Out of the Storm News
The California Supreme Court recently decided to break with its own precedent and declare that insurers can’t stop policyholders from assigning the benefits of their policies before a claim is settled.
Like many developments in the world of insurance law, the court’s decision in Fluor Corp. v. Superior Court of Orange County is of great importance, while also being simultaneously impenetrable and dishearteningly boring. The first sign that it might have some less than salutary effects is that it has plaintiffs’ attorneys hollering “Eureka!”
To understand why, let’s consider the tale of three California miners (Joe, Steve and Jerry) and their evening at a bar in the state’s gold-filled hills.
Sitting at the bar, Joe turns to Jerry and says, “Hey, Jerry, I’ll buy you a drink if you sing ‘Workin’ on the Railroad’ to the entire bar.”
Jerry narrows his eyes, steels himself and begins to croon: “I’ve been workin’ on the railroad/all my live long days/I’ve been workin’ on the railroad/just to pass the time away…”
Before Jerry can finish, the bartender slams his fist on the table and shouts: “Quiet down or get out!” A startled Jerry complies.
At this point, Steve turns to Jerry with a smile and reminds him: “Hey, Jerry, you owe me a drink for that gold pan I left at your claim last week.”
Jerry shrugs and tells him: “Sure, Steve, Joe will get it for you. He owes me a drink.”
Joe observes that Jerry did not complete his rendition of “Workin’ on the Railroad” and is, therefore, not entitled to the promised drink. But Steve, incensed by Joe’s unwillingness to just be cool, turns to him and punches him in the face.
Steve’s frontier justice, in the absence of a civil-justice system, makes sense in light of a typical assignment of benefits scenario, in which one party to an agreement designates a third party as the new recipient of the bargain’s benefit. Such a scenario is foundational in the law of contracts. Economists and lawyers agree, when people are free to make voluntary bargains, all parties are better off. The law wants Steve to get a beer from Joe – provided that Jerry in entitled to a beer in the first place.
That wrinkle, whether a benefit exists to be assigned, is particularly relevant in the context of insurance contracts. Whether there is a benefit to be included in the bargain is subject to a claim earning approval and triggering coverage. When an assignment occurs before a claim is settled, there is always a risk that the claim may be denied, a risk that is resolved by litigation between the insurer and the assignee.
That kind of litigation already has come to clog the courts in Florida. Rates have jumped because Florida courts consistently have prevented insurers from limiting the circumstances under which policy benefits may be assigned. Non-catastrophe water claims have been particularly problematic, because vendors require insureds to transfer their benefits as a condition of undertaking repairs.
Once transferred, vendors are tempted to charge excessive rates. Insurers that balk at paying what’s charged, much less denying the claim outright, are immediately sued by enterprising trial attorneys for bad faith and contractual breaches. Between 2013 and 2014, Florida insurers were subject to 92,000 such suits.
The Legislature in Tallahassee made an attempt to address the issue earlier this year, but the bill failed even to receive a floor vote. Entrenched interests realize the significance of the regular windfall they enjoy and they’ve fought like hell to protect it.
Before something similar comes to pass in the Golden State, and before its costly impact begins to be felt by insureds in the form of higher premiums, the California Legislature should contemplate fixing the Fluor decision. Short of overturning the decision outright – the best option – policymakers could place a limit on the size of the benefit that may be assigned or limit the sorts of parties who may receive an assignment. Either option would foster the predictability necessary to restrain a 49er-esque gold rush.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
A 17-year-old North Carolina quarterback is charged with possession of sexual images of a minor. The minor is himself. But he is being charged as an adult. So he’s an adult for purposes of facing the law…the law being that you can’t have sexual images of non-adults.
It’s a sexting case, and he also is charged with having sexual images of his 16-year-old girlfriend. She, too, was charged with having sexual images of herself and her boyfriend. She pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor
If convicted, or even if he tries also to plead down, he likely will be on a sex-offender registry for the rest of his life.
This is not justice. This is insanity.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, only 15.2 percent of American adults smoked during January to March of this year. This is not only the lowest rate in decades, it represents the largest single-year decline in the last 18 years, almost 10 percent.
The information comes from the first quarter of the 2015 National Health Interview Survey, the main federal government source for population-smoking estimates. The early release (available here) might not perfectly predict the smoking rate for the entire year, but it is likely to be close. The smoking rate in last year’s early release was 17.1 percent and the final rate for the 2014 was even lower, at 16.8 percent.
This is headline-grabbing news, because it shows the decline in smoking may be accelerating. As I noted a few weeks ago (here and here), cigarette smoking in the United States continues an inexorable decline. Rather than impeding progress, e-cigarettes may be accelerating a smoke-free revolution.
Thanks to Gregory Conley from the American Vaping Association for the NHIS alert.
For the aviation industry, air shows are a showcase of the best manufacturers can muster, where cutting-edge aircraft like the Boeing 787 and the Airbus A350 are put through their paces in front of thousands of enthusiasts and potential buyers. At this year’s Paris Airshow, Boeing and Airbus combined to secure 902 purchase commitments and purchase options, with a total value of about $60 billion.
Yet some carriers find the allure of new airplane smell more appealing than others. While customers appreciate spending their flight time in newer planes, they also appreciate expansive networks and reasonable ticket prices. Airlines thus must balance the capital-intensive process of procuring new planes with the customer appeal and operational efficiency those planes can offer.
Between the three U.S. network carriers – United, American and Delta – there are three wildly different approaches to solving that equation. (Southwest, the fourth major carrier, flies only one type of aircraft, the Boeing 737, and has a notably different business model).
American, currently in the midst of absorbing U.S. Airways, boasts a fleet that averages 11.7 years old. United, now the smallest of the three network carriers, maintains a fleet that averages 13.6 years old. Delta operates a fleet with an average age of 17.2 years.
Counterintuitively, in spite of having the oldest fleet of the U.S. network carriers, Delta is the standard bearer of efficiency and reliability. Blogger and miles expert Gary Leff, writing on his View From the Wing Blog, reports that “only 0.03 percent of mainline flights were canceled due to maintenance and [Delta] had 45 days this summer without any maintenance cancellations.” Perhaps because of that reliability record, or as a result of its use of older planes, Delta has not been as aggressive in its pursuit of the latest and greatest that Boeing and Airbus have to offer.
Instead of paying more for newer, more efficient aircraft, Delta pays less (often much less) for less-popular and older, less-efficient aircraft. As Delta renews its fleet with high-profile purchases of next-gen planes like the Airbus A350, it also supplements its capacity with the latest models of older jets, like the Boeing 757 and the little-loved, rather unsuccessful, Boeing 717. (The latter were purchased from Southwest Airlines, which acquired them in its own purchase of AirTran).
Delta is driven by product price, availability and efficiency – in that order.
When searching for narrow-body jets – the ones most U.S. travelers fly en route from San Francisco to Cleveland for the holidays – Delta opted to forego next-generation planes in favor of the current generation or a past one. Its reasoning was simple: the older jets cost less, are available now and – while less efficient – have a well-established record of reliability. In spite of its fleet’s relative inefficiency, Delta is able to excel, in part, on the strength of its aircraft-procurement savings.
The real test of Delta’s direction will be how it is able to handle a steep increase in the cost of oil. If such a shock comes to pass, operating the oldest major fleet in the United States may be more of a liability than an advantage. Until that point, the team from Atlanta is looking like the smartest bunch in the room.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
The partisan battle over the “gig economy” — epitomized by ride-sharing services like Uber and Lyft and space-sharing services like Airbnb — has crept into the early stages of the presidential election. Republican candidates like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio have voiced their support for these new platforms, while Democratic candidates — Hillary Clinton in particular — have expressed concern about the contractor-dependent model upon which gig-economy firms rely.
The Los Angeles Times has proudly declared 2016 to be “the first Uber election.” But despite the attention paid to the issue, regulating the gig economy has not, thus far, been a federal concern. While the candidates offer platitudes, the gritty details of policy have been the domain of states and municipalities.
In the nation’s big cities — of which Democrats maintain control of 13 of the 15 most populous — gig-economy firms have been on the defensive. New York mayor Bill De Blasio sought unsuccessfully to rein in Uber by freezing the firm’s growth in the city for one year. Philadelphia, another bastion of Democratic governance, undertook its own effort to crack down on Uber by seizing UberX vehicles. (UberX is Uber’s low-cost option, relying on part-time drivers using their own vehicles.) In spite of its efforts, more than 1 million rides have been furnished by the service in the City of Brotherly Love.
At the state level — where Republicans maintain control of 33 governorships and 68 of the 98 partisan legislative chambers — gig-economy firms have fared better, if for no other reason than that Republicans’ top priority has been to address questions surrounding the legality of the gig economy.
Looking solely to ridesharing laws, the trend is clear. Of the 24 states in which Republicans maintain a “trifecta” (the governor’s office and both legislative chamber), two-thirds have passed laws legalizing ridesharing. Of the seven Democratic-trifecta states, only California has passed similar legislation. Among the 31 states with Republican governors, 19 have passed such laws, and among the 18 states with Democratic governors, only seven have.
It’s evident that the gig economy is a priority where the Republican party is in control. But Republicans have not always covered themselves in glory when it comes to these new enterprises. In Kansas, the legislature fought to require that ridesharing drivers maintain otherwise optional “comp and collision” insurance, which ensures compensation for the driver in the event of an accident. The benefit of the coverage accrues directly to the driver, and the ridesharing companies cried foul about having to provide security for lending institutions with liens on the vehicles. What’s more, the enhanced coverage level was not recommended by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners in its compromise white paper on the issue because of the costs associated with it. Only after Uber ceased operating in Kansas was a compromise reached that instead calls on Uber to notify drivers of the benefits of such coverage.
Now Utah — home to Republican legislative super-majorities and an early adopter of legislation to accommodate ride-sharing — is on the verge of making exactly the same misstep. Such blunders might be better attributed to cock-up than conspiracy. Republican states like Utah fundamentally want to see the gig economy succeed, but they are prone to poor execution.
Moving forward, it behooves red states to fine-tune their approach. The political stakes are high. Rural and suburban Republicans, the party’s core constituencies, happen to be among the least likely to avail themselves of these new services. Instead, the electoral upside that could accrue to the GOP by embracing the gig economy lies in the services’ decidedly urban user base. Using a free-market message to disrupt Democrats where they are most comfortable would be truly innovative.
At the R Street institute, we value the unique impact presidential campaigns have on public policy discourse. We have some of the smartest, most capable experts in the country on our staff, covering a variety of our most pressing issues as a nation: energy and environment, technology and innovation, governance, income mobility, insurance, public health, tax and budget issues and state policy, just to name a few.
We also work in coalitions with a broad array of partners: from libertarian-leaning groups like the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Niskanen Center to conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute to centrist groups like Taxpayers for Common Sense to left-leaning groups like the Environmental Working Group and Friends of the Earth. In short, we either cover or have friends who cover just about every issue under the sun. We’d like to think we can offer expertise of value to any presidential candidate, no matter his or her ideological persuasion.
That’s why we are extending an open invitation to any presidential campaign – Republican, Democratic, independent or Kanye West – to meet with our staff or seek our assistance in reaching out to allied groups to discuss policy design. This offer is not limited to those candidates for whom some on our staff may cast a vote. In fact, we will be contacting as many presidential campaigns as we can, of all parties, to extend this invitation personally and ensure we’re not playing favorites.
We often say that we’ll work with anyone, so long as they don’t promote hatred or violence, and the same holds true for lending our expertise to candidates. Of course, as a nonpartisan educational institution, R Street does not promote any particular candidate or party and would not promise to promote any particular candidate’s proposals.
If you work for a presidential candidate and would like to speak with R Street experts or our coalition partners, please contact R Street’s outreach director Lori Sanders at 202-525-5717 or firstname.lastname@example.org. We’d love to talk with you about the many paths we’ve identified to a more limited, effective government than we “enjoy” today.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
A little over a century ago, U.S. Rep. Frederick Gillett, R-Mass., read something in The New York Times that vexed him. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Bureau of Roads advertised that it was seeking to hire a publicity expert. Gillett could not understand why a government agency needed someone to “advertise” its work.
A few weeks later, on Sept. 6, 1913, Gillett introduced legislation, which read: “no money appropriated by this or any other act shall be used for the compensation of any publicity experts unless specifically appropriated for that purpose.” When House Agriculture Committee Chairman Asbury Lever, D-S.C., asked for his rationale, Gillett clarified that he saw no harm in agencies employing editors to write agency reports in “more popular language.” What offended Gillett was agencies spending public funds to “extol” their work.
Gillett’s amendment was accepted, and remains law to this day. In addition to the Gillett law, Congress has banned agencies from encouraging the public to lobby Congress, a prohibition included in the 2015 omnibus spending act. But one would not know it from a glance at how routinely agencies dole out propaganda.
Today, federal agencies regularly toot their horns to the public. They blog, post videos to YouTube, host Google hangouts and generally flood the Internet with feel-good messages. What would the children do without kids.usa.gov and its videos instructing them what gear they need to play various sports?
Of the lot, the Environmental Protection Agency might be the most pushy and self-aggrandizing. The agency has at least a dozen Twitter accounts that have posted more than 70,000 tweets over the past seven years. The EPA’s unabashed willingness to politick has been on full display in the recent public relations blitz to support its “Clean Power Plan.” The agency has posted videos, blogged, issued press releases and frenetically blasted out 140-character propaganda:
— U.S. EPA (@EPA) July 20, 2015
People w/heart & lung illnesses are especially vulnerable to excessive heat exposure. Climate change means more health risks. #ActOnClimate
— U.S. EPA (@EPA) July 28, 2015
— U.S. EPA (@EPA) August 3, 2015
— U.S. EPA (@EPA) August 3, 2015
Cost-benefit analysis is an inherently complex enterprise. Analysts can come to very different results, especially when one is trying to calculate the interplay between consumer demand, power production and climatological effects on health. The EPA, however, brooks no dissent and the agency’s public communications lack all nuance. The EPA Connect blog confidently asserts that, thanks to its new regulations:
By 2030, sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants will be 90 percent lower than 2005 levels, and emissions of nitrogen oxides will be 72 percent lower. Because these pollutants can create dangerous soot and smog, the historically low levels mean we’ll avoid 90,000 children’s asthma attacks, 300,000 missed days of school and work, and up to 3,600 premature deaths in 2030 alone.
As for those who think otherwise, EPA Administrator Tom Reynolds writes: “they’re wrong.”
Whatever one’s feelings about the risks of climate change and the new emissions regulations, it is undeniable the EPA is not simply informing the public. It is propagandizing. The EPA’s spin doctors are relentlessly on script, often in coordination with the Surgeon General’s Office and other Obama appointees.
The rationale for all this public-relations work is plain: the EPA is trying to build grassroots support for its agenda, presumably in hopes that widespread public support for it will kneecap critics in Congress.
This is not quite how the Founders drew up our government. Congress, by virtue of being popularly elected, is to represent the public interest. The legislature enacts the laws and the executive branch is supposed to implement them. If legislators stray from the desires of the voters, they get voted out. That is democratic accountability.
Congress’ best option is to direct the Government Accountability Office and the EPA Inspector General’s Office to audit the agency’s public-relations activities. This tactic has worked in the past. The Department of Health and Human Services dialed back its promotion of new Medicare benefits after it was subjected to GAO scrutiny. The Department of Defense abolished one of its public communications units after it was caught trying to manipulate press coverage.
The U.S. Constitution’s careful balance of powers goes out the window when executive agencies make policy unilaterally and then manufacture public sentiment in support.
At age 10, Maya R. did something that would disturb just about anyone: “Me and my step-brothers, who were ages 8 and 5, ‘flashed’ each other and play-acted sex while fully clothed,” she told Human Rights Watch researcher Nicole Pittman. After copping to the incident in juvenile court, Maya’s punishment was an 18-month sentence in a detention center, mandatory counseling, and a quarter-century of registration as a sex offender.
Maya’s mistake had significant consequences for her life. With her name on a sex-offender registry, she faced harassment in college and ultimately dropped out. Facing huge barriers to finding housing, she spent 90 days in a homeless shelter. She fell into a deep depression. Despite a clean adult record and a life that eventually got on the right track—she did missionary work, married, and now has a child of her own—Maya can’t escape the “sex offender” label. She and thousands of others like her continue to be punished for mistakes they made as children.
In April, prosecutors in Archbold, Ohio, brought charges that could have meant mandatory registration for high-school students caught exchanging nude “selfies.” An Indiana judge, likewise, has sentenced two teenage boys to lifetime sex-offender registration for having sex with teenage girls they met online. In some states, even trivial offenses like public urination and streaking can land children on registries.
Currently, 40 states have sex-offender registration for those convicted in juvenile court. This ought to trouble us, not least because it undermines the usefulness of the registries. It’s a policy that needs to change at both the federal and the state levels.
The juvenile justice system is predicated on a trade-off. Juvenile defendants have fewer rights, but the system is supposed to expend greater effort at rehabilitation. There are no jury trials in juvenile courts. Records are typically confidential, and rules of evidence are looser. As counterbalance, juveniles serve shorter sentences and are sent less frequently to secure facilities. Sanctions are, at least in theory, levied in the “best interests” of those convicted, rather than meted out as punishment.
Unlike adult criminal records, which normally follow offenders for life, juvenile records can be sealed at age 18 (the procedure is automatic in some states). Even unsealed juvenile court convictions (which generally aren’t on the public Internet) typically don’t affect offenders’ ability to vote, live where they choose, receive most government benefits, get professional licenses, and hold public office. When juveniles commit particularly atrocious crimes, like murder or violent rape, every state offers a procedure that would permit them to be tried and sentenced as adults.
Sex-offender registries impose some of the most severe restrictions that face anyone convicted of a criminal offense. In addition to public humiliation, made more intense in the Internet age, those required to register as sex offenders often are forbidden from living close to schools and day-care centers, pushing many far out into the country or even into homelessness (and homeless shelters turn many away). Sex offenders can be denied professional licenses and may be subject to near-constant police surveillance. Since most juveniles on sex-offender registries have victimized other juveniles, some also face restrictions intended for adult pedophiles, and can be excluded from living with their own siblings and even, as they get older, with their own children. Even those who do manage to find jobs and places to live will generally see much lower wages and find healthy adult relationships much harder to establish.
Registry laws were created to deal with the problems of recidivist pedophiles and serial rapists. They are a harsh response, but public sentiment holds they are just. And they are certainly popular, as evidenced by near-unanimous votes to create them in state after state. It’s less obvious how society benefits from imposing such long-lasting sanctions in response to mistakes made by children. There’s little evidence that youthful sex offenders remain a public danger. The largest meta-analysis shows that only about 7 percent of youthful sex offenders are ever convicted of another offense. Some studies have found reoffense rates as low as 1 percent. By comparison, 40 percent of adults convicted of serious crimes reoffend.
Juveniles convicted of sex offenses clutter the registries. They account for as much as 25 percent of the rolls. Monitoring these individuals for decades wastes resources that law enforcement and social workers otherwise could use more effectively to target those who pose real dangers to society. (And where young offenders do appear to pose such truly significant risks, prosecutors can avail themselves of the opportunity to file adult charges.)
States are encouraged to include juveniles in their registries by the federal Adam Walsh Act, which ties federal funding to state and local enforcement to the degree to which state registries comply with the law’s classification system for sex offenders. Not only should these incentives be eliminated, but Congress should consider withholding some grant funds from states that continue to list those adjudicated in juvenile court on the registries.
At the least, many states should rejigger their registry laws. Teenagers who have sexual relationships or exchange nude “selfies” with other teenagers may need counseling, punishments from their parents, and admonitions from other adults. But they shouldn’t routinely face criminal sanctions for “statutory rape” or “child pornography.”
Pre-teens like Maya R. who act out sexually may well have serious problems that require more extensive intervention. But absent strong evidence that they’re likely to reoffend, they shouldn’t face lifetime sanctions more severe than those levied on juveniles who commit crimes like armed robbery and auto theft. Like other juvenile offenders’, their records should be eligible to be sealed, and they certainly shouldn’t spend long periods on sex-offender registries.
Including children on sex-offender registries is a grave injustice that does little good and much harm. Congress and state legislatures need to undo the damage they have done.
What is now needed, if we are to ever secure the personal and public health benefits that e-cigarettes and tobacco harm reduction can offer, is honest and sincere dialogue on this topic between the public health community, industry representatives and consumer representatives. This has been impossible to date because of the perception within the public-health community that the industry is evil and engaging in such dialogue would constitute collaboration with the enemy.
For the past four years, Scott Ballin, working with and through a team at the University of Virginia, has hosted a series of what they call Morven Dialogues. These have attracted industry representatives and the handful of public health people known to be supportive of THR and e-cigarettes, but no active participation from FDA, CDC, NIH, AMA, or heart, lung or cancer societies.
The issue I would like to see addressed, both domestically and internationally is this perception that the industry is an evil monolithic enterprise and that there are none within the industry who would sincerely welcome the opportunity to partner with public health colleagues in pursuit of shared public health objectives.
Feminists long have struggled with the concept of “equal pay.” Although most social justice-y gender studies majors demand that “equal pay” mean “totally, statistically equal,” that standard is actually an impossible one to reach. Women choose different jobs from their male colleagues, often select less dangerous professions (which pay less than the more dangerous ones), work shorter hours and take breaks in the middle of their careers to raise children, and generally make different choices than men.
Now, those choices might be the result of ingrained cultural norms, but the idea that women earn $0.77 to every man’s $1.00 because of blatant sexism in the workplace long has been exposed as a myth – and not even a very good one.
There are instances of true pay inequality, though. For example, Hillary Clinton, while she served in the Senate, paid her female employees 28 percent less than her male employees, overall. She tried to explain it away by insisting that the women on her staff held lower-level positions, something that seems to verify both claims that the “pay gap” is bogus, and that Hillary Clinton is, herself, kind of sexist in her hiring practices.
On Women’s Equality Day (at least, that’s what the Internet tells me), we take a moment to remember all those women Hillary Clinton failed as a feminist. Especially now that Carly Fiorina, the other woman in the presidential race, has been revealed to be the real candidate of pay equality.
As women working for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign struggle with a gender pay gap, women working for the businesswoman and Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina are coming out on top.
The median female annual salary on Fiorina’s campaign is $69,724, about $15,000 higher than the median male annual salary of $54,829, according to data made available to the Washington Free Beacon by the campaign.
The highest paid members of Fiorina’s staff are her campaign managers Frank Sadler and Sarah Isgur Flores, who both make $150,000 a year.
The next six highest salaries on the campaign are all for female employees. The lowest salary is for a male.
According to an analysis done by the Free Beacon of Clinton campaign salaries (post her tenure in the Senate), women on Fiorina’s campaign are actually faring far better than the women on Clinton’s. They’re promoted higher, in positions of greater authority and paid far more.
Fiorina, for her part, says that the “feminism” isn’t actually intentional – since she comes from the business world, she promotes what she calls a “ruthlessly cultiva[ted] meritocracy,” and her best employees simply rise to the top. In the case of her campaign, those employees happen to be female.
As far as the so-called “gender pay gap” is concerned, Carly says she recognizes that there are factors that keep women from reaching their full potential…but, to paraphrase, Hillary Clinton has pretty much no idea what those are or how to overcome them.
So, as Twitter celebrates “Women’s Equality Day” and the passage of the 14th Amendment, perhaps they should look closely at exactly who is keeping that ball rolling.
I am extremely disappointed to announce that my invitation to speak at the fall conference of the Council of Institutional Investors has been withdrawn. The conference organizers have determined that my presence at the conference may create a “hostile environment.”
The hostility is not a result of the paper I was to present, “Activist Hedge Funds in a World of Board Independence: Creators or Destroyers of Long-Term Value?,” which is forthcoming in the Columbia Business Law Review, and then discuss with a distinguished panel. Instead, it appears to be because of an exchange of comments I had on a corporate-governance blog concerning the shout-down of my recent R Street policy brief, “Public-pension funds play with newest toy in corporate governance.”
I believe my presentation would have been extremely educational for CII members and possibly change their way of thinking about hedge-fund activism. Yet I understand that the CII has the right to withdraw its invitation if the conference managers so choose. Given that the CII is still dominated by public and union pension funds, at least based on the make-up of its board of directors, I should not be surprised by their decision.
Nonetheless, it is very disappointing to see that the action was taken because of the expectation that there was going to be a critical mass of participants so intolerant of my views on the use of proxy access by public pension funds that they would create a hostile environment during my presentation. To have members like that does not reflect well on the organization and the positions it advocates.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Ohio produced the first airplane pilot and the first man on the moon. This week, we are blessed with the consensus No. 1 preseason pick of college football teams. But this fall, all eyes will be on the state for a different kind of first – a public policy first.
Ohio is poised to become the first American state to flout the federal Schedule I drug law and to go straight to recreational marijuana use for adults without going through the medicinal purpose stage.
The proposed constitutional provision will also allow cannabis use at any age for medical purposes. Of course, as we have learned from Colorado and Washington state, doctors won’t risk their licenses to prescribe it and pharmacies won’t risk theirs to dispense it. It will continue to be only a suggestion by medical professionals for certain kinds of illness or discomfort.
Colorado and Washington have experienced some other hiccups in their marijuana experiments. For instance, it’s much more difficult to make an enforcement case for operating a motor vehicle under the influence with marijuana than it is with alcohol consumption. Lacking a standard like the 0.08 level of blood alcohol content, law enforcement largely have to rely on field tests.
The Ohio Chamber of Commerce, the Ohio Council of Retail Merchants, the Ohio Manufacturers Association, the Ohio State Medical Association, the local chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics and many other groups oppose the initiative. Gov. John Kasich – currently on a different kind of high after winning the primary endorsement of fellow presidential candidate “Deez Nuts,” a 15-year old Iowa high school sophomore who was polling 9 percent of the votes in North Carolina on social media last month – opposes the initiative, as do most of the state’s constitutional officers.
But the most compelling reason to be concerned about Ohio’s proposed constitutional amendment is that it would, according to an editorial in Sunday’s Columbus Dispatch, “change Ohio’s foundational document in order to financially benefit a handful of people.”
That’s right: a monopoly on weed production in the state Constitution.
By that, I mean that 10 plots of land in the state, by actual parcel number, are granted exclusive rights to grow, cultivate and extract the good stuff. Facilities licensed to sell marijuana products in the state are only allowed to process cannabinoids and THC from plants grown on the 10 plots of land owned by the entrepreneurs who are funding the initiative campaign. One of whom is former boy band star Nick Lachey, perhaps best-known as Jessica Simpson’s ex-husband and reality show co-star.
How does a real libertarian sort out this new exercise in do-it-yourself crony capitalism?
Last month, Responsible Ohio filed 695,273 petition signatures with Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted. But after about 40 percent of the signatures were deemed invalid, the campaign came up 29,509 signatures short of the 305,591 needed to make the November ballot. A review by Husted earlier this month determined the initiative had collected 320,267 valid signatures, qualifying in 77 of the state’s 88 counties.
More recently, the ballot backers have taken issue with the language agreed to by the Ohio Ballot Board. Former Ohio Supreme Court Justice Andy Douglas, who is serving as counsel to Responsible Ohio, said he was preparing to sue in his former court to replace ballot language describing “recreational” marijuana with “personal use,” which better reflects the purpose of the constitutional amendment in the judgment of the supporters.
Meanwhile, the state Legislature thinks it has the antidote. Issue 2 on the November ballot is a measure cooked up by the state’s lawmakers to nullify any future constitutional amendment that awards benefits to an exclusive set of investors. Husted swears that, if it passes, it will negate the new marijuana provision, even if both pass in the same election. The specific language of House Joint Resolution 4 preventing grants of monopoly in the Ohio Constitution is:
Restraint of trade or commerce being injurious to this state and its citizens, the power of the initiative shall not be used to pass an amendment to this constitution that would grant or create a monopoly, oligopoly or cartel, specify or determine a tax rate, or confer a commercial interest, commercial right, or commercial license to any person, nonpublic entity, or group of persons or nonpublic entities, or any combination thereof, however organized, that is not then available to other similarly situated persons or nonpublic entities.
If it were only this easy to amend the U.S. Constitution, just think how many things we could fix!This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
We, the undersigned organizations, representing hundreds of thousands of hardworking Americans fed up with government spending and overreach, urge members of Congress to pass H.R. 1673, the Enterprise Secondary Reserve Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act of 2015, introduced by Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn. This legislation takes a much-needed first step to reining in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It is important that Congress pass H.R. 1673 as a standalone bill or as part of other legislation.
The Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stood at the center of the 2008 financial crisis. In the aftermath of that crisis, taxpayers provided Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with $188 billion in equity to cushion against losses related to their mortgage portfolios. Despite the significant taxpayer support they received, the danger they continue to pose to the federal balance sheet is significant. Incredibly, while the Dodd-Frank “financial reform” of 2010 imposes higher levels of capital and new regulations on community banks and life insurance companies that had nothing to do with the mortgage crisis, Fannie and Freddie operate today with virtually no capital reserves.
Since 2008, Fannie and Freddie have been under conservatorship administered through the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). Pursuant to the Obama administration’s 2012 “Third Amendment” to an agreement between FHFA and the United States Treasury, all of Fannie and Freddie’s net profits have been swept back into government coffers, thereby masking higher spending and creating phony short-term deficit reductions that the Obama administration can claim credit for. This scheme has left the two GSEs with almost no capital reserves to offset potential losses in the event of another downturn in the mortgage and housing markets.
H.R. 1673 would help protect taxpayers in the event that these two GSEs experience significant losses in the future. By creating a reserve fund using profits generated by the GSEs, the Enterprise Secondary Reserve Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act allows Fannie and Freddie to draw down such funds in the event of significant losses, rather than going back to the Treasury for additional resources. Once FHFA’s conservatorship of Fannie and Freddie ends, the reserve fund would dissolve. Simply put, the bill creates an insurance policy for taxpayers.
As long as Fannie and Freddie are under conservatorship, any losses they experience are a threat to taxpayers. While H.R. 1673 is a wise proposal, it highlights the need for Congress to reduce dramatically the role of government in the housing finance system. In particular, Fannie and Freddie’s government support – implicit and explicit – should be phased out. Until lawmakers embrace comprehensive reform, however, they should pass the Enterprise Secondary Reserve Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act. And this measure must, as a first step, be part of any large appropriations or financial services bill that attempts to deal with Fannie and Freddie.
National Taxpayers Union
Competitive Enterprise Institute
60 Plus Association
Campaign for Liberty
Campaign to Free America
Andrew F. Quinlan
Center for Freedom and Prosperity
Council for Citizens against Government Waste
R Street Institute
Taxpayers for Common Sense
Taxpayers Protection Alliance
Tea Party Nation
PHE encourages smokers to switch to e-cigarettes in order to stop smoking and to reduce smoking-related diseases and deaths. The agency strongly rejects the claim that vaping is a pathway to smoking:
There is no evidence that e-cigarettes are undermining the long-term decline in cigarette smoking among adults and youth, and may in fact be contributing to it.
Additionally, PHE refutes scaremongering about nicotine poisoning (a subject I previously discussed here):
When used as intended, e-cigarettes pose no risk of nicotine poisoning to users, but e-liquids should be in ‘childproof’ packaging. The accuracy of nicotine content labeling currently raises no major concerns.
Two recent worldwide media headlines asserted that e-cigarette use is dangerous. These were based on misinterpreted research findings. A high level of formaldehyde was found when e-liquid was over-heated to levels unpalatable to e-cigarette users, but there is no indication that…users are exposed to dangerous levels of aldehydes.
Unfortunately, the PHE report overreaches in one respect. It says that “best estimates show e-cigarettes are 95 percent less harmful to your health than normal cigarettes,” and this became the dominant media headline upon the report’s release. To be accurate, PHE should have reported that e-cigarettes are far less harmful than combustible cigarettes, without specifying a percentage; there is no hard data to support a number.
The 95 percent is derived from the reported opinions of a group of international experts in a publication last year. The opinions were merely “guestimates”. In truth, the health risks of long-term vaping are not known, and they are at this time unknowable. While there is universal agreement among tobacco research and policy experts that inhaling a vapor of propylene glycol, nicotine and flavoring agents is vastly safer than inhaling smoke containing thousands of toxins, the precise risk differential is unknown.
I routinely criticize e-cigarette opponents for violating scientific principles when they make outrageous claims against the products. Recognizing that the PHE report is a welcome endorsement of tobacco harm reduction and e-cigarettes, I am disappointed that its value is at all compromised by a comparison that cannot be scientifically validated.
Fifteen months ahead of the presidential election, a number of the 17 Republicans vying for their party’s nomination have invested considerable energy courting Silicon Valley. These candidates are boldly attempting to articulate a coherent understanding of the issues facing the technology industry.
This makes sense: what’s been seen traditionally as a Democratic stronghold ought to be ripe for the Republican taking. After all, it’s easy to frame the success of the Internet as an excellent manifestation of the conservative ideology that free markets and limited regulation spur economic growth and upward mobility.
Yet none of the Republican candidates has demonstrated a coherent technology-policy agenda. Despite all the overtures, the latest quarter’s financial filings revealed “most tech industry bigwigs are throwing cash at Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.”
This isn’t because Hillary Clinton has a better tech agenda or better tech instincts than Republicans. Her comparative fundraising success is likely attributable primarily to the tech community’s own instinct that it’s better to trust the devil you know than the devil you don’t.
It’s clear that Republicans want to win Silicon Valley’s affection, whether it’s former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush hailing an Uber; Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., hanging out at SXSW; or Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., suggesting he would be “a new president for a new age.” Despite these photo-ops, careful evaluation of the candidates’ positions on issues important to startups, tech hubs, innovators and Internet giants show the Republican field is conspicuously out of step.
For some of the Republican candidates, the primary issue is an unwillingness to challenge the surveillance state. This may be due in part to a desire to preserve the party’s brand as a home for security hawks and in part to avoid appearing soft on Edward Snowden. Whatever one thinks of Snowden personally, there’s no dispute that his disclosures about the National Security Agency set off a national debate about the balance of security and privacy. These very real privacy concerns have resulted in significant economic fallout for the tech sector, as consumers and the international community lose confidence about the ability of U.S. firms to secure their data.
This summer, after much deliberation, the House and Senate passed the USA FREEDOM Act. Swiftly signed into law by President Barack Obama, the law ends the bulk collection of phone metadata. This reform did not address all surveillance concerns, but it did represent a substantial and balanced approach to curtail the abusive spying undertaken by the government.
While the tech community universally praised the legislation, the GOP’s presidential candidates for the most part opposed efforts to rein in the NSA. Ignoring Silicon Valley, Sen. Rubio called for a “permanent extension” of the PATRIOT Act and voted against the reform. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker echoed Rubio, saying the nation “would be much better off” without the USA FREEDOM Act. Not to be outdone, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie famously defended the NSA, explaining that critics of mass spying should talk to families of the 9/11 victims.
Only two of the GOP candidates aligned with the tech community against the unwarranted mass surveillance of Americans. Sen. Paul didn’t vote for final passage of the USA FREEDOM Act, because he didn’t think it went far enough, but he did rally privacy supporters with his efforts on the Senate floor that helped bring about reform. Fellow privacy hawk Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, showed solidarity with Paul during his filibuster, even though he ultimately voted in favor of the USA FREEDOM Act.
Last year, the conservative-leaning Young Guns Network published a paper titled “Room to Grow,” designed to serve as a conservative blueprint for an “innovative agenda that empowers individuals by increasing competition and replacing failed government policies.” In the report, American Enterprise Institute scholar James Pethokoukis correctly identified a problem hindering so many in the tech community. In his essay, “Regulatory and financial reforms to combat cronyism and modernize our economy” Pethokoukis explained: “over the years, copyright and patent law has evolved into cronyist protection of the revenue streams of powerful incumbent companies—a type of regulation that hampers innovation and entrepreneurship.”
This resonates as true in tech hubs across the country where many entrepreneurs are struggling to fight patent trolls as they develop new software and services. These “trolls” are companies that take advantage of the patent system to amass huge troves of weak and broad patents and make money by threatening lawsuits against legitimate new startups and entrepreneurs. Not only are patent trolls costing the economy $29 Billion a year, but the struggle against meritless patent litigation was even satirized front-and-center in the HBO hit comedy Silicon Valley.
Unfortunately, it appears the Republican candidates missed those episodes. For example, when pressed about his stance on patent reform in an interview with Tech Dirt, Rand Paul passed quickly over the issue, leading the author to conclude that fighting patent trolls “doesn’t appear to be of serious interest leading to Paul or his ilk.”
Of the other candidates, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina has been the most vocal on the topic. Unfortunately, her stance has been to oppose patent reform. Fiorina attacked a Silicon Valley-supported legislation to rein in patent trolls, explaining, “these supposed reforms pose a dire threat to our notion of property rights.” The current reform effort – Rep. Bob Goodlatte’s INNOVATION Act – actually wouldn’t change substantive patent-law rights, but it would curb frivolous litigation costs and abuses.
As access to the Internet has increased dramatically, there has been serious interest and debate over its future, quite often centered on the question of net neutrality. While the conversation in D.C. largely has been partisan, in Silicon Valley, there long has been vibrant, nuanced debate, both in favor of and in opposition to net-neutrality proposals.
Unfortunately, Republican candidates largely have been tone deaf on net neutrality. Rational people can disagree on the issue, but it isn’t helpful for branding when Ted Cruz calls net neutrality the “Obamacare of the Internet” or Jeb Bush says it the “craziest idea I’ve ever heard.” (There are some other pretty crazy ideas out there.)
If Republicans are serious about relating to the interests of Silicon Valley, they must learn to speak intelligently about the issues that matter to tech interests.
On a few subjects, they do. On the national level, Republicans have embraced the benefits of the sharing economy, notably in support of car-sharing services like Uber, although at the local level, Republicans and Democrats have been split fairly evenly in their support for and opposition to these innovations.
But the sharing economy is only one aspect of the tech revolution. Republicans should extend their celebration of free-market solutions into a comprehensive tech agenda. Some of these ideas were laid out by technology analyst Derek Khanna, who has written that conservatives should “create forward-leaning legislative policies to foster innovation, not uncertainty.”
The candidates would also do well to learn from their counterparts in Congress, who have deliberated on a host of issues of concern to the tech industry. While there are still areas where the stance of congressional Republicans (particularly on immigration) is unpopular in the Valley, many Republicans are working with their Democratic counterparts to make policy changes that will enhance the tech sector.
Most notable among these are Reps. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas, and Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, who have been on the front lines on surveillance reform, patent policy and rebalancing copyright. This trio hasn’t hesitated to seek support for forward-thinking solutions, both within their caucus and across the aisle.
In the absence of strongly articulated pro-tech stances in the Democratic presidential field, 2016 has the potential to be a defining election for the Republican Party on the tech-policy front. But for GOP top-of-the-ticket candidates to win over new audiences and support, there must be a concerted effort to showcase a comprehensive agenda that will spur economic growth. There’s still time for Republicans to seize these issues, but the time is shorter than GOP leaders may like to think. We can only hope that, over the next year, more of the leading Republican candidates will step up to the challenge and frame a visionary path forward.
We write in support of expanded public access to Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports. Longstanding congressional policy allows members and committees to use their websites to disseminate CRS products to the public, although CRS itself may not engage in direct public dissemination. This results in a disheartening inequity. Insiders with Capitol Hill connections can easily obtain CRS reports from any of the 20,000 congressional staffers and well-resourced groups can pay for access from subscription services. However, members of the public can access only a small subset of CRS reports that are posted on an assortment of not-for-profit websites on an intermittent basis. Now is the time for a systematic solution that provides timely, comprehensive free public access to and preservation of non-confidential reports, while protecting confidential communications between CRS and members and committees of Congress.
CRS reports—not to be confused with confidential CRS memoranda and other products—play a critical role in our legislative process by informing lawmakers and staff about the important issues of the day. The public should have the same access to information. In 2014, CRS completed over 1,000 new reports and updated over 2,500 existing products. (CRS also produced nearly 3,000 confidential memoranda.)
Our interest in free public access to non-confidential CRS reports illustrates the esteem in which the agency is held. CRS reports are regularly requested by members of the public and are frequently cited by the courts and the media. For example, over the last decade, CRS reports were cited in 190 federal court opinions, including 64 at the appellate level. Over the same time period, CRS reports were cited 67 times in The Washington Post and 45 times in The New York Times. CRS reports often are published in the record of legislative proceedings.
Taxpayers provide more than $100 million annually in support of CRS, and yet members of the public often must look to private companies for consistent access. Some citizens are priced out of these services, resulting in inequitable access to information about government activity that is produced at public expense.
In fact, while CRS generates a list of all the reports it has issued over the previous year, it silently redacts that information from the public-facing version of its annual report, making it difficult for the public to even know the scope of CRS products they could obtain from Congress. A Google search returned over 27,000 reports, including 4,260 hosted on .gov domains, but there is no way to know if those documents are up-to-date, what might be missing or when they might disappear from view.
Comprehensive free public access to non-confidential CRS reports would place the reports in line with publications by other legislative support agencies in the United States and around the globe. The Government Accountability Office, the Congressional Budget Office, the Law Library of Congress, and 85 percent of G-20 countries whose parliaments have subject-matter experts routinely make reports available to the public.
We hasten to emphasize that we are not calling for public access to CRS products that should be kept confidential or are distributed only to a small network on Capitol Hill. Memoranda produced at the request of a member or committee and provided to an office in direct response to a request should remain confidential unless the office itself chooses to release the report. By comparison, we believe no such protection should attach to reports typically published on CRS’ internal website or otherwise widely disseminated.
We value the work of CRS and in no way wish to impede its ability to serve Congress. CRS reports already undergo multiple levels of administrative review to ensure they are accurate, nonpartisan, balanced and well-written. Authors of every CRS product are aware of the likelihood that reports will become publicly available.
We do not make a specific recommendation on who should comprehensively publish nonconfidential CRS reports online, although the approaches outlined in H. Res. 34 (114th Congress) and S. Res. 118 (111th Congress) are reasonable. The Clerk of the House, the Secretary of the Senate, the Government Publishing Office (GPO), the Library of Congress and libraries in the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) are all reasonable places for the public to gain access to these documents. Even bulk publication on GPO’s website would be a major step forward.
We ask only that all non-confidential reports be published as they are released, updated or withdrawn; that they be published in their full, final form; that they are freely downloadable individually and in bulk; and that they be accompanied by an index or metadata that includes the report ID, the date issued/updated, the report name, a hyperlink to the report, the division that produced the report, and possibly the report author(s) as well.
In the attached appendix we briefly address concerns often raised by CRS regarding public access to reports. In doing so, we note that many committees, including the Senate Rules Committee, have published CRS reports on their websites. Also, that many CRS reports are available through third parties. We urge you to give great weight to the significant public benefit that would result from comprehensive, timely access.
We welcome the opportunity to further discuss implementing systematic public access to nonconfidential CRS reports. Please contact Daniel Schuman, Demand Progress policy director, at email@example.com, or Kevin Kosar, R Street Institute senior fellow and governance director, at firstname.lastname@example.org. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this matter.
American Association of Law Libraries
American Civil Liberties Union
American Library Association
Association of Research Libraries
Bill of Rights Defense Committee
California State University San Marcos
Cause of Action
Center for Democracy and Technology
Center for Effective Government
Center for Media and Democracy
Center for Responsive Politics
Citizens Against Government Waste
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
Congressional Data Coalition
Data Transparency Coalition
Defending Dissent Foundation
Federation of American Scientists
Free Government Information
Government Accountability Project
Middlebury College Library
Minnesota Coalition On Government Information
National Coalition for History
National Security Archive
National Security Counselors
National Taxpayers Union
NewFields Research Library
Project on Government Oversight
R Street Institute
Taxpayers for Common Sense
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University
Union of Concerned Scientists
Western Illinois University Libraries
My name is Eli Lehrer and I am president of the R Street Institute, a free-market think tank headquartered in Washington, with offices in Tallahassee, Fla.; Austin, Texas; Columbus, Ohio; Sacramento, Calif.; and Birmingham, Ala. I am writing to comment on the above-referenced rules, based both on R Street’s commitment to free-market principles and R Street’s own interests as a small nonprofit and credit-union member. We consider these proposed rules a good start toward a better and freer environment for credit unions to operate and urge you to move forward with them.
R Street staff long have argued that – given the history of the credit-union movement, the nature of credit-union lending to business and the potential benefits to the broader economy – statutory and regulatory caps on credit-union member-business loans should be removed or, at least, made significantly more flexible. Credit-union lending can better meet market needs if it is based on demand, rather than arbitrary rules.
Proposed changes to lift credit union lending caps could provide economic stimulus on a significant scale at no cost to taxpayers; significant research has shown this type of lending is already becoming more important. As current law does not give the NCUA authority to lift the cap, simplifying the process to make more loans, as the proposed rules would do, is a step in the right direction.
We see little to no risk of harm from the modest rule changes currently under consideration. These proposed changes would eliminate some requirements not found in statute and simplify a few rules. They pose no safety and soundness concerns related to the overall scope of expanded credit-union business lending.
As president of an organization that is a credit union member, I believe legal simplification would benefit us and other existing members. In an op-ed I co-authored last year with my organization’s chief operating officer, we described how the member-business-lending cap constrained our ability to find a credit union that met our needs as a growing business:
[W]e couldn’t easily make electronic check deposits and couldn’t see check images online. When we looked for these features – and we spent almost a month searching – we couldn’t find a single credit union anywhere that both offered them to small business and could fit [the R Street Institute] into their field of membership. This state of affairs, we believe, exists because of federal laws that cap credit union member-business loans. Since credit unions face such onerous restrictions on the size of their loan portfolios, it’s natural and even proper that many underinvest in the IT systems necessary to support small business.
Without a significant easing of the cap, it is unlikely that any given set of regulatory changes will solve these problems. Nonetheless, the small changes you propose might, at the margin, make it easier for credit unions to justify the investments necessary to serve businesses like ours in the way we would like to be served.
The rule changes you suggest are common sense and will benefit both and existing credit-union members the economy as a whole.
“Workforce development” is such a widely used term that it’s easy for most of us to ignore. Unfortunately, it might be one of the most critical challenges facing Alabama. Between an aging population and a disconnect between education and industry, we may need to change the term to “workforce creation” in short order.
My generation grew up in the middle of America’s manufacturing exodus. For the last three decades, America has seen its “makers” move to lower-wage nations like China and Mexico.
From December 1982 to July 1990, the economy saw one of the largest expansions in American history. More importantly, employment grew by more than 25 percent.
Manufacturers cashed out on the growth by moving to emerging markets in an effort to lower labor and regulatory costs.
Now, those foreign markets are catching up. Many cost and regulatory advantages are decreasing. At the same time, issues of product quality from nations like China are popping up continually.
Manufacturers are coming back to America and Alabama has many of the fundamentals they need. Even so, we struggle in three key areas: Workforce, workforce and workforce.
“When we talk to the folks in business and industry, they’re talking in terms of 50 percent of their workforce could retire today if they wanted,” said Alabama Community College System Chancellor Mark Heinrich. “So far, the economy has kept them in place.”
As the economy improves, retiring workers could prove to be a potentially catastrophic problem for existing businesses and a hindrance to industrial expansion and recruitment.
Normally, we’d simply replace them, but we’ve effectively lost a generation of workers in the same industries we’re trying to recruit.
At the same time as America’s manufacturing exodus, our education system managed to redefine personal and professional success in terms of obtaining degrees. That’s a great benefit to colleges and universities, but it’s a problem when the supply of degrees doesn’t match the job demand of the marketplace.
According to information presented by Alabama State Board of Education member Mary Scott Hunter, Alabama’s public colleges aren’t producing enough graduates in the areas of projected economic growth.
Unfortunately, the problem isn’t unique or novel. For example, I majored in both philosophy and classics in college. But for law school, I would have been able to use a dead language to critically explore the meaning of me starving to death as a result of my career choices. Other than my father’s wisdom, nobody bothered to highlight the importance of being able to find gainful employment with my degree.
At the same time, our industry leaders need a longer-term approach to education and professional agility. People aren’t commodities; they’re assets. Investments that incrementally provide workers with the skills to engage the changing industrial environment may actually prove economically preferable to firing and hiring repeatedly.
Alabama’s economy needs all the help it can get. Finding ways to increasingly match our education with our industrial needs is a good place to start.
From the Deseret News:
While ban the box laws are designed to encourage employers to keep an open mind when evaluating people with criminal records, there is no evidence that it actually leads to more hires, according to Eli Lehrer, president of R Street Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based libertarian think tank that advocates for free markets and limited government.
“If there were evidence to support ‘ban the box’ I would get behind it,” said Lehrer. “But we are still waiting for that gold standard study. There’s no proof it works.”
Though 15 major rules in a month might seem like a lot, in fact the bigger problem with rulemaking right now is just how far behind regulators are in producing rules mandated by Congress, as a recent report from the R Street Institute points out. The problem then is not regulators trying to sneak rules in when Congress isn’t looking but an inability to produce rules at all.