by | BLOG, FREEDOM, Israel
The atrocity of the October 7 Hamas invasion in Israel has recently been compared to our 9/11 attack. While the situation is similar — an Islamic terrorist group struck against a sovereign nation — the assault on Israel was far worse. To put it in perspective, consider this: on 9/11, 3,000 American citizens died and during the Hamas attack, 1,300 Israeli citizens died. But when you consider those terrible numbers in reference to the total population of each country, the 1,300 deaths out of an Israeli population of 9.55 million would be comparable to a loss of roughly 45,000 Americans. That is 15 times higher than our losses from 9/11. Similarly, the initial injuries incurred by Israelis are 3,227. That would be equivalent to 113,000 injuries to Americans on 9/11, while in actuality that number for us was roughly 6,000.
As a lifelong New Yorker, I am in no way downplaying the monstrosity of 9/11. Yet as an American, it is imperative to show others how wide and cruel the Hamas slaughter really and truly was.
by | ECONOMY, TAXES
In the WSJ this week, Phill Gramm and Don Boudreaux do an excellent job detailing the devastating effects Trump’s tariffs have had on the American economy. How can protectionists like Trump and his allies not understand that tariffs are destructive? A tariff is basically a tax on imports. It is championed as a means to boost domestic production and government revenue, but this is far from economic reality. Tariffs clearly and consistently hurt the consumer and taxpayer by driving costs up to everybody in amounts far in excess of any short term benefits.
Tariffs add to inflation and put American companies at a disadvantage because foreign countries can (and do) retaliate by putting their own tariffs on our exports. This slows manufacturing growth, increases prices, and makes the economy more sluggish. On the other hand, free trade creates better choices for consumers and more global opportunities for American companies, resulting in lower costs and an expanded job market.
To suggest a tariff is a pro-growth economic policy is utterly ridiculous. Tariffs don’t strengthen American manufacturers; they are cronyism of the highest order. Protectionists are economically ignorant and tariffs have proven (yet again) to be disastrous for our economy.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ELECTIONS, NEWS
Over at the Wall Street Journal, columnist Andy Kessler came up with a list of what he dubbed “15 Ways to Win a Presidential Primary.” Essentially, Kessler eschews style for content as a winning strategy for the crowded Republican primary field. Here is Kessler’s 15 point fix-it plan:
TSA reform
Tackle prescription drug pricing
End hidden fees
End the post office monopoly
Aviation and air-traffic control reform
End the public school monopoly
Offer a 20 year plan for school modernization
End housing price controls
End price fixing
End geographic monopolies
End train subsidies
Outlaw ethanol use
Tighten the border
Put expiration dates on legislation
Nix public-sector collective bargaining
This list is a good start, but I can also think of a few of my own, such as ending the capital gains tax and reforming estate taxes. What are some action items you would like to see?
by | BLOG, LAW, NEWS, POLITICS
The government interference in the Hunter Biden tax case is simply astounding. Looking beyond the “sweetheart” (misdemeanor) deal that Hunter Biden received is something just as egregious; namely, the actions of the Justice Department in the entire ordeal. Here’s a sampling of their odious behavior:
1) Probable cause had been established by prosecutors to search a) Hunter Biden’s guest house in Delaware at President Biden’s home; and b) the Hunter Biden’s storage unit in Virginia, where it was likely important records had been kept. Instead, the Justice Department denied permission for the search warrants.
2) Whereas the Justice Department traditionally declines to investigate or indict serious matters within 60 days of an election, they did so for six months.
3) They warned Hunter’s attorneys about an forthcoming search warrant that was intended to gather evidence
4) They declined the ability to have key witnesses interviewed on important issues involving potentially Hunter and his father.
Indeed, it seems rational to conclude if the Justice Department had made different choices than the ones above, those might have led to unearthing tangible connections with Hunter and Joe Biden. Furthermore, the Special Agent report recommended six felonies and five misdemeanors for Hunter’s tax problems. And yet, the federal government allowed the statute of limitations for 2014 and 2015 charges to expire, something that is practically unheard of. Moreover, allowing the misdemeanor charges to proceed in lieu of felony charges violates the Tax Division Manual.
The irregular actions of the Justice Department have tipped the scales in favor of Hunter Biden for reasons that are specifically unclear, but easy to speculate about (i.e. Joe). It’s incredible how brazen the government has been able to be.
by | ARTICLES, SCOTUS
Gorsuch does a good job pointing out some of the logical flaws in Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in the Colorado website cake. The WSJ’s Notable and Quotable gives a fine excerpt, which I have included below, plus a link to the full opinion.
“From Justice Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion in 303 Creative v. Elenis, decided June 30:
It is difficult to read the dissent [by Justice Sonia Sotomayor] and conclude we are looking at the same case. . . . The dissent claims that Colorado wishes to regulate Ms. Smith’s “conduct,” not her speech. Forget Colorado’s stipulation that Ms. Smith’s activities are “expressive,” and the Tenth Circuit’s conclusion that the State seeks to compel “pure speech.” The dissent chides us for deciding a pre-enforcement challenge. But it ignores the Tenth Circuit’s finding that Ms. Smith faces a credible threat of sanctions unless she conforms her views to the State’s. The dissent suggests (over and over again) that any burden on speech here is “incidental.” All despite the Tenth Circuit’s finding that Colorado intends to force Ms. Smith to convey a message she does not believe with the “very purpose” of “[e]liminating . . . ideas.” . . .
In some places, the dissent gets so turned around about the facts that it opens fire on its own position. For instance: While stressing that a Colorado company cannot refuse “the full and equal enjoyment of [its] services” based on a customer’s protected status, the dissent assures us that a company selling creative services “to the public” does have a right “to decide what messages to include or not to include.” But if that is true, what are we even debating?”
by | ARTICLES, SCOTUS
The Wall Street Journal published their “Notable & Quotable: “Thomas vs. Jackson” on July 1, 2023. Clarence Thomas takes apart fellow Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, observing that her “contrary, myopic world view based on individuals’ skin color to the total exclusion of their personal choices is nothing short of racial determinism.” It’s brilliant. You can read it in full below:
“From Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, decided June 29 (citations omitted):
Justice [Ketanji Brown] Jackson uses her broad observations about statistical relationships between race and select measures of health, wealth, and well-being to label all blacks as victims. Her desire to do so is unfathomable to me. I cannot deny the great accomplishments of black Americans, including those who succeeded despite long odds.
Nor do Justice Jackson’s statistics . . . prove anything. Of course, none of those statistics are capable of drawing a direct causal link between race—rather than socioeconomic status or any other factor—and individual outcomes. So Justice Jackson supplies the link herself: the legacy of slavery and the nature of inherited wealth. This, she claims, locks blacks into a seemingly perpetual inferior caste. Such a view is irrational; it is an insult to individual achievement and cancerous to young minds seeking to push through barriers, rather than consign themselves to permanent victimhood. . . .
Individuals are the sum of their unique experiences, challenges, and accomplishments. What matters is not the barriers they face, but how they choose to confront them. And their race is not to blame for everything—good or bad—that happens in their lives. A contrary, myopic world view based on individuals’ skin color to the total exclusion of their personal choices is nothing short of racial determinism.
Justice Jackson then builds from her faulty premise to call for action, arguing that courts should defer to “experts” and allow institutions to discriminate on the basis of race. Make no mistake: Her dissent is not a vanguard of the innocent and helpless. It is instead a call to empower privileged elites, who will “tell us [what] is required to level the playing field” among castes and classifications that they alone can divine. Then, after siloing us all into racial castes and pitting those castes against each other, the dissent somehow believes that we will be able—at some undefined point—to “march forward together” into some utopian vision. Social movements that invoke these sorts of rallying cries, historically, have ended disastrously.
by | BLOG, ECONOMY
Maritime unions have a long history of lobbying for rules and regulations, stifling innovation, and sabotaging operations, all in the name of benefiting their members. The most recent example of this is the tension between employers and the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) at the West Coast ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, which serve as the busiest gateways for imported consumer goods in the United States. The ILWU’s impact is particularly strong because it controls virtually all longshore labor for all West Coast ports. Maritime unions are the reason why, despite being the number one global superpower, America consistently ranks like third world countries, behind Asian nations and other Western countries in terms of shipping efficiency on a global scale.
Maritime unions have a unique history that continues to contribute to their strength today. In the past, life on a ship was unlike any other form of private employment. Captains held significant power, acting as legal judges, juries, and executioners while at sea. They had the authority to administer corporal punishment until the 1890s. However, as the old adage goes, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Now, maritime unions have the nation’s economy in a devastating stranglehold.
Unionized dockworkers in U.S. ports are open for fewer hours per week than virtually every other port around the world, due to labor contracts. Secondly, the cost is significantly prohibitive, a west coast union dock worker makes an average $171,000/year plus free healthcare. Lastly, and arguably the most damning is unions have fought for decades to stop automation and modernization. They’re also fighting automation on ships too, refusing to service vessels that reduce crew size and increase efficiency via automation.
Maritime unions’ have killed the shipping industry. The 2020 World Bank/IHS Markit “Container Port Performance Index” revealed that none of the U.S. ports made it into the top 50 global ports for efficient ship handling. Among U.S. ports, Philadelphia ranked the highest statistically at 83, followed by Virginia at 85 and NY/NJ at 89. Oakland secured the 332nd position, while LA/LB disappointingly ranked at 328 and 333, respectively.
These negotiation issues are further exacerbated by the current Biden administration’s refusal to acknowledge the crippling monopoly power granted to maritime unions. Allowing maritime unions to continue holding America’s shipping industry hostage will only widen the growing gap between us and the rest of the world.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, NEWS
Robert Poole, Director of Transportation Policy over at the Reason Foundation, does as decent job laying out “the case for changing the way air traffic control is provided in the United States.” He points out that many major countries have changed the way air traffic control systems are funded in recent years, and the United States should consider adopting some form of their models. This is a thoughtful piece and well worth the read. I have included it below as well as his full pdf report.
“This report provides an overview of the case for changing the way air traffic control is provided in the United States. While this country still has the world’s largest air traffic control system, it is no longer the world’s most advanced. Over the past three decades, more than 60 developed countries have converted their air traffic control systems from tax-funded government agencies to some form of public utility. These countries include Australia, Canada, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.
This idea has been proposed many times in the United States, dating back to the 1970s. The Clinton administration made several large-scale attempts that led to only minor reforms in how the Federal Aviation Administration operates the air traffic control system. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) attempted funding reform during the George W. Bush administration but was unsuccessful.
Research papers and several book-length studies find that the utility model, in which the air traffic control provider is paid directly by its customers and is able to issue long-term revenue bonds for large-scale facility and equipment modernization, works better than tax-supported systems operated as government agencies.
A much larger effort began during the Obama administration and continued in the Trump administration, driven largely by the business community and various aviation stakeholder groups. It led to the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee twice approving enabling legislation for an air traffic control utility corporation, but neither bill reached the House floor.
Recent air traffic problems—the NOTAM fiasco, a spate of close-call runway incursions, and FAA’s inability to implement digital/remote control towers as air traffic control utilities in other countries are doing—have raised new interest in air traffic control reform in this year when FAA must be reauthorized by Congress.
The 2018 defeat appeared to foreclose further attempts at creating a U.S. air traffic control utility for the duration of the five-year FAA reauthorization period. With so many topics on its agenda and very limited floor time, any stand-alone air traffic control bill apart from the next FAA reauthorization bill would have been highly unlikely.
The 2013–2018 air traffic control reform effort garnered much greater support than any previous effort. Openly supporting the bill were all the major passenger and cargo airlines, controllers’ union Nair traffic controlA, unions representing pilots and flight attendants, six former U.S. Department of Transportation secretaries, all three former chief operating officers of the Air Traffic Organization, 13 former senior Clinton administration officials, transportation experts from a long list of noted think tanks, taxpayer and consumer groups, and the editorial boards of many leading newspapers,including the Chicago Tribune, Miami Herald, Orlando Sentinel, The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and USA Today.
Unfortunately, there was never a real, substantive debate on the case for an air traffic control utility corporation. Instead, a propaganda war largely bankrolled by business jet organization the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) made untrue allegations and stepped up its opposition efforts after the bill had been revised to reflect legitimate concerns of general aviation, small airports, and rural America. Thus, while the United States retains the world’s largest air traffic control system, it also remains an outlier as:
- The only developed country that is not charging airspace users for air traffic control services;
- One of the few that still has not separated safety regulation from air traffic control service provision; and,
- A major nation whose air traffic control provider still has difficulty developing and implementing new technology and procedures in a timely and cost-effective manner.
Nevertheless, the debate has moved significantly in the direction of corporatization. In the 1970s and 1980s, it was widely assumed that the provision of air traffic control services was inherently governmental, since this service was provided by national governments in nearly all countries during those decades. The idea of separating aviation safety regulation from the provision of air traffic control services was unheard of.
Today, the inherent conflict of interest in having the same agency do both is recognized by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and has become non-standard in practice world wide.
Second, the importance of a self-supporting utility model for air traffic control is now widely understood and in operation in more than 60 countries. Prior to the emergence of air traffic control utilities beginning in 1987, most governments already charged air traffic control fees, mostly in accord with ICAO charging principles, but the revenues went into the national government’s coffers, to be allocated to whatever purposes the national legislative body decided upon.
The move toward self-supporting air traffic control utilities has created a worthwhile customer/provider relationship that replaces the air traffic control provider’s dependence on politically determined funding. The self-supporting model also permits the issuance of revenue bonds to finance long-lived capital modernization efforts, which was not possible prior to self- support, since the air traffic control user fee revenues belonged to the national government, not the air traffic control provider.
Third, we have seen empirical evidence of a changed organizational culture in many of the ATC corporations. They are generally able to hire and retain experienced managers, engineers, and software experts, thereby regaining control of technology development from aerospace companies on whom they were formerly overly dependent. This is leading to reductions in overhead costs, more cost-effective technology improvements, and increases in productivity.
Governance is still a work in progress, with many of the government corporations being dependent on one or two government shareholders. By contrast, the stakeholder board concept has proved workable and effective for more than two decades at Nav Canada, the world’s second-largest air traffic control provider and widely considered one of the best. A governing board representing all the principal aviation stakeholders gives the air traffic control provider a governance model much like the user cooperative model well-known in the rural utilities sector in the United States. It is a model that may offer governance improvements to many air traffic control providers currently organized as government corporations.
To sum up, the world of air traffic control has changed markedly in the decades since the corporatization of Airways New Zealand in 1987. The United States is the last major country that stands apart from this reform. It is conceivable that the growing track record of self-supporting air traffic control corporations will lead to some version of this model being adopted in the United States within the next decade.”
Get the report here
