Out of the Storm News
Swedish researchers who two years ago reported no association of heart attacks with snus use (abstract here, my blog entry here) now conclude there is no association with stroke. The new study, appearing in the Journal of Internal Medicine, is once again the product of a collaboration of scientists from the Karolinska Institute; Sweden’s Umeå, Uppsala and Lund Universities; and the University of Milano-Bicocca in Italy.
Compared with never-users of tobacco, the hazard ratio (HR, similar to relative risk, adjusted for age and body mass index, BMI) for stroke among current snus users was 1.04 (95 percent confidence interval = 0.92 – 1.17). HRs were not elevated with higher levels of snus consumption (one can per day) or longer duration (more than 20 years).
Claims that snus causes heart attacks and strokes were first raised in 1994 by the Karolinska Institute’s Gunilla Bolinder. I challenged the institute’s specious claims in the medical literature in 1995 and later with Carl Phillips and Karyn Heavner, as well as on my blog.
It is well known that nicotine does not cause cancer, but its role in cardiovascular diseases has been difficult to determine. Studying users of Swedish snus, who consume large quantities of smoke-free nicotine over decades, the Swedish researchers concluded that nicotine was unlikely to be a contributor to heart attacks or strokes.
Smokeless tobacco and nicotine have been demonized for no valid scientific reasons. The Swedish findings are vitally important to all consumers of nicotine and tobacco products, including e-cigarettes.
March 31, 2014
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554
RE: GN Docket No. 14-25
Dear Ms. Dortch,
Our organizations share and support the Federal Communications Commission’s goal of improving the agency to operate in the most effective, efficient and transparent way possible, as outlined in the Feb. 14, 2014 staff working group-led “Report on FCC Process Reform.” Process reforms that achieve these important goals and make the commission more agile and business-like should be adopted and executed quickly. We commend the commission for its work in identifying and proposing a series of process reforms to better serve the American people.
Many of the commission’s recommendations will win broad – or near unanimous – support. However, the proposal to require organizations petitioning the commission to provide donor lists and contribution amounts when submitting public comments on agency policymaking matters is extremely concerning to our organizations, as it threatens to undermine and restrict First Amendment protections.
Public participation is the cornerstone of representative democracy. Those who seek to petition their government and engage decision makers should be free from unnecessary requirements that seek to divine their innermost motivations for having an opinion. This is why both the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act prohibit capricious barriers to freedom of expression.
The facts and opinions that participants present should be evaluated on their merit. Any divination of the motivations behind them should not be a factor in considering their worth. The very notion of judging the merit of citizens’ comments based on anything other than the argument at hand, is an ad hominem attack, which suggests that the government allows preexisting biases based on the sender of the message and not the message itself to influence its evaluation of public comments.
In addition, there is no indication in the record of a problem that exists in the current disclosure requirements. Nor is there an indication in the record of why more burdensome disclosure requirements are necessary. Creating more burdensome obstacles to submitting comments not only violates civil liberties by creating barriers to participation, it is also an invasion of privacy. Privacy should be protected not to disguise the origination of a message, but to shield commenters from unwarranted harassment.
Additional disclosure requirements will expose participants to harassment, ad hominem attacks and other intimidation tactics. This is not speculation, the use of these types of tactics is well documented. For instance, in the case of lawsuits known as “SLAPP” suits, Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation are filed not to achieve a litigation outcome, but to silence opposition. With these glaring examples of attempts to silence opposition voices, it is clear that violating the privacy of organizations will lead to additional unwarranted attacks on free speech, which is vital to the democratic process.
In sum, we believe the commission’s quest to seek the motivations of those who comment on its actions is misguided, and that the agency should focus its energy on consensus reforms and building credibility for its own internal processes, as the reform process originally set out to do.
American Conservative Union
American Legislative Exchange Council – Task Force on Communications and Technology
Americans for Job Security
Americans for Tax Reform
Center for Freedom and Prosperity
Center for Individual Freedom
Citizens Against Government Waste
Frontiers of Freedom
Hispanic Leadership Fund
Illinois Policy Action
Institute for Liberty
Institute for Policy Innovation
The Maine Heritage Policy Center
National Taxpayers Union
Public Interest Institute
Rio Grande Foundation
Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council
Taxpayers Protection Alliance
Reihan Salam has a piece at Slate in which he advocates creating a tax system in which people with children pay lower rates than people without children. This would be in addition to keeping the existing child-related tax credits and personal exemptions, as well as adding a brand new $2500 child tax credit. He fashions his dual-track taxing system as a way of making Republican Mike Lee’s plan to increase tax benefits to parents deficit neutral.
Are the tax breaks actually increasing home ownership? According to a study from the R Street Institute, no. Rather, the provisions are helping those who can afford homes purchase bigger ones.
Tax credits and children: Parents should pay lower taxes, and childless people should pay higher taxes
When my mother was my age, she was working full time while raising three small children, and she spent every spare moment studying to finish a graduate degree. My father was working extremely hard as well. Between the two of them, they were able to provide their kids with a solidly middle-class life. But it wasn’t easy, and it wasn’t always fun.
So now, as a childless professional in my mid-30s, I often reflect on the sacrifices working parents make to better the lives of their children. And I have come to the reluctant conclusion that I ought to pay much higher taxes so that working parents can pay much lower taxes. I believe this even though I also believe a not inconsiderable share of my tax dollars are essentially being set on fire by our frighteningly incompetent government. Leviathan is here to stay, whether I like it or not, and someone has to pay for it. That someone should be me, and people like me.
Who should pay more? Nonparents who earn more than the median household income, just a shade above $51,000. By shifting the tax burden from parents to nonparents, we will help give America’s children a better start in life, and we will help correct a simple injustice. We all benefit from the work of parents. Each new generation reinvigorates our society with its youthful vim and vigor. As my childless friends and I grow crankier and more decrepit, a steady stream of barely postpubescent brainiacs writes catchy tunes and invents breakthrough technologies that keep us entertained and make us more productive. The willingness of parents to bear and nurture children saves us from becoming an economically moribund nation of hateful curmudgeons. The least we can do is offer them a bigger tax break.
Raising children is not exactly a thankless undertaking, I realize. As many parents will tell you, the satisfactions of parenting can be their own reward. Parents appear to be very into the supposed cuteness of their progeny. I wouldn’t know, but that’s the word on the street. We as a culture still hold parents, and particularly working parents, in high esteem.
Yet it is also true that we’ve stacked the deck against parents in all kinds of ways. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has found that raising a child born in 2012 will cost a middle-income family a cumulative total of $301,970 over 18 years. As high as this number sounds, it is actually a massive understatement, as it fails to take into account the cost of postsecondary education. It also fails to factor in the value of forgone earnings and career opportunities. While nonparents can focus on their jobs in laserlike fashion, parents are rarely in a position to do the same. Every time a sick child keeps a parent home from work, her earnings suffer, either directly, because she’s taking an unpaid leave of absence, or indirectly, because she’s missing out on opportunities to climb the corporate ladder.
Even when we compare a nonparent and a parent who are working exactly the same hours and earning exactly the same income, the nonparent has a clear leg up. Most obviously, the nonparent has far more disposable income to play with, which she can save, to become much richer than her parent counterpart over time, or spend, to travel to exotic locales, to eat out constantly, to wear awesome clothes or to live as I do in a conveniently located shoebox in a great American metropolis. Raising taxes on nonparents could even the score a bit, tilting the balance ever so slightly in favor of those who toil on behalf of America’s future workforce by wiping their butts and painstakingly removing their head lice.
There are, to be sure, some decent arguments against my soak-the-childless plan. It could be that lowering disposable income for nonparents would actually lead them to delay marriage and child-rearing, as people might want to build up a sizable nest egg before they start being fruitful and multiplying. Or we might take the view that even if we ought to give middle-income parents bigger tax breaks, it is the ultrarich rather than nonparents who should pay for it.
Giving working parents a meaningful tax break is going to cost quite a lot of money—so much money that raising taxes on the ultrarich alone won’t be enough. Recently Utah Sen. Mike Lee, a tea party Republican first elected in 2010, released a tax plan, the Family Fairness and Opportunity Tax Reform Act, that preserves the current $1,000 child credit, the personal exemption for children and the Earned Income Tax Credit while adding a new $2,500 child credit. Unlike the current child credit, Lee’s new credit never phases out, so it can be of use to higher-income families. Under Lee’s plan, a middle-income family with two kids earning $70,000 could expect a $5,000 tax cut, which sounds about right.
The problem with Lee’s plan is that it would massively increase the deficit. The Tax Policy Center finds that it would reduce revenues over the next decade by $2.4 trillion relative to the current law baseline. Lee doesn’t propose this, but the most straightforward way to offset the lost tax revenue from parents would be to raise taxes on nonparents.
Right now, Lee’s plan has two income tax rates: 15 percent for all income below $87,850 for singles or $175,000 for joint filers, and 35 percent for all income above those thresholds. You could come pretty close to closing the revenue gap by changing those thresholds to, say, $50,000 for singles and $100,000 for joint filers. Parents wouldn’t have to worry too much about these new thresholds, because the new child credit would still lower their taxes. Nonparents would take the hit. Right now, the 35 percent tax bracket only kicks in at $405,101 for singles and joint filers, so this tweak would infuriate large numbers of articulate and engaged upper-middle-income childless voters who earn more than $50,000.
These millions of nonparents are not good political enemies to have. But does this mean those of us who favor a more parent-friendly tax code should give up? Not quite. Tax reform along these lines could awaken a sleeping giant in American politics, namely the 36 percent of American voters who have a child under 18 in their household. Unlike the retirees and near-retirees who fight tooth and nail to protect Medicare and Social Security, we don’t have a well-funded political pressure group that defends the child credit. It can’t help that parents are too busy raising children to plot and scheme their way to more favorable tax treatment. But if parents were to flex their political muscles, we might have a revolution on our hands. And this nonparent, at least, welcomes the prospect.
The White House Attorney General Eric Holder
United States Department of Justice Majority Leader Harry Reid
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell
United States Senate Speaker John Boehner
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi
United States House of Representatives Chairman Patrick Leahy
Ranking Member Charles Grassley
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate Chairman Bob Goodlatte
Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr.
Committee on the Judiciary
United States House of Representatives Chairman Diane Feinstein
Vice Chairman Saxby Chambliss
Senate Permanent Select Committee on
United States Senate Chairman Mike Rogers
Ranking Member Dutch Ruppersberger
House Permanent Select Committee on
United States House of Representatives
April 1, 2014
We the undersigned are writing to express support for ending the government’s bulk collection of data about individuals. We strongly urge swift markup and passage of the USA FREEDOM Act (H.R.3361), which would enact appropriate surveillance reforms without sacrificing national security. This letter focuses on bulk collection, but overbroad NSA surveillance raises many more privacy and security issues that Congress and the Administration should address.
We appreciate that Congress and the administration are converging on consensus that the National Security Agency’s (NSA) bulk collection of telephone records must end. Among other things, legislation on bulk collection should:
- Prohibit bulk collection for all types of data, not just phone records. Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act applies broadly to business records, and the Department of Justice has claimed authority for bulk collection of any records that reveal relationships between individuals. Legislation that focuses only on phone records may still allow for the bulk collection of, for example, Internet metadata, location information, financial records, library records, and numerous other records that may help “identify unknown relationships among individuals.”
- Prohibit bulk collection under Section 214 as well as Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, or under any other authority. While the NSA’s bulk collection of telephone records under the purported authority of Section 215 has received considerable attention, the NSA engaged in the bulk collection of Internet metadata using the Pen/Trap authority under Section 214 until 2011. Legislation that focuses solely on Section 215 would still fail to prohibit the bulk collection of phone and Internet metadata using Section 214, the National Security Letter (NSL) statutes, or another authority.
- Require prior court approval for each record request. Under current law, the government must obtain approval from the FISA court before it can force private entities to turn over records (in bulk or otherwise) under Sections 215 and 214 of the PATRIOT Act. In addition, President Obama, in his January 17th policy announcement, established that a judicial finding is required before the government can query the phone records that the NSA collected in bulk. Congress should leave this key safeguard in place. If there is concern that the FISA Court would move too slowly to authorize domestic surveillance beforehand, then the solution should be to provide the FISA Court with sufficient resources.
The USA FREEDOM Act addresses each of these reforms, as well as others, by aiming to prohibit bulk collection of all data under Section 215 and 214 and the NSL statutes while preserving the requirement of prior court approval. Beyond bulk collection issues, the USA FREEDOM Act also includes strong transparency provisions for both government and private entities, and the bill closes a loophole that allows the government to search for the content of Americans’ communications without a court order. In contrast, the FISA Transparency and Modernization Act (H.R.4291) removes the requirement of prior court approval, and instead creates a new authority that gives intelligence agencies virtual subpoena power over Internet and telephone records. Additional questions have arisen regarding the scope of the FISA Transparency and Modernization Act: specifically whether the bill would actually prohibit bulk collection of all data, including financial information, and the extent to which the bill would enable surveillance of individuals who are broadly “associated” with a foreign power even if the individual is not in contact with or known to the foreign power. Accordingly, we oppose the FISA Transparency and Modernization Act in its current form, and we urge swift markup and passage of the USA FREEDOM Act.
Overbroad national security surveillance raises a host of constitutional, human rights, and practical concerns, and we urge Congress and the administration to address systemic reform. The trust of the American people and the global public cannot be regained with legislation that achieves only modest changes to discrete programs. We look forward to working with Congress and the administration to advance legislation and policies that preserve the integrity of the Internet and the free exercise of individual liberty and human rights.
Advocacy for Principled Action in Government
American Association of Law Libraries
American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression
American Civil Liberties Union
American Library Association
Amnesty International USA
Arab American Institute
Association of Research Libraries
Bill of Rights Defense Committee
Brennan Center for Justice
Center for Democracy & Technology
Center for Financial Privacy and Human Rights
Citizens for Health
Competitive Enterprise Institute
The Constitution Project
Cyber Privacy Project
Defending Dissent Foundation
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Freedom of the Press Foundation
Free Press Action Fund
Human Rights Watch
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
National Coalition Against Censorship
National Security Counselors
Open Technology Institute, New America Foundation
PEN American Center
R Street Institute
Republican Liberty Caucus
World Privacy Forum
 Administration White Paper: Bulk Collection of Telephony Metadata Under Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act, Aug. 9, 2013, pg. 14, available at http://cryptome.org/2013/08/doj-13-0809.pdf.
 Id. at pg. 14. Although the White Paper distinguishes medical and library records from communications metadata, there is no guarantee that such information could not at some point be determined to meet the DOJ’s “relevance” standard.
 See Report on the National Security Agency’s Bulk Collection Programs for USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization, Dept. of Justice, Feb. 2, 2011, pg. 3, http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/2011_CoverLetters_Report_Collection.pdf. The program was shut down because it was ineffective, not because the government ceded legal authority for the bulk collection of Internet metadata. See Glenn Greenwald, Spencer Ackerman, NSA collected Americans’ email records in bulk for two years under Obama, The Guardian, Jun. 27, 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/27/nsa-datamining-authorised-obama.
 Remarks of the President on Review of Signals Intelligence, The White House, Jan. 17, 2014, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/01/17/remarks-president-review-signals-intelligence.
WASHINGTON (April 1, 2014) – The R Street Institute today called on Congress to make a major public commitment to fund research into alternative technologies to aid citizens who are encouraged by the government to live in coastal areas that soon may be underwater.
According to consensus projections, global sea levels are expected to rise by six to 16 inches by 2050 and potentially by as much as 6.6 feet by the end of the century. The Union of Concerned Scientists notes that rates of sea level rise are particularly fast along the U.S. East Coast and Gulf of Mexico, which currently have a combined $10.6 trillion of insured commercial and residential property in coastal counties. Even if sea levels rise less than expected, furthermore, storms are certain to bring continued flooding to many coastal areas.
“It would be more cost-effective if we could address climate change by exploring ideas like a revenue-neutral carbon tax, or at least stop encouraging stupid development in at-risk flood zones,” newly appointed R Street Senior Fellow Arthur Curry said. “But since both houses of Congress and members of both parties have now spoken loud and clear that they won’t stop subsidizing flood insurance for beach houses, beach nourishment and other stuff that’s hugely wasteful, the next best strategy is adaptation. ”
Under R Street’s proposed Abandoning The Lungs for Advanced Nautical Technology in Inundated Societies (ATLANTIS) Act, the federal government would commit at least $10 trillion over the next decade to development of “artificial human gills,” a technology that allows people to breathe the oxygen dissolved in sea water and which is totally a real thing that R Street did not just make up. In fact, an Israeli company called Like-A-Fish Technologies has held a European patent on the technology since 2007, indicating a potentially serious national security gap as the United States falls further behind in strategic merman defense.
“Yes, we’re fiscal conservatives,” R Street President Eli Lehrer said. “But what’s another $10 trillion for something that would be so darn cool?”
“Jimi Hendrix totally foresaw this day would come, man,” R Street Senior Fellow R.J. Lehmann said. “If you play the third verse of his song ’1983…A Merman I Should Turn to Be’ backwards, you can totally hear him say ‘Harry Reid is a hypocrite.’ Well, it’s either that or ‘Harry Reasoner’s a parakeet.’ Yeah, 1983 is about 30 years too early, but that’s Jimi, man. Always ahead of his time.”
The ATLANTIS Act also would commit an additional $5 trillion to submarine retrofitting, to better enable inundated structures to withstand the pressure of being submerged below the surface of the ocean. To better control the exorbitant costs of underwater demolition and construction, Curry proposes the measure include incentives for the use of fish, crustaceans and cephalopods as a work force.
“An octopus, obviously, can be a fantastic multi-tasker, but other sea creatures each have their own specialties: sawfish are great carpenters, eels do bang-up electrical work, pilot fish are the best to get into dark crevices,” Curry said. “Hammerhead sharks make surprisingly good foremen, but they do have an unfortunate tendency to eat their crew.”
Curry said greater clarity still would be needed on what sorts of work visas are required for aquatic fauna spawned outside of U.S. territorial waters, and urged that the matter be addressed in the coming immigration reform debate.
R Street Executive Director Andrew Moylan proposed that, in the interim years before the East and Gulf Coasts are completely inundated, Congress also might want to consider funding research into artificial human wings.
“It certainly would save us the cost of all those helicopters that will be needed to pluck people off rooftops each time a big hurricane hits,” Moylan said.
Gov. John Kasich’s plan to increase taxes on all tobacco products is bad tax policy, built on an unscientific, unsuccessful anti-smoker strategy: wuit or die.
Only one component of the governor’s plan makes sense — increasing the cigarette excise tax. Economic studies show that a 10 percent increase in cigarette price leads to a 1 to 7 percent reduction in smoking rates and a 1 to 3 percent reduction in cigarette consumption. However, while some smokers will quit or cut back, many others will persist.
We recommend an option that is fiscally responsible and that could save lives: Raise cigarette excise taxes, but keep those on smoke-free tobacco products (smokeless tobacco and e-cigarettes) proportionately low and commensurate with their vastly lower health risks.
Research shows that higher cigarette taxes cause smokers to adopt less expensive tobacco products. Smoke-free tobacco products are effective cigarette substitutes because they deliver satisfying doses of nicotine. Nicotine, one of the most intensively studied drugs in history, is addictive but does not cause any smoking-related disease. Its safety profile is comparable to that of another addictive substance, caffeine.
Decades of studies reveal that smokeless tobacco use is at least 98 percent less hazardous than smoking. Unlike cigarettes, smokeless tobacco does not cause lung cancer, heart disease or emphysema. In fact, lifelong smokeless users have about the same risk of dying from that habit as automobile users have of dying in a car wreck. Although e-cigarettes have been on the market only for several years, tobacco research and policy experts agree that these products confer about the same health risk as smokeless tobacco.
The Royal College, one of the world’s oldest and most prestigious medical societies, concluded “that smokers smoke predominantly for nicotine, that nicotine itself is not especially hazardous, and that if nicotine could be provided in a form that is acceptable and effective as a cigarette substitute, millions of lives could be saved.”
Cigarettes confer high health risks and should be taxed at high rates, while smoke-free tobacco products have minimal health risks and deserve far lower taxes.
In 2005, Kentucky became the first state to use risk as a benchmark for different tobacco excise taxes. This rational tax policy would allow Buckeye State lawmakers to demonstrate fiscal responsibility while fulfilling their moral obligation to help inveterate smokers lead longer and healthier lives.
The Senate Commerce Committee is expected to vote on a bill soon aimed at addressing patent demand letters from entities frequently referred to as “patent trolls.”
Clearly, the momentum in Washington toward remedying concerns related to these trolls, also called patent assertion entities, or PAEs, and their impact on innovation and the economy hasn’t lost any steam in the new year.
This is important because patent enforcement provides the necessary legal protection to the entrepreneurs whose creativity energizes the unique engine of U.S. innovation.
At least that’s the way it should work.
The past two decades has seen the rise of a trend toward trolling by exploiting shortcomings in patent law. PAEs buy up patents for unrealized products and technology and use them to extract license fees from small businesses, retailers and manufacturers whom the PAEs threaten with demand letters in hopes of cashing in with a quick settlement.
Despite federal action in the House and now potentially the Senate, the patent trolling problem afflicts certain areas more than others.
In 2010 alone, the Central District of California saw 2,289 filings for patent infringement. In Nevada, however, there were only 198 such filings.
This is largely attributed to a provision in the law allowing a plaintiff in a patent suit to file anywhere in the country where the product or service utilizing the disputed patent is sold. It’s no surprise that plaintiffs choose court districts where patent holders, who can often be considered trolls, tend to get favorable rulings.
Silicon Valley boasts a reputation as the hub of the American high-tech sector, one that earns us accolades for our innovative companies and people across the globe.
However, this region sits in the center of a state whose courts have become disproportionately popular with entities that threaten its future as a center for technology growth.
With unfathomable discrepancies in case totals like those between California and Nevada, there is no wonder the White House recently issued guidance to curb the surge in frivolous suits by plaintiffs.
The patent trolling problem is not just a U.S. problem, and in some instances seems even more egregious internationally.
For example, Sisvel, an Italy-based PAE, serves as a perfect example of what could happen when trolls’ actions go unchecked. This troll has been in practice since 1982, when it was formed with the goal of acquiring and asserting patents related to television technologies.
Sisvel has had a busy 31 years swelling to become a mammoth of patent assertion, controlling the access to 12 different technology standards pools operating out of multiple offices in seven countries.
Sisvel made news when it requested that law enforcement raid the German CeBIT Trade Show, claiming that 51 of the show’s booths were infringing upon their patents. Though profiteers like Sisvel claiming infringement was nothing new, raids by armed guards drew international attention to just show how far these bad actors were willing to go.
Interestingly, late last month, Sisvel announced a new CEO named Karel van Lelyveld, who was one of the original founders of MPEG LA, a U.S.-based, patent-pooling entity that also has been accused of troll-like behaviors.
Patent trolls use their often-significant legal and financial resources to bully smaller entities without the financial resources to sustain a prolonged defense.
Often the least costly course of action is to settle out of court. This is the desired outcome for the troll, which gets paid and avoids a trial and the risk that its patent claims might be invalidated.
This is a trend that must stop.
California must shake its reputation as an advantageous battleground for trolls to launch their lawsuits and threats against innovators.
The federal government taking notice and actively working toward remedies like the Innovation Act in the House is a positive step. Hopefully, the Senate will continue to make this issue a priority with its actions in the coming months.
Silicon Valley is known for having the brightest minds with the best ideas. Let’s hope lawmakers in Washington will continue to work to protect those ideas by putting the brakes on patent trolling and encourage innovation, rather than discouraging it under the looming threat of frivolous patent suits and threats.
From the Washington Post:
Two other conservative thinkers, Reihan Salam and Rich Lowry, say the antidote is for Republicans to become “the party of work.” As they see it, work “stands for a constellation of values and, like education, is universally honored.” The GOP, they said, “should extol work and demand it.”
George David Banks is managing director of Vanguard Political, a consultancy specializing in energy and environment issues on the state and federal level, and a senior fellow with the R Street Institute. He also serves as senior fellow for nuclear energy policy at the Center for Strategic & International Studies.
He formerly was Republican deputy staff director of the U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee and a partner at Boyden Gray & Associates, a law firm and strategic consultancy in Washington.
During the Bush Administration, Dave was the senior adviser on international affairs and climate change at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, where he was one of the chief architects of the Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change. In September 2008, he was nominated by President George W. Bush to be assistant administrator of international activities at the EPA. His CEQ work on promoting the reduction of non-CO2 greenhouse gases, including methane and HCFCs, was later recognized by the Obama Administration, earning him an EPA Climate Protection Award for Diplomacy.
From 2004 to 2006, he served as the State Department’s point person on climate change and energy diplomacy at the U.S. Mission to the EU in Brussels, Belgium, where he received a Superior Honor Award for promoting U.S. diplomatic objectives. He was also a decorated CIA economic analyst and served as legislative fellow to Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif.
A native southeast Missourian, Dave received his bachelor’s and a master’s in economics from University of Missouri at St. Louis, and also has a law degree from George Mason University.
From Green Blizzard:
Studies by economist at Marquette University have shown that because of this residential real estate t:ax incentive, people are buying a BIGGER residences – probably more than they need.
Lane reports that Hanson and his colleagues calculated that tax-code subsidies increase the average home size 11 percent to 18 percent above what it would have been without them, depending on location. In the Washington, D.C. metro area, the average home size would have been 1,424 square feet smaller without these subsidies, the Hanson study estimates.
This study shows that tax breaks increase home size roughly between 10-20%.
From the Washington Examiner:
But even if one were to accept that boosting home ownership is a worthy goal for government, the interest deduction and accompanying tax benefits for homeowners should be seen as a miserable failure. That’s the conclusion of economists Andrew Hanson, Ike Brannon, and Zackary Hawley in a study prepared for the R Street Institute, a right-of-center think tank, and published in National Affairs.
The authors took a detailed look at the distribution of existing tax benefits for home ownership and found that the benefits do more to help wealthier Americans purchase larger homes than they do to encourage lower-income Americans who otherwise would be renting to purchase homes in the first place.
The study found that in Atlanta, Denver, Detroit, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Seattle and Washington, D.C., 80 percent of taxpayers earning more than $100,000 claimed the deduction, compared with just 25 percent of those earning less.
From the Washington Post:
As an assessment of the health of American marriages, these findings cut two ways. On one hand, a divorce is a far more disruptive and messy life event than simply moving out of your partner’s apartment. In that sense you have to applaud the wisdom of today’s twenty- and thirty-somethings for taking their time before tying the knot. But as Reihan Salam notes at the National Review, cohabitating relationships sometimes produce children. And whether they happen via cohabitation or divorce, split-ups are bad for kids.
By my lights, Reihan Salam is the conservative at National Review most worthy of liberals’ attention. He combines an almost super-human capacity for consuming oddball studies and theoretical arguments with a knack for coming at liberals sideways, hitting us in ways we wouldn’t expect. His latest target is Noam Scheiber’s big piece in The New Republic, which charges Silicon Valley with an implicit and particularly relentless bias against anyone past their early 30s. I found Scheiber’s account compelling, and the older tech industry hands he chronicled deeply sympathetic, so I was interested to see where Salam would go with this. His post pokes a few modest-but-reasonable holes in Scheiber’s evidence, but the core of Salam’s argument is here…
…This is interesting because it takes a classic left-wing critique — that for historically privileged groups, the sudden arrival of a level playing field can feel like oppression — and uses it to make an ostensibly right-wing point. It depends on whether you actually buy the idea that older Americans can still be considered a privileged group in this segment of the market world. And, admittedly, solid and extensive data on wither side of the argument is hard to come by. By Salam’s argument is a particularly coherent defense of the libertarian-inflected culture of creative destruction that Silicon Valley champions.
A recent study by the R Street Institute suggests this tax preference doesn’t benefit the broad society. The data indicate this policy doesn’t generally incent home ownership, which was the original intent. Instead, it has caused an 18 percent surge in home size in the most affluent areas.
Homeowners with household incomes greater than $100,000 were between three to four times more likely to claim income-tax deductions than those earning less than $100,000 annually.
The average tax break for those earning over $100,000 was more than twice those earning less than $100,000, according to a study by Andrew Hanson, Ike Brannon, and Zachary Hawley in an upcoming issue of National Affairs, a public-policy quarterly.
Kicking things off on a fearful note is James Barrat, author of new book Our Final Invention: Artificial Intelligence and the End of the Human Era, which Ron Bailey reviews here. Followed by George Mason University associate economics professor Robin Hanson, who is decidedly more upbeat. Brookings Institution scholar P.W. Singer, author of Cybersecurity and Cyberwar: What Everyone Needs to Know, will talk about robot sand-fleas; and Dr. Yulun Wang of InTouch Health will demonstrate his fancy diagnostic robot friend. Competitive Enterprise Institute Fellow Marc Scribner will talk about driverless cars, R Street Institute Senior Fellow Lori Sanders will talk about our jerbs, and the co-hosts will talk about their very favorite robots from audi-visual entertainment history.
March 28, 2014
On behalf of the millions of Americans represented by the undersigned organizations, we write to urge you to support the Grant Reform and New Transparency (GRANT) Act, H.R. 3316, sponsored by Rep. Lankford. This legislation would reduce favoritism in awarding federal grants and add much-needed safeguards for taxpayers.
Washington is spending more and more. The last three budgets approved by Congress have been the largest in history. One area of particular growth among this rapid increase in overall spending has been agency grants. The federal government spent $600 billion on grants in 2012, up from $135 billion in 1990.
Americans deserve to have their hard-earned tax dollars spent responsibly, not squandered on unviable and frivolous projects. Grant proposals should be fully documented and carefully scrutinized to ensure that the project is viable and appropriate. Agency grants should be awarded in an open, competitive system based on merit, not on their political connections.
The ban on congressional earmarks was a good first step in curbing spending on wasteful and expensive projects. But that ban has been succeeded by an executive branch-driven process that is equally, and in some cases even more, opaque. While we are pleased that the earmark ban has removed some of the political motives long associated with spending on individual projects, the way in which these project dollars are awarded continues to lack transparency, making it difficult for ordinary Americans to ascertain how these decisions are made.
The GRANT Act (H.R. 3316) will establish new standards that will improve accountability in the federal agency award process. It will improve documentation, such as requiring greater detail in grant applications, as well as final reports on project performance. Moreover, the measure will require executive branch agencies to establish clear standards for grants, and expand disclosure requirements regarding how final award decisions are made. This legislation will also increase transparency in grant reporting, which will make it easier for Americans to see where their hard-earned tax dollars are going.
Brent Gardner, Director of Federal Affairs
Americans for Prosperity
Dee Stewart, President
Americans for a Balanced Budget
Grover Norquist, President
Americans for Tax Reform
Mattie Duppler, Executive Director
Cost of Government Center
Tom Brinkman Jr., Chairman
Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes
Gov. Gary Johnson, Honorary Chairman
Our America Initiative
George Landrith, President
Frontiers of Freedom
Carrie Lukas, Vice President of Policy
Independent Women’s Voice
Seton Motley, President
Amy Ridenour, Chairman
National Center for Public Policy Research
Andrew Moylan, Outreach Director and Senior Fellow
R Street Institute
Steve Ellis, Vice President
Taxpayers for Common Sense
David Williams, President
Taxpayers Protection Alliance
Morton Blackwell, Chairman
The Weyrich Lunch
Penny Young Nance, CEO and President
Concerned Women for America
Lew Uhler, President
National Tax-Limitation Committee
Recently, residents of my home state of California got an uncharacteristically hilarious moment of political irony. In a storyline that may as well be from The Blacklist, state Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco — one of the most infamous paternalists in California — turned out to be allegedly leading a criminal double life as an illegal arms purveyor.
Yes, that’s right, Leland Yee, defender of California’s children from the scourge of simulated violence by day was also Leland Yee, purveyor of items expressly intended to be used for real violence by night.
Naturally, firearms groups immediately denounced Yee as a hypocrite, given this crusades against gun rights in the Legislature. I want to focus more on Yee’s nauseating crusade against violence in video games, which ultimately got him slapped down by no less an eminence than Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Indeed, Yee’s example beautifully illustrates some the flawed logic deployed by opponents of video game violence.
There is one very revealing quote from Yee on this subject that (obviously) predates his recent embarrassment:
“Gamers have got to just quiet down,” Yee, D-San Francisco, said in an interview Tuesday. “Gamers have no credibility in this argument. This is all about their lust for violence and the industry’s lust for money. This is a billion-dollar industry. This is about their self-interest.”
Now, I challenge anyone who reads this in the context of Yee’s current predicament not to burst into incredulous laughter. Aside from the metric tonnes of irony, one can see how someone who allegedly allows his lust for money to turn him into a conduit for others’ lust for violence would assume that gamers have the same mentality.
And Yee isn’t the only anti-video game crusader to have been outed as a dangerous fraud, though he’s certainly the most lurid one. There’s also the case of Florida-based anti-video game activist and former attorney Jack Thompson, who was disbarred (to quote the actual court decision) on grounds that:
(4) respondent publicized and sent hundreds of pages of vitriolic and disparaging missives, letters, faxes, and press releases, to the affected individuals;
(5) respondent targeted an individual who was not involved with respondent in any way, merely due to “the position [the individual] holds in state and national politics;”
(6) respondent falsely, recklessly, and publicly accused a judge as being amenable to the “fixing” of cases;
(7) respondent sent courts inappropriate and offensive sexual materials;
(8) respondent falsely and publicly accused various attorneys and their clients of engaging in a conspiracy/enterprise involving “the criminal distribution of sexual materials to minors” and attempted to get prosecuting authorities to charge these attorneys and their clients for racketeering and extortion; […]
(10) respondent retaliated against attorneys who filed Bar complaints against him for his unethical conduct by asserting to their clients, government officials, politicians, the media, female lawyers in their law firm, employees, personal friends, acquaintances, and their wives, that the attorneys were criminal Case Nos. SC07-80 and SC07-354 Page Three pornographers who objectify women.
Among the targets of Thompson’s stupidity, as a note of interest, was current American Conservative Union President Al Cardenas.
The fact that these two high profile opponents of video game violence were both such deeply flawed men might raise troubling questions. At least, they would, to someone like Jack Thompson or Leland Yee. There is about as much evidence that opponents of video game violence are themselves closeted psychopaths as there is that Doom for th Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold’s killing spree at Columbine High School.
The evil of men like Yee and Thompson would be an outlier in any community they might belong to, and needs to be treated as such, rather than masked with logically fallacious scapegoating. Applying the faulty logic that both Yee and Thompson employed in warning that every video gamer might potentially be a school shooter, one would inescapably conclude that every anti-video game violence crusader could potentially be a sordid criminal. If we reject that formulation in the one case, we must reject it in the other.
One only hopes the next time someone tries to spin the same discredited story as Thompson and Yee, they’ll remember that it cuts both ways.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.