How the Janus Decision Could Vastly Improve Public Education

/in , , , , /by

Two new pieces of research give us reason to be encouraged by the Janus decision.

On June 27, 2018, the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 in favor of the plaintiff in the case of Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31 (AFSCME). Dry as it sounds, this was a landmark ruling; the Court said that public sector unions could not force non-members to pay fees to them. Furthermore, in the future employees will have to “opt in” to pay fees; their consent cannot be assumed.

What is likely to happen to teachers and students in the wake of Janus v. AFSCME? Typically, teachers unions have argued that weakening their power to collectively bargain would hinder both students and teachers. Fortunately, however, two new pieces of research give us reason to be encouraged by the Janus decision.

The first is a paper titled “The Labor Market for Teachers Under Different Pay Schemes,” by economist Barbara Biasi.

The vast majority of districts pay teachers according to similar lock-step schedules. This means that all teachers with the same education degree and years of experience are paid exactly the same amount, regardless of their effectiveness, their skills, or the demand for their labor. There is often little variation in these schedules across all districts within a state, owing to pattern bargaining, facilitated by the state’s teachers’ union, one of those services allegedly at risk following the Supreme Court’s decision.

Biasi’s paper asks, “If allowed to set pay in a more flexible way, could school districts improve the quality of the teaching workforce?”

Data from Wisconsin allow Biasi to address this question. In 2011 the Wisconsin legislature passed Act 10. The law limited collective bargaining over teachers’ salary schedules in the state. Previously, Wisconsin had seen strict adherence to lock-step schedules, which were negotiated between each school district and its teachers’ union. Act 10 gave districts full autonomy to decide on compensation, allowing them to negotiate salaries with individual teachers using any criteria the two sides desired.

The result, according to Biasi, was that “Teacher quality increased in these districts [which adopted flexible pay schedules] relative to those with seniority pay, due to a change in workforce composition and an increase in effort.”

A switch away from seniority pay [SP] towards flexible pay [FP] in a subset of Wisconsin districts, following the interruption of [collective bargaining] on teachers’ salary schedules mandated by Act 10 of 2011, resulted in higher-quality teachers moving to FP districts and lower-quality teachers either moving to SP districts or leaving the public school system altogether. As a result, the composition of the teaching workforce improved in FP districts compared with SP districts. Effort exerted by all teachers also increased.

In short, the labor market for teachers in Wisconsin worked much as you’d expect. There was more movement, better teachers earned more money, and teachers were encouraged to work harder.

The second paper is “The Long-run Effects of Teacher Collective Bargaining” by economists Michael Lovenheim and Alexander Willén. They investigate how teacher collective bargaining, one of the key services offered by their unions, “impacts student outcomes.”

The authors focused on “duty-to-bargain (DTB) laws, which require districts to negotiate with teachers’ unions in good faith.” These laws have been shown to increase union membership and the likelihood that a district elects a union to bargain collectively. Lovenheim and Willén use the timing of the passage of DTB laws between 1960 and 1987 and data on educational and labor market outcomes among 35-49 year-olds to investigate how teacher collective bargaining impacts a broad array of long-run outcomes.

They find, among male past students, “negative effects of exposure to teacher collective bargaining laws on the long-run labor market outcomes of students who grew up in states with these laws. These results are consistent with the “rent-seeking” hypothesis of teacher unionization.”

This hypothesis, according to the authors, states that “unions lead to a re-allocation of resources towards teachers while also making educational resources less productive.” Specifically, Lovenheim and Willén find that ten years of exposure to collective bargaining reduces annual earnings by $2,134.04 (or 3.93%) and weekly hours worked by 0.42 (or 1.09%). These individuals are also 1 percentage point less likely to be employed, are 0.8% less likely to be in the labor force and find themselves in lower-skilled occupations.

Furthermore, the negative effects of collective bargaining are particularly pronounced among black and Hispanic males. Here, ten years of exposure to collective bargaining lower annual earnings by $3,246 (9.43%), hours worked per week by 0.72 (2.18%), and the likelihood of being employed by 1.3 percentage points. All told, the authors concluded the following:

A back-of-the-envelope calculation indicates these laws reduce total labor market earnings by $213.8 billion per year, which suggests our findings have large implications for earnings in the US due to the prevalence of duty-to-bargain laws…In total, our estimates indicate that state duty-to-bargain laws have sizable, negative labor market consequences for men who attended grade school in states with these laws.

The teachers’ unions might be correct that the Janus vs AFSCME verdict will compromise their ability to effectively offer its membership such services as collective bargaining. But, on the basis of these two new pieces of research, it is unclear that its other warnings stack up. They suggest that teacher pay will be more closely related to their output and that students—particularly black and Hispanic boys—will be better off.

Whenever a representative of producers, like teachers unions, claims to be motivated by a concern for the welfare of their consumers, students, it might be more appropriate to raise a quizzical eyebrow. This new research suggests that, contra union claims, it is they who will be negatively impacted by Janus vs AFSCME. Students and even teachers may well be better off thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision.

John Phelan

John Phelan

John Phelan is an economist at the Center of the American Experiment and fellow of The Cobden Centre.

How to Spot Misleading Statistics in the Gun Control Debate

/in , , , , , , /by

The question should not be, “Do guns prevent crime?” The question should be, “Are guns useful at resisting crime?”

The academic debate over gun control consists mainly of a war of statistics. New studies come out every few weeks, and as a result, both sides are constantly locking horns over the validity or invalidity of this-or-that study in this-or-that country.

For those who aren’t formally trained in data analysis, this debate can seem impossible to navigate. How should untrained laypersons go about interpreting the findings of statistical studies?

It’s About Resistance, Not Prevention

Statistics come in all shapes and sizes, so the first thing we need to do is determine which kinds of statistics are relevant to the gun control debate and which are irrelevant. To do this, we need a clear understanding of what the gun control debate is fundamentally about. We can’t separate the relevant from the irrelevant if we aren’t clear about how to frame the issue.

So, what is the debate over gun ownership fundamentally about? Many seem to think that it’s about deterrence; that is, whether gun ownership prevents crime. The most well-known proponent of this view is John Lott, who argues that shall-issue right-to-carry laws are effective at reducing crime rates by means of deterring criminals. Lott’s research has been corroborated by a number of other studies and criticized by others.

Regardless of whether Lott’s research stands up to scrutiny, I want to suggest that it’s mistaken to think about the gun ownership debate chiefly in terms of crime prevention. On the contrary, whether there exists a right to own guns depends chiefly on whether guns are reasonable means of resisting crime.

Although prevention is more socially desirable (it is better that a crime not happen in the first place), any deterrent benefits that guns may have would owe to their resistance benefits, so the latter is more fundamental. Guns are valued for self-defense primarily because of their ability to dispense lethal force, which means that resistance—not prevention—is primary. Prevention is an added benefit, but it is secondary.

None of this is to say that Lott’s research is wrong. Rather, the point I’m making is that prevention and resistance are two very different things, and the latter is what the gun debate is fundamentally about.

To illustrate the difference, let’s suppose that I encounter a mugger while taking a walk. I brandish my firearm to the mugger, who is undeterred and rushes me with a knife. I then shoot the mugger, stopping the crime. In that situation, my gun has failed to prevent a crime, but it was successful at resisting a crime. The gun was an effective and reasonable means of self-defense even though it failed to deter the would-be mugger.

This is a very crucial point that must be carefully appreciated. Even if guns don’t prevent crime by reducing the overall crime rate, it wouldn’t mean that guns are not a reasonable means of resisting crime. As far as gun rights are concerned, the single most important issue is simply the question of whether guns do a good job when deployed against a criminal assailant. Deterrence is not the key issue at stake.

The Wrong Kinds of Studies

With that point in mind, we are now in a position to evaluate the relevance of empirical studies. Suppose for the sake of argument that pro-control advocates are right that gun ownership or right-to-carry laws do not deter crime. What follows from this? Nothing much, actually. Since the gun debate is primarily about whether guns are reasonable means of resisting crimes, the fact that guns may not work to prevent crime doesn’t really damage the case for gun ownership.

This same is true even if guns increase crime. Let’s revisit the earlier scenario involving the mugger. Suppose that upon seeing my brandished gun, the mugger becomes enraged and charges me. In that case, not only has my gun failed to prevent a crime, it may actually have worsened one. But that wouldn’t mean that my gun wasn’t a reasonable means of resisting crime, nor that I wasn’t justified in using it to defend myself.

The point here is this: even if studies showing that gun ownership or right-to-carry laws increase crime are right, they’re irrelevant. It doesn’t follow that guns are not effective when used in self-defense. Since the merits of gun ownership center around their resistance benefits, it is misleading to attack that by focusing on their lack of preventative benefits. The failure of a gun to prevent crime doesn’t imply its failure at resisting crime.

Proponents of gun control are therefore guilty of a subtle sleight of hand when they cite studies showing that guns lead to more crime or that gun-owners have a higher risk of being killed by a gun. Even if all these studies are true (and there is considerable reason to doubt that they are), they are wholly irrelevant to what is actually at stake in the debate over gun ownership. It confuses the risk that guns have in general with their effectiveness when used for self-protection.

Now to be fair, many gun advocates are guilty of making this same mistake, in that they frame the entire debate in terms of deterrence and crime prevention. While it’s not wrong to look at these questions, they should be secondary to what really matters. Gun advocates should direct their primary attention to the number of defensive gun uses and the effectiveness of guns in self-defense, as they pertain directly to the core issue of the gun debate: resisting crime.

So, the next time you see a study showing how gun ownership may increase crime or one’s chances of dying, know that it is irrelevant to what is actually at stake. Being able to make the distinction between prevention and resistance won’t make you an expert at data analysis, but it will go a long way in helping you wade through the morass of anti-gun statistics.

The Right Kinds of Studies

The type of studies we should be paying attention to are those studies that deal directly with the effectiveness of guns when used in a self-defense scenario. On that topic, there is a clear and overwhelming consensus that guns are effective when used in self-defense.

A 1993 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology found that out of eight different forms of robbery resistance, “victim gun use was the resistance strategy most strongly and consistently associated with successful outcomes for robbery victims.”

A 2000 study published in the Journal of Criminal Justice found that men and women who resisted with a gun were less likely to be injured or lose property than those who resisted using some other means or who did not resist at all. In the case of women, “having a gun really does result in equalizing a woman with a man.”

A 2004 study published in the journal Criminology found that out of sixteen different forms of victim self-protection, “a variety of mostly forceful tactics, including resistance with a gun, appeared to have the strongest effects in reducing the risk of injury.”

Finally, a 2010 study published in Crime and Delinquency found that resistance with a gun decreased the odds of robbery and rape completion by 93 percent and 92 percent, respectively.

Taking stock of these points, the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council concluded in a 2013 review of the literature that

studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.

When it comes to the use of studies and statistics, both sides tend to focus on the impact of gun ownership and right-to-carry laws on causing or deterring violence. These are certainly interesting issues to examine, but deterrence (or lack thereof) isn’t actually relevant to the key question in the gun debate. What matters is simply the question of whether guns are effective at doing what they’re designed to do. And on that question, there is clear consensus that guns are extremely effective at self-defense.

Tim Hsiao

Tim Hsiao

Tim Hsiao is Instructor of Philosophy and Humanities at Grantham University. His website is timhsiao.org

How Congress Can Make Tax Cuts Permanent Without Worsening the Debt

/in , , , , /by

The economy is thriving under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Wages are up, scores of jobs are being created, and small businesses are more optimistic than ever about the future.

Making those tax cuts permanent and passing additional pro-growth tax reforms would help sustain higher economic growth, creating long-term benefits for all Americans.

Even so, those benefits would be limited if policymakers fail to address the unsustainable mountain of debt we have already taken on. This part is critical because left unaddressed, the debt will inevitably lead to either an economic crash or decades of economic malaise.

The root problem is not low taxes. After all, the IRS collected record revenue in fiscal year 2018. The problem is excessive government spending, and no amount of tax increases can fix that.

Without restraining spending, further tax cuts today will only mean higher taxes in the future. To achieve fiscal sanity while respecting individual liberty, Congress should pursue tax reform 2.0 by eliminating tax credit spending in the tax code and reducing federal spending.

The Heritage Foundation’s Blueprint for Balance shows how this can be done. The blueprint would achieve an extra $735 billion in additional tax revenues by eliminating narrowly targeted and inappropriate tax credits, or disguised spending, in the tax code.

Getting rid of these credits would more than cover the estimated $657 billion drop in revenues over 10 years that would result from Tax Reform 2.0. Other measures would also help with this, like fully eliminating the state and local tax deduction so that people earning the same incomes across America pay the same in federal taxes.

The state and local tax deduction is deeply inefficient, as it mainly benefits the wealthy and does little for the poor. It also encourages fiscal mismanagement by subsidizing state and local tax increases and discouraging tax cuts.

Replacing this deduction and other narrow and inefficient tax credits with broad-based, pro-growth measures contained in Tax Reform 2.0 would achieve all the benefits of tax cuts without incurring the consequences and risks of higher debt.

An even better proposal would be to simply cut spending and use the tax savings described above to lower taxes even further.

Tax Reform 2.0 would solidify our economic growth and give a boost to working Americans. But regardless of whether or not Congress enacts it, and regardless of the revenue impact, one thing remains certain: Our current deficits are unsustainable.

Without significant cuts in federal spending, no amount of tax cuts can grow the economy out of its debt, and no amount of tax hikes can cover federal spending without crashing the economy.

If lawmakers want to prevent an eventual economic crash or a long period of meager or negative economic growth, they will need to reassess the size and scope of the federal government.

The Heritage Foundation’s Blueprint for Balance gives Congress specific ways that it can reduce spending by $12.3 trillion over the next decade, balance the budget by 2025, and cut the projected debt by 23 percent in 2028.

Tax Reform 2.0 has the potential to give our economy a significant long-term boost. To realize this full potential without future tax increases, lawmakers should couple Tax Reform 2.0 with commonsense tax policies that would get rid of narrow, perverse, and detrimental subsidies and credits in the tax code, as well as instituting structural spending reforms to reduce the size and scope of the federal government.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Rachel Greszler

Rachel Greszler

Rachel Greszler is research fellow in economics, budget, and entitlements in the Grover M. Hermann Center for the Federal Budget, of the Institute for Economic Freedom, at The Heritage Foundation. Read her research.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Pepi Stojanovski on Unsplash.

President Obama’s True Economic Record

/in , , , , , , /by

Former President Barack Obama was back on the campaign trail recently, less than two years after leaving office. Most former presidents stay out of the fray, but he was called out of mothballs to help elect Democrats in the 2018 midterm elections. As such, he took swipes at President Trump’s economic agenda, saying:

“When you hear how great the economy’s doing right now, let’s just remember when this recovery started.” “Suddenly, Republicans are saying it’s a miracle. I have to kind of remind them, actually, those job numbers are the same as they were in 2015 and 2016.” – former President Barack Obama September 7, 2018

Whenever you study economic trends, there are two fundamental variables, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which reflects production, and unemployment. For the record, how did President Obama do as compared to President Trump?

Gross Domestic Product (GDP):

Under President Obama – In 2016 (his last year in office) – went from 1.5% to 1.8%

Under President Trump – Since taking office in January 2017 – went from 1.8% to 4.2%

Unemployment Rate:

Under President Obama – In 2016 (his last year in office) – went from 4.9% to 4.7%

Under President Trump – Since taking office in January 2017 – went from 4.8% to 3.9%

The economy is not based on the performance of the stock markets, which only reflect confidence in the economy. I have had people ask me, “If the economy is so good, why won’t my portfolio go up?” It never occurs to them they may have invested badly.

There are many other variables that could be examined, such as wages, earnings, consumer confidence, inflation, the prime rate, the national debt, etc., but it is the GDP and unemployment which matter most.

President Obama supervised the recovery from the recession in 2009, one of the slowest on record. So many people were unemployed, they gave up and wouldn’t report their status, which lead to fallacious statistics and caused polling companies, such as Gallup, to define “true” unemployment.

For Mr. Obama to claim responsibility for today’s economic boom is simply fantasy land. If anything, it represents a refutation of his policies. It came about primarily for two reasons: President Trump repealing many of the bureaucratic rules strangling American business, and his reduction of the corporate tax. Consequently, companies were invigorated to invest in their businesses, pay their workers more money, hire more employees, and bring back jobs to America.

Let us not forget what President Obama said in June 2016 at an Indiana town-hall meeting, when asked about Candidate Trump’s promise to kick-start manufacturing jobs in the country:

“Well, how exactly are you going to do that? What exactly are you going to do? There’s no answer to it. He just says, ‘Well, I’m going to negotiate a better deal.’ Well, what, how exactly are you going to negotiate that? What magic wand do you have? And usually the answer is, he doesn’t have an answer.”

According to Bloomberg in March 2018, a rebound in manufacturing has indeed occurred, “Over the past year, according to today’s employment report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the sector has added 222,000 jobs, resuming a recovery that had paused in 2015 and 2016 amid strength in the dollar and weakness in the U.S. oil and gas industry.”

Making claims to the contrary is simply nonsense. This is another example of how the Democrats are laying down a smoke screen regarding successful Republican economic policies prior to the midterm elections. It is an act of sheer desperation.<

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

EDITORS NOTE: President Obama is correct in saying that we should all remember when the recovery started, it was when Obama left office. The featured image of street art is from Unsplash/Paweł Czerwiński@pawel_czerwinski

VIDEO: Dianne Feinstein’s Failed Logic on ‘Assault Weapons’ During Kavanaugh Hearing

/in , , , , , /by

“Dianne Feinstein was trying to claim that Kavanaugh was somehow wrong to suggest that these weapons aren’t unusual since there are millions and millions of people who own them… It was horrible logic from a woman who once held a press conference with Michael Bloomberg wherein they pointed all of the barrels at the press.” — Dana Loesch

Foreign Nationals Who Were Indicted for Illegally Voting Still on North Carolina’s Voter Rolls

/in , , , , , /by

Foreign nationals who were indicted on Aug. 24 for allegedly voting illegally in North Carolina are still on the voter rolls and officials are struggling to take them off.

Eighteen of the 19 individuals who allegedly voted illegally had registered at local Department of Motor Vehicle locations, according to The Washington Times Monday. Four were registered as Republicans, one unaffiliated, and 13 as Democrats.

dcnf-logo

One of the indicted, Elvis David Fullerton, voted in 16 elections over nearly two decades, according to the Times. Many voted on or before Nov. 8, 2016, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

Wake County election officials could not investigate the people who allegedly voted illegally until an “official or formal source” provided notification, according to Wake County Board of Elections Director Gary Sims, the Times reported. The elections board said it will be able to investigate if the Department of Justice provides information on individuals convicted of voter fraud or the indicted admit they are not citizens.

Logan Churchwell of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, an organization that focuses on election laws, said election officials need to be more proactive in stopping illegal voting. However, he said officials were in a tough position.

“Federal law did not anticipate this kind of fraud,” Churchwell told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Officials in Wake County may not have the tools to fix the voter registration system or may be “hindered by outdated and increasingly bad laws,” he added.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation wrote in its study “Safe Spaces” that the 1993 National Voter Registration Act makes it easier for noncitizens to register to vote because there are no other verification systems required to be in place.

The National Voter Registration Act was an initiative to ease voter registration and maintenance, according to the DOJ. People could register to vote at the same time they applied or renewed driver’s licenses.

“If a noncitizen checks ‘Yes’ to the citizenship question in any setting, they are simply enrolled without any further verification, even if they presented a Green Card or foreign passport to identify themselves at the time of registration,” the Public Interest Legal Foundation study said.

The August 2018 study looked into noncitizen voting in 13 sanctuary cities and counties across the nation. Over 3,100 noncitizens were registered to vote or were taken off of voter rolls between 2006 and 2018.

Fairfax County in Virginia topped the list of noncitizens removed from voter rolls with 1,334 people.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation’s suggestions to decreasing noncitizenship voter registration included election officials having access to E-Verify and officials being able to enforce immigration and voting laws.

The study also proposed that states check the citizenship status for new voter registrants through other state databases like a driver’s license customers list. Arizona and Virginia currently employ this system.

“This reform places no upfront burden on new registrants,” the study said.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation uncovered some of the indicted voters in North Carolina, according to the Times.

The 19 who were indicted could face a maximum fine of $350,000 and six years in prison, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of North Carolina reported.

“The State Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement is printing signs to be placed at all polling places and early voting sites in the 2018 general election with the goal of notifying individuals who are not eligible to vote before they cast ballots,” Patrick Gannon, public information officer for the North Carolina State Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement, said in a statement to The Daily Caller News Foundation.

A spokesperson from the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles told The Daily Caller News Foundation the DMV does not register voters and that people apply to register to vote.

EDITORS NOTE: Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org. Photo: fstop123/Getty Images.

3 Examples of How Social Security Robs Americans of Greater Income Before, During Retirement

/in , , , , , /by

Social Security takes a whopping 12.4 percent of American workers’ paychecks, but a new backgrounder by The Heritage Foundation shows that workers are getting a bad deal from the program.

Despite its popularity, Social Security typically provides very low—and in many cases, negative—rates of return.

Although the program provided high returns and windfall benefits to its earliest recipients, Social Security is no longer a good deal for workers.

The Heritage Foundation analysis shows that younger workers—even low-wage ones—would receive at least three times greater rates of return from private savings than Social Security will provide.

To assess Social Security’s so-called “rate of return,” Heritage’s analysis compares what workers would receive if their payroll taxes were invested in personal accounts compared with what Social Security will provide under two scenarios: 1) current law, with roughly 20 percent benefit cuts beginning around 2034; and 2) a scenario whereby payroll taxes rise immediately to a level necessary to pay the program’s prescribed benefits.

While virtually all workers—across income levels, both genders, and generations—would be far better off with personal savings than Social Security, younger workers get the worst deal from the government program.

The average young male worker is virtually guaranteed a negative rate of return from Social Security. Take these hypothetical examples:

Marc Perez is 23 years old and earns an average income of $60,006 per year. He will pay $547,088 in Social Security taxes (excluding disability insurance taxes) throughout his lifetime. In return, he will receive a monthly benefit of $2,209 in retirement.

If he instead invested that same amount—$547,088—in a conservative mix of stocks and bonds, he would accumulate more than $1.5 million in a retirement account and could use that to purchase a lifetime annuity that would pay him $6,185 per month, or nearly three times what Social Security will provide.

Even lower-income earners, like Ashley Martin, who generally receives higher returns from Social Security, would be better off saving and investing in their own personal retirement accounts.

Martin is also 23 and makes $19,768 per year. She will pay an estimated $119,426 in Social Security taxes toward a program that will provide her with a $902 monthly benefit in retirement.

If she instead invested that same amount—$119,426—in her own retirement account, she would accumulate $354,731 in savings. That would be enough to purchase an annuity that would provide her with $1,262 per month, or 40 percent more than Social Security can provide.

Given the preceding examples, it will come as no surprise that high-income earners like Courtney Jones get the worst deal from Social Security.

Jones is also 23 and makes $128,400 per year (Social Security’s taxable maximum). She will pay $860,050 in Social Security taxes throughout her lifetime and can expect to receive a monthly benefit of $2,683 from the government program.

However, if she invested that $860,050 in her own retirement account, she would accumulate more than $2.8 million in retirement savings—an amount that could provide her with a monthly annuity of $10,132, or almost four times what Social Security can provide.

If workers did not use their personal savings to purchase annuities, but instead drew down on them as needed in retirement, they would be able to leave sizable bequests to their heirs.

In contrast, workers who die before reaching Social Security’s retirement age or shortly thereafter often receive little to nothing in return for their hundreds of thousands of dollars in payroll taxes.

The ability to leave bequests would be especially meaningful for lower-income workers. Not only do lower-income workers tend to have lower life expectancies, and therefore receive less in Social Security benefits than higher-income counterparts, but their families do not receive the same leg up from bequests that middle- and upper-income families often receive from their elders to pay for a grandchild’s education or to purchase a home.

After payroll taxes and other levies, there simply isn’t much left for lower-income workers to save for the benefit of their heirs.

A young male earning only half the average wage would have enough in a personal account to provide the exact same income that Social Security provides, and to also leave $479,000 to his heirs if he died at the average life-expectancy age of 76. Even if he were to live to age 90, he would have $270,000 left in savings to leave to his heirs.

Allowing workers to more easily save for their own needs today, and in retirement, instead of taxing them heavily to provide them with public benefits would enable workers to accrue higher retirement incomes in addition to greater take-home pay during their working years.

Supplemental Security Income benefits for elderly individuals who face poverty could provide a floor below which no worker would fall, but such income security benefits would require only a fraction of Social Security’s current payroll taxes.

Lawmakers need to act now—not only to address Social Security’s looming insolvency, but to reform the program in a way that reduces the tax burden on  workers, leaving them with more money to pursue their goals today and to put toward personal savings.

Pairing Social Security reforms that limit the program’s size and taxes with universal savings accounts would help accomplish that goal by allowing workers to save, tax-free, for whatever purposes they want.

The American people, not Washington bureaucrats, should be the ones to decide how much and how best to save for their needs today and in retirement.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Rachel Greszler

Rachel Greszler

Rachel Greszler is a senior policy analyst in economics and entitlements at The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis. Read her research.

Julia Howe

Julia Howe is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

Refugee processing slowdown due to FBI’s new vetting procedures

/in , , , /by

If you didn’t see my first post this morning go here.

Then FBI Director Comey told the Senate last year that 300 refugees (about 200 of them Iraqis) were being investigated for possible connections to terrorists.

fbi logo

This is number two in a three part series today on how the Trump Administration has been beefing up vetting and thus slowing the flow of refugees in to the US.

From Reuters (remember I told you yesterday that the Pentagon is the new ally of the Open Borders Left):

Exclusive: Pentagon raises alarm about sharp drop in Iraqi refugees coming to U.S.

After a lead-in about Pentagon concerns, we learn this:

As of Aug. 15, just 48 Iraqis have been admitted to the United States this fiscal year through a special refugee program meant for people who worked for the U.S. government or American contractors, news media or non-governmental groups, according to data provided by the State Department. More than 3,000 came last year and about 5,100 in 2016. [They are referring to Special Immigrant Visas and note that someone can get in as a refugee if they worked with NGOs, with no connection to the military!—ed]

At the meeting last week, officials examined the multiple security checks that Iraqis must pass, including one background check that all refugees undergo, called the Interagency Check.

They determined the obstacle was a separate process called Security Advisory Opinions (SAOs), which are required for a smaller subset of people – male and female refugees within a certain age range from Iraq and 10 other countries, mostly in the Middle East and Africa.

The FBI and intelligence agencies conduct the SAOs while the State Department coordinates the process.

Pictured right are some of Obama’s Iraqi Special Immigrant Visa holders. See brutal rape story from Colorado.Colorado Iraqi gang rapists

Yikes!

At the meeting, the FBI revealed that of a batch of 88 Iraqis it had recently completed SAOs for, it found suspicious information on 87 of them, said the two officials aware of the meeting. Current and former officials said that is a much higher “hit rate” than in past years.

It was unclear to officials what exactly is causing the higher hit rate, and the meeting did not get into the details of the FBI’s screening methodology and how it might have changed.

Not just Iraqis!

Last year, the Trump administration instituted more stringent screening for refugees, including a requirement that they submit phone numbers and email addresses for many more family members than before. That information is now assessed in the SAOs for those refugees who require them.

The countries whose refugees automatically require SAOs before they can be admitted, in addition to Iraq, are Egypt, Iran, Libya, Mali, North Korea, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

Of course, shamefully missing are Afghanistan and Burma (Rohingya!).

More here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Memory lane: Then FBI Director Comey told the Senate that 300 refugees were being investigated by the FBI for terror connections

The ‘Red’ Paved the Way for the ‘Green’: Minnesota Case Study Uncovers Hard-Left Roots of Islamic Surge

Ways To Safely Store Your Firearms

/in , , , , /by

In today’s world, you just can’t be too safe. Violent organizations like Antifa are everywhere it seems, criminals are waiting to break into your home, or rob you on the street and then you have groups actively trying to take away your guns, which is your defense against all of this craziness.

It’s enough to make you depressed. But I would rather be ready for anything than be depressed. And that means having my legally owned firearms always at the ready. However, once you are ready to defend yourself, you have to make sure that your family is safe and protected from accidents involving your guns.

So we have some tips for storing your firearms that will prevent disaster in your home. Your family is the most important thing in your life. You have a home security system for your house to keep them safe, so make sure that you take the same precautions with your weapons.

Store Ammunition Separately

Below we have some great tips on how to keep your guns safely stored, but it is a good idea to always store your ammo in a separate place. It’s just good safety practice.

Trigger Locks

Sadly, you’ve seen the news stories about kids who got a hold of a gun and accidentally killed themselves. Thankfully, these heartbreaking scenarios are avoidable by using trigger locks. They keep your gun from being fired or loaded by others. The good news is that most new guns come with a trigger lock. Some simply clasp around the trigger or trigger housing to prevent the trigger from being pulled. Other solutions will block the action of the firearm from being closed. They can also prevent a magazine from being loaded into a grip. So even if someone gets to your weapon, they can not fire it.

Gun Safes

I’ve always found it odd that so many people use safes for their valuables and yet many of these same people will not lock up their firearms in a safe. It is the most secure means of securing your gun. Gun safes even have lined interiors that will help to protect the finish of your guns. They are heavy safes made of heavy-gauge steel and have complex locking mechanisms that burglars can’t beat. You can also bolt them to the wall or the floor. This is the safest place for your guns when they are not needed.

Gun Cases

Gun Cases are another good option. These soft and hard-side cases can be locked for when you transport your guns. Much like trigger locks, this is a very affordable solution. They are portable and easy to store anywhere, whether you are shooting at the range or attending a gun show. Many people even use these in their homes to guard against kids getting their hands on their guns.

Locked Steel Gun Cabinets

Locked gun cabinets are great because they allow you to have more room for your weapons, while still providing a locked place for them. They have various shelf and configuration options too. They use a thinner gauge steel, so they are not as heavy as gun safes and can also be moved easier. Which is why this is great for a second floor and people who live in apartments love them as well.

These are the best ways to keep your guns safe while they are being stored. We love our firearms and the freedoms they afford us, but nobody wants unauthorized people gaining access to them. The results can be disastrous and it can ruin your life while ending another. Besides, keeping your guns safe is just a part of being a responsible gun owner. Keep in mind that these measures will help protect your guns from others, but it is still a good idea to have a home security system installed in your home. You can learn more about them over at Gadgetreview. With home security in place and your guns stored safe, you will be all set.

RELATED ARTICLE: Home Security Tips and Considerations: Assessing Everything from the Front Door to the Router

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of 88 Tactical.

Israel Liberalizes Firearms Licensing Regime and Iraq Reexamines Gun Control

/in , , , , /by

A pair of Middle East countries are reexamining their approaches to gun control. Earlier this month, Israel moved forward with its previously announced plans to make firearms more widely available to the civilian population. In nearby Iraq, the government has shifted policy to allow for Iraqi civilians to legally acquire firearms for self-defense.

Last month, Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that the Ministry of Public Security was examining plans to relax the country’s may-issue firearms licensing procedure in order to combat the threat of terrorist violence. The announcement followed measures taken in 2015 that opened the nation’s restrictive licensing scheme to more active and reserve officers in the Israeli Defense Force. At the end of 2015, there were 264,679 firearms licenses for Israel’s 8.5 million people; 143,943 of the total were private firearms licenses, while security guards accounted for the other 120,736.

On August 12, the Ministry of Public Security published changes to the regulations governing firearms license eligibility. The move took effect on August 20 and expanded the categories of those eligible to obtain a license to those who have a completed a certain level of infantry combat training and a wider number of IDF officers. A report from Agence France-Press and a government press release made clear that some volunteers with the Israel Police and other public safety personnel will also be eligible.

Along with the new regulations, the Ministry of Public Security has made it easier for eligible Israelis to navigate the licensing process. The government has posted a video explaining the licensing procedure on YouTube and has developed an easy-to-use web application to help citizens determine their eligibility.

According to the AFP item, the changes mean that an additional 600,000 Israeli are qualified to obtain a license. However, an official from the Ministry of Public Security estimated that about 35,000 Israelis will take advantage of the new rules.

Recognizing the security benefits of an armed citizenry, Minister of Public Security Gilad Erdan explained that the changes to the licensing regime could help to stop “lone wolf attacks.” Elaborating on the topic, Erdan was reported by AFP as stating, “Many civilians saved lives during attacks and, in an age of ‘lone-wolf terror’, the more trained civilians carrying arms, the higher the chances of thwarting attacks and minimizing casualties.” Some in law enforcement have also expressed their support for the reforms.

Over various points in its 70 year history, Israel has encouraged or restricted civilian firearm ownership based on the perceived threat of terrorist violence.

Firearms were ubiquitous in the country’s early years. A September 1970 American Rifleman article by Jac Weller – who had just toured the country – described Israel as “A Nation of Armed Citizens.” A 1978 item from the Los Angeles Times noted that Israel “bristles with weapons.” A 1981 New York Times article explained that in Israel firearms are “plentiful,” and that “to pistol-packing Israelis, a gun is a patriotic badge.” The Times item ran with a photograph of an Israeli citizen carrying a holstered revolver as he picnicked at a public park

In 1993, Israeli Police Commissioner Yaacov Terner urged citizens to go armed in order to defend their communities. According to a Washington Post item from March of that year, Terner told his countrymen, “The more there will be seen a greater amount of weapons in the field the more the feeling of security among the public will go up.” His comments were echoed by Tel Aviv Police Commander Assaf Chefets, who remarked, “There is no place like Israel with so many people who have undergone military training and have weapons, that are able to react to a knife attack, or even a more serious attack. … The public is the target of the terrorist attacks, and it is upon them to supply the appropriate answers.”

Following the 1995 assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli government curtailed the eligibility for firearms licenses. The Ministry of Public Security summarized the changes as limiting firearms licenses to:

  • People who reside or work in dangerous geographical locations
  • People employed in lines of work requiring extra security
  • Groups involved in the country’s public security

In 1999, access to firearm licenses was further restricted by the development of more stringent training criteria.

The Ministry of Public Security noted in 2012 that “As a result of all the reforms and changes, the number of people carrying firearms has gone down significantly.” This is apparent when comparing the 2015 licensing figures with Police Commissioner Terner’s published estimate of 300,000 licensed civilian gun owners in 1993.

However, even after these restrictions, at various points in the last two decades Israel had called upon its citizenry to carry arms for the common defense. Aside from the changes in 2015 and 2018, in 2002 the Washington Times reported that government authorities made 60,000 additional permits available during an outbreak of violence.

(For more current and historical background on Israeli firearms laws, please go here and here.

As for Iraq, citizens of that turbulent nation also have new options for self-defense. This week, Reuters reported that a recent change in government policy “allows citizens to own and carry handguns, semi-automatic rifles and other assault weapons after obtaining official authorization and an identity card that also details the individual’s weapons.” Prior to the change, “gun sales were restricted to firearms for hunting and sport.”

Of course, a lack of legal avenues for gun ownership did not mean that the volatile country’s population was previously unarmed. Faced with anarchic violence in the wake of the Iraq War, average Iraqis armed themselves through various extralegal means. A December 2006 New York Times article by C.J. Chivers documented the country’s flourishing black market gun trade. Reporting from Sulaimaniya, Chivers wrote, “The weapons are easy to find, resting among others in the semi-hidden street markets here, where weapons are sold in tea houses, the back rooms of grocery kiosks, cosmetics stores and rug shops, or from the trunks of cars.”

Speaking with Reuters about the new firearms policy, Baghdad gun shop owner Hamza Maher explained, “The reason for buying is self-defence, and it’s safer for citizens to buy a weapon from an authorized store instead of from an unknown source.” Maher went on to say that he believes the new rules will decrease crime, telling the news outlet, “The criminal who plans to attack others will understand that he will pay heavy price.”

Another encouraging sign? In a part of the world not typically celebrated for its progressive tendencies, it appears – at least anecdotally – that women are increasingly interested in armed self-defense. Maher noted, “Customers are mainly men, but the number of women buyers is growing.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Outrage of the Week: New Mexico Principal Bullies Pro-Second Amendment Student

University of Utah Instructor Ostracizes Concealed Carriers

ICE Has a History of Arresting and Deporting Nazis in America

/in , , , , , /by

Amid a politically-charged debate over its existence, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has removed war criminal Jakiw Palij, marking the 68th deportation of a Nazi from the United States.

On Monday, ICE arrested Palij, 95, a former labor camp guard, enforcing a 2004 court order the same day President Donald Trump praised ICE and Customs and Border Protection officials at a White House ceremony.

Specifically for ICE, created in 2003, this marks at least the fourth Nazi arrest, deporting Nazi concentration camp guards John Demjanjuk and Josias Kumpfin 2009, and soldier John (Ivan) Kalymon in 2011.

“Despite a court ordering his deportation in 2004, past administrations were unsuccessful in removing Palij,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement.

“To protect the promise of freedom for Holocaust survivors and their families, President Trump prioritized the removal of Palij. Through extensive negotiations, President Trump and his team secured Palij’s deportation to Germany and advanced the United States’ collaborative efforts with a key European ally,” Sanders added.

For months, some Democrats have demanded the government “abolish ICE,” which is charged with enforcing immigration law in the interior of the country. Last month, three House Democrats introduced legislation to shut down ICE. Meanwhile, other politicians and commentators have compared ICE with Nazisor the Gestapo for arresting illegal immigrants.

ICE is often associated with arresting illegal immigrants that cross the border, but the agency also regularly investigates naturalization fraud, passport fraud, illegal immigrants in possession of firearms, as well as the smuggling of drugs, money, counterfeit merchandise, and weapons into the United States. This includes confronting sexual trafficking, and in some cases, fighting child pornography.

Three ICE offices—Enforcement and Removal Operations, the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, the Human Rights Violators and War Crimes Center—were all involved in the removal of Palij, according to ICE.

The ICE Human Rights Violators and War Crimes Center, established in 2009, locates and prosecutes human rights abusers in the United States, which includes those known or suspected to have participated in persecution, war crimes, genocide, torture, extrajudicial killings, female genital mutilation, and the use or recruitment of child soldiers.

War criminals won’t find a safe haven in the United States, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said in a statement.

“The arrest and removal of Jakiw Palij to Germany is a testament to the dedication and commitment of the men and women of ICE, who faithfully enforce our immigration laws to protect the American people,” Nielsen said.

Palij, the former Nazi officer arrested Monday in the Queens borough of New York City, was born in a part of Poland that is present day Ukraine.

Palij came to the United States in 1949, and lied to immigration officials, claiming to have spent World War II working on a farm and in a factory. He gained citizenship in 1957.

He trained with the Nazis in 1943 in German-occupied Poland. Court documents show those who trained him at the SS training camp in Trawniki participated in executing “Operation Reinhard,” a code name for the Third Reich’s plan to murder Jews in Poland. Palij served as an armed guard at the adjacent Trawniki labor camp.

“By helping to prevent the escape of these prisoners during his service at Trawniki, Palij played an indispensable role in ensuring that they later met their tragic fate at the hands of the Nazis,” Sanders said.

On Nov. 3, 1943, about 6,000 Jewish people held at the Trawniki labor camp were shot to death in one of the single largest massacres of the Holocaust.

In 2001, after an investigation, Palij admitted his past with the Nazis to the Justice Department. In May 2002, the Justice Department’s Office of Special Investigations and the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Eastern District of New York filed a four-count complaint in U.S. District Court to revoke his citizenship based on his wartime activities.

A judge revoked his U.S. citizenship in 2003. U.S. Immigration Judge Robert Owens ordered his deportation in 2004 to Ukraine, Poland, Germany, or any country that would admit him, and a panel denied his 2005 appeal.

The Justice Department began targeting Nazis in the United States in 1979, won cases against 108 individuals, and prevented 180 individuals with ties to the Axis powers from World War II from entering the United States, according to ICE. But 68 were deported.

Similar to Palij, previous Nazi deportation orders took years to act on.

In May 2009, ICE deported John Demjanjuk, 89, a former Nazi death camp guard and a resident of Seven Hills, Ohio, to Germany to face criminal charges for 28,060 counts of accessory to murder. He was a retired auto worker in Ohio, and was born in what is today Ukraine. He came to the United States in 1952, concealing his Nazi past. It was one of the most storied cases that worked its way through the legal process for almost three decades.

Demjanjuk was first tried on allegations of participation in Nazi persecution in a civil denaturalization (citizenship revocation) case decided in 1981, and it was unearthed that he was a gas chamber operator at the Sobibor concentration camp where Nazis killed 250,000 Jews. In 1986, the U.S. extradited him to Israel, where the country’s Supreme Court found reasonable doubt. After his release, he returned to the United States.

In 1999, the U.S. initiated a new denaturalization case against Demjanjuk, relying in large part on captured Nazi documents that came to light following the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union, according to ICE. This evidence found he not only served at Sobibor, but also worked as a guard at the Majdanek camp, where Nazis killed 170,000 Jews.

A U.S. District Court in Cleveland revoked his citizenship in 2002. But it wasn’t until December 2005 that Chief Immigration Judge Michael J. Creppy ordered Demjanjuk removed from the United States to Ukraine, Germany, or Poland. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected Demjanjuk’s petition for review.

That same year, in March 2009, ICE removed Josias Kumpf, 83, to Austria. He was living in Racine, Wisconsin. He came to the United States after World War II.

According to ICE, Kumpf was a former Waffen SS Death’s Head Battalion guard at the Nazi-run Sachsenhausen concentration camp in Germany and at the Trawniki SS training camp in Poland, the same camp as Palij served, where Nazis murdered thousands of Jews on Nov. 3, 1943.

In September 2011, ICE announced that the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed an appeal by John (Ivan) Kalymon, 90, of Troy, Michigan, affirming his deportation because of his Nazi activities during World War II. Kalymon, who came to the United States in 1949, shot Jews while voluntarily serving as a member of the Nazi-sponsored Ukrainian Auxiliary Police from 1941 to 1944 in German-occupied Lviv, Ukraine, according to ICE.

COLUMN BY

Portrait of Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Jakiw Palij, a former Nazi labor camp guard in German-occupied Poland and a postwar resident of Queens, New York, has been removed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to Germany. (USJD/Polaris)

VIDEO: Illegal Alien Charged with Murder of Mollie Tibbetts

/in , , , , , , /by

Fox News reports:

Cristhian Bahena Rivera

An illegal immigrant from Mexico stands accused of killing college student Mollie Tibbetts and dumping her body in an Iowa cornfield — after he allegedly accosted her during a July 18 jog and she threatened to call police.

Cristhian Bathena Rivera, 24, was charged with first-degree murder Tuesday in Tibbetts’ death, officials confirmed.

Authorities said Rivera, who lived in the rural Poweshiek County area, is being held on a federal immigration detainer. He’s believed to have been in the area for four to seven years.

The body of Tibbetts, a 20-year-old University of Iowa student, was found Tuesday in a field covered with corn stalks.

Authorities said Rivera, who lived in the rural Poweshiek County area, is being held on a federal immigration detainer. He’s believed to have been in the area for four to seven years.

The body of Tibbetts, a 20-year-old University of Iowa student, was found Tuesday in a field covered with corn stalks.

Read more.

RELATED ARTICLE: Donald Trump Jr. slams Elizabeth Warren for Mollie Tibbetts response: ‘You can’t make this crap up’

RELATED VIDEO: The Blood of Mollie Tibbetts.

VIDEO: ‘Small-Town Girl’ From Santa Fe Says Gun Control Won’t Solve School Shootings

/in , , , /by

Kaitlyn Richards was born and raised in Santa Fe, Texas. “I went to Santa Fe High School since I was in kindergarten, all the way through to senior year, and I’m just a small-town girl,” she told The Daily Signal. But on May 18, her small-town life changed when a school shooting left eight students and two teachers dead.

“I think the worst part is waking up in the morning and forgetting that it happened for a moment and then remembering it,” Kaitlyn said. “It’s just a weight on your chest the rest of the day. It’s almost like every moment that you see people being happy, you just feel guilty, because someone doesn’t get to anymore.”

In the weeks and months following the Santa Fe school shooting, few students from Santa Fe called for gun reform.

“I just don’t believe that putting these restrictions and laws are really going to solve anything or help anyone other than the people who already obtain them illegally,” Kaitlyn said. “I would just hate to see laws be in place that hurt innocent people.”

Instead, Kaitlyn and three friends started a nonprofit called Hearts United for Kindness.

“Our mission is just to spread a movement of love and kindness while raising awareness for mental health because we believe that those things are very much related to each other,” she said.

Learn more about Kaitlyn’s story in the video above.

COLUMN BY

Portrait of Kelsey Harkness

Kelsey Harkness

Kelsey Harkness is a senior news producer at The Daily Signal and co-host of “Problematic Women,” a podcast and Facebook Live show. Send an email to Kelsey. Twitter: @kelseyjharkness.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now.

Trump’s Rollback of CAFE Mandates Is a Big Win for Car Buyers, Consumer Choice

/in , , , /by

The Trump administration recently proposed the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule. The proposed rule offers modifications to Obama-era Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards with a “preferred alternative” for model years 2021 through 2026.

Without a doubt, the Trump administration’s proposed revision is a welcome victory for consumers’ wallets and for consumer choice.

The Obama administration implemented fuel-efficiency mandates that would force auto manufacturers to have a fleetwide fuel-economy average of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. The new rule’s “preferred” change would maintain the existing fuel-economy mandate through 2020 (increasing to 37 mpg) and keep the level at 37 mpg through 2025.

New fuel-efficiency standards create a number of unintended consequences, including higher prices for new cars and costly retooling of existing auto plants.

A 2016 Heritage Foundation analysis estimates the Obama fuel-economy mandates increased new-car prices $6,800 more than the pre-2009 baseline trend, and that eliminating the more aggressive standards would save 2025 car buyers at least $7,200 per vehicle.

As my colleagues detail, “Economists and engineers accurately predicted that the [model year] 2016 standards would hurt consumers by at least $3,800 per car.”

Consumers—not government bureaucrats—should make decisions about what cars they drive.

If consumers value saving money on gasoline, they will simply choose to purchase more fuel-efficient cars, and automakers will meet that demand without a federal mandate. If consumers value other attributes—vehicle weight, engine power, safety—Washington shouldn’t force automakers to ignore consumers’ preferences.

In fact, a 2011 paper from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that if vehicle weight, horsepower, and torque were held constant at 1980 levels, fuel efficiency would have increased 60 percent from 1980 to 2006 instead of the 15 percent increase that did occur.

The reason fuel-efficiency increase occurred at 15 percent instead of 60 percent is because auto manufacturers met buyers’ demands for heavier vehicles with more torque and horsepower. When the federal government comes in and says we need to have a fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon, regulators override those preferences.

Congress established fuel-economy mandates in the 1970s as a response to the Arab oil embargo. A fear existed that the world was running out of oil and that America was too dependent on foreign oil.

CAFE standards were sold under the false notion of scarcity. It makes no sense now that we have an abundance of oil.  But even if the world were running out of oil, fuel-economy mandates were not a good policy then and are not a good policy now.

CAFE standards are not just a relic of the past, but a systemic problem of the way policymakers, regulators, lobbyists, and pundits treat energy markets. Policies and regulations are based on alleged expertise and on making bold predictions about the future of energy supply and demand.

Rather than rely on regulations to tell producers and consumers what to do, we have price signals for that. Higher gas prices communicate information to energy producers to drill for more oil. They communicate information to entrepreneurs to invest in new extraction technologies, alternative vehicle technologies, or more fuel-efficient cars.

Prices also communicate information to energy users to buy more fuel-efficient products, to carpool, or to find other modes of transportation.

When Obama-era regulators set CAFE standards and estimated the alleged savings to consumers, they demonstrated the same level of hubris our politicians did in the 1970s.

When crafting these standards, the Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimated that gas prices would be $3.87 per gallon in 2025, increasing to $4.24 per gallon by 2040. They used these price projections to project how much money consumers would save on fuel costs.

While those price-projection scenarios are certainly plausible, increases in supply could also certainly drive prices down, and consumers would save less money on gas by purchasing a more fuel-efficient car.

Alternatively, gas prices could rise even higher than the government projections, and consumers could save even more money from mandated fuel efficiency.

The reality is, we don’t know. It is difficult to project gas prices 22 weeks ahead, let alone for the next 22 years, and it’s dangerous to base policy on those predictions.

Trump’s course correction on CAFE is a welcome step. Congress should demonstrate similar courage and recognize that we don’t need to mandate energy use for cars, dishwashers, or even clocks on microwaves, and scrap these standards altogether.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Nicolas Loris

Nicolas Loris

Nicolas Loris, an economist, focuses on energy, environmental and regulatory issues as the Herbert and Joyce Morgan fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Read his research. Twitter: .

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of 2015 Jeep Grand Cherokees exhibited at a car dealership in New Jersey July 24, 2015. (Photo: Eduardo Munoz/Reuters /Newscom)

VIDEO: Brennan’s Clearance Revocation is Anti-Swamp & Anti-Corruption

/in , , , , , /by

In this episode of “On Watch,” Judicial Watch Director of Investigations & Research Chris Farrell discusses President Trump’s decision to revoke former Obama CIA chief John Brennan’s security clearance.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Stop John Brennan’s Politicizing of U.S. Intelligence

Man Found Contracts Showing Obama Was Paying Trump Spy — Obama Tried to Shut Him Up by Stripping Security Clearance

RELATED VIDEO: Glazov Moment – Trump Revokes Brennan’s Security Clearance.