Has the VA Deprived You of Your Second Amendment Rights? Call us!

As we have reported several times in the past (including here and here), the Veterans Administration (VA) has been reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) the identities of its beneficiaries who have been assigned a “fiduciary” to manage their benefits. The VA claims that such determinations constitute an “adjudication of mental defectiveness” under federal law, thereby prohibiting the beneficiary (preemptively for life) from acquiring or possessing firearms.

The NRA has for several years been supporting legislation to correct this unjustified infringement on Second Amendment rights, including the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act (H.R. 2001, Rep. Jeff Miller, R-FL) and the Mental Health and Safe Communities Act of 2015 (S. 2002, Sen. John Cornyn, R-TX).

Recently, this issue has taken on even broader importance with the planned implementation of a similar program concerning Social Security Administration (SSA) beneficiaries who have been assigned a “representative payee.” We reported on SSA’s plans last summer, and then the White House itself announced the program would be part of President Obama’s latest “executive actions” on gun control.

Now, in our continuing efforts to oppose these gun-grabbing schemes, we are asking you to share your stories. We are interested in hearing from VA beneficiaries who have been deprived of their Second Amendment rights after assignment of a fiduciary, especially if you are willing to allow your experience to be made public. Our hope is that by putting a human face on VA’s practices, we’ll be able to shine more light on this scandal and hopefully promote meaningful reform.

In particular, we’d like to know:

  1. Who made the determination that a fiduciary was necessary?
  2. Did this determination involve a formal hearing?
  3. Were you told the effect the determination would have on your Second Amendment rights?
  4. Were you apprised of your right to an appeal or to petition for restoration of rights?
  5. What factors influenced your decision whether or not to pursue an appeal or restoration?
  6. Were you successfully able to get your rights back?

If you are able to share documentation of your experience (letters, rulings, etc.) that would also be very helpful.

Please contact us using our web form here or call us at (800) 392-8683 and provide:

  • Your name and contact information;
  • Brief answers to the above six questions;
  • Digital copies of relevant documents, if possible; and
  • Whether you consent to NRA contacting you for follow-up and using your information in our public efforts to right this wrong.

The NRA is committed to ensuring that the Second Amendment rights of all VA and SSA beneficiaries are respected. Your help will promote this effort.

Yes, Students Are Customers, but the Customer Isn’t Always Right by Kevin Currie-Knight & Steven Horwitz

“College students are not customers. That analogy needs to die. It needs to be drowned in the world’s largest bathtub. It needs a George R.R. Martin–esque bloodbath of a demise.”

These are the strong words of education writer Rebecca Schuman in response to Iowa’s recent attempt to pass a law tying professors’ job security to their teaching evaluations. Such laws, Schuman and others think, are based on the misguided idea that students are akin to customers.

OK, So College Isn’t Like a Restaurant

To an extent, we agree with Schuman, but we think she vastly oversimplifies. In one way, it is hard to deny that students are customers. They (or someone acting on their behalf) pay for a service and, like customers in any other market, students can take their tuition money elsewhere if they aren’t satisfied.

Whether the educational experience was to the student’s “liking” may not be a good measure of the quality of the university’s educational services. 

On the other hand, as Schuman points out, college education looks quite different from many other businesses. Unlike restaurant patrons, for example, students are buying a service (education) that isn’t geared toward customer enjoyment. A good college education may even push students in ways they don’t enjoy.

Whether the tilapia was prepared to the patron’s liking is a good measure of the restaurant’s food. Whether the educational experience was to the student’s “liking” may not be a good measure of the quality of the university’s educational services.

Rather than this distinction being evidence for Schuman’s claim, however, it actually points out one of its flaws. She overlooks the fact that not all customers have the same sort of relationship with a business as we see in the restaurant industry, which serves as the only basis of her customer analogy.

Yes, colleges certainly have a different relationship with students than restaurants have with patrons. Patrons are there to get what tastes good and satisfies them for that specific visit. Students are (presumably) there to receive a good education, which may not instantly please them and may sometimes have to “taste bad” to be effective. (Most people who go to the dentist don’t find it immediately pleasurable, either, but, in the long run, they are certainly glad they went.)

No Pain, No Gain

We can think of three alternative business analogies for the university-student relationship.

First is personal training or physical therapy. Like university education, they involve services that aren’t geared toward immediate consumer happiness. To help a client achieve good results, a trainer often has to make the workout difficult when the client might have wanted to go easier. And good physical therapy often involves putting the client through painful motions the client would rather not undergo.

Yet, these businesses see their clients as customers and probably take customer feedback quite seriously. Trainers need to push customers past where they want to go, but this doesn’t mean trainers dismiss negative feedback.

Credible Credentials

Second are certification services, firms that provide quality assurance for other firms. Such providers may find themselves at odds with their customers when they withhold certification, but if the firm asking for certification really wants an assurance of quality for its customers, that firm will understand why its unhappiness at being denied isn’t a reason for the certifying organization to just cave to whatever its customers want.

Schuman suggests that if students are customers, the university must be a profit-grubbing business.

For example, a manufacturer of commercial refrigerators might seek certification from Underwriters Laboratories to prove to restaurant owners that its appliances have been independently tested and proven to hold food at safe temperatures that won’t sicken customers. If tests reveal that the fridges aren’t getting cooler than 50 degrees — far above food safety guidelines — the fridges won’t get certified.

Any certifying bodies that give in to pressure to certify all paying customers will end up being punished by the market when someone (a competitor? a journalist?) reveals that the company’s certification doesn’t really certify anything. Protecting the quality of the certification process is in everyone’s interest, even if it makes some of a certifier’s customers unhappy with particular outcomes.

College students may well be like the firms seeking a certification of quality, with employers and graduate schools being the analogue of their customers, who will only hire or admit “certified” students.

The Cheapest Product at the Highest Price?

A third analogy is the nonprofit organization. Schuman suggests that if students are customers, the university must be a profit-grubbing business, and since a “business’s only goal is to succeed,” a customer-focused university will “purvey… the cheapest product it can at the highest price customers will pay.”

But does viewing the people one serves as customers necessarily turn one into a business whose concern is to sell poor products at a high price rather than to provide a good service? Credit unions, art museums, area transportation services, and, yes, private K–12 schools are often organizations that don’t operate for profit and yet provide services directly to paying customers.

Nonprofit museums charge admissions and nonprofit ride services charge for rides; therefore, they serve paying customers. But this does not mean they aim to make the maximum profit possible, or in fact any sort of profit, by providing the lowest quality at the highest price. (Of course, we would take issue with Schuman’s characterization of even more traditional profit-seeking firms as aiming to sell junk at high prices, but we can leave that to the side for our purposes here.)

Schuman is wrong to think that if universities see students as customers, this must turn them into profit-driven businesses in this narrow sense.

Is the Customer Always Right?

For all that, we sympathize with some of the basics of Schuman’s argument. As college professors, we understand her concern over putting too much stock in student evaluations of teacher performance. Even if students are customers, they surely aren’t customers in the same way the restaurant patron is a customer. And a restaurant will not automatically treat every customer comment card as equally influential in changing how it does business. Some restaurant customers have unrealistic expectations or don’t understand the food service business, and restaurants often have to decipher what feedback to take seriously and what to disregard.

We suspect that Schuman’s confusion may result from universities and professors thinking that they are selling something different from what students may think they are buying. Students generally want the degrees that come from education, with education being the process to get the degree. Universities (and professors) sell knowledge and skills, and the degree is simply the acknowledgement that students have obtained that knowledge.

Professors may think that they are selling something different from what students think they are buying.

Good learning may be difficult and, in the short run, unpleasant. But for students aiming for a degree, it would be better to go through classes that are agreeable and aren’t too difficult. If this is right, you can see why there’d be a mismatch between how students think their education is going and how it may actually be going, and why the former may not be the best gauge of the latter.

With a restaurant, the customer and the seller both agree on what the product is: a good meal (and good restaurateurs will generally defer to what the customer wants). With personal training, it may be that the trainer’s job involves pushing customers past where they’d go on their own, but the trainer and customer do still generally agree on the service: the trainer helps customers achieve their goal of fitness.

We appreciate and share Schuman’s concern that universities not over-rely on student evaluations and the degree to which students find their educations pleasurable in a narrow sense. But the issue isn’t as simple as saying that, because professors’ job security shouldn’t come down entirely to student evaluations, students aren’t customers.

Yes, there is a danger in treating students the way restaurateurs treat patrons. But there is also danger in the other extreme: if we stop viewing students as customers in some sense of the term, then instead of treating them with the respect we generally see in the personal training and certification industries and among nonprofits, we risk turning universities into something more like the DMV.

Kevin Currie-KnightKevin Currie-Knight

Kevin Currie-Knight teaches in East Carolina University’s Department of Special Education, Foundations, and Research. His website is KevinCK.net. He is a member of the FEE Faculty Network.

 

Steven HorwitzSteven Horwitz

Steven Horwitz is the Charles A. Dana Professor of Economics at St. Lawrence University and the author of Hayek’s Modern Family: Classical Liberalism and the Evolution of Social Institutions.

He is a member of the FEE Faculty Network.

RELATED ARTICLE: This State Offered Free College Education. Here’s What Happened.

VIDEO: Be Suspicious of the Stories We Tell Ourselves by Scott Sumner

People like to think in terms of stories:

It’s a movie classic. The lovers are out for a walk when a villain dashes out of his house and starts fighting the man. The woman takes refuge in the house; having seen off his rival, the villain re-enters and chases after her. Yet the hero returns, pulling open the door so that the heroine can escape. The villain chases the lovers, until they finally flee, and he smashes his own home apart in fury.

Who are these characters? None of them ever made another movie, and you won’t find them in any directories of famous actors. They are, in order of appearance, a large triangle (villain), a small triangle (hero), and a circle (heroine). The animated film was made in 1944 by the psychologists Fritz Heider and Marianne Simmel of Smith College in Massachusetts, whose paper ‘An Experimental Study of Apparent Behaviour’ is a milestone in understanding the human impulse to construct narratives.

At one level, their movie is just a series of geometric shapes moving around on a white background. It appears to lack any formal elements of story at all. Yet study groups (of undergraduate women) who saw the film in 1944 were remarkably consistent in their judgment of what it was ‘about’. Thirty-five out of 36 decided that the big triangle was a mean, irritable bully, and half identified the small triangle as valiant and spirited.

That’s a striking result: near unanimity on the emotional journey of a bunch of shapes. Then again, how surprising were these findings? Abstract animation existed as early as the 1920s, and experimental animators such as the Hungarian Jules Engel had already shown in sequences such as the Mushroom Dance in Walt Disney’s Fantasia (1940) that very little visual information is needed to create characters and story. So perhaps research was just catching up with what the empiricism of art had already discovered.

I’ve found that stories get in the way of logical thinking in economics. When I try to explain that a tight money policy led to the recession of 2008, I have to contend with the fact that people have already interpreted the events of 2008 through a very different set of stories, ones much more consistent with Hollywood. (Indeed there is a new example in the theaters right now.)

People don’t like my claim that the Fed needed a more expansionary policy because:

  1. It would “bail out” foolish borrowers (or foolish lenders?)
  2. I would simply be “papering over” deeper structural problems (or perhaps the failures of the Obama administration.)
  3. It would be taking the “easy way out”, not making the hard decision to endure a period of austerity.
  4. “There’s a price to be paid” for the reckless excesses of the housing bubble.
  5. It would just be “kicking the can” down the road.

These metaphors do more to obfuscate than enlighten, but they appeal to our sense that society can be understood through stories. Trump and Sanders have cleverly exploited this human weakness, in their current campaigns.

At times it seems like the press is so enamored with stories that they don’t even need any facts. Consider this assertion in a recent WSJ “story”:

After substantially revaluing the yuan over a decade in response to protectionist threats, China now finds the strong dollar has left its currency grossly uncompetitive with the euro, the yen and all the rest.

The alarming recent devaluation of the yuan, while a sensible response for China, is creating strains throughout emerging economies and deep uncertainty through all global supply chains.

When you look at the numbers, this comment literally makes no sense. The Chinese yuan has been very strong in the last few years, and has strongly appreciated against the other emerging market currencies. But it seems to fit a deeply held narrative, which people cling to because it makes a good story. China’s a “big triangle,” trampling all over the “smaller triangles,” like Brazil and Indonesia and Vietnam.

Banking is another example. In the recent crisis, the biggest problems were in the small and mid-sized banks. The FDIC (i.e., we taxpayers) spent tens of billions of dollars paying off the depositors of the smaller banks, who made lots of reckless subprime mortgages. But it makes a better story to blame the biggest banks, so that’s become the standard narrative.

Then there was the orgy of predatory borrowing: people lying about their incomes to get mortgages. But that doesn’t make a good story, so let’s make it “predatory lending.” Sometimes their are competing stories, as when the right claims the police are a “thin blue line” protecting civilization from barbarism, whereas the left sees the police as powerful bullies, picking on the most downtrodden members of society.

Bernie Sanders sees a financial system where Grandma (Jimmy Stewart banks) was replaced by the wolf (Goldman Sachs).

In my view, Alice in Wonderland best captures the counterintuitive nature of monetary economics.

PS: I’m sure I stole part of this from the very first TED talk I ever saw, by Tyler Cowen:

Cross-posted from Econlog.

Scott SumnerScott Sumner

Scott B. Sumner is the director of the Program on Monetary Policy at the Mercatus Center and a professor at Bentley University. He blogs at the Money Illusion and Econlog.

What Marx Got Right about Redistribution – That John Stuart Mill Got Wrong by Alan Reynolds

The idea that government could redistribute income willy-nilly with impunity did not originate with Senator Bernie Sanders. On the contrary, it may have begun with two of the most famous 19th century economists, David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill. Karl Marx, on the other side, found the idea preposterous, calling it “vulgar socialism.”

Mill wrote,

The laws and conditions of the production of wealth partake of the character of physical truths. There is nothing optional or arbitrary about them. … It is not so with the Distribution of Wealth. That is a matter of human institution only. The things once there, mankind, individually, can do with them as they like.

Mill’s distinction between production and distribution appears to encourage the view that any sort of government intervention in distribution is utterly harmless — a free lunch. But redistribution aims to take money from people who earned it and give it to those who did not. And that, of course, has adverse effects on the incentives of those who receive the government’s benefits and on taxpayers who finance those benefits.

David Ricardo had earlier made the identical mistake. In his 1936 book The Good Society (p. 196), Walter Lippmann criticized Ricardo as being “not concerned with the increase of wealth, for wealth was increasing and the economists did not need to worry about that.”

But Ricardo saw income distribution as an interesting issue of political economy and “set out to ascertain ‘the laws which determine the division of the produce of industry among the classes who concur in its formation.’

Lippmann wisely argued that, “separating the production of wealth from the distribution of wealth” was “almost certainly an error. For the amount of wealth which is available for distribution cannot in fact be separated from the proportions in which it is distributed. … Moreover, the proportion in which wealth is distributed must have an effect on the amount produced.”

The third classical economist to address this issue was Karl Marx. There were many fatal flaws in Marxism, including the whole notion that a society is divided into two armies — workers and capitalists. Late in his career, however, Marx wrote a fascinating 1875 letter to his allies in the German Social Democratic movement criticizing a redistributionist scheme he found unworkable.

In this famous “Critique of the Gotha Program,” Marx was highly critical of “vulgar socialism” and considered the whole notion of “fair distribution” to be “obsolete verbal rubbish.” In response to the Gotha’s program claim that society’s production should be equally distributed to all, Marx asked,

To those who do not work as well? … But one man is superior to another physically or mentally and so supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time. … This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor… It is, therefore, a right to inequality.

Yet Marx offered a glimmer of utopian hope about the future in which things would become so abundant that distribution would no longer be a matter of concern:

In a higher phase of communist society … after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of cooperative wealth flow more abundantly — only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banner: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

That was not a prescription but a warning: For the foreseeable future Marx knew nothing would work without work incentives. If income were equally distributed to “those who do not work,” why would anyone work?

Contemporary public economics — “optimal tax theory” and the newest of the “new welfare economics” — also teaches that to tax a man “according to his abilities” would give able men a very strong incentive to use their skills to hide their earnings (and therefore their abilities) from tax collectors. This predictable response to tax penalties on high earnings is confirmed by economic research on the elasticity of taxable income.

Distributing government spending “to each according to his needs” must likewise give potential recipients a strong incentive to exaggerate their needs. People who got caught doing that used to be called “welfare cheats” and considerable cheating still goes on in food stamps, Medicaid, etc. The Earned Income Tax Credit, for example, gives low-income working people an extra incentive to not report cash income from tips, casual labor or illicit activities.

In The Undercover Economist, Tim Harford rightly notes that “when economists say the economy is inefficient, they mean there’s a way to make somebody better off without harming anybody else” (called “Pareto optimality”). But argues that Nobel Laureate Kenneth Arrow figured out a way to efficiently redistribute income with “appropriate lump-sum taxes and subsidies that puts everyone on equal footing.” As Harford says, “a lump-sum tax doesn’t affect anybody’s behavior because there’s nothing you can do to avoid it.”

Unfortunately, Harford says “an example of a lump-sum redistribution would be to give eight hundred dollars to everybody whose name starts with H.” That simply shows that if the subsidies were not ridiculously random then the subsidies will affect behavior and will not be lump-sum. The government could collect a lump-sum tax of $800 from every adult and then send a lump-sum subsidy of $800 to every adult with no net effect, for example, but why do that? If the government tried to tax people on the basis of abilities or to subsidize on the basis of needs, even Marx knew that would have a terrible effect on incentives.

The whole idea was curtly dismissed by another Nobel Laureate, Joseph Stiglitz, in his 1994 book Whither Socialism? (p. 46): “The ‘old new welfare economics’ assumed that lump-sum redistributions were possible,” wrote Stiglitz; “The ‘new new welfare economics’ recognizes the limitations on the government’s information.”

The reason governments cannot simply take money from some people according to how able they are, and give it to others according to how needy they are, is because people who were aware of that plan would not be foolish enough to accurately reveal their abilities and needs.

Actual taxes and transfer payment distort behavior in ways that undermine economic progress and commonly produce results (such as trapping people in poverty) that are the opposite of their stated intent.

This post first appeared at Cato.org.

Alan ReynoldsAlan Reynolds

Alan Reynolds is one of the original supply-side economists. He is Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and was formerly Director of Economic Research at the Hudson Institute.

U.S. Attorney prosecuting the Bundy’s was fired by President Bush in 2007

U.S. attorney Daniel G. Bogden

U.S. attorney Daniel G. Bogden

The U.S. Constitution does not permit the federal government to own state land unless for commercial activity around ports, for military bases under the forts doctrine, post offices and ten square miles around Washington D.C.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has no constitutional authority to exist and must be defunded by the Congress of the United States. Ref: Article 1, section 8, clause 17. The federal government can only control land within the states but only with permission of the state legislature.

The U.S. Attorney currently prosecuting the ranchers from Nevada, the Bundy’s, (Ammon and Cliven) and others for their refusal to comply with unconstitutional laws, by trying to force them to pay for grazing licenses (on state land illegally occupied by the federal government) was originally fired by President Bush.

On December 7, 2006 – Justice Department official Michael Battle informed seven U.S. Attorneys with poor evaluations in the Bush Department of Justice (DOJ), including Daniel G. Bogden the attorney from Nevada prosecuting the Bundy’s, that they were being summarily dismissed.

U.S. Attorney Daniel G. Bogden of the United States District Court in the District of Nevada was then officially fired by President Bush from his position in the Department of Justice on February 28th, 2007 after failing to perfume his said duties as required, for poor performance evaluations and for lack of loyalty to the President of the United States and the U.S. Constitution.

This is the same man now leading the charge to prosecute ranchers in Nevada for trying to make a peaceful living operating within the confines of the U.S. Constitution who protected their personal property from unlawful rustling by said BLM agents.

Ranchers who then protected their families under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution when BLM agents assaulted family members including the tasering of a pregnant woman.

The Obama administration and his DOJ team do not seem to want to follow the U.S. Constitution and are now using a former attorney fired by President Bush in 2007 to take out a family who are trying to bring attention to the unlawful and unconstitutional assault on state land and ranchers by the BLM.

How did this U.S. attorney Daniel G. Bogden get back into a position of authority to lead this unconstitutional assault on these American ranchers, with many now facing indictment and prosecution including the possible execution of a peaceful rancher by authorities in Oregon named Robert “LaVoy” Finicum ?.

He was rehired by the President Barack Obama on July 31st, 2009.

Wake up America. Your land your life and your liberty could be next.

I call upon Mr. Trump the next president of the United States to investigate, prosecute and punish any and all federal employees who could be unlawfully trying to violate the constitutional rights of the Bundy’s the Hammond’s and all ranchers in the western states and across this nation.

The BLM must be defunded and dismantled and all land currently occupied by federal forces returned back to state control.

The Hammond’s and the Bundy’s are now political prisoners of the Obama administration. They must be released immediately and damages must be paid to these families including the wife and foster children of Mr. Finicum.

Why I Wear the I Love Fossil Fuels T-Shirt

For years I have gotten the question: Where can I get one of those shirts? And for years I have had inadequate solutions that involved a) you paying $25-30 a shirt or b) CIP spending a lot of time becoming a mediocre t-shirt fulfillment company.

Now, thanks to the geniuses at Teespring, I am thrilled that you can get between 1 and a million I Love Fossil Fuels t-shirts for $10 each.

This year is the pivotal year for the future of energy in the world. No exaggeration. The results of the US elections and the energy policies adopted by the next President and Congress can either a) commit us to the catastrophic, energy deprivation policies the current administration agreed to in Paris last year or b) liberate the energy industry and capitalize on America’s amazing energy opportunities to create energy abundance around the world.

Wearing the I Love Fossil Fuels t-shirt is the perfect way to show where you stand in the energy battle of 2016.

Alex

P.S. Please, please, please also sign and spread the America’s Energy Opportunity ultimatum to our politicians.

The Latest From CIP

“Must Watch” Video Interviews

Alex’s interviews on TheSurge.com’s “Jolted” series (some of his best yet!)

This Crazy 100-Year-Old Law Makes Almost Everything More Expensive by George C. Leef

The 2016 presidential campaign so far has featured almost no discussion of downsizing the federal government. Americans would benefit enormously if we could get rid of costly old laws that interfere with freedom and prosperity, and future generations would benefit even more.

I keep hoping that someone will manage to put this question squarely to the candidates in either party: “What laws would you seek to repeal if you were the president?”

There are so many laws that ought to be repealed, including countless special interest statutes that benefit a tiny group while imposing costs on a vastly greater number of Americans. But if candidates need an idea of where to start, one such law is the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, also called the “Jones Act.”

The Act requires that all shipments between American ports to be done exclusively on American ships. As Daniel Pearson explains,

Its stated purpose was to maintain a strong U.S. merchant marine industry. Drafters of the legislation hoped that the merchant fleet would remain healthy and robust if all shipments from one U.S. port to another were required to be carried on U.S.-built and U.S.-flagged vessels.

The theory behind the law is musty, antiquated mercantilism — the notion that the nation will be stronger if we protect “our” industries against foreign competition.

Imagine how strong we would be if there had been a Jones Act for automobile transportation. Would Americans be better off today if the Detroit automakers had remained an oligopoly by keeping out all of those Hondas, BMWs, and Hyundais? Obviously not — yet this logic has handicapped US shipping for 96 years.

A recent op-ed in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser nicely explain the absurd consequences of this law. The writer just wants to buy a cabinet, but “although the cabinet was made in Taiwan, it could not be off-loaded in Hawaii, but rather had to be shipped to the West Coast, then loaded onto an American ship for the costly backward journey to Hawaii.” Tons of time, fuel, and expense wasted, all thanks to the Jones Act.

We get a more comprehensive view of its costs from a report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) last September. The report, titled “International Food Assistance: Cargo Preference Increases Food Aid Shipping Costs,” shows the heavy cost of the law. The GAO, known for its non-partisan, straight-shooting approach, found that the Jones Act increased the cost of shipping food aid by 23 percent.

What does that mean? Between 2011 and 2014, the taxpayers had to fork over an extra $45 million to ship food for USAID. With Washington’s prodigious spending, we’ve gotten used to the idea that amounts under a billion are too small to bother with, but that is the wrong way to look at things. Even if we didn’t have a constantly increasing national debt, we ought to root out every needless federal expenditure.

Treading very delicately, the GAO states that, because the Jones Act “serves statutory policy goals,” Congress should merely tweak it so that aid agencies can find less costly shipping. But the federal government has no constitutional authority to be in the business of international aid, and carving out a special exemption for this would simply help the government avoid the consequences that it is inflicting on everyone else. Congress should simply repeal the protectionist law entirely.

The Jones Act also distorts our energy market and leads to higher prices than otherwise. Writing at The Federalist, trade attorney Scott Lincicome points out that, due to the law’s restrictions, only thirteen ships can legally move crude oil between US ports, and those ships are “booked solid.” As a result, shipping American crude from Texas to Philadelphia costs more than three times as much as it would cost to send it all the way to Canada on a foreign vessel.

One of the Act’s few congressional opponents is Arizona Senator John McCain, who pointed out in this testimony that Hawaiian cattlemen who want to sell livestock on the mainland “have actually resorted to flying the cattle on 747 jumbo jets to work around the restrictions of the Jones Act. Their only alternative is to ship the cattle to Canada because all livestock carriers in the world are foreign-owned.”

Hawaii is especially hard hit by the Jones Act, but other states and territories that depend heavily on water-borne shipping also suffer. Consider Puerto Rico: a 2012 study by the New York Fed found that it cost about $3,063 to ship a 20-foot container from an east coast US port to Puerto Rico, but shipping the same container to a foreign destination, such as Jamaica, would cost only about $1,687. Because it is an American territory, the poor island pays almost twice as much to import American products.

For nearly a century, we’ve paid more at the pump, more for goods, more in taxes, and even more to do charitable aid, all because of this ancient special interest law.

All that the Jones Act accomplishes is to guarantee a market for costly, unionized American shipping. It is similar in purpose to the Davis-Bacon Act, which guarantees a market for high-cost unionized construction (as I explain here).

Such special interest laws are never good for the country as a whole, but they are passed and maintained because their lobbyists are crafty, knowledgeable, and highly motivated, while the voting public is mostly ignorant.

It takes a spotlight and presidential leadership to get rid of them. Will any of this year’s crop take up the challenge?

George C. LeefGeorge C. Leef

George Leef is the former book review editor of The Freeman. He is director of research at the John W. Pope Center for Higher Education Policy.

Obama Seeks To Harm America, Again

History proves that President Obama’s plan to slap a ten-dollar tax on every barrel of oil imported into America or developed here to use the money for transformation is both is both fool-hearty and wasteful.  Once again, one of the big chiefs of overbearing nanny goat government is threatening to use unconstitutional bullying to dictate the activities of “We the People.”  This time seeking to increase the tax burden upon business activity and consumption.  The president stated, “I will take advantage of low gas prices to accelerate a transition to a clean energy economy.”  “We’re going to impose a tax on a barrel of oil imported, exported, so that some of the revenue can be used for the investments in basic research and technology that’s going to be needed for the energy sources of the future.”

Oil industry officials, who are always accused by progressive government types like Obama and their cohorts in the dragon media of being greedy, stated that Obama’s proposed $10.00 per barrel tax on crude oil would harm consumers.  “The Obama administration believes that we the American people are not paying enough for gasoline.”  That is why he wants to dictate a higher price for us to pay more for gasoline.  The proposed tax could increase the cost of gasoline by at least 25 cents per gallon.  That development could harm consumers who have ale=ready been hurt by the president’s efforts to “fundamentally change America.”

In addition, more American jobs could be wiped out.  Also our republic’s emergence as a global energy leader could be brought to a halt, according to the American Petroleum Institute.  Actually, that is a goal of the Alinsky inspired Obama administration.

Now that I think about it, no one is more to blame than the bloated federal government for any problems our republic is facing in regards to energy production or transportation.  If you research the mid nineteenth until the early twentieth century, the private sector was providing a vastly superior system of transportation over what has emerged as government transit systems throughout America.  For example, Both Cleveland and Detroit had rail transportation throughout both cities and surrounding areas.

All major thoroughfares and many minor streets had streetcar or rail transport that ran often and almost always on time, baring any natural disaster.  The service was provided by mostly private companies who competed for customers.  The various transportation systems did not overlap and even the quality and cleanliness of the streetcars, or trolleys were well maintained.

In Detroit, among the private companies providing transportation service were the Fort Street and Elmwood Avenue Railway Company, Detroit Railway Company and several others.  Streetcar or rail service for public transport began during the 1860s in both Cleveland and Detroit as horse drawn trolleys.  By 1895 all were converted to electric power.

The nature of government is to progressively either take over or dismantle and then dominate private entities.  That was the case in both Cleveland and Detroit.  In Detroit, during the early 20th century, the transit companies raised their adult ridership price by one nickel to a “whopping” ten cents.  Soon after, the populist city government bullies who desired to take over the transit business publically railed against the nickel increase and duped Detroit voters into approving the city government takeover of transportation services.  City misleaders had convinced city dwellers that they could provide better transportation services at a lower price by using tax dollars to subsidize the trolley services.  That false scenario was played out in other cities as well including New York City.

In fact, the original private based companies that oversaw the building of the earlier subway tunnels in the Big Apple constructed them at a much quicker pace than the tax payer funded union trolls who built subway tunnels in the following decades.

What does the story about past government takeovers of private transportation services have to do with Obama’s call for increasing crude oil taxes today?  It is simple, if government had not gotten involved and taken over viable private run transportation companies, I believe that cities like Detroit would have maintained great transportation systems it their customers desired to continue utilizing transportation systems.

The problem is big government getting involved, thus killing innovation and in most cases quality of service.  How much further ahead regarding energy independence would America be, if only the United States had not been prevented from increasing oil and gas exploration and production by the Obama administration?  Before the curse and onslaught of the Obamacare being thrust upon our republic “We the People” were blessed with the best medical care on earth, but now it is in steady decline.

If Obama wants improved transportation options for America, the government tax regulations and tax burdens must be lessened and certain taxes such as on production should be eliminated as soon as possible, which should be now.  As a result there would come about increased economic activity would fuel incentives for needed changes that the American people desire, not wasteful unwanted government mandates that only bring about destructive and unnecessary declines in the quality of life and related hardships.

RELATED ARTICLE: Supreme Court Halts Obama’s Aggressive Climate Agenda

For The Confused Media: A Dummy’s Guide To Immigration And Refugee Problems

By Wallace Bruschweiler and William Palumbo –

With the Syrian (so-called) refugee crisis ubiquitous in the headlines, the media has found itself dealing with immigration issues on a daily basis.  Unfortunately, extreme confusion abounds.  The media’s total inability to draw basic distinctions regarding immigration to the United States, both legal and illegal is harming the public’s ability to digest this important topic.  Immigration terms are being thrown around print media, radio, and television that have no relation to the real facts or existing laws.

The following is the dummy’s guide to some of the most important distinctions regarding legal and illegal immigration to the United States.  It is sincerely hoped that this will help to end the erroneous reasons and multitude of excuses offered by the media on a daily, almost hourly, basis.

Legal Immigration

Visas

  • Visa Waiver Program: For travel and business purposes, this allows visitors to the United States from other specified countries to enter the country without obtaining a visa (based upon reciprocity). There were 38 Visa Waiver countries as of January 2009.  Applicants fill out an application via us.  (Note: Israel is not one of those 38 countries, yet Americans can enter Israel without obtaining a visa.)
  • Common Visas:
    • K1: For foreign fiancés of Americans. These visas are often abused by foreigners who seek citizenship, and will bribe “fiancés” whom they have no intention of marrying.
    • K-3: For foreign spouses of Americans.
    • H-1B: For skilled foreign workers. American employers must prove that the foreigner’s qualifications are not readily available domestically.
    • F and M: Academic/student visas. See below for common abuses of student visas.

Legal Immigrants

  • Green Cards: Holders of Green Cards must not be outside the United States for more than 5 months and 29 days per year. They must also have a legal record.  After five years, they are eligible to apply for citizenship.  At that time, they must also indicate all the countries they have visited in the previous five years.

Illegal Immigration

  • Border crossings: Today, the nation’s two borders (south and north) are equivalent to Swiss cheese. The Border Patrol has been handicapped by the Obama administration.  By definition, we know nothing (no names, no photos, no fingerprints) about illegal immigrants who cross our borders unannounced and unchallenged.  In the worst case scenario, an illegal immigrant who is caught inside the country will be ordered to leave within 15 days.  Against all logic, no check is applied to make sure that he does in fact leave!
    • If a person returns to the country illegally after being deported for previously entering illegally, by law that person has committed a felony and should be arrested, sentenced, and jailed.
  • Visa overstays: Other than border crossings, many foreigners are in the country illegally because they overstay their visas. For example, student visas are routinely abused in this manner.  Why?
    • After they are issued, there is no check to ensure that the student is enrolled at the college/university. They may never show up to begin with, or drop out after one, two, or three years.
    • After their study program is over, there is no check to ensure that they leave the country as expected.

Refugees

Refugees should not be considered a part of the immigration system, legal or illegal.  The Refugee Resettlement program is administered by the federal government (U.S. Department of State) and the United Nations.  In the U.S., the program is managed by politically-connected NGO’s (including many who are connected to the Catholic Church), and who receive money per refugee they process.

  • Security screenings: The White House claims that each refugee goes through multiple levels of security screenings, including the FBI, DHS, and State Department. However, FBI Director James Comey has warned that “certain gaps” remain in the screening process.

Sanctuary Cities

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, “Across the U.S., there are 340 cities, counties, and states that are considered “sanctuary cities”.  These jurisdiction[s] protect criminal aliens from deportation by refusing to comply with ICE detainers or otherwise impede open communication and information exchanges between their employees or officers and federal immigration agents.”

In other words, these are cities, counties, and states where existing federal law is intentionally ignored by local authorities.  For a map of these places, click here.

Conclusion

The entry checks for immigrants are sophisticated (ten-finger prints, pictures, and names).  But there are no checks whatsoeverregarding their exit.  Therefore, it is impossible to provide accurate figures on overstays, illegal entries, etc.

The American immigration system is abused through both legal and illegal channels.  Because of the complexity of the issue, the media regularly confuses and/or conflates the problems associated with the system.  Despite the challenges and complexities, the laws already exist to enforce immigration and ensure the integrity of the system, and in turn keep Americans safe.  Special time and effort should be dedicated to develop and implement accurate and feasible exit procedures.

Federal Prosecutors Indict the American Flag in Los Angeles, CA!

The Stars and Stripes has been renamed a placard by the Director of the Veterans Administration Vincent Kane the head of the Veterans Administration in Washington D.C.

The federal government is now prosecuting Old Glory as a placard and prosecuting Vietnam Army Veterans for displaying said flag on the fence of a Veterans Administration facility in California.

Robert Rosebrock from Veterans Today reports:

As though it is not un-American enough that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has officially declared that our American Flag is a “placard, pamphlet, handbill or flyer” and further orders VA police to issue criminal arrest citations to Veterans and Patriots who display our Nation’s Colors outside the VA, but four deputy U.S. attorneys of the Department of Justice (DOJ) officially indicted the revered Flag of the United States of America, accusing It of being an imposter.

On February 3, the American Flag was arraigned and indicted in U.S. Federal Court for the Central District of California, Courtroom 341, Citation Case #4161140, “United States of America v. Robert L. Rosebrock,” after I pleaded “not guilty” to the VA’s criminal charges of “distributing of materials such as pamphlets, handbills, and/or flyers, and the displaying of placards or posting of materials on bulletin boards or elsewhere on property is prohibited.”

In sum, the American Flag — as we know It – is a co-defendant in this case because the DOJ cannot indict one without indicting the other.

And it still remains unanswered as to what authority VA Secretary Robert A. McDonald officially transformed our American Flag into a “placard, pamphlet, handbill or flyer?

Read more.

What has happened to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?

I say we hang a couple hundred flags on the VA fence line in Los Angeles CA what say you?

Zika, Mass Murderers and Radical Environmentalists

If we were to compile a list of history’s most prolific mass murderers, who would we put on our list?  Attila the Hun ravaged the Roman Empire during the 5th Century, killing and maiming all who stood in his way.  In the 13th Century, Genghis Khan and his Mongol hordes roamed far and wide, creating a bloody empire that stretched from China and the Korean peninsula all the way to Iraq and Eastern Europe.

From 1921 to 1959, Josef Stalin ruled the Soviet Union with a cruelty unprecedented in human history, killing some 60 million of his own countrymen.  In the 1930’s and 40’s, Adolph Hitler murdered some 6 million people – mostly Jews, Gypsies, and others who were deemed ineligible for membership in the “master race.”  And from 1975 to 1979, the Khmer Rouge, under the leadership of Pol Pot, murdered nearly 4 million in a wanton political “cleansing” of the Cambodian countryside.

But who would we select as the greatest mass murderer of all time?  The leading candidate for that title would be American marine biologist Rachel Carson, the author of Silent Spring, the principal force behind the banning of the pesticide DDT and the godmother of radical today’s radical environmentalists of the political left.

DDT is an odorless chemical pesticide used to control disease-carrying and crop-eating insects.  Developed in Germany in 1874, it did not come into common usage until World War II when it was effectively used for pre-invasion spraying of jungles and marshes.  Following the war, it was widely used throughout the world as a means of combating yellow fever, typhoid fever, malaria, and other diseases carried by insects.

Not only was DDT a major boon to the life expectancy of people throughout the world, it could be purchased for just pennies a pound.  In India alone, the number of cases of malaria was reduced from 75 million to less than 5 million in just ten years.

But then, in 1962, Rachel Carson published her book, Silent Spring, and environmental activism quickly became a leading fad among American liberals.  Carson charged that, as DDT entered the food chain, certain reproductive dysfunctions, such as thin eggs shells in some species of birds, might occur.

In late 1971, the Environmental Protection Agency initiated a series of hearings on the potential dangers of DDT.  After seven months of exhaustive hearings, the EPA’s Administrative Law Judge, Edmund Sweeney, ruled that, “DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man… The uses of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wildlife… The evidence in this proceeding supports the conclusion that there is a present need for the essential uses of DDT.”

Nevertheless, in spite of all of the scientific testimony to the contrary, pressure by radical environmentalists caused EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus, a wealthy member of the Environmental Defense Fund, to reverse Judge Sweeney’s ruling, declaring that DDT was a “potential human carcinogen” and banning its use for virtually all applications.

Although reliable statistics are hard to find, it is estimated that, in the forty-five years since the banning of DDT, more than 9 billion cases of malaria have been reported, most of them in developing countries.  At the rate of 700,000 to 800,000 malaria-related deaths per year, more than 36 million people have lost their lives to malaria in the past forty-five years… 90% of them pregnant women and children under age 5.

By comparison, the Great Indian Ocean Tsunami of December 26, 2004, killed more than 227,900 people in 14 countries, and 125,000 more were seriously injured.  But the loss of life and the injuries due to drowning and the collapse of buildings may have been exceeded by those who would die as a result of starvation and the spread of disease, such as typhoid fever, dysentery, cholera, and malaria.

Typhoid fever, dysentery, and cholera can be treated with a combination of drugs and/or oral rehydration, but malaria is another matter.  Malaria is best controlled through the application of DDT in mosquito-infested areas.  But DDT is no longer an alternative.  Its use has been banned since the early ‘70s as a result of pressure by radical environmentalists in the United States and Europe.

But now, in the early months of 2016, epidemiologists are confronted with yet another incurable disease related to mosquito infestation.  According to a February 5, 2016 report by Investor’s Business Daily, “The Zika virus is spreading and some public health officials seem to be near panic.  Whatever happens, don’t blame the mosquitoes.  This is a man-made problem.”

The report goes on to say, “Maybe the Zika outbreak will fade without having become too widespread, the way the Ebola scare never lived up to the hype.  But for now, Zika is apparently on the move and government health officials believe it will spread throughout the Americas, except for Canada and Chile.”

A January 2016 report by the World Health Organization (WHO) tells us that, “Zika virus disease outbreaks were reported for the first time from the Pacific in 2007 and 2013 (Yap and French Polynesia, respectively), and in 2015 from the Americas (Brazil and Colombia) and Africa (Cape Verde).  In addition, more than 13 countries in the Americas have reported sporadic Zika virus infections indicating rapid geographic expansion of Zika virus.”

Although generally not fatal in either adults or infants, the normal symptoms of Zika virus infection include mild headaches, skin rash, fever, malaise, pink eye, and joint pain.  With symptoms lasting only a few days in adults, Zika fever has been a relatively mild disease of limited scope, with only one in five persons developing symptoms and with no fatalities.  As of 2016, no vaccine or preventative drug is available.  However, the WHO recommends that symptoms can be treated with rest, fluids, and acetaminophen.

However, the WHO reports that, “During large outbreaks in French Polynesia and Brazil in 2013 and 2015, respectively, national health authorities reported potential neurological and auto-immune complications of Zika virus disease.  Recently, in Brazil, local health authorities have observed an increase in Zika virus infections in the general public as well as an increase in babies born with microcephaly in northeast Brazil.  Agencies investigating the Zika outbreaks are finding an increasing body of evidence about the link between Zika virus and microcephaly.”

Microcephaly is a birth defect in which a baby’s head is smaller than expected when compared to healthy babies of the same sex and age.  Babies with microcephaly often have smaller brains that might not have developed properly.

Zika virus is a member of the virus family Flaviviridae (genus Flavivirus), transmitted by the sting of the Aedes mosquito.  Under normal circumstances, since DDT poses no threat to humans or to the environment when properly used, the mosquito populations could be controlled through the use of DDT.  However, controlling the spread of deadly diseases through the use of DDT is not a part of the radical environmentalist agenda.  As Investor’s Business Daily correctly points out, “(T)he eco-activists would rather tolerate tens of millions of Third World deaths for the sake of a political agenda.  That’s the cruel and inhuman way of the environmentalist.  He will trade lives – and jobs, and economic liberty, and others’ wealth – in exchange for making the world… worse.”

So who wins the title of the greatest mass murderer of all time?  If we count all of the lives that would have been saved in the past forty-five years through the application of DDT, that number would exceed the total number of people murdered by Attila, Genghis Khan, Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot, combined.

To allow all of those lives to be lost in the name of “environmental protection” and “animal rights,” using junk science as a basis, is not just inhumane, it is genocide on a grand scale.  The title of “Greatest Mass Murderer of all Time” goes to the late Rachel Carson and all of her radical environmentalist followers.

Why the 20-Year Mortgage Is the Answer to Housing Finance Mess

A recent Associated Press poll found more than six in 10 respondents expressed only slight confidence — or none at all — in the ability of the federal government to make progress on important issues facing the country.

The public’s skepticism is well founded, especially when it comes to federal housing policy. Notwithstanding an alphabet soup of government agencies and federally backed companies — Federal Housing Administration, Fannie Mae, Ginnie Mae, Freddie Mac, Federal Housing Finance Agency, etc. — and trillions spent on government-mandated “affordable housing” initiatives, our home ownership rate today is no higher than it was in the mid-1960s. What is best described as a nationalized housing finance system has failed to achieve its two primary goals: broadening home ownership and achieving wealth accumulation for low- and middle-income homeowners.

The U.S. home ownership rate as of the fourth quarter of 2015 is 63.8%, the same as in the fourth quarter of 1966, and only marginally higher than the rate in 1956. More troubling, our housing policy has been unsuccessful at building wealth — the antidote to poverty. Between 1989 and 2013, median total accumulated wealth for households in the 40th to 60th percentiles has decreased from $76, 100 to $61,800, while median wealth for households in the 20th to 40th percentile has decreased by more than 50%, from $44,800 to $21,500. It was precisely these groups that were targeted to be helped by affordable housing policies.

For the last 60 years, U.S. housing policy has relied on looser and looser mortgage lending standards to promote broader home ownership and accomplish wealth accumulation, particularly for low- and middle-income households. Leverage first took the form of low down payments combined with the slowly amortizing 30-year term mortgage, which resulted in rapidly accelerating defaults, foreclosures and blighted neighborhoods. Since 1972, homeowners have suffered between 11 million and 12 million foreclosures. During the 1990s and early 2000s, new forms of leverage were combined with declining interest rates. With demand increasing faster than supply, the result was a price boom that made homes less, not more affordable, necessitating even more liberal credit terms. We are all familiar with the outcome—a massive housing bust and the Great Recession.

Today, in the shadow of Fannie and Freddie’s continued existence, taxpayers are again driving home prices up much faster than incomes — particularly at the lower end of home prices. U.S. housing policy has become self-justifying and self-perpetuating — loved by the National Association of Realtors, many housing advocacy groups, and the government-sponsored enterprises, but dangerous to the very home buyers it is supposed to help.

To help achieve sustainable, wealth-building home ownership opportunities for low- and middle-income Americans, our current government-backed command and control system should be replaced with market-driven antidotes. For most low- and middle-income families, the recipe for wealth-building over a lifetime contains three ingredients: buy a home with a mortgage that amortizes rapidly, thereby reliably building wealth; participate in a defined contribution retirement plan ideally with an employer match; and invest in your children’s college education.

Here are three steps to make the first goal — quickly amortizing mortgages — more of a reality:

First, housing finance needs to be refocused on the twin goals of sustainable lending and wealth-building. Well-designed, shorter term loans offer a much safer and secure path to home ownership and financial security than the slowly amortizing 30-year mortgage. Combining a low- or no-down-payment loan with the faster amortization of a 15- or 20-year term provides nearly as much buying power as a 30-year FHA loan. A bank in Maine offers a 20-year term, wealth-building loan that has 97% of the purchasing power of an FHA-insured loan. By age 50 to 55, when the 30-year-term loan leaves most homeowners saddled with another decade or more of mortgage payments, the cash flow freed up from a paid-off shorter-term loan is available to fund a child’s post-secondary-education needs and later turbocharge one’s own retirement.

Second, low-income, first-time home buyers should have the option to forgo the mortgage interest deduction and instead receive a one-time refundable tax credit that can be used to buy down the loan’s interest rate. Borrowers who participate in a defined contribution retirement plan might receive a larger tax credit, enabling them to lower their rate even more.

The one-time tax credit would support wealth-building by being available only for loans with an initial term of 20 years or less. To avoid pyramiding subsides and reduce taxpayer exposure, only loans not guaranteed by the federal government would be eligible. This would provide a big start to weaning the housing market off of government guarantees. With the Low-income First Time Home buyer — or LIFT Home — tax credit in place, the Fannie and Freddie affordable housing mandates could be eliminated, ending the race to the bottom among government guarantee agencies. Reductions in the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s budget and other budgeted amounts supporting “affordable housing” should also be used to fund LIFT Home. Better to provide the dollars directly to prospective homeowners, than to be siphoned off to bureaucracies and advocacy groups.

Third, the home mortgage interest deduction should be restructured to provide a broad, straight path to debt-free home ownership. Today’s tax code promotes a lifetime of indebtedness by incenting homeowners to take out large loans for lengthy terms so as to “maximize the value” of the deduction. Current law should be changed to: limit the interest deduction for future home buyers to loans used to buy a home by excluding interest on second mortgages and cash-out refinancing; for future borrowers, cap the deduction at the amount payable on a loan with a 20-year amortization term; and provide a grandfather on the deduction cap for existing home loan borrowers with 30-year loans as long as their interest savings go toward shortening the loan’s term.

A 21st-century market approach to wealth-building offers a safe and secure path to home ownership and financial security, something we haven’t had for decades.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The American Banker.

President Obama Wants You to Pay More for Oil

Apparently oil prices are too low, so President Barack Obama thinks it’s a good idea to slap on a $10 per barrel oil tax. Politico reports:

Obama aides told POLITICO that when he releases his final budget request next week, the president will propose more than $300 billion worth of investments over the next decade in mass transit, high-speed rail, self-driving cars, and other transportation approaches designed to reduce carbon emissions and congestion. To pay for it all, Obama will call for a $10 “fee” on every barrel of oil, a surcharge that would be paid by oil companies but would presumably be passed along to consumers.

Based on current prices, this would be a roughly 30% tax on a barrel of oil.

It’s disturbing that the president’s reaction to an industry slashing jobs and cutting investments in a tough business environment is to place a massive tax on the product they produce.

It’s also troubling to see that President Obama thinks of the tax as a quid pro quo for ending the oil export ban. (Something he opposed.)

“You’re allowed to export, but we’re also saying is that we’re going to impose a tax on a barrel of oil,”President Obama said at a press conference.

Thankfully this tax is already “dead on arrival” in Congress, said House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.).

President Obama knows this, but doesn’t care. As Politico notes, “It’s mostly an effort to jump-start a conversation.” And it falls squarely with his mission to end fossil fuel use in the United States.

“It’s really about taxing the energy they don’t like to make President Obama’s favored energy sources,” said Institute for Energy Research President Thomas Pyle.

The president acknowledged this. When questioned by reporters, President Obama said if imposed, the tax “will have further weaned our economy off dirty fuels.”

But his sweeping plan runs straight up against reality. Americans will be using oil and other fossil fuels for decades to come. Until economically viable alternatives are developed that offer the same benefits (convenience, reliability, energy density), fossil fuels will be needed to keep America’s economy moving.

There’s no question we need more revenue to fix America’s broken roads and bridges, but the oil tax covers over the real intention behind the proposal: The radical transformation of America’s energy economy.

MORE ARTICLES ON: ENERGY

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of President Obama is by photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg.

A List of Florida’s Republican ‘anti-American Worker’ Members of Congress

As you all know Florida has one of the highest illegal alien populations surpassed only by border states California and Texas costing us over $5,000,000,000.00 annually to educate, medicate and incarcerate them. Are you aware the State spends $1,600.00 more per illegal alien student annually to teach them to speak English? It is an unnecessary expense we suffer because of the lack of the Federal and state from enforcing the Rule of Law. It is a crime to enter the country, seek or accept employment if you are an illegal alien or over stay a visa.

In 2010 Rick Scott was elected with the promise he would make E-Verify mandatory so all Florida workers would be legal workers. He did install public E-Verify so supposedly all state agencies only deal with companies who use the voluntary system but he backed off forcing all employers to sign up. In 2012 he stated it was the Federal government’s responsibility and broke his promise to install mandatory E-Verify.

In 1986 Congress made three promises to President Reagan to get the only amnesty ever passed which turned out to be a promise broken several times. One of the promises was to make E-Verify mandatory for all businesses. The benefits of E-Verify would be to remove the job magnet for illegal aliens and visa over stayers, encourage illegal aliens and visa over stayers to self deport which in turn would lower various costs to residents.

Here it is thirty years later and Congress has still not passed E-Verify so only legal workers are employed. The illegal alien employed population is in the millions.

Last year Texas Representative Lamar Smith introduced the Legal Workforce Act H.R. 1147 which would require all companies to enroll in E-Verify so only legal workers are employed. He now has a total of 43 representatives, all republicans, co-sponsoring the legislation where it should have overwhelming support since it is designed to protect the representatives constituents who are employed.

Until very recently Florida did not have one co-sponsor of the bill. That is outrageous.

Representative Vern Buchanan of District 16 is the first representative from Florida to sign up. That leaves sixteen more Florida republican representatives, who should be vigorously supporting this legislation or be branded as “anti-American worker.” The list is below with their Washington numbers. Please take a minute, call and ask why the representative is not a co-sponsor of H.R. 1147?

Personally, I cannot think of a valid reason why they should not co-sponsor the legislation, can you?

If you wish to contact these Florida members of Congress here are the phone numbers:

  • District one is Jeff Miller 202-225-4136,
  • District three is Ted Yoho 202-335-5744,
  • District four is Ander Crenshaw 202-225-2501,
  • District six is Ron DeSantis 202-225-2706,
  • District seven is John Mica 202-225-4035,
  • District eight is Bill Posey 202-225-3671,
  • District ten is Daniel Webster 202-225-2176,
  • District eleven is Richard Nugent 202-225-1002,
  • District twelve is Gus Bilarakis 202-225-5755,
  • District thirteen is David Jolly 202-225-5691,
  • District fifteen is Dennis Ross 202-225-1252,
  • District sixteen is Vern Buchanan 202-225-5015,
  • District seventeen is Tom Rooney 202-225-5792,
  • District nineteen is Curt Clawson 202-225-2536,
  • District twenty-five is Mario Diaz-Balart 202-225-4211,
  • District twenty-six is Carlos Curbelo 202-225-2778
  • District twenty -seven is Ileana Ros-Lehtinen 202-225-3931.

RELATED ARTICLES:

American Senators Question Canada’s Syrian Refugee Plan

Refugee lessons from Europe

Americans’ Incomes Are Unequal, But Mobile by Chelsea German

Americans often move between different income brackets over the course of their lives. As covered in an earlier blog post, over 50 percent of Americans find themselves among the top 10 percent of income-earners for at least one year during their working lives, and over 11 percent of Americans will be counted among the top 1 percent of income-earners for at least one year.

Fortunately, a great deal of what explains this income mobility are choices that are largely within an individual’s control. While people tend to earn more in their “prime earning years” than in their youth or old age, other key factors that explain income differences are education level, marital status, and number of earners per household. As Mark Perry recently wrote:

The good news is that the key demographic factors that explain differences in household income are not fixed over our lifetimes and are largely under our control (e.g. staying in school and graduating, getting and staying married, etc.), which means that individuals and households are not destined to remain in a single income quintile forever.

According to the economist Thomas Sowell, whom Perry cites, “Most working Americans, who were initially in the bottom 20% of income-earners, rise out of that bottom 20%. More of them end up in the top 20% than remain in the bottom 20%.”

While people move between income groups over their lifetime, many worry that income inequality between different income groups is increasing. The growing income inequality is real, but its causes are more complex than the demagogues make them out to be.

Consider, for example, the effect of “power couples,” or people with high levels of education marrying one another and forming dual-earner households. In a free society, people can marry whoever they want, even if it does contribute to widening income disparities.

Or consider the effects of regressive government regulations on exacerbating income inequality. These include barriers to entry that protect incumbent businesses and stifle competition. To name one extreme example, Louisiana recently required a government-issued license to become a florist.

Lifting more of these regressive regulations would aid income mobility and help to reduce income inequality, while also furthering economic growth.

This post first appeared at HumanProgress.org.

Chelsea GermanChelsea German

Chelsea German works at the Cato Institute as a Researcher and Managing Editor of HumanProgress.org.