in their emails to businesses that effectively conveyed the message: “nice place you got here, would be a shame if anything happened to it.”
However, while ASCAP and BMI are just the most visible actors in this case, they are merely the enforcers in this metaphor. The dons are none other than the music publishers, such as Sony ATV and Universal Music Publishing. In fact, if ASCAP and BMI are being overly aggressive, that may be in part due to dissatisfaction on the part of music publishers that their enforcers aren’t shaking down their targets for enough money. Both Sony ATV and Universal Music Publishing representatives have, in fact, threatened to pull their music catalogues from ASCAP and BMI’s stewardship and negotiate for money directly.
Unlike ASCAP and BMI, Sony ATV and Universal Music Publishing would not be subject to the same heightened antitrust scrutiny. Nonetheless, Sony ATV is the largest music publisher in the world, controlling 32 percent of the market, with Universal Music Publishing close behind at 18 percent. In other words, between them, these two publishers control half of the music business.
If the DOJ were consistent, they’d find that level of concentration disconcerting. Bear in mind that the Society of European Stage Authors and Composers (SESAC), a PRO that represents just 10 percent of the market (according to the highest estimates), is now subject to two federal lawsuits for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act. If SESAC is in violation, then surely publishing groups that control either double or triple their market share should be treated similarly.
A further irony to the situation is that, not only do Sony ATV and Universal Music Publishing not speak for the entirety of their industry, but they may not even represent, on balance, the wishes of their respective companies. RIAA Vice President Mitch Glazier has publicly praised Pandora’s willingness to work with performers and seems more than willing to stand by the status quo. No less than seven entities bearing the Universal name are members of the RIAA, and the same goes for 30 entities bearing the Sony name. However, music publishers of the type represented by the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) take a dimmer view and appear to regard any and all music licensees (especially Pandora) as a giant money pot.
In other words, what’s really going on here is an internecine struggle within the music industry, which might end up crushing entire business models.
Fortunately, there is a way to avoid this problem. If the DOJ is unwilling to consider antitrust action against Sony ATV or Universal Music Publishing, and it seems they are, there is another avenue to avoid seeing the big publishers crush music startups under their heel. Any DOJ compromise on consent decrees will have to be approved by Judge Cote, the woman who slammed ASCAP and BMI’s “mafia style tactics.” If the DOJ tries to gut Cote’s decision, she should deny approval and call the publishers’ bluff. If these people want to act like the mafia, let them show the world how willing they are to hamstring the entire music business for the sake of wringing a few more dollars and cents out of innovators.
Maybe then, the DOJ might remember that extortion is something it’s nominally supposed to fight against, even when the people doing it are friends of the administration.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
In their war against e-cigarettes, government officials often claim that the devices are a gateway to smoking. CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden recently asserted that “many kids are starting out with e-cigarettes and then going on to smoke conventional cigarettes.” The National Cancer Institute last March promoted Dr. Stanton Glantz’s tortured analysis of youth e-cigarette use (discussed here and here). While his data failed to support a gateway effect, his employer, the University of California at San Francisco, made the claim anyway.
Politicians also have a penchant for yelling “fire” about smoke-free devices. U.S. Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Democratic colleagues in the House and Senate issued a report in April titled “Gateway to Addiction.” The term “gateway,” obviously used as an attention-grabber on the cover, appeared only once in the text — as a nonspecific example of how e-cigarettes “could also increase public health risks” for non-smokers.
The marijuana gateway claim didn’t gain currency until the 1950s. Back in the 1930s, Harry Anslinger, the first commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and the driving force behind the prohibitive Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, denied a gateway claim during congressional hearings. According to the excellent history of marijuana prohibition by Richard Bonnie and Charles Whitebread, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., asked Anslinger “whether the marihuana addict graduates into a heroin, an opium or cocaine user.” The commissioner replied unequivocally, “No sir; I have not heard of a case of that kind. I think it is an entirely different class. The marihuana addict does not go in that direction.”
By 1951, Anslinger changed course while testifying in favor of the Boggs Act, which increased federal penalties for narcotics and marijuana. Endorsing marijuana’s new reputation as a treacherous gateway drug, he said:
The danger is this: Over 50 percent of those young addicts started on marijuana smoking. They started there and graduated to heroin; they took the needle when the thrill of marijuana was gone.
So began marijuana gateway scaremongering, which Dr. James Anthony, professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at Michigan State, labels as “‘vapors’ that emerged from a political cauldron during the middle of the 20th century when it was very difficult to find definitive and convincing evidence of harmful effects of cannabis use – over and above (1) the sometimes extremely severe consequences of criminal penalties for simple cannabis possession and use, and (2) adverse effects on mouth, nose, throat and lung.”
This should sound strikingly familiar to vapers (e-cigarette users) and tobacco harm reduction advocates. As they did with marijuana, prohibitionists make the gateway claim against e-cigarettes in the near-total absence of “definitive and convincing evidence” of harm.
“Threats to the open Internet come from all sides….Today’s threat comes from a patent and international trade agency.” - Charles Duan, Public Knowledge
The post-Snowden era of digital communication has been characterized by a series of efforts around the world to exert local control over the Internet. From democracies to dictatorships, a raft of proposals have been put forward by governing bodies who see benefits in controlling data. One technique is to require data be physically stored on servers in the country where the data originated. Thanks to a recent ruling by the International Trade Commission, yet another mechanism for enforcing data localization is now in sight.
It’s difficult for national governments to enforce data localization in a freewheeling digital ecosystem. In the past, such efforts could be easily bypassed with proxy servers, mesh networks and other workarounds. But last April, the ITC added one more layer to the mess of tools that governments can use to splinter and restrict access to the global Internet, when it ruled that transfer of digital data between countries can be regulated in the same way as physical goods. The decision found that, under Section 337(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, data may be subject to customs laws just like any other import.
As succinctly summarized by Charles Duan, director of the Patent Reform Project at Public Knowledge, the ITC’s decision “just raises more questions.” The ITC’s stated justification is that the digital data sets in the case were “directly representative” of physical models and “are processed or treated through a series of interpolations in a manner analogous to physical manipulation.”
But what classifies a digital dataset as a “direct representation” of physical reality? Will all digital photographs be subject to trade laws? Such an interpretation could wreak havoc on trade treaties currently under negotiation, such as the TTIP and TTP, whose negotiators already face great difficulty finding common grounds on contentious data transfer issues like privacy, antitrust and intellectual property.
Globally, the move toward data localization has been motivated by divergent concerns, in some states to censor Internet activity, while in others, due to fears of foreign surveillance. Russia recently moved to enforce a law passed in July that requires all personal data of Russian citizens to be stored on servers in Russia. Google, Facebook and Twitter have been notified that compliance must include storing all metadata about Russians’ communications on local servers. This is especially problematic, given that Russian data servers are required to use encryption algorithms certified by the Russian Federal Security Service, effectively giving the FSB access to all the data and metadata. It’s a blatant move to restrict Internet access, consolidate the Russian government’s control over the media and give the Russian government increased access to private data.
Authoritarian governments like Russia, China and Iran have used data localization laws to more closely monitor citizen activities, but they are not the only countries passing such laws. The European Parliament is strengthening and expanding privacy laws under the General Data Protection Regulation and some EU members openly advocate creating a “Schengen cloud” to store and process European data.
Andrus Ansip, one of the new vice presidents of the European Commission, has gone on record that the EU-U.S. Safe Harbor data transfer agreement “is not secure.” Unless the U.S. Federal Trade Commission agrees to abide by stringent European privacy standards, Ansip said, “we must consider suspending the agreement.” This would prohibit data about European citizens passing through servers on U.S. soil without explicit consent. It could even compel European countries to remove data from U.S. cloud services. To quote Dirk Engling,a spokesperson for the European hacker association called the Chaos Computer Club:
“By ‘ensuring’ citizens that they are only safe if they restrict their Internet usage to within Europe, what is the Internet there for?”
In India, a country with a growing economy and strong incentive to solidify its place as an emerging tech power, data localization is seen as a tool to increase the country’s influence in the global market. The Indian National Security Council has proposed a plan to store all data regarding communication between two Indian citizens on servers located in India, effectively restricting access to Google, Facebook, and Microsoft Outlook. The plan is meant to safeguard the security and privacy of Indians’ data in light of the NSA surveillance revelations, somewhat hypocritically given the Indian government’s launch of Netra, an Internet spying system.
Aside from curbing freedom of expression, data localization laws would also drive up inefficiencies, increase Internet costs for users, and ultimately degrade data security by making it easier for the NSA to obtain data by direct intrusion and for governments to monitor domestic data. According to Facebook General Counsel Colin Stretch, by adding to the cost of running a network, with local data centers around the world, data localization leaves consumers with a slower Internet experience, limits connectivity and prevents the Internet from reaching its full potential
Given these increased costs and the uncertain economic environment for Internet Service Providers who carry international data, the effects of the ITC ruling could slow the spread of Internet connectivity in developing countries, while erecting barriers to transactions and communications across national borders. It also spells major losses for the U.S. economy: an ITIF study puts potential losses to the U.S. cloud computing industry between $21.5 and $35 million over the next three years as a result of the loss of trust in U.S. data storage providers.
Unless we want to be left with a neutered Internet, hacked into regional slices, we must remain vigilant and ensure that decisions such as the ITC case are reversed. The fact that the word “global” is cropping up as a qualifying descriptor for the Internet, used to describe an integrated network that may be disappearing, is a clear indicator of the challenging work that lies ahead.
The motivations and methods vary, but the principle remains the same. The power of the Internet resides in its effective and efficient structure for transferring of massive amounts of information and computing data. Such technology is powerful. It is also disruptive. We need to devise new legal frameworks for the digital world we live in, rather than retrofitting Tariff Acts from 1930.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
How the EPA should modify its proposed 111(d) regulations to allow states to comply by taxing pollution
The attached piece was co-authored with Michael Wara and Marta R. Darby of Stanford University.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is exercising its authority under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act to limit U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from existing stationary sources, beginning with carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil-fuel fired electric generating units (EGUs, power plants or covered sources) . This comment examines the extent to which EPA’s proposed rule for existing power plants (the EPA proposal) and its existing regulations would allow states to comply with their obligations under 111(d) by adopting and enforcing carbon excise taxes. We find that, although states can adopt carbon taxes to comply with 111(d) rules, EPA has inadvertently restricted how states can design their policies, precluding some of the most straightforward approaches. Accordingly, we recommend amendments that would give full flexibility to states to design policies as they see fit, provided those policies are enforceable and will achieve the applicable emissions guidelines.
We are pleased to submit these comments in response to the proposed rule entitled: “Carbon Pollution Plan for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units” (EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602), notice of which EPA provided in the June 18, 2014 Federal Register (79 Fed. Reg. 34830). We also respectfully submit these comments on behalf of the organizations and individuals listed below:
Carbon Tax Center
Friends of the Earth
R Street Institute
We are scholars in the field of climate and energy policy with expertise in law and economics. Michael Wara is associate professor and Justin M. Roach Jr. Faculty Scholar at Stanford Law School. His research focuses on the intersection of energy law, environmental law, and climate policy. Adele Morris is an economist. She is a fellow and the policy director for the Climate and Energy Economics Project at the Brookings Institution. Her research includes analysis of the potential economic and environmental outcomes of carbon pricing policies. Marta Darby recently received a law degree from Stanford University.
The first section of this paper reviews the legal context of the EPA proposal and the relative roles of EPA and the states under section 111(d). In Section 2, we discuss the potential advantages to states of a tax-based compliance approach. In Section 3, we explore how, with some important constraints, the current regulations implementing section 111(d) and the EPA proposal allow states to comply by imposing an excise tax on the carbon content of fuels combusted in regulated sources. In Section 4, we recommend amendments to existing rules and the EPA proposal that would remove those constraints and give states full flexibility in how they can design their pollution tax policies. Section 5 concludes.
Under section 111(d) and the EPA proposal, EPA and states share responsibility for regulating GHG emissions from covered entities.  ;EPA has proposed emissions guidelines that set state-specific rate-based goals for CO2 emissions from existing power plants. The standards reflect the degree of emission limitation that EPA has determined that states can achieve through the application of the “best system of emission reduction” (BSER) that, “taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any non-air quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements, the [EPA] Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.” 
The EPA proposal has two main elements: 1) state-specific emission goals, expressed as a limit on the number of pounds of CO2 emitted per kilowatt hour (kwh) generated (with some adjustments), and 2) guidelines for developing and designing state implementation plans that will achieve the goals. The EPA constructed four “building blocks” of potential actions to determine the state-specific emissions goals, including: improving heat-rates at high-carbon EGUs; substituting generation at high-carbon EGUs with generation from less carbon-intensive EGUs; expanding low- or zero-carbon generation; and reducing emissions by lowering demand for electricity. Compliance occurs in two phases; covered sources in each state must meet an interim target on average over the 2020-2029 period and then a final target in 2030 and thereafter.
Each state can develop an implementation and enforcement plan that it forecasts will achieve the emissions goal EPA has set for it, or states can collaborate to submit a joint compliance plan. EPA can approve, reject or conditionally approve the plans. Each plan must detail the policies and programs that the states will use to meet their emissions goals. States must submit the plans to EPA, and EPA must approve a plan if it meets EPA’s requirements. Much as states and the federal government cooperate to achieve national ambient air quality standards under section 110 of the Clean Air Act, under 111(d) EPA sets the GHG goals and states decide how to achieve them.  Indeed, the EPA proposal itself states that EPA believes that this “well-established principle” from the section 110 process also “applies in the context of state plans under section 111(d).”
In its proposal for existing power plants, EPA emphasizes the wide flexibility states have in how they achieve their emissions rate targets. Flexibility is important because states have very different existing emissions rates, mixes of generation technologies, costs of abatement, utility regulatory structures and electricity demands. EPA says the agency intends to give all states “the opportunity to shape their plans as they believe appropriate for meeting the proposed CO2 goals”  and to allow states to use strategies that are not explicitly mentioned in any of the four building blocks in their compliance plans, including market-based trading programs. 
The EPA proposal specifies several acceptable flexibilities. For example, it allows states to demonstrate compliance on a multi-state basis (allowing any state’s emissions to exceed its assigned goal if it coordinates with others to make up for the difference). This accommodates the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative active in nine northeastern states and potentially other future multi-state cap-and-trade systems. Further, states can average emissions over the 2020-2029 period, rather than complying on a year-by-year basis. In addition, states can choose to meet either an emissions rate-based target or an equivalent mass-based target. The former requires that covered sources achieve a certain emissions rate per megawatt hour of energy produced while the latter requires that they achieve a certain level of total emissions. EPA also allows states to choose how much of the responsibility for emissions reductions falls on emitting EGUs, and how much is placed on other entities, including the state itself.  In the EPA proposal and accompanying communications, EPA has emphasized that it wants to give states maximum flexibility in their approaches to meeting the targets the agency has set.
 Environmental Protection Agency, Carbon Pollution Plan for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units, 79 Fed. Reg. 34830 (June 18, 2014), at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-06-18/pdf/2014-13726.pdf
 See 42 U.S.C. § 7411(d)(1), (2). Section 111(d) applies only to emissions not otherwise regulated under Sections 110 or 112 of the Clean Air Act. Emissions for which EPA has promulgated a national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) under section 109 are regulated under section 110. 42 U.S.C. § 7411(d)(1)(A)(i). EPA regulates hazardous pollutants under section 112. EPA has not promulgated a NAAQS for CO2 nor has it designated CO2 emissions a hazardous pollutant.
 See 42 U.S.C. § 7411(d)(1) (directing EPA to promulgate regulations that are “similar to” section 110 of the Clean Air Act); Train v. NRDC, 421 U.S. 60, 79 (1975) (holding that states have the authority under section 110 to propose source-specific emissions limitations); Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d 663, 688 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (finding that EPA’s NOx Budget Program, promulgated under section 110, did not impermissibly limit state discretion because “states remain[ed] free to implement other ‘cost-effective’ or ‘reasonably cost-effective’ measures” other than those identified by EPA); Virginia v. EPA, 108 F.3d 1397, 1410 (D.C. Cir.), modified on other grounds, 116 F.3d 499 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (EPA cannot condition approval of state plans on the adoption of specific control measures).
Do you know where your e-mail account is located? No, “the Internet” is not a valid answer. More specifically, do you know on which of Google’s many servers your Gmail account is physically located?
If you’re a U.S. user whose account is hosted in, for example, Singapore, then congratulations: Every time you download an e-mail, you’re “importing” digital goods that are subject to the authority of the International Trade Commission. That’s the precedent set by a recent ITC decision, currently under appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit as Clearcorrect v. ITC.
The case stems from an obscure patent lawsuit over teeth-straightening technology. But hidden in its inaccessible tangle of legal minutiae is a broad assertion of authority by the ITC — namely, that the 1930 Tariff Act, which gives it the authority to regulate “articles of importation,” covers digital goods and not just physical ones. If upheld, the “electronic transmission of digital data” would fall under the same rules as crates full of knock-off jeans.
It isn’t that the ITC has never enforced intellectual-property rules. If a Chinese company were found trying to export to the United States bootleg DVDs of U.S.-made films, the ITC very clearly could and would intervene. But what if, instead of trying to sell copies of Gone Girl, the company instead wired (via telegram or telegraph) across international borders the text of the movie’s script?
According to a more-than-century-old precedent, regulations pertaining to physical goods are “entirely inapplicable” to electronic messages. As the Supreme Court put it in the 1887 commerce-clause case Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Pendleton:
Although intercourse by telegraphic messages between the states is thus held to be interstate commerce, it differs in material particulars from that portion of commerce with foreign countries and between the states which consists in the carriage of persons and the transportation and exchange of commodities, upon which we have been so often called to pass. It differs not only in the subjects which it transmits, but in the means of transmission. Other commerce deals only with persons or with visible and tangible things.
But the telegraph transports nothing visible and tangible; it carries only ideas, wishes, orders and intelligence. Other commerce requires the constant attention and supervision of the carrier for the safety of the persons and property carried. The message of the telegraph passes at once beyond the control of the sender, and reaches the office to which it is sent instantaneously. It is plain from these essentially different characteristics that the regulations suitable for one of these kinds of commerce would be entirely inapplicable to the other.
So why is the commission suddenly meddling in an area that’s traditionally been off-limits? The ITC argued in its original decision that, because the Tariff Act of 1930 was written “at a time when Internet downloads were not in existence,” its authors could not have foreseen the idea of data as commerce — and the interpretation of the term “articles of importation” must change with the times.
Charles Duan at Public Knowledge eviscerated this argument in an amicus brief:
First: although internet downloads did not exist in 1930, plenty of other transmissions of telecommunications data, including cross-border transmissions, did exist and were certainly known to Congress at that time. Trans-Atlantic telegraph cables were laid and sending messages as early as 1858. Guglielmo Marconi sent the first radio transmission from the United States to the United Kingdom in 1903. A telephone call between Arlington, Virginia and Paris, France was completed in 1915. . . .
Second: These developments in technology were certainly recognized as within the scope of commerce when section 337 was enacted. Numerous cases in the Supreme Court recognized telegraphy as a form of commerce. Between 1910 and 1933, telephone, telegraph, and cable companies were within the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission — a commission with the very word “commerce” in its name. . . .
Third: concern for intellectual property rights in the face of electronic transmissions is no new problem, contrary to the Commission’s view. Radio broadcasts posed the same problems to intellectual property owners in the early 1900s as music files do today.
Duan has also noted that treating digital data as “articles of importation” would open the door to the ITC fielding complaints — and opening investigations — relating to all phone calls, audio streams, television broadcasts, and other telecommunications that could cross borders, with the potential for Internet-service providers, phone companies, or even individual Internet users’ being called before the commission as importers or exporters. Considered in this light, it’s no surprise that actors such as the Motion Picture Association of America love the ITC’s decision.
The courts should cut this kind of abuse off at the knees. What’s good for phone calls, radio, and telegrams is good for downloads, e-mail clients, and every other form of data transmission. Otherwise we might all soon be asking, “Where’s my e-mail account?”
The answer just might be, “the ITC has it.”
From the midterm elections in 2006 until well into President Barrack Obama’s first term, the Democratic political message turned on one simple theme: “[T]he failed policies of the Bush administration.” It was devastatingly effective.
The nation had grown weary of America’s presence in Iraq several years after President Bush proclaimed that “major combat operations in Iraq [had] ended.” Many Americans were also less than impressed over the federal government’s response to Hurricane Katrina.
The result was massive victories for Democrats in the Senate, House of Representatives and governors’ races around the nation. The election resulted in Nancy Pelosi becoming speaker of the House and Harry Reid heading the Senate as majority leader.
Reid and Pelosi hammered the simple mantra of Bush administration failures again and again. Even the stimulus and various bailouts during President Obama’s first term were hung on the Bush administration.
With a little more than a week to go until the 2014 midterm elections, the similarities to 2006 are worth considering.
According to Gallup’s Presidential Job Approval Center, President Obama’s approval rating is 41 percent to President Bush’s 37 percent at the same point into their second terms. While Bush faced an unpopular war, Obama has the fallout from Benghazi on his resume, as well as the emergence of the Islamic State and issues with Syria. Bush was criticized for the Katrina response; the Obama administration has struggled mightily responding to the Ebola outbreak.
The script should be familiar to Democrats but potentially more concerning because of one significant difference between Bush and Obama: Their willingness to keep a low profile.
Democrats are aware that the president’s unpopularity forces them to fight uphill electoral battles in many states. The president is not doing them any favors.
Republicans readily pounced on President Obama’s statement that his “policies are on the ballot” in November. Rather than adjusting his stance to help Democrats in tough races, President Obama doubled down on his remarks by noting that “these are all folks who vote with me; they have supported my agenda in Congress.”
The last thing any Democrat in a close election wants right now is a referendum vote on the Obama administration’s policies. At the same time, many Democratic candidates are trying to distance themselves from the president, he is making comments reminding voters that a vote for the Democratic candidate is a vote for the agenda and policies of the last six years.
The president might not be concerned because Bush’s relatively low profile did little to prevent Democratic victories in 2006. He might like the sound of a national referendum on his priorities or enjoy seeing them play well in states like Washington or Vermont. Regardless, his comments demonstrate a tone-deaf hubris that could prove costly to Democrats in contested states all the way down the ballot to local races.
If history is a marker, Republican success at the polls in 2014 could significantly shape the 2016 presidential election. Given the ability to push legislation, moderate confirmations, and generally put an already-unpopular president on the defensive, the GOP could literally take a page out of the Reid-Pelosi playbook on shaping elections and policy.
Public sentiment towards President Obama that tracks the feelings towards Bush in 2006 is enough to put Democrats in a tough spot, but a president unwilling to take a back seat may be enough to cost them a significant election.
From American Legislator:
Because of these numerous problems with the Marketplace Fairness Act it is no surprise that most Americans do not like the idea. A multi-state poll conducted by the National Taxpayers Union and the R Street Institute found that voters oppose allowing tax enforcement agents from one state to collect taxes from online retailers based in a different state by a margin as high as 26 points.
Louisianans received good news this month, in the form of an announcement from the U.S. Department of Treasury that BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill fines will begin flowing to the Gulf Coast states impacted by the environmental catastrophe.
The money will be distributed pursuant to the Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast States Act, better known as the Restore Act, which sets aside 80 percent of the civil and administrative fines paid in connection with the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
The primary purpose of the Restore Act is to channel these fines to mitigation of the impact of the oil spill and increased resilience across the Gulf Coast to future disasters. This is of special significance to Louisiana, which was not only hit hardest by the oil spill but also faces unique environmental challenges that must be addressed.
Fortunately, Louisiana has an opportunity to make good use of these resources by implementing the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority’s 2012 master plan. The plan was developed using extensive scientific analysis to identify high-performing projects that will protect Louisiana’s communities and ecosystem.
By dedicating Restore Act resources to projects included in the master plan, we can make the best use of the money and minimize fraud and waste. As it happens, Louisiana is the only Gulf state with such a plan in place, giving us the opportunity to lead the way for other states.
One concern with the Restore Act is that its language is broad enough to allow spending on dubious projects in the name of “economic development.” Fortunately, another piece of good news in the Treasury Department announcement was that funds from Pot 2 of the three pots of money would only be used for remediating ecological harm, which is consistent with the act’s intent. This reduces the likelihood of money going to economic boondoggles.
Notwithstanding this good news, there are continuing concerns that Louisiana policymakers will need to address. For one, the incremental nature of the funding makes it difficult to commit to large-scale projects that will be done in phases. The uncertainties of the litigation — how much will be available and when the funds will arrive — all make it difficult to map out a plan of attack.
While the master plan is a valuable document, Restore Act funds will not pay for all of the projects in the plan. Decisions will need to be made about which projects get funded. This could prove challenging, especially considering the possibility that politics will come into play.
Planners and policymakers also will need to ensure money is not wasted on economic projects of questionable value. Protecting our state for the long haul is critical, and so-called “economic development” projects are often less valuable than meets the eye. Any such endeavors should be closely connected to the goal of coastal restoration.
For all of these reasons, the decision-making, budgeting and spending processes should be as transparent as possible. These funds are to be used for the public’s benefit, and transparency is the best way to make sure money is not squandered.
Finally, Louisiana policymakers must make every effort to ensure our state receives its fair share of Restore Act funds.
Louisiana was hardest hit by the Deepwater Horizon spill, but some of the formulas used to distribute funds among the Gulf Coast states could result in other states receiving disproportionately large shares of the money. While each Gulf state suffered damages, policymakers should work to ensure that Louisiana’s recovery is proportionate to its degree of injury.
If our congressional delegation continues to advocate forcefully on our behalf and state and local policymakers act responsibly to make the best use of these resources, we may find our silver lining in this cloud of oil in the form of a more resilient Louisiana.
The Orlando City Council’s proposal to force Uber, Lyft and other ride-sharing companies to charge more than their competitors as a condition to conduct business in Orlando is unfair and inherently un-American.
Last year, more than $71.8 billion was infused into Florida’s economy by its 91.5 million visitors, and more than 1 million Floridians held jobs in the tourism industry. This year, it is estimated Florida will attract a record 100 million visitors. As the tourist capital of the world, Orlando should be fostering competition among the industries that facilitate tourism, not undermining them.
Rental-car companies in Orlando, whose rates are unregulated, charge the lowest prices in the country because of demand and competition, and given that most large resorts in the area already provide free transportation to, from and within their resorts, the demand for taxicabs is already smaller than most other tourist-destination cities.
Indeed, local governments can and should ensure the public’s safety by requiring a reasonable permit process involving background checks, vehicle inspections and adequate insurance coverage. But politicians arbitrarily forcing certain companies to charge more than their competitors for simply having a different business model is a protectionist measure that crushes innovation and benefits one business over the other.
As such, local officials should avoid meddling in what a private business charges a willing customer and instead should remain focused on their proper role: ensuring public safety, which might include encouraging additional means of transportation-on-demand to help reduce drunken driving.
The Hon. Carl M. Levin
Senate Committee on Armed Services
Russell Senate Office Building, Room 228
Washington, D.C. 20510
The Hon. James M. Inhofe
Senate Committee on Armed Services
Russell Senate Office Building, Room 228
Washington, D.C. 20510
The Hon. Howard “Buck” McKeon
House Committee on Armed Services
2120 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Hon. Adam Smith
House Committee on Armed Services
2120 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Chairmen and Ranking Members,
As you prepare for final, bicameral consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2015, the undersigned groups appreciate your consideration of the following recommendations. Doing so will help the Department of Defense save valuable resources in an era of budgetary constraint.
Overseas Contingency Operations
As you know, the Pentagon delayed its Fiscal Year 2015 Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) budget request by several months. As a result, both the House and Senate versions of the NDAA included OCO “placeholders” that do not reflect the Pentagon’s eventual budget request for Fiscal Year 2015. In recent years, the Department of Defense has used the OCO account to avoid the budget caps mandated by the Budget Control Act (P.L. 112–25) and subsequent deficit reduction legislation by transferring base budget programs and funding to OCO accounts. For example, the OCO budget request for Fiscal Year 2015 is roughly $35 billion above the amount required to sustain operations in Afghanistan.
For the remainder of Fiscal Year 2015, the OCO account should be authorized no more than the President’s robust budget request. Congress should stop overfunding the OCO account, which abets fiscally irresponsible expenditures.
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
We urge you to reject any increases above the House and Senate NDAA authorized levels for procurement of 34 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters. This program is drastically over budget, years behind schedule, and suffers from high levels of concurrency. The undersigned groups have deep concerns with this program and strongly urge that no more than the President’s budget request should be authorized in Fiscal Year 2015.
Littoral Combat Ship
We recommend that you follow the House NDAA’s (lower) recommendation to authorize two Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) in Fiscal Year 2015. The Senate Armed Services Committee authorized an additional third LCS. The future of this program is very much in doubt as the Pentagon analyzes a series of alternatives. It makes little sense to authorize additional vessels until a new course has been set.
M1 Abrams Upgrades
The Pentagon requested $237 million in procurement for M1 Abrams modifications. The Senate NDAA recommends an increase of $24 million in unrequested funding while the House NDAA would authorize an additional $120 million in unrequested funding. We urge you to authorize the M1 Abrams at no higher than the Senate level.
We support the following policy provisions included in the House version
SEC. 125. Limitation on Availability of Funds for Mission Modules for Littoral Combat Ship: This amendment limits funds for mission modules until the Navy submits milestone goals for cost, schedule, and performance.
SEC. 332. Report on Enduring Requirements and Activities Currently Funded Through Amounts Authorized to be Appropriated for Overseas Contingency Operations: Requires a report listing the enduring mission requirements that are funded by overseas contingency appropriations and a three year plan to fund these requirements and activities without overseas contingency funding.
SEC. 508. Compliance with Efficiencies Directive: Requires DOD to fulfill former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ Efficiency Initiative relating to the number of general and flag officers by reducing approximately 33 positions through attrition by the end of 2015.
SEC. 602. No Fiscal Year 2015 Increase in Basic Pay for General and Flag Officers: Freezes pay for general and flag officers.
SEC. 1005. Report on Auditable Financial Statements: Requires the Pentagon to provide a progress update ranking all military departments and agencies in order of how close they are to achieving audit-readiness.
SEC. 1220B. Review Process for Use of United States Funds for Construction Projects in Afghanistan That Cannot Be Physically Accessed by United States Government Civilian Personnel: Requires a review of any reconstruction project over $500,000 in Afghanistan that cannot be physically inspected by the United States. SEC. 1523. Limitation on Use Of Funds For The Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund: Prohibits additional funding of the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund until previously unobligated funds have been spent.
SEC. 1523. Limitation on Use Of Funds For The Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund: Prohibits additional funding of the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund until previously unobligated funds have been spent.
SEC. 1524. Codification of Office of Management and Budget Criteria: Codifies criteria developed by OMB in 2010 to clarify when military spending should be designated as contingency operations and properly be part of the Overseas Contingency Operation budget.
SEC. 1640. Annual Congressional Budget Office Review of Cost Estimates for Nuclear Weapons: Requires CBO to provide nuclear weapons budget cost estimates annually.
SEC. 1642. Sense of Congress on Procurement and Deployment of Capability Enhancement II Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle: Encourages the Secretary of Defense to conduct successful operationally realistic tests before purchasing additional GMD interceptors.
We support the following policy provisions included in the Senate version
SEC. 1226. Prohibition On Use Of Funds For Certain Programs And Projects Of The Department Of Defense In Afghanistan That Cannot Be Safely Accessed By United States Government Personnel: Prohibits funds for infrastructure projects in Afghanistan if military or civilian personnel with authority to conduct oversight of such program or project cannot safely access such program or project.
SEC. 1521. Plan For Transition Of Funding Of United States Special Operations Command From Supplemental Funding For Overseas Contingency Operations To Recurring Funding For Future-Years Defense Programs: Requires a plan to transition funding for U.S. Special Operations Command from the OCO account to the Pentagon’s base budget.
As you prepare the final version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, we hope you will consider the aforementioned recommendations that will help enhance fiscal responsibility, improve defense acquisition, and strengthen accountability in the Pentagon’s budget.
Sincerely,Americans for Tax Reform Campaign for Liberty Center for Foreign and Defense Policy Center for International Policy Coalition to Reduce Spending Cost of Government Center Council for a Livable World Downsize DC Friends Committee on National Legislation London Center for Policy Research National Priorities Project National Security Network National Taxpayers Union NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby Peace Action Peace Action West Project On Government Oversight Republican Liberty Caucus R Street Institute Taxpayers for Common Sense Taxpayers Protection Alliance USAction Win Without War Women’s Action for New Directions
cc: Members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees
As any visitor to New York City discovers, the Big Apple isn’t the best place to get a hotel room. Rates top $300 per night, the highest in the country, and supply is quite limited.
At year-end 2013, New York, with a population 8.3 million had fewer hotel rooms than either Chicago, with a population of just 2.7 million, or than much smaller tourist hot-spots like Las Vegas, Orlando, and Washington. Booming and gentrifying Brooklyn, with roughly the same population as Chicago, has a grand total of two full-service, major-brand hotels.
The limited supply and high demand benefits incumbent hotel owners, who get to enjoy high prices. But the room shortage clearly harms the local economy as a whole, by limiting the number of tourists and business travelers who can visit. To their credit, city officials recently eased hotel permitting processes and more than 12,000 new rooms are now under constructions. But unsurprisingly, the city also has seen a boom in Internet-based room-sharing services.
Bureaucrats at the state level aren’t crazy about the idea of new consumer choice. Dusting off old laws intended to deal with brothels and slumlords, busybody state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is now wielding them against individuals who rent rooms out through websites like Airbnb and Roomarama. His office recently issued a report that estimates more than two-thirds of Airbnb accommodations are illegal. Even if there are antiquated laws that technically prohibit these types of rentals, many of them are simply nonsensical. For example, one state law targeted toward slumlords could be interpreted to ban nearly all bed and breakfast accommodations.
Indeed, by-the-night room rentals seem like one of the last areas where the government has much business interfering with people’s housing choices. Unlike home purchases or even apartment rentals, by-the-night accommodations are temporary: if any harm is done, it is easy to evict the malefactors. So long as there’s no obvious danger (say, cramming 20 people into a one-bedroom apartment) it’s better and easier to remedy any problems after the fact. Even when they have laws similar to those in New York—and such laws are legion—officials in other state governments have mostly left well enough alone, letting the room-sharing market develop on its own.
Schneiderman appears to have other ideas, vowing a continued crackdown. It’s probably worth noting that, as the Ralph Nader-founded New York Public Interest Research Group points out, Schneiderman’s contributions from the hotel industry have soared recently. More than a third of the contributions he’s ever received from hospitality businesses have come in the just last two months. Coincidence?