Out of the Storm News
The United States might indeed be one nation, indivisible, but there are huge differences between its eastern and western halves when it comes to federal lands. In the West, nearly half the land is owned and controlled by the federal government, compared with only 4 percent in the East. That difference affects the ability of western states to determine their own destiny.
In March 2012, Utah Gov. Gary Herbert signed H.B. 148, legislation that insists the federal government divest its lands in the state, transferring most of them to state jurisdiction. Utah is not alone in the desire to bring federal acreage under local control. At least four other western states (Idaho, Montana, Nevada and Wyoming) have passed similar legislation and still more are considering similar bills.
Proponents of the measure argue that this sort of decentralization would place control in the hands of those with the most to gain or lose from effective land stewardship. They also point to enabling legislation passed by Congress when each of these states joined the union, noting that they typically have included clauses providing that the federal government would extinguish its title to any unappropriated lands.
Indeed, what were once public lands in eastern states largely have been transferred to the private sector, where they generate revenues for those states. Conversely, in the West, hundreds of millions of acres of federal land remain. The consequences include limited revenue for state coffers, declining recreation access, increased restrictions on commodity production and, in some cases, poor environmental stewardship.
These pieces of state legislation undoubtedly will face constitutional challenges, but regardless of their legal standing, if federal land management was to be reassigned, who would mind the estate? What rules would reign? What sort of arrangements would best steward America’s lands to ensure they are managed to bring recreational and environmental value, while also providing the revenues and resources needed for a productive society?
This paper provides a glimpse of some of the institutional and management problems that face America’s public lands and suggests reforms that policy-makers should consider to improve management of the federal estate.
March 20, 2014
Chairman Carl Levin and Ranking Member James Inhofe
Senate Armed Services Committee
United States Senate
228 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Chairman Levin and Ranking Member Inhofe:
We urge you to open up the process for considering the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) this year.
Last year, your committee drafted and voted on this bill—authorizing more than $625 billion in Pentagon spending—almost entirely in secret. We know that you are aware of the great frustration expressed by many of your Senate colleagues who did not have an opportunity to amend the bill on the floor last year. Given the size and scope of this important legislation, it is unacceptable for the vast majority of senators to have to vote on a bill compiled almost entirely behind closed doors, with very little chance for public input.
The NDAA is the single largest authorization bill that Congress passes, making the stakes for taxpayers very high. And yet, your Committee does not disclose the bill it will vote on in advance and then closes the markup of the bill to the public.
It’s time to bring the NDAA into the light of day.
All congressional proceedings should be conducted in accordance with our country’s highest principles of transparency and openness. Certainly, there are special exceptions when a committee can and should move to closed session to consider classified information, but this step should be taken only as needed and as infrequently as possible. Notably, the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) did not close last year’s markup of the NDAA for national security reasons, at all.
How can the same bill considered publicly in the House require secrecy in the Senate?
We ask you to make your committee’s consideration of this critical bill at least as transparent as the HASC does, by:
- Giving the public access to all subcommittee and the full committee markups of the NDAA, including live and archived webcasting on the SASC website.
- Posting online the: 1) text of the actual bill the subcommittees and full committee will amend during markup at least 24 hours prior; 2) amendments considered during markup no later than 24 hours after markup (though preferably when they are filed); and 3) the NDAA as amended and approved by the subcommittees and full committee within 48 hours of the markup.
We appreciate that last year SASC held hearings and votes on one portion of the NDAA in open session. The debate on the sexual assault epidemic in the military was an important, thoughtful deliberation of different reform proposals. It is a model for what your committee could and should do on other policies and spending provisions in the bill.
In addition, three SASC subcommittees held open markups of the NDAA last year (though the bills they voted upon were not made public in advance). As you know, an open markup will not prevent private deliberation on the bill between senators and staff—as well as with outside interests—it simply gives the public greater opportunity to participate.
Chairman Levin, since you plan to make this your last year in the Senate—we hope you will choose to leave a legacy of openness. We would be pleased to discuss this with you or your staff. Please contact Angela Canterbury, Director of Public Policy at the Project On Government Oversight, at 202-347-1122 or email@example.com.
American Library Association
American Values Network
Americans for Tax Reform
Audit The Pentagon Project
Bill of Rights Defense Committee
Brave New Films Action Fund
Campaign for a Nuclear Weapons Free World
Center for Effective Government
Center for Financial Privacy and Human Rights
Center for International Policy
Center for Media and Democracy
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)
Coalition on Human Needs
Coalition to Reduce Spending
Cost of Government Center
Council for a Livable World
Defending Dissent Foundation
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Government Accountability Project (GAP)
Human Rights First
Human Rights Watch
Just Foreign Policy
National Coalition Against Censorshi
National Commission on Intelligence and Foreign Wars
National Priorities Project
National Security Network
National Taxpayers Union
Open Society Policy Center
Peace Action West
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Project On Government Oversight (POGO)
R Street Institute
Society of Professional Journalists
Taxpayers for Common Sense
Taxpayers Protection Alliance
The Constitution Project
Washington Coalition for Open Government
Washington Office on Latin America
Win Without War
Women’s Action for New Directions (WAND)
Coming into 2014, we had modest expectations of the potential for significant property insurance reform in Florida. Given that it is an election year – and one featuring the return to prominence of our old friend Charlie Crist, that notorious wrecker of the state’s insurance market – we knew that proposals to address the core problem of rate controls were unlikely to get much political traction.
That’s why we worked with the James Madison Institute to publish a paper on ten reform proposals for Florida that WOULDN’T require rate increases. And we were heartened that one of them – perhaps the easiest and most obvious of them all – was embraced by Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund Chief Operating Officer Jack Nicholson — take advantage of the incredibly soft global reinsurance market to transfer some of the Cat Fund’s tail risk off the backs of taxpayers.
Alas, recent headlines suggest Nicholson has put his plan for the Cat Fund to buy $1.5 billion of private reinsurance on hold, and there may not be enough time to place the coverage before Florida’s renewal season closes (just as the North Atlantic hurricane season starts) on June 1.
What makes this news so incredibly disappointing is that there literally has never been a better time to take advantage of pricing for property catastrophe insurance. Just look at the recent $3.2 billion placement by Japanese insurer Zenkyoren, just one piece of what is now a record $10 billion catastrophe reinsurance for the massive mutual. Insurance Insider noted that the placement comes “as pricing slides double digits.”
As expected, the pricing on the lower layers was far softer than the excess layers as Zenk and broker Aon Benfield pushed reinsurers up from the higher rate on line (RoL) lower layers.
The pure RoL on the 220bn yen xs 270bn yen combined quake and wind layer was 18 percent weaker at 9.8 percent on line. The new merged layer above this – which triggers in excess of a 100bn yen private layer – is paying almost 12 percent less premium at 6 percent on line.
The bottom line is, in today’s market, capacity supply is far outpacing demand. The world’s largest reinsurers mostly closed out 2013 with underwhelming earnings reports, due almost entirely to poor pricing opportunities. To keep investors interested, companies have resorted to returning capital to shareholders, because there simply aren’t enough opportunities to deploy that capital in the marketplace. Swiss Re is bumping up its proposed earnings dividend, while Munich Re – which is projecting a 9.1 percent drop in 2014 earnings – plans to buy back 1 billion euros worth of shares before its 2015 meeting.
That’s all capital the Cat Fund could be taking advantage of to lever up its claims-paying capacity and reduce the odds of needing to borrow money later, financed through special post-storm hurricane taxes. Alas, it looks like, once again, the State of Florida is going to opt instead to cross its fingers and roll the dice that 2014 won’t be the year that brings the long-awaited budget-crushing storm on shore.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
From Value Walk:
“Stripping away the façade of private banks and mortgage brokers who originate the loans, the U.S. mortgage market works almost entirely because the government transfers risk to the taxpayer in order to let banks market a product that no sane financier would ever sell in the free market,” wrote Ike Brannon and Eli Lehrer for The Weekly Standard a few years ago.
Though the Congressional Budget Office has already warned that the proposed $10.10 federal minimum wage could cost the economy at least 500,000 jobs over the next two years, President Barack Obama and Democrats are still trying to push the increase through Congress, mostly because they believe it plays to their favor in an election year.
The issue may be an easy way to score political points, but the Wall Street Journal makes note of a new survey which found that most businesses would adjust to an increase in the minimum wage by reducing hiring and increasing prices for goods and services, and some would even lay off workers:
Just over half of U.S. businesses that pay the minimum wage would hire fewer workers if the federal standard is raised to $10.10 per hour, according to a survey by a large staffing firm to be released Wednesday. But the same poll found a majority of those companies would not cut their current workforce.
About two-thirds of employers paying the minimum wage said they would raise prices for goods or services in response to an increase, the survey by Express Employment Professionals found. About 54% of minimum-wage employers would reduce hiring if the federally mandated rate increased by $2.85 per hour. A smaller share—38% — said they would lay off employees if the wage increase favored by President Barack Obama becomes law…
“The response shows that some businesses will certainly lose employees and many will not be hiring as much, if the minimum wage goes up,” Express chief executive Bob Funk said in an interview. “In a time of weak job growth like we’ve had recently, this is not the right time for a wage hike.”
It should come as no surprise that demand falls when the when the cost of labor is artificially increased. That’s why more than 500 economists have argued that the minimum wage is “a poorly targeted anti-poverty measure” and urged lawmakers to address poverty through other policies.
Hey, but it’s an election issue. It’s another hopey changey free thing that President Obama and Democrats want to give away, and they would if not for those obstructionist Republicans. Ignore the fact that the economy is still sputtering along and pay no attention to businesses who are saying that a minimum wage hike would reduce hiring, increase prices and kill some jobs. Just pay attention to the unicorns.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
The R Street Institute, a free-market think tank based in Washington, is looking for a dynamic, energetic person to serve as the first employee and director of a California office that will open during the spring or early summer of 2014 in Sacramento, Calif. Founded in 2012, R Street (www.rstreet.org) operates under the motto “Free markets. Real solutions.” We’ve been called “pragmatic libertarians” and accept that label. Our work covers a wide range of federal and state issues. Some of the issues we’ll be looking at in California include the natural environment, technology and the state’s system of insurance regulation.
All candidates must have at least two years experience working in or directly with the California Legislature and be able to cite at least two currently sitting members of the Legislature as references. (Reference checks will not be done until very late in the process and, in some cases, can be done after an offer-in-principle is made.) Excellent writing ability, including a record of published work, is also desirable.
Your personality and work ethic are at least as important as your specific background. We’re all high-energy types who want to get things done quickly. If you haven’t at least sometimes felt that you were far more productive than everyone in your current workplace, you probably won’t fit in with the rest of us.
Because we work on a wide variety of issues, deep expertise in our issue set is not expected but experience with insurance regulation, particularly Proposition 103 and the California Earthquake Authority, is a plus. That said, experience in the California policymaking process is crucial.
Pay is commensurate with experience. Compensation for this position will be well above what legislative assistants in the Assembly currently make, but won’t match the salaries of most chiefs-of-staff. This is a full-time, W-2 job with health insurance fully paid by the employer and a suite of excellent benefits, including an employer-funded HRA, a 401(k), gym membership reimbursement, bike share membership (as soon as it opens in Sacramento) and a very generous vacation policy.
R Street is a non-partisan organization, but is often identified with the political right. You can get an idea of what we believe by reading our web page at www.rstreet.org. That said, we have a strong pragmatic streak and have worked closely with self-described progressives and liberals in the past. We’re a lot more interested in solving problems than winning fights. Someone who is actively opposed to our work shouldn’t apply, but there is certainly no party affiliation litmus test or need to agree with every word that everyone at R Street has ever written.
Needless to say, we don’t discriminate on the basis of sex, race, creed, color, national origin, use of medical marijuana, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, taste in music or anything else that is illegal, immoral or stupid to use as a basis for hiring. We also don’t care where you went to school or what your GPA was (we actually wish that we had known this ourselves when we were looking for jobs…hardly anyone ever asks for your transcripts.)
To apply, put your cover letter into the body of an e-mail, attach a resume, and send it to firstname.lastname@example.org. Include the word “California” in the subject line. Include one writing sample if you’d like. We’ll be accepting applications until April 25. If you’re applying after that date, we may still look at your application depending on the quality of our pool. We try to read all applications within a week of getting them and will contact the most promising applicants to set up telephone interviews quickly. We’ll interview finalist candidates in Sacramento on May 8 and make an offer soon thereafter.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
From National Public Radio:
RUNDLET: Whether or not your property will be here 30 years from now, Johnson says it may be the insurance issue that determines real estate prices. After all the payouts following Hurricane Sandy, the National Flood Insurance Program went into debt by more than $20 billion. While the price of flood insurance will always be a factor for folks living in known flood zones, Eli Lehrer says there’s another more urgent problem beside sea level rise. Lehrer is the president of a Washington, D.C. think tank called the R Street Institute. It focuses on the insurance industry.
ELI LEHRER: Storm surge is a larger and more imminent problem than is sea level rise. Sea level rise is projected to be somewhere between two and five feet over the next century. Storm surge is going to be six feet from a category 1 hurricane, and the chances that a category 1 hurricane hitting Florida are virtually 100 percent.
The NSA spying controversy has found its way back in the news, after a brief respite due to the foreign policy crisis with Russia and coverage of the missing Malaysia Airlines flight.
The latest revelation, provided by whistle-blower Edward Snowden, is just as concerning as previous ones. The Washington Post reports that the NSA has developed a program, with no approval from Congress, that has the ability to record and store every single phone call made in an unnamed foreign country:
The National Security Agency has built a surveillance system capable of recording “100 percent” of a foreign country’s telephone calls, enabling the agency to rewind and review conversations as long as a month after they take place, according to people with direct knowledge of the effort and documents supplied by former contractor Edward Snowden.
A senior manager for the program compares it to a time machine — one that can replay the voices from any call without requiring that a person be identified in advance for surveillance.
The voice interception program, called MYSTIC, began in 2009. Its RETRO tool, short for “retrospective retrieval,” and related projects reached full capacity against the first target nation in 2011. Planning documents two years later anticipated similar operations elsewhere.
In the initial deployment, collection systems are recording “every single” conversation nationwide, storing billions of them in a 30-day rolling buffer that clears the oldest calls as new ones arrive, according to a classified summary.
The call buffer opens a door “into the past,” the summary says, enabling users to “retrieve audio of interest that was not tasked at the time of the original call.” Analysts listen to only a fraction of 1 percent of the calls, but the absolute numbers are high. Each month, they send millions of voice clippings, or “cuts,” for processing and long-term storage.
The Post didn’t name the country at which this extraordinary surveillance is aimed, at the request of administration officials, though the paper does note that the NSA is considering using it in up to six other countries. The White House, of course, declined to comment on the report.
Some may be passive to this latest revelation, but recall that reports of NSA spying on world leaders didn’t go over so well in the international community, and understandably so. Given that the Post didn’t name the country, we could assume that it’s a nation more hostile to the United States.
The conversations swept up by the program likely includes Americans who either live in the country or have made a call to the country. The NSA apparently considers those recorded conversations to be “incidental.” There isn’t much in the way of restrictions on what the NSA can collect from foreign sources, and there is, presumably, not much, if any oversight from Congress:
“Much of the U.S. government’s intelligence collection is not regulated by any statute passed by Congress,” said Timothy H. Edgar, the former director of privacy and civil liberties on Obama’s national security staff. “There’s a lot of focus on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which is understandable, but that’s only a slice of what the intelligence community does.”
All surveillance must be properly authorized for a legitimate intelligence purpose, he said, but that “still leaves a gap for activities that otherwise basically aren’t regulated by law because they’re not covered by FISA.”
Beginning in 2007, Congress loosened 40-year-old restrictions on domestic surveillance because so much foreign data crossed U.S. territory. There were no comparable changes to protect the privacy of U.S. citizens and residents whose calls and e-mails now routinely cross international borders.
Now, keep in mind that apologists for domestic surveillance programs, including President Obama and intelligence officials, have insisted that the NSA is not collecting or listening in on Americans’ phone calls. This report undermines that claim. What’s more, one has to wonder how far away the intelligence agency is, given that it wants more expansive powers, to trying to get something like this to record domestic phone calls.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
From the Huffington Post:
R Street, a right-leaning think tank, criticized the Democratic senators who took part in the climate talkathon and then voted for the repeal as “hypocritical.”
“Any rational response to climate change must start by ending taxpayer handouts for behavior that exacerbates its impact,” said Andrew Moylan, senior fellow at R Street, said in a statement. “Senate Democrats failed that test by voting almost unanimously for a bill gutting flood insurance reform.”
Gov. Chris Christie’s administration just effectively banned Tesla Motors from selling cars directly to consumers in New Jersey. Here’s why his move is a quintessential example of how cronyism and lobbying are corrupting the free market and destroying innovation, growth and jobs across the country.
If policy-makers are serious about robust economic growth that will lead to millions of new jobs – better jobs (higher paying and higher skilled) than those lost in the recession – then we need to evaluate how our laws discourage innovation and set simple rules of the road that apply to everyone equally. And then – and this is the critical part – we need to get out of the way.
Policy makers need to implement laws and regulations that foster “creative destruction” (the idea popularized by Joseph Schumpeter). When entrepreneurs enter markets, that is the disruptive force driving economic growth even as it destroys the value of established companies. For new and more efficient market models to survive and for competition to be robust, companies that don’t innovate must die. This is what a truly free market enables.
Across the country, in every state, government-imposed monopolies restrict auto manufacturers from selling directly to consumers. The car selling market is one of the most significantly regulated markets in the country, which greatly stifles competition, innovation and hurts the consumer. These laws affect disruptive new market participants like Tesla Motors and online selling of cars directly to the consumer. This week, New Jersey joined the illustrious list of Virginia, Maryland, Texas and Arizona in completely banning Tesla from selling cars to consumers.
Today 57 million Americans live in states where Tesla cannot legally sell cars.
Why would a state ban Tesla sales?
Texas prevents Tesla from providing test drives, discussing price points or even directing buyers to Tesla’s website. Employees are allowed to talk to buyers about electric cars in general but can provide no information on how to purchase one. In Texas, Tesla is only allowed to have car “galleries” where consumers can look at the vehicles. Other states are copying the Texas model, not avoiding it, as the New Jersey regulations are very similar.
New Jersey has now turned Tesla Motors into Tesla Motors Gallery.
Dealership-imposed restrictions across the country deny Tesla Motors the ability to easily sell their cars in other jurisdictions, but it also affects the thousands who would be employed in Tesla stores and building the vehicles and components, and the thousands of potential Tesla buyers who would like to be able to buy the Model S, Roadster and 2014 launch vehicle: the Model X. It deters a potential new Tesla-like competitor who may consider developing their own new unique vehicle or market model.
The rules restricting direct sale of cars are silly. Why would you worry about the rampant and pervasive threat of new car manufacturers selling cars directly to consumers? In the name of consumer protection, the highest rated car manufacturer, as rated by Consumer Reports, Tesla Motors, is legally banned from selling cars to consumers. Regulators trust your local car dealer to protect the consumer, even though car dealer ratings are the only group rated lower than members of Congress.
Bigger than Tesla
Fixing this problem is bigger than just Tesla. It is about the next Tesla and it is about keeping innovation right here in America. It’s about enabling a free market for the $2 trillion auto market, and it’s about opening the floodgates for the autonomous vehicle revolution with an estimate of $5.6 trillion in global savings.
The last successful American car company was Chrysler, founded in 1925. There have been dozens of failed start-ups in this space, including Yucker, DeLorean and electric car start-ups Fisker and Coda. Prohibiting manufacturers from selling vehicles directly to consumers forces manufacturers to develop a car and invest millions of start-up capital in production capacity without knowing if any dealership will carry their planned vehicles. The dealers may have an interest in favor of the status quo, as they may be less likely to carry a car unless there is already strong market demand for that car. Thus these regulations create a chicken-and-egg problem. And if the dealer agrees to carry the car, manufacturers would still be relying upon the dealer to choose to promote and sell the car.
State bans on Tesla sales have affected and angered many Americans. Over 131,000 Americans have signed a White House petition to allow Tesla to sell directly to consumers – a petition to which the White House is eight months late in responding. Even the Justice Department’s Antitrust Economic Analysis Group’s has published their economic findings that, “as a matter of economics, arguments for state bans…are not persuasive.”
Republicans, as supporters of the free market, should be taking advantage of this groundswell and calling the White House out on not responding to their own website’s petition. Instead, in Texas, Arizona and now New Jersey, Republicans have become complicit in this cronyism.
These nonsense regulations protect the dealers’ monopoly rents on the market, ultimately creating a higher barrier to entry for new car manufacturers in the United States and a “tax” upon the final price of the 14 million cars that Americans buy every year. According to a 1986 study by the Federal Trade Commission, they concluded that these laws increase prices by about 6 percent and cost $6.9 billion in 2014 dollars. But according to a 1982 study from economist Richard Smith, these regulations may be costing $22 billion in 2014 dollars. He estimated the cost of this regulation per car as 9.3 percent, an extremely significant mark-up. Incredibly, it’s likely that those studies underestimated the impact of potential new market models as enabled by the Internet.
Further, these laws not only prop up the existing structure, but they also make it nearly impossible for car manufactures to remove franchises that they don’t want to represent their brand. But even worse, not only do state laws require middlemen to sell cars, but the laws have effectively removed the possibility of direct online buying of cars and innovation which could create dynamic competition and savings for the consumer.
Online Direct Car Selling
Entrepreneur Scott Painter founded Carsdirect.com in 1998 to sell cars directly to consumers, as a national “virtual” dealership. Such an online direct-to-consumer dealership could hold great utility for consumers who still wonder why they can’t buy a car online as easily as they can buy just about anything on Amazon. Painter explains that, because of state-regulations, in order to sell cars directly to consumers across the country (as a website), they would have to own car dealerships in every state and for each brand. With 40 car brands and 50 states, they needed 2,000 car dealerships to be set up across the country and abide by 50 state laws. After raising millions of dollars for their venture, once it was clear that this was the only way for the company to proceed, they ultimately changed their market model and removed the ability to sell directly to consumers.
After Carsdirect.com was impeded from selling directly to consumers, its founder and CEO Scott Painter next tried to create his own car manufacturing company, like Tesla, called “Built-to-order.” The firm designed a car using a GM power-train and planned to build it with components from established suppliers. They were trying to imitate the “Dell model” by holding inventory of customizable parts which would be assembled and delivered after the customer ordered them. As leading expert Fiona Scott Morton argues, the potential economic benefits are significant here: “drastic reductions in the cost of retailing; reductions in the cost of holding inventory; elimination of the need for discounts…increased revenues from customization…and lower capital costs due to being paid prior to incurring the expenses of building the car. Painter estimates the total savings from these sources was approximately 30 percent.”
New Era of Innovation
If states remove these government-imposed monopolies, Tesla and buying cars directly online may be merely the beginning of a new era of innovation in the automobile sector. When new and innovative companies will offer new concepts of vehicles for the 21st century, consumers can more easily buy and compare vehicles and save money through dynamic competition. This is particularly important as we are entering an era of entirely new autonomous vehicle concepts. As the Justice Department’s Antitrust Economic Analysis Group recently noted” “Just as Dell has altered its distribution model in the personal computer industry to better meet evolving consumer preferences, car customers would benefit from elimination of state bans on auto manufacturers making direct sales to consumers.”
The United States was the world leader in the automobile market of the 20th century. Companies like Tesla, and the competition their new car models bring to Ford, General Motors and Chrysler, must be part of a second renaissance of the United States leading the autonomous automobile market of the future.
America’s elite higher education institutions are the envy of the world. Foreign students flock to the oldest and wealthiest U.S. research universities to take advantage of resources that are unparalleled, thanks to the deep pockets of many centuries’ worth of captains of industry.
Yet when we consider the post-secondary institutions that educate the typical American high school grad, we see a very different picture. While the share of Americans who enroll in higher education has grown substantially in recent decades, graduation rates have been stagnant.
Community colleges promise an affordable education to millions of students, but they often fail to offer the courses students need to complete a degree in a reasonable amount of time. Public colleges and universities churn out graduates who are forced to take jobs that don’t actually require a four-year post-secondary education. Most private non-profits do the same, and they’re also notorious for charging obscene tuition that their graduates can scarcely afford. And private for-profits, which have grown enormously by taking on some of the hardest-to-accommodate students, stand accused of loading up their students with debt without offering them marketable skills.
It is hard not to sympathize with the Obama administration, which last week launched a new effort to ensure that career training programs are meeting the needs of their students. The problem with the new White House push, however, is that it focuses on a too-narrow aspect of America’s higher education crisis: about 8,000 vocational programs at community colleges, state universities, and for-profit colleges, which train students in subjects like business administration, nursing and automotive repair.
The basic problem that the Obama administration hopes to tackle is that, while a large and growing number of students enroll in vocational post-secondary schools, most of whom make use of federal grant aid and subsidized loans to meet the cost of tuition, an alarmingly high share of them are failing to find well-paying jobs. And students who can’t find well-paying jobs struggle to meet the cost of servicing their loans, let alone pay them off.
The Department of Education plans to identify vocational programs that leave their average graduate paying a high share of their earnings in loan payments (8 percent or more of total earnings, 20 percent or more of discretionary earnings) as well as those with a high average loan default rate (of 30 percent or more). Programs that cross these red lines in two out of three years will lose the right to offer their students federal financial aid.
Curbing the abuses of this sector could do some good. But career training programs represent a small subset of the higher education universe. If we take a somewhat wider view, it seems pretty puzzling that, say, business or engineering majors at four-year colleges and universities aren’t being treated as enrollees in vocational programs.
Why not? Given the epidemic of underemployment among recent college graduates, it might make sense to apply the same standard to all post-secondary institutions, not just those that are explicitly labeled career training colleges.
Steve Gunderson, president of the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, the trade association that represents the for-profit higher education sector, observes in a tart press release that “if the regulation were applied to all of higher education, programs like a bachelor’s degree in journalism from Northwestern University, a law degree from George Washington University Law School and a bachelor’s degree in social work from Virginia Commonwealth University, would all be penalized.”
My reply to Gunderson would be that, well, yes, let’s penalize these programs too. It makes perfect sense to establish a regulatory floor to protect consumers from the least effective post-secondary programs, whether they’re at vocational schools or standard-issue colleges and universities.
Even if we denied federal financial aid dollars to these programs, however, we’d still have students in need of post-secondary education options. The for-profit higher education sector often emphasizes that it serves students that community colleges and private nonprofits fail to reach, like working adults who need flexible schedules. It could be that wiping out the low-performing vocational schools will allow a new wave of high-performing vocational schools to flourish. Yet it’s also possible that vocational schools will stay on the right side of the new regulations by refusing to take on challenging students.
There are two really deep problems that plague U.S. higher education. The first is the absence of useful and reliable data that students and parents can use to evaluate programs of all kinds. In “College Blackout: How the Higher Education Lobby Fought to Keep Students in the Dark,” Amy Laitinen and Clare McCann of the New America Foundation recount how the private nonprofit higher education lobby has fought against efforts to create a federal student unit record system.
As obscure as this sounds, the lack of such a system makes it extremely difficult for higher education consumers to answer basic questions like which schools do the best job of preparing their graduates for the workforce and which leave their students drowning in debt. Making this data easily accessible would force the weakest performing schools to either change their ways or face steep enrollment declines. But if the students who turn away from the bottom of the barrel have nowhere else to go, as the best schools have only so many seats, we’ll still find ourselves in a bind.
This leads us to the second problem. While transparency would help expose the worst schools, it won’t necessarily improve the average quality of America’s higher education institutions. It’s true that in a world of greater transparency, schools would be more likely to offer a high-quality education at an affordable cost, but that’s not enough.
Andrew Kelly of the conservative American Enterprise Institute has emphasized that we need a supply-side strategy designed to increase the availability of affordable, high-quality college opportunities. This could mean making it easier for new schools to gain accreditation, or incentivizing existing high-quality schools to become more inclusive rather than more selective. Over time, increasing the supply of affordable, high-quality college opportunities will raise the average quality of higher education by driving the worst schools out of business and forcing the best schools to continually raise the bar.
By combining these strategies — greater transparency plus more entry of good schools and exit of bad schools — we can see to it that our entire higher education sector, and not just the elite slice at the top, is one that we can be proud of. That change advances upward mobility for all.
Sen. Rand Paul, a first-term senator from Kentucky, surprised more than a few pundits when he topped one of the first major polls surveying voters’ feelings on the 2016 Republican presidential primary. This poll-leading position is something his father, Ron, a frequent candidate for president, never held. And, even though it’s still early, I think that there’s a good case that Paul’s early support may turn into something real. In other words, he’s a legitimate frontrunner.
Let me say first, however, that I’m not a Paul booster. As a hawkish sort, I’m skeptical of his foreign policy views. I also wish he would come out in support of marriage equality. And I think very little of his support for the gold standard. That said, I admire a lot of the work he has done on mandatory minimum sentences, government spending, privacy and government transparency. He’s someone I could certainly see myself supporting in a general election. I think a lot of other Republicans feel this way too. Getting national defense conservatives on his side, it’s true, is going to require some changes to his foreign policy positions and he’ll probably have to make it clear that he’s not serious about the gold standard to get real business community support, too.
But neither his positions nor his current position in the very early polls mean much. Plenty of initial frontrunners for presidential nominations (Howard Dean and Rudy Giuliani) have flamed out on the campaign trail. Plenty of candidates who seemed to have “perfect” positions very much in line with the party base have also failed to get their parties nominations. But at least on the Republican side, something has mattered a lot more: having a political network. Except in 1964 — when Lyndon Johnson trounced Barry Goldwater — every Republican who has won an open nomination in anything like a modern primary process has had a preexisting state network of contacts in place. In most cases, they’ve built such networks through a previous run for president — Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and all had previous campaigns under their belts. George W. Bush, meanwhile, had access to his father’s preexisting political network.
The democratic, grassroots nature of the Republican nominating process means that even candidates willing to spend essentially limitless sums of money (i.e. Steve Forbes) just can’t gain traction or win states. To make a very broad generalization, the organizations that have power in the conservative movement are small and local. The groups that make up the Democratic coalitions — unions, government workers, business that relies on the government, environmentalists — tend to have central leadership and even formal organizations like the League of Conservation voters and AFL/CIO that decide who they will throw their muscle behind. The ones that are most important in the Republican primaries — churches, local business groups, small and medium-sized businesses — tend to be decentralized. There are, of course, exceptions to this: the NRA, for example, provides a central nexus of information and influence to (mostly Republican) gun rights supporters that’s far more influential amongst their constituency than any environmental organization is amongst environmentalists. But the broad generalization does hold up.
And Ron Paul, if nothing else, did build a network of county, city and ward leaders all over the country. It’s one his son can tap. Indeed, there’s a good case that only one other likely candidate, Rick Santorum, can claim a similar state-by-state network. And he’s far behind Paul in any poll. That puts Rand Paul in very good shape. There’s a real chance that he and a chosen running mate could command the top of the ballot in 2016.
As I’ve noted in other posts, the SXSW conference is generally an optimistic event, so it was no surprise to see a panel called How to Fix Patent: Trolls, Innovators & Reform. Unfortunately, actually attending the panel left me with a very different impression… more along the lines of “abandon hope all ye who enter here.”
The panelists – Julie Hopkins, Intellectual Property Practice Chair & Partner at the law firm of Tydings & Rosenberg LLP; Google senior counsel Lee Dunn; Russ Merbeth, chief policy counsel for Intellectual Ventures (the patent house headlined by former Microsoftie Nathan Myrhvold); and moderator Reihan Salam, senior fellow at the R Street Institute think tank – came from such vastly different perspectives that it seemed impossible they could ever find common ground.
…Patents involve conflicts between legitimate needs: On the one hand, the goal of patent law is to protect inventors and spur innovation, but it also wants to protect the rights of patent holders. Worse, the players’ needs can change over time. “Small entities have one set of interests,” said Salam, “but when you become large entity, your interests change.” Google’s Dunn agreed: “Your perspective has to change when you’re sued, as often as we are.” Google started with many innovations that were open source, she added, but “we’ve been forced to become more defensive, as everyone has.”
A common knock against e-cigarettes is that we don’t know the long-term health effects of consuming nicotine vapor. The fact is that while it’s impossible to have complete knowledge about a novel form of tobacco use, scientists already know a great deal about propylene glycol (PG), a key ingredient of the vapor in e-cigarettes.
A comprehensive 2012 PG toxicology review, authored by members of the Cosmetics Ingredient Review (CIR) expert panel, appeared in the International Journal of Toxicology.
The report was an update of a 1994 assessment which concluded that PG was “safe for use in cosmetic products at concentrations up to 50.0%” – the cosmetic industry standard at the time. By 2012, PG was used in 9,094 of 34,391 cosmetic and personal care formulations. One of the most interesting passages in the 1994 document was a description of aerosolized PG in hair sprays:
Propylene glycol is used in hair sprays, and its effects on the lungs that may be induced by aerosolized products containing this ingredient may be of concern. The aerosol properties that determine deposition in the respiratory system are particle size and density. The parameter most closely associated with deposition is the aerodynamic diameter, da, defined as the diameter of a sphere of unit density possessing the same terminal settling velocity as the particle in question. In humans, particles with an aerodynamic diameter of < 10 um [micrometers] are respirable. Particles with a da from 0.1 to 10 um settle in the upper respiratory tract and particles with a da < 0.1 um settle in the lower respiratory tract. Particle diameters of 60 to 80 um and > 80 um have been reported for anhydrous hair sprays and pump hairsprays, respectively. In practice, aerosols should have at least 99% of their particle diameters in the 10 to 110 um range and the mean particle diameter in a typical aerosol spray has been reported as ~ 38 um. Therefore, most aerosol particles are deposited in the nasopharyngeal region and are not respirable.
In contrast, PG aerosols generated by e-cigarettes appear to be smaller, in the range of 0.1 to 0.4 um, according to a study published last year. So, while it likely that most e-cigarette vapor is settling in the upper respiratory tract, some small aerosol particles are likely reaching deeper lung tissue.
The 2012 CIR panel also commented about PG as a food additive:
According to the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), the acceptable daily intake of PG is 25 milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day. In Japan, the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare (MHLW) specified that according to the food sanitation law, PG has no potential to cause harm to human health.
The CIR panel also reviewed numerous animal studies regarding potential problems. They concluded:
Both PG and PPGs [polypropylene glycols] were not considered to be acute or chronic toxicants in oral or dermal studies, were not genotoxic or carcinogenic, and were not reproductive or developmental toxicants, supporting that their use in cosmetics would be safe in regard to these end points.
The CIR was established in 1976 by an industry association with the support of the FDA and the Consumer Federation of America; it reviews and assesses the safety of ingredients used in cosmetics. University faculty, industry representatives and the director of the Office of Cosmetics and Colors at the FDA participate in the reviews, which are conducted according to published procedures. The CIR appears to be an excellent example of cooperation between federal regulators and the industry they regulate; it might serve as a template for cooperation among the FDA Center for Tobacco Products and tobacco manufacturers.
The FDA has thus far taken an aggressively antagonistic approach in its regulatory procedures, some of which are dictated by the 2009 enabling legislation. For example, the legislation prohibits members of the FDA Tobacco Product Scientific Advisory Committee (TPSAC) from having any relationship with the tobacco industry in the 18 months preceding their appointment. This is in direct contrast to all other federal advisory committees (including expert CIR panels), in which an industry conflict of interest for a qualified candidate is reportable but not prohibited.
The CIR serves the public interest in producing an informative PG safety review; it also serves as a role model for constructive government-industry interaction.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Praise didn’t come from all quarters. Andrew Moylan, a senior fellow at R Street Institute, a Washington think tank that was involved in drafting the 2012 overhaul, says Congress’s decision to undo the earlier law shows the power of “a small group of vocal homeowners” scaring Congress. “It rebreaks the flood insurance program,” he says.
From CBS Philly:
But many speakers spoke in opposition. Among them was Dr. Joel Nitzkin, speaking for what he described as a libertarian think tank called the R Street Institute.
“E-cigarette vapor contains no products of combustion and only the tiniest traces of other toxic substances,” he said. “E-cigarettes pose a risk well below two percent of the risk posed by regular cigarettes, and for all practical purposes, no risk to bystanders.”
If you need evidence of how much conservative thinking about crime has changed over the past few decades, look no further than the crowd gathered for last week’s CPAC panel on criminal-justice reform, featuring such stalwart conservatives as Grover Norquist and Texas Gov. Rick Perry
Rather than focusing solely on locking people up (still a good thing to do in many cases), conservatives have taken the lead in efforts to encourage businesses to hire more ex-offenders and improve drug treatment behind bars. Thus far, most of these efforts have been focused at the state level, since states enforce the great bulk of criminal laws and imprison most inmates.
While this approach has served the burgeoning movement well, in the long run, conservative criminal-justice reformers will need to grapple with federal policy, as well. Thanks to roughly a dozen federal grant programs of various scopes and sizes, federal policies influence nearly every aspect of local police and corrections practice. But given conservatives’ general skepticism about almost any federal role in local law enforcement (a skepticism I share), few on the right have made constructive proposals for reform at the national level.
This is a mistake. There are some federal law-enforcement programs — such as ones involving border security, technological development and anti-terrorism efforts — that it makes sense for conservatives to support. In other areas, existing federal programs encourage localities to do the wrong things, with funds tied to locking up more offenders and making more arrests. These incentives lead to more spending and bigger government.
Like much of what government does, the inefficient and misguided programs have proven nearly impossible to kill, so ignoring them really isn’t an option. Instead, the right should look to craft its own reform program, while building on to what’s good that has come from the left.
In particular, New York University’s Brennan Center has given a lot of deep thought to ways to fix the largest single police-facing federal program, the Edward A. Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program. Instead of simply rewarding police for making more arrests and issuing more warrants, the Brennan Center team proposes rewarding localities for reducing violent crime, diverting non-violent drug offenders to treatment rather than prison and otherwise policing smarter. These ideas, packaged under the rubric of “success-oriented funding,” make a lot of sense.
There’s reason to think the federal government should vastly reduce its role in criminal justice. But if federal programs are to continue, we have to stop them from doing harm. The Brennan Center’s proposals offer one potential path for moving in the right direction.
Andrew Moylan of the R Street Institute. His testimony favored origin-sourcing, the concept of taxing sales based on where the seller is located rather than where the customer is located. Origin-sourcing reconfigures the sales tax from a consumption tax to a business activity tax, which is revolutionary. The most common critique of origin-sourcing is that it would lead to online sellers clustering in states with no sales tax, which is questionable.
From National Journal:
“Simply treating remote sales in the same way that we already treat brick-and-mortar sales would level the playing field in an honest way,” said the R Street Institute’s Andrew Moylan.
An online sales tax based on the seller’s location would work much like brick-and-mortar sales taxes do today, added Andrew Moylan, outreach director at the R Street Institute, a think tank advocating for free markets. If a Washington, D.C., resident shops in Virginia, she pays Virginia’s sales tax, he noted.
But Stephen Kranz, a partner in the McDermott Will & Emery law firm and a member of the Streamlined Sales Tax Governing Board, said a tax system based on the seller’s location would be easy to game and would likely drive Internet retailers to relocate or set up ghost headquarters in the handful of states without sales taxes.
The proposals from Moylan and Cox would create “a race to the bottom” in state tax rates, added Representative Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat.