Reason Magazine
Shikha Dalmia on GM’s Government Handouts
Three years after being rescued by a taxpayer
bailout, General Motors recently announced some rather ambitious
profit targets for 2012. But even if it meets these targets, writes
Shikha Dalmia, taxpayers should not wait on one foot to recover
their remaining “contributions” to the company. The company’s cash
cushion is more likely to go to unions than to investors.
Attn, DC Reasonoids! Come to a Stossel Viewing Party at Reason's DC HQ on Thursday, 2/23 at 8pm!
Join
Reason's DC staff with our friends from Alumni for Liberty and
Students for Liberty
for a viewing of the Stossel show filmed at the
2012 International Students for Liberty Conference!
- What: Stossel Viewing Party
- When: Thursday, February 23 from 8pm - 10:30pm
- Where: Reason's DC HQ at 1747 Connecticut Ave. NW
- RSVP: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/StosselViewingRSVP
- Invite Friends on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/events/355350801164442/
Come at 8pm to catch up with friends in the liberty movement and have a few drinks. Stossel airs at 9pm ET. If you would like to watch the show in the quiet section of the party, be sure to arrive early to reserve your seat!
Hard and soft beverages will be provided.
Be sure to officially RSVP here: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/StosselViewingRSVP
Anthony Randazzo on Greece’s Looming Debt Default
As details have emerged on the agreement reached
between European authorities, private creditors, and the Greek
government in order to provide enough money so that Greece pays a
March debt bill, it is increasingly clear that this deal will not
be enough. As Reason Foundation Director of Economic Research
Anthony Randazzo explains, this new European bailout will only
delay the inevitable—Greece is going to default on its debt.
Marco Rubio Challenges GOP on Immigration, Obama Advisor Pushed for $1.8 Trillion Stimulus, Santorum Popular in California: P.M. Links
Marco Rubio with some
real talk on immigration. - White House economist Christy Romer wanted a $1.8 trillion stimulus.
- Syrian forces plotted to kill foreign journalists.
- Santorum surges in California.
- Koran riot death toll up to seven.
- An alternative take on the legacy of Steve Jobs.
Do you want hot links and other Reason goodies delivered to your inbox twice a day? Sign up here for Reason's morning and afternoon news updates.
Obama Spox Praises Journalism Abroad, Denies That Obama Is Stifling It Here at Home
Moments after White House Press
Secretary Jay Carney eulogized journalists who have died reporting
from Syria, ABC's Jake Tapper asked him why the White House talks
such a big game about press freedom abroad, while back home it
indicts whistleblowers and subpoenas the journalists to whom they
come clean. Carney denied that was the case, and referred Tapper to
the DOJ press office.
The response was blatantly disingenuous, considering that the DOJ is under Obama; and downright disgusting when you recall that before he was getting paid to pretend the president's shit doesn't stink, Carney was a journalist.
Read the transcript of Carney and Tapper's exchange below:
TAPPER: The White House keeps praising these journalists who are — who’ve been killed –
CARNEY: I don’t know about “keep” — I think -
TAPPER: You’ve done it, Vice President Biden did it in a statement. How does that square with the fact that this administration has been so aggressively trying to stop aggressive journalism in the United States by using the Espionage Act to take whistleblowers to court?
You’re — currently I think that you’ve invoked it the sixth time, and before the Obama administration, it had only been used three times in history. You’re — this is the sixth time you’re suing a CIA officer for allegedly providing information in 2009 about CIA torture. Certainly that’s something that’s in the public interest of the United States. The administration is taking this person to court. There just seems to be disconnect here. You want aggressive journalism abroad; you just don’t want it in the United States.
CARNEY: Well, I would hesitate to speak to any particular case, for obvious reasons, and I would refer you to the Department of Justice for more on that.
I think we absolutely honor and praise the bravery of reporters who are placing themselves in extremely dangerous situations in order to bring a story of oppression and brutality to the world. I think that is commendable, and it’s certainly worth noting by us. And as somebody who knew both Anthony and Marie, I particularly appreciate what they did to bring that story to the American people.
I — as for other cases, again, without addressing any specific case, I think that there are issues here that involve highly sensitive classified information, and I think that, you know, those are — divulging or to — divulging that kind of information is a serious issue, and it always has been.
TAPPER: So the truth should come out abroad; it shouldn’t come out here?
CARNEY: Well, that’s not at all what I’m saying, Jake, and you know it’s not. Again, I can’t — specific –
TAPPER: That’s what the Justice Department’s doing.
CARNEY: Well, you’re making a judgment about a broad array of cases, and I can’t address those specifically.
TAPPER: It’s also the judgment that a lot of whistleblowers’ organizations and good government groups are making as well.
CARNEY: Not one that I’m going to make.
Why Gay Marriage is Winning
With Washington state recently legalizing same-sex unions and Maryland about to follow suit, gay marriage hasn't been on this big a roll since Bert and Ernie first shacked up on Sesame Street. When Maryland finalizes its bill, seven states and the District of Columbia will sanction the practice.
But before you bust out the appletinis and Indigo Girls CDs to celebrate, consider that just last year in Maryland - a deep-blue, Democratic-majority state when it comes to politics - gay marriage went down faster than George Michael in a public restroom due to resistance from socially conservative African Americans in the Democratic Party. Indeed, while 71 percent of white Democrats in the Old Line State favor gay marriage, just 41 percent of black Democrats do.
So what's different this time around? Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley and other pro-marriage legislators took a page from New York's gay playbook and reached around to sympathetic Republicans to seal the deal.
Inconceivable even a generation ago, gay marriage is well on its way to becoming mainstream as a growing majority of Americans now favor it. The only question is when, not if, folks such as Maryland residents Justin and Phillip Terry-Smith will join heterosexuals in the joys of getting married - and divorced - happily ever after.
About 2.30 minutes. Produced by Joshua Swain. Written by Nick Gillespie and Kennedy, who also hosts.
Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel to receive automatic updates when new material goes live.
Where Do I Go to Get Back My Valor?
Today the Supreme Court
heard
arguments for and against the Stolen Valor Act of 2006, under which
falsely claiming to have received a military medal or decoration is
a federal crime punishable by up to a year in jail. The case
involves Xavier Alvarez, a minor politician in Southern California
who invented a 25-year record of service in the U.S. Marines,
capped by a Congressional Medal of Honor. Two years ago the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit
agreed with Alvarez that prosecuting him for his lies violated
the First Amendment. Much of today's debate revolved around the
question of whether lies about purely factual matters have "First
Amendment value," with Antonin Scalia stating that they do not
(which is the government's position) and a few other justices
seeming to agree. Assuming that is correct, the question becomes
whether the Stolen Valor Act leaves enough "breathing space" for
speech that does have value.
But since the Court is applying a constitutional provision that says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech," this approach seems backward. Shouldn't the question be whether the government has a compelling enough reason to overcome what sounds like a very strong presumption against punishing speech? At the very least, the First Amendment puts the burden of proof on the censors, who must justify their speech limits, rather than the speaker, who need not show that his words have value. (Alvarez's obviously had value to him, until he was exposed as a liar and subjected to nationwide ridicule and condemnation.) As Jonathan Libby, the federal public defender who urged the Court to uphold the 9th Circuit's ruling, put it, "Our founders believed that Congress as a general principle doesn't get to tell us what we as individuals can and cannot say." Of all the justices who spoke, Sonia Sotomayor came closest to the skeptical attitude that is appropriate when confronted by a new crime that involves saying things the government does not want you to say:
What harm are we protecting [against] here? I thought that the core of the First Amendment was to protect even...offensive speech. We have a legion of cases that said your emotional reaction to offensive speech is not enough. If that is the core of our First Amendment, what I hear, and that's what I think the court below said, is you can't really believe that a war veteran thinks less of the medal that he or she receives because someone's claiming fraudulently that they got one. They don't think less of the medal. We're reacting to the fact that we're offended by the thought that someone's claiming an honor they didn't receive.
So outside of the emotional reaction, where's the harm? And I'm not minimizing it. I too take offense when people make these kinds of claims, but I take offense when someone I'm dating makes a claim that's not true.
I think Sotomayor is right that the Stolen Valor Act really is about punishing offensive speech. But even if it were true that "a war veteran thinks less of the medal that he or she receives because someone's claiming fraudulently that they got one," that is not the sort of injury that justifies legal sanctions. "Stolen valor" is, after all, a metaphor; Alvarez did not actually steal anyone's property.
According to Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, "one of the harms that justifies this statute is the misappropriation of the government-conferred honor and esteem," and "there is also the particularized harm of the erosion of the value of the military honors...conferred by our government....For the government to say this is a really big deal and then to stand idly by when one charlatan after another makes a false claim to have won the medal does debase the value of the medal in the eyes of the soldiers....That is the government's interest." An interest, maybe, but not one that justifies criminalizing speech. Notice that Verrilli never explains whose rights Alvarez violated or how he did so. If debasing the value of a military medal were a crime, you could be thrown in jail for saying the Congressional Medal of Honor is a mark of dishonor that represents the random murder of innocent people who have the misfortunate to live in countries ruled by dictators who piss off the U.S. government.
Whatever harm might result from the lack of a criminal penalty for lying about military medals, the country somehow survived it for 230 years. Maybe that's because mendacious blowhards like Alvarez tend to be punished by public humiliation. The more often they make their claims, the more widely publicized those claims are, and the more benefit they derive from them, the more likely they are to be exposed. Rather than "stand idly by," which Verrilli portrays as the only alternative, the government could help the process along by making lists of medal recipients readily accessible and calling out liars. If the government has the resources to investigate, try, and imprison these guys, it surely has the resources to say they're not on the list. And if a phony hero is never exposed, meaning actual medal recipients never hear about his false claims, where is the harm?
The oral argument transcript is here (PDF). Previous coverage of U.S. v. Alvarez here.
Shikha Dalmia on The Wall Street Journal's Video Blog Talking Ayn Rand the Illegal Immigrant
Reason Foundation senior policy analyst Shikha Dalmia appeared on The Wall Street Journal's video blog to discuss Ayn Rand's early history in America as an illegal immigrant as well as how immigration policy is playing a decisive role in the GOP race. Air Date: February 16, 2012.
Approximately 6.39 minutes.
And check out Dalmia's column on the same topic, "Ayn Rand Was an Illegal Immigrant."
Reason Staff Live Tweets the Arizona Republican Debate Tonight!
Join us, as we get our tweeter on tonight in honor of the Arizona GOP debate, right here at Hit&Run.
Some Highlights From the 2012 International Students For Liberty Conference
[Update: I originally incorrectly referred to Representative Justin Amash (R-MI) as a Senator.]
This weekend marked the fifth and largest International Students For Liberty Conference (ISFLC) yet. Over one thousand students, supporters, and organizations convened on the Grand Hyatt Hotel here in Washington, D.C. to discuss the philosophies, applications, and proliferation of libertarian ideas. Of course, given the age range and the rarity of so many like-minded people together in one location, other priorities were likely to surface. As the MC, Gilles Verstraeten, put it, "The best way to spread the ideas of liberty is for libertarians to breed. We're all in a room together now, so get to it."
Besides that, and the beautiful moment when performer GoRemy asked if everyone had a good Valentine's Day and a spontaneous chorus of adolescent male voices boomed No! in response, the highlight of opening night had to be the Alumnus of the Year speech by Peter Thiel, libertarian venture capitalist and founder of of PayPal. Thiel's praise for the advances in the tech world was tempered by admonitions of little to no innovation in other fields, especially transportation. "The failure of innovation in transportation is the result of a failure in energy innovation," he declared, and considered this the outcome of government overregulation. "We've had progress where there was little regulation," meaning the digital world, "but anything in the real world, the world of stuff, has seen little advancement."
Thiel also warned of the third economic bubble we are likely to witness, as he did of the first and second most recent ones: he said it was "the government itself. It is deficit spending and it is bigger and dumber than the other bubbles, if that's even possible."
He called the crisis of rising higher education prices "a very important subcomponent of the government bubble" and said that, as in the mortgage crisis in which "people told trillions of dollars' worth of lies to convince others that there was no bubble," there is an imbalance between those who oppose reckless education spending and those who encourage it. He invited students, entrepreneurs, and individuals in general to ask themselves: "Do you want to do what hundreds of other people have done or do you want to do what's right for you?" The proposition was met with applause.
There was no Alumna of the Year speech, probably proving that libertarians are a bunch of sexist evil lady-haters. Or maybe not: Marty Zupan, president of the Institute for Humane Studies, closed the conference with a speech and a Q&A session. When asked what libertarian women can do to move forward in the promotion of a free society, she smiled and said without hesitation, "Work hard and don't underestimate yourself."
International Students
Not surprisingly, there was a good number of international attendees at this year's conference. One, a young man from the People's Republic of China, received applause for the gravity of his mere presence at a libertarian conference.
One group that generated a lot of excitement was members of the African Students For Liberty chapter. The group was started as an initiative of Atlas Economic Research Foundation, "a nonprofit organization connecting a global network of more than 400 free-market organizations in over 80 countries to the ideas and resources needed to advance the cause of liberty."
I got a chance to speak to their founder, Adedayo Thomas (pictured, far left). He said he met Tom Palmer, Vice President for International Programs, at a 2007 conference in Kenya, where they discussed "the issue of African liberty." He lamented that students in Africa have little to no knowledge of classical liberal philosophy, mainly because "the history of Africa has been distorted by the misconception of capitalism as colonialism.... This makes Africa what it is today." When asked how he became concerned with introducing students to the ideas of liberty, he told me he had considered talking to politicians to be a waste of time and saw more potential in going directly to people and to students in particular.
Thomas' argument for exactly why colonialism was bad seems to be refreshingly uncommon. "There were no borders in pre-colonial Africa. People freely moved their wares, voluntarily. We had a king who was not a dictator and a council of chiefs" who served solely as mediators in disputes. "Individualism existed in pre-colonial Africa. Dictatorship was an import of colonialism." When describing the system of voluntary enterprise that characterized pre-colonial African commerce, he said, "What we had was exactly capitalism."
Goodies and Politicians
The event came with lots of good swag, including T-shirts, bumper stickers, and even a souvenir from the Young Americans for Liberty's photo booth:
One of the most interesting breakout sessions was a Q&A session on Saturday night with Representative Justin Amash (R-Michigan). Attendees of ISFLC got to hear about how the youngest freshman Congressman became what he calls "a Libertarian Republican." He pointed to his father, a Palestinian refugee, who he said "taught me the importance of liberty."
There was a lot of emphasis on the power of social media in Amash's talk as well. He claimed that "Facebook is helping to break down the two-party system" and said he first discovered libertarianism as a concrete political philosophy by Googling his own views on issues. Continuing on the theme of individualism, he urged the audience to contact their senators more. He said that senators so rarely hear from their constituents on specific issues that they are easily swayed by such appeals. "If ten people call, they panic. They say, 'No, I've got to vote no on that one. Every single person who called today said they opposed it.' Even if only three people called, that's what usually happens."
Read more from reason on Peter Thiel, Justin Amash, and teens having sex. More coverage from me on ISFLC 2012.
Report Finds Police Did Not Deceive Public in Fatal Kelly Thomas Beating
A report from attorney Michael Gennaco of the Los Angeles County Office of Independent Review said February 22, that the Fullerton police department did not deceive or falsify information regarding the July 5, 2011, fatal beating of Kelly Thomas, a 37-year-old homeless drifter.
The city hired Gennaco to investigate the incident after outcry over the handling of the case from the public and Thomas' family. Called into question was the department release of a two-year-old booking photo of Thomas looking disheveled as well an incorrect information given to the local media that two officers suffered broken bones during the incident.
Ron Thomas, Kelly Thomas' father, told the Los Angeles Times, that he didn't believe the report and, "All of it was intended to make Kelly look bad."
Officer Manuel Ramos was charged with second-degree murder and Officer Jay Cicinelli was charged with involuntary manslaughter for their roles in the incident.
Reason TV looked at the Kelly Thomas beating and in Cops vs. Cameras: The Killing of Kelly Thomas & The Power of New Media:
Robert Poole on Fixing Traffic Congestion
Twenty years ago, high-occupancy vehicle (HOV)
lanes were virtually the only politically acceptable way to add
freeway capacity. But as Robert W. Poole Jr. explains, now it is
becoming politically palatable to add capacity with high occupancy
toll (HOT) or express toll lanes, which are open to toll-paying
vehicles and usually some form of high-occupancy vehicle—bus,
vanpool, or carpool. The success of HOV-to-HOT conversions, and the
demonstrated ability of private firms to raise large sums based on
projected revenues from such projects, Poole writes, has stimulated
activity in several of the most congested metro areas. Here is a
sampling of the projects.
President Dreamypants
Jezebel,
the website about lady-things, has this headline up: "Your
Morning Swoon: President Obama Sings 'Sweet Home Chicago.'"
Here is some of the writing underneath that headline:
Last night, the President and First Lady hosted an all-star blues concert at the White House. There were a lot of famous musicians there—BB King, Buddy Guy, Mick Jagger, and more—but one man outshone them all: Barack Obama. At the end of the concert, the group started playing "Sweet Home Chicago" and roped the Prez into singing a few lines. His voice was *smooth as ever*, but the best part is the sly smile he gives as he's singing.
That "smooth as ever" hyperlink takes us to a Jezebel headline "Damn, President Obama Is Hot When He Sings Al Green."
Here is President Swoonworthy in action, taking the mic from Michael Jagger.
There are worse things than an American president enjoying a bunch of Blues greats at the White House and taking a bar or two. For instance, this is a LOT worse:
And I can even forgive the Jezebel swoon more than, say, Lucy Steigerwald can; those who revere the vocal stylings of Dennis Wilson probably shouldn't throw stones. But where the leg-tingle starts to chafe (don't stop me, I'm rolling here!) is when I have to read it in the context of allegedly high-quality journalism. As in this passage, from the lead comment in the current issue of The New Yorker:
Obama believes that gross inequality damages our society, and he has forcefully criticized the deceitful banking practices that nearly destroyed the economy and pushed the homes of more than eleven million people underwater. He has been careful not to demonize the rich, but he intends to allow their Bush tax cuts to expire on schedule this year, which should go a long way toward reducing the deficit and at least a little way toward mitigating the rush toward a society of plutocrats and paupers.
Hey Dorothy Wickenden! Why don't you crawl out of the president's brain, and crawl back into his public statements and deeds, which contradict your omniscience! Like this, from April 2009:
[A]lthough there are a lot of Americans who understandably think that government money would be better spent going directly to families and businesses instead of to banks -- one of my most frequent questions in the letters that I get from constituents is, "Where's my bailout?" -- and I understand the sentiment. It makes sense intuitively, and morally it makes sense, but the truth is that a dollar of capital in a bank can actually result in $8 or $10 of loans to families and businesses. So that's a multiplier effect that can ultimately lead to a faster pace of economic growth. That's why we have to fix the banks.
The president may (or may not)
"believe" this or that, and "forcefully criticize" the other, but
his actions, like those of his crappy predecessor (only moreso),
directly resulted in the plutocratic bad guys getting first in line
for bailout money, because (from the presidential P.O.V.) they were
both too big to fail and too multiplier-y to not receive transfer
payments from the comparatively poor. Also, intending to
allow the Bush tax cuts to expire in the election year of 2012 has
precisely as much bearing on what will actually happen
this year as my intention that
Albert Brooks win Best Supporting Actor. Oh, and before you go
using Warren Buffett as the star witness for the prosecution
against well-connected plutocrats (as Wickenden does elsewhere in
her little campaign document), you really need to read
this great Reason piece by Peter Schweizer.
Obama has talked out of both sides of his mouth since Day 1. It is astonishing to me that there are still journalists lapping this stuff up.
Nick Gillespie on Special Stossel on Fox Business This Thursday at 9PM ET
Last weekend, the great group Students for Liberty held its
fifth annual international conference in Washington, D.C. For the
second year in a row, John Stossel taped a special episode of his
Fox Business show. Here's the show pitch for tomorrow night:
Join us this week for a special edition of our show from Washington, D.C. in front of a spirited crowd of 1,000 college students at the annual Students for Liberty Conference.
David Boaz from the Cato Institute and Nick Gillespie from Reason TV will stop by to take the student's questions and discuss how the future for freedom is bright.
These young liberty lovers will also grill our guest panel, which includes the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton . We will debate how the U.S. should react to the possibility of a nuclear Iran and other national security issues.
Ken Klukowski from the Family Resource Council will take the stage to defend social conservative stances against abortion and same-sex marriage.
Finally, comedian Tim Hawkins shines some light on what government can do for us with a satirical song.
Tune in tomorrow night at our new time, 9pm, on the Fox Business Network.
Note to regular Stossel viewers: The show now airs at 9pm ET. So re-set any Tivos, etc.
David Harsanyi on Why Democrats Should Be Happy About High Gas Prices
Why aren't Democrats making the case that the
spike in prices is a good thing? Isn't this basically our energy
policy these days? How we "win the future"? If high energy prices
were to damage President Barack Obama's re-election prospects,
writes David Harsanyi, it would be ironic, considering the left has
been telling us to set aside our "dependency"—or, as our most
recent Republican president put it, "addiction"—for a long
time.
The Strategic and Constitutional Problems With Trying to Establish an Acceptable Islam
Writing in The New York Times, NYU
law professor Samuel J. Rascoff, former director of intelligence
analysis at the NYPD,
questions the government's "dubious enterprise of trying to
shape the beliefs of American Muslims" in an effort to prevent
terrorism:
The problem is that when American officials intervene in Islamic teachings — interpreting them to believers in a national-security context and saying which are or are not acceptable — they create tensions, both legal and strategic.
The strategic problem is easier to see: Is the government a credible authority on Islamic interpretation? Based on the results of comparable efforts in Britain, the answer is a resounding no. Simply put, young Muslim men in the thrall of radical teachings will not embrace a more pacific theology because the F.B.I. tells them to, any more than Catholic bishops would have yielded to Mr. Obama’s plan to mandate coverage of contraceptives at Catholic hospitals if he had invoked canon law to defend his position.
Then there’s the legal problem. Constitutionally speaking, a government official who sets out to determine what a contested concept within Islam means, or which imams have the right to speak for a particular community, would be in danger of transgressing one of the cardinal tenets of the Establishment Clause: the secular state shall not become an arbiter of religious content.
Rascoff argues that "countering radical religious ideology is on much more solid constitutional — and strategic — footing if the heavy lifting is done not by the government but by grass-roots organizations that are grounded in civil society or in religious communities."
How Do You Feel About Bans on Private Discrimination Now?
The New York
Times reports
that "a Supreme Court decision forbidding the use of race in
admission at public universities would almost certainly mean that
it would be barred at most private ones as well under Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids racial discrimination
in programs that receive federal money." Here is another reason
that progressives should not be so quick to dismiss the libertarian
distinction between public and private discrimination. Two years
ago Rand Paul, the Kentucky Republican who was then running
for the Senate seat he now occupies, was pilloried for questioning
the federal ban on private racial discrimination in places of
"public accommodation," on the assumption that anyone making such
an argument must be either a naive ideologue or a closet racist.
But the same property rights, freedom of association, and freedom
of contract that allow bigoted businessmen to shun blacks make it
possible for unpopular minorities to make a living, get ahead, and
establish their own spheres of autonomy. These rights also would
allow private institutions to pursue whatever race-conscious
remedies they deemed appropriate in response to the lingering
effects of slavery and institutionalized racism, no matter what the
Supreme Court said.
Obama Administration Proposes Corporate Tax Overhaul Based on Theory That Loopholes Are Bad and Should Be Replaced With Different Loopholes
Today, the White House will
release a proposal to overhaul the corporate tax code, reducing the
top corporate tax rate, currently the second highest amongst
developed economies, from 35 percent to 28 percent. The potential
gain against international competitors, however, would likely be
small:
According to Jim Pethokoukis, the new plan would probably leave
the U.S. with the fourth highest corporate tax rate.
Despite the lower rate, meanwhile, the plan is expected to raise the total amount of corporate taxes collected (or at least be revenue neutral, depending on how exactly one makes the calculation).
How will this be accomplished? President Obama has long offered rhetorical support for the idea of getting rid of "special interest loopholes" in exchange for lower overall rates. And as The Washington Post notes, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner previewed the theory behind the plan in congressional testimony last week, saying “We are going to propose a broad reform that will lower rates, broaden the base and eliminate and wipe out a very substantial fraction, dozens and dozens and dozens of special tax preferences for businesses...We’re doing that because we think there’s a compelling economic case for doing that.” The economic case is apparently not so compelling, however, that the Obama administration is willing to avoid adding new “special tax preferences” for favored industries. The Post reports that “Obama will target oil and gas companies for tax hikes while promising special breaks for manufacturing companies.”
So the Obama administration’s proposal to reform the corporate tax code is a tax cut that will probably result in a net tax hike, and a tax simplification that will include the creation of new loopholes.
Earlier this month, Jacob Sullum caught Obama condemning tax carve outs while calling for more.
New at Reason: Nick Gillespie on Getting Contraception Out of the Presidential Race
"Let's face it," writes Nick
Gillespie, "long after the term Santorum exists
only under vine-covered ruins of safe-search-off Google queries,
we'll still be talking about the beast-with-two-backs in public
policy venues. Or at least in JFK-themed memoirs.
"But in the hopes of moving past the issue and never having to hear about state-mandated "vaginal probing" at least until tonight's GOP debate (a series that has now tied Gunsmoke and Meet the Press for longevity and coma-induction)," Gillespie offers up "three relatively frictionless ways to take birth control out of current political discussion."
Gallup Survey: Government Regulations Hinder Small Business Hiring
Dennis Jacobe, Chief Economist, writes for Gallup:
“…lawmakers could place a moratorium on new regulations for some period of time. In turn, this might provide the extra push needed to get small-business owners to decide to hire the employees they actually need and get the economy growing at a pace the average American can recognize as an economic recovery.”
Jacobe writes this in response to the most recent quarterly Wells Fargo/Gallup Small Business survey. Although small business hiring conditions are the best they have been since 2008, they are still not exceptionally good with 22 percent saying they expect to hire more people and 8 percent saying they plan to reduce the number of jobs at their company. Moreover 66 percent say they are worried about the US economy and one in four fear they may not be in business one year from now.
85 percent of small business owners say they are not hiring; among these, the top reasons for not doing so include not needing additional employees, concerns about cash flows and the US economy. About half of this group listed potential health care costs and new government regulations as reasons for not hiring.
These results have several implications for government action. Some may look at these numbers and conclude government should spend additional money, or “stimulus” funds, to create cash flows and work projects for these companies to encourage them to hire. Others will look at this data and conclude government cannot artificially bolster sustained demand for these companies but instead should look to repeal excessive regulation and stop enacting new regulations.
Wells Fargo/Gallup Small Business Survey
Gallup’s Methodology
Results for the total dataset are based on telephone interviews with 600 small-business owners, conducted Jan. 9-13, 2012. For results based on the total sample of small-business owners, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.
Sampling is done on an RDD basis using Dun & Bradstreet sampling of small businesses having $20 million or less of sales or revenues. The data are weighted to be representative of U.S. small businesses within this size range nationwide.
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
For more details on Gallup's polling methodology, visit www.gallup.com.
Utah Moves to Clamp Down on "Pimp" Massage Therapists
Life
in Utah is about to get more stressful. The Utah House has just
passed a bill (HB 114) that would facilitate crackdowns on
unlicensed massage parlors.
Unlike Minnesota, which is trying to deregulate some occupational licenses, Utah wants to expand licensing to include more massage therapists. Currently, a masseuse doesn't need a license as long as a massage doesn't manipulate "soft tissue." This loophole allows practitioners of Reiki, sensual massage, and more spiritual relaxation to bypass Utah's stringent licensing requirements. To be fully licensed, a massage therapist needs at least 600 hours of training and must pay $10,000 for lessons on "human anatomy."
The bill comes after accusations that unlicensed massage therapists are fronts for prostitution. HB 114's main sponsor, state Rep. Tim Cosgrove, has blasted the "soft tissue loophole," saying "It really has been nothing more than a veil to camouflage the solicitation for prostitution or other illicit activity."
Ergo, HB 114 would re-define "massage therapy" as
providing, offering, or advertising a paid service using the term massage or a derivative of the word massage, regardless of whether the service includes physical contact.
Reiki practitioners and other alternative masseurs would now need to be licensed. In addition, limits on advertising would inhibit these businesses from promoting on Craigslist and backpage.com.
Not complying with the law would lead to steep legal consequences. In Utah, operating without a license is actually a worse crime than prostitution. The former is Class A misdemeanor and can lead to 1 year in prison and/or a $2,500 fine. Meanwhile, prostitution is a Class B misdemeanor, with 6 months imprisonment and/or a $1,000 fine as possible penalties.
As The Salt Lake Tribune notes, since these businesses would be illegal if they didn't have a license, cities and local jurisdictions would have power to shut them down. Indeed, a city official from Murray, Utah, praised the proposed law for exactly that:
Investigating them "puts our officers in professionally delicate situations and personally delicate situations," he said. "We’re just really hoping we have to run fewer stings in our community."
Unsurprisingly, there is also a "baptist and bootlegger" dynamic at work here. The head of the Utah chapter of the American Massage Therapy Association supports the bill, since it doesn't go after "professional" masseuses. Cracking down on alleged prostitution in Utah provides the moral cover to eliminate the competition. Of course, if prostitution were legal and occupational licensing were abolished, there would be no need for the crackdowns in the first place.
Katherine Mangu-Ward on Craigslist "erotic services." Reason on prostitution and occupational licensing.
Gay Marriage Opponents File Appeal in Prop. 8 Case
As Lyle Denniston notes at SCOTUSblog, the backers of California’s Proposition 8, which had amended the state constitution in order to forbid gay marriage, have opted not to appeal their recent loss before a 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court, but will instead ask an 11-judge panel of the 9th Circuit to first reconsider their case:
Arguing that the issue is of “exceptional importance” and that a Ninth Circuit Court panel got it wrong, sponsors of California’s 2008 ban on same-sex marriage in the state—“Proposition 8″—asked the appeals court to reconsider the case en banc, a move that would wipe out the panel ruling and slow the progress of the case toward the Supreme Court. In a 52-page rehearing petition, the ballot measure’s backers contended that the panel’s decision on February 7 directly contradicts four prior Supreme Court rulings.
The petition also sought to have the fuller court wipe out the District Court judge’s 2010 ruling that nullified Proposition 8, asserting that his failure to disclose that he is a gay man involved in a long-term partnership disqualified him from trying the case—an argument that the Ninth Circuit panel had rejected.
For additional coverage of the Prop. 8 case, go here. For a look at what the Supreme Court's recent rulings on gay rights may mean for the future of gay marriage, see here.
A.M. Links: U.N. Nuke Inspectors Frustrated in Iran, Browsers Sue Google for Privacy Violations, Obama to Unveil Tax "Reform" Plan
U.N. nuke inspectors left Iran
Tuesday, declaring they "could
not find a way forward." - Romney catches up to Santorum in Michigan.
- Five dead in Afghan Koran protest.
- Obama administration mulls lowering corporate tax rate to 28 percent.
- Safari users sue Google for privacy violations.
- Gov. Robert F. McDonnell rescinds support for requiring women who want abortions to get ultrasounds first.
Do you want hot links and other Reason goodies delivered to your inbox twice a day? Sign up here for Reason's morning and afternoon news updates.
New at Reason.tv: "Tolls, Not Taxes: How Americans Want to Fix Traffic Jams"
Jacob Sullum on Obama's Phony Birth Control 'Concession'
President Obama acknowledges
"many genuine concerns" about his administration's requirement that
religious organizations pay for health insurance policies that
cover contraception and sterilization. He just isn't willing to
address them in a genuine way, says Senior Editor Jacob Sullum.
The 12 Biggest Customer Service Failures of the Year
At 247WallStreet.com, Charles
B. Stockdale tallies up the
dozen retailers that suffered the biggest declines in customer
service rankings in 2011.
It’s a pretty interesting list, including some companies that are actually customer service winners with plenty of room to spare: Amazon’s rating, which Stockdale derives from the American Customer Satisfaction Index, went down 1.1 percent, but the online bookseller started by hero of freedom Jeff Bezos still has the highest score among all e-commerce and retail trade companies.
There are also a few expected basement dwellers (such as CVS, which in my experience offers a shopping experience even less pleasant than Rite-Aid’s); both Wals (-green and –Mart); one company whose ranking may only be dropping because more people are shopping there and absorbing the low-rent ambience (Dollar General, which I’d doubt anybody ever patronized for the friendly service and about which Stockdale concedes "[C]ustomer satisfaction concerns have done little to slow sales"); most of an entire sector (Office Depot and Staples, which together make up the majority of the U.S. office supplies market, clocking in at number 8 and number 7 respectively); and at Number One by a wide distance, our era’s greatest cautionary tale of customer service gone wrong:
12. Amazon.com
11. Charles Schwab
10. Winn-Dixie
9. CVS Caremark
8. Office Depot
7. Staples
6. Dollar General
5. Expedia
4. Walgreen
3. Barnes & Noble
2. Walmart
1. Netflix
Full story, with comments. Any such list that doesn’t include Time Warner Cable and every broadband/telecom company in the solar system should be viewed with suspicion. But again, this is just a list of 2011’s biggest decliners, not the worst of the worst.
Who else sucks? Should Reason’s server squirrels be on the list? Bellyache in the comments. (And if you like our service, tell a friend!)
Most Popular Stories
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Gallup Survey: Government Regulations Hinder Small Business Hiring (2.22)
- New Rasmussen Poll: 58 Percent Oppose $10,000 Subsidies to Electric Car Buyers (2.21)
- Romney Most Electable Candidate, Yet Gingrich in Statistical Tie Among GOP Voters (1.31)
- Explaining Newt’s Second Surge (1.26)
- George Washington Would Beat Out Romney as Richest President; John Kerry Would Have, Too (1.25)
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245