by | ARTICLES, BLOG, COVID, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, NEW YORK, POLITICS
I am a long-term supporter of the Manhattan Institute and participate in their events and webcasts regularly. Heather MacDonald, Steve Malanga, and Nicole Gelinas are three of my favorite people. But Michael Hendrix seriously dropped the ball as moderator of the discussion on “Planning for the City’s Reopening” several weeks ago. Given the current pandemic and civil unrest, exploring how business can reopen is a laudable topic; however, the actual discussion was immensely disappointing. He allowed it to simply ignore the real reasons for the problems the City now faces with regard to “reopening”.
For instance, during the question on how we were going to reopen the city, much of the conversation had to do with needing to do more with affordable housing, and needing more help from the city government. He of course knows that this has nothing to do with the “reopening”. The problem long preceded COVID, and doesn’t need the government to fix it. Government actions – zoning, land use, overburdening businesses and building regulations leading to ridiculously high costs – are the cause of lack of affordable housing, and without reversing those actual issues, there is no solution.
Additionally, the “racial crisis” was a significant topic. He ignored any response regarding whether this was true and/or meaningful since the City has been run by extraordinarily liberal, non-racist leaders for generations, including full representation of the minority community. Can racial bias then really be a thing in New York City? Also in every single major city in which there has been extensive looting and rioting, the cities have been in the hands of minorities and liberals for the past 50 years. Yet he as the moderator didn’t even allow for this perspective to come up.
Furthermore, there was absolutely no discussion about the rioters and looters destroying businesses; the conversation only focused on police brutality. Though police brutality may be a problem, is it really a factor in the reopening after COVID? For a panel exploring the city and businesses, it was egregious that he virtually ignored the very real problem: businesses that have been destroyed by looters and rioters are being ignored by law enforcement, making businesses hesitant to invest in reopening and insurers hesitant in providing insurance at affordable rates.
Another topic was education, but there was no mention about charter schools and how they fit into the equation of reopening, even though charter schools are the most successful educational endeavor in the city.
Likewise, another topic was insurance, which he allowed to proceed in a manner that just showed the economic ignorance of the panelists. Since the happening of a pandemic is not a quantifiable risk, it is not insurable. To insist that the government provide insurance, at a premium that can only be set politically, has many problems. What’s more, the ignorance of the position espoused – that the government should somehow make the insurers who did not provide or charge for such coverage pay for it anyway – should not have been allowed to go unanswered.
On a related note, there was talk about how the city may or may not be able to help because there is a budget crisis. But where was the mention that DeBlasio is the cause? There was already a budget crisis before the pandemic and the civil unrest, not because of it. And DeBlasio’s actions during the pandemic and protests will certainly inhibit the ability of the City to reopen.
Hendrix should have made sure that the discussion included the knowledge and competence that the people of the Manhattan Institute espouse. There is no question in my mind that Heather MacDonald, Steve Malanga, and Nicole Gelinas would have been very disappointed with the exchange.
by | BLOG, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, LAW, POLITICS
The police have a PR problem and a culture of cover up and it’s finally being talked about. On the one hand, the police have millions of contacts with the public over a given year and the vast majority of interactions are fine, even dull. But sometimes you have bad police and sometimes you have a bad interaction (including, though not limited to, a shooting). However, almost never do you see the police admit that they messed up.
George Floyd’s situation was unique in that they admitted the wrongdoing right away, though this was likely because the horrific actions were immediately all over the internet. But police have this culture of lying and doing nothing about terrible tragedies in which they do the wrong thing. For instance, the police typically want to see body cams first before the public gets a chance to so they can see what the cams show and then figure out how to spin it. The proper way to conduct an investigation would be to actually investigate first and then look at the body cams to see what they can corroborate or dispute. Maybe this attitude is symptomatic of the public service culture, because typically in the private sector you don’t have the same attitude. If, for example, a Walmart employee, through an improper action ,hurts a customer, Walmart will get rid of the employee because they don’t tolerate the abuse of a member of the public. Not necessarily so with the police, and this attitude needs reform if there is going to be meaningful change.
Police in this country need to remember that they are public servants but they are also responsible for their own behavior and police departments need to hold accountable the bad cops if they are going to maintain public trust.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, QUICKLY NOTED
One of my favorite topics is the Jones Act, a little-known maritime law that has a big impact shipping goods. I have written extensively on it before, so I was delighted to see the Competitive Enterprise Institute publish a paper on the topic since the Jones Act has been in place for 100 years now. Below is the Executive Summary, and then a link to the full paper. It is a must-read for understanding why the Jones Act needs to be abolished.
“The Jones Act requires any ship traveling between two U.S. points to be U.S.-manufactured, -owned, -flagged, and -crewed. This heavy-handed protectionist measure was enacted in 1920 with the stated purpose of ensuring a strong merchant marine to support America’s commerce and the nation’s preparedness for war and national emergency. A century later, the evidence is clear: The law has not only failed to accomplish any of those objectives, it has systematically undermined each of them.
Today the Jones Act mostly covers well over 30,000 tugs and barges plying America’s inland waterways, and its punitive restrictions mainly benefit railways and trucking companies.1 As for America’s once mighty oceangoing merchant marine, the law has protected it to death: Less than 100 oceangoing vessels remain in the Jones Act fleet. As of 2019, the few American shipyards that can build commercial oceangoing vessels are being kept afloat by defense contracts.
The law’s supporters argue that because its costs are difficult to quantify, it is not clear that it costs anything. This is highly misleading. The law is designed precisely to restrict the supply of domestic shipping so that American domestic ship operators and shipbuilders can charge more. Shipping rates on Jones Act routes are typically several times more expensive than rates in the competitive international market, especially in terms of cost per nautical mile traveled for a standard container. The Jones Act’s proponents are fervent supporters of “buy American” but the law favors imports over domestic commerce. It is protectionism for foreigners.
The law has also failed its national security mission. The military utility of the Jones Act fleet has faded faster than the Jones Act fleet’s dwindling numbers. Modern warfare requires transport ships that are fast and flexible, while the global maritime industry is heading in the other direction, with transport ships that are increasingly slower, bigger, and less maneuverable. As for national emergencies, every time one requires sealift, the Jones Act needs to be waived so victims can get the relief they need from ships that are actually available.
According to one study, the Jones Act is equivalent to a 64.6 percent tariff on domestic seaborne trade. For Alaska, Hawaii, and especially Puerto Rico, the impact is particularly onerous. The impact of the Jones Act on American energy is also notable, and difficult to justify in today’s world of globally dominant North American oil production and falling prices.
While repeal of the Jones Act would be ideal, at a minimum, significant reforms are long overdue.”
You can read the full analysis here.
by | BLOG, FREEDOM
Martin Luther King’s vision was of a colorblind society. Slowly but steadily, in the years since his death, we have worked to make that legacy a reality, culminating in the election of an African American as President of the United States. Yet what should have been a high point for race relations in this country was instead undermined by the very person who could have embodied MLK’s vision.
The Obama administration from top to bottom started looking for race in everything, from Dodd-Frank to college admissions to discrimination in auto loans. . He was a huge proponent of disparate impact theory. This theory states that if a group is not proportionately represented, the reason is automatically bias. This theory would hold that if white people are underrepresented in professional football, the reason is racial prejudice. No need to look at other non-bias reasons that could account for the numbers. For instance, when disparate impact theory was applied to auto loans, it created lawsuits against dealerships for discriminating against black buyers even though in reality the dealers were never given any information related to race on applications when processing loan applications. Obama ultimately had all of his policy departments, especially employment and housing, hyper-sensitive about race. In this way, it made people into victims and those accused of being discriminatory angry because they weren’t actually discriminating. As a result, this type of identity politics was incredibly destructive. In 2009, shortly after Obama took office, a New York Times/CBS News poll showed two-thirds of Americans regarded race relations as generally good. At the end of his presidency, 69% of Americans considered race relations as generally bad.
The seeds of heightened racial division that were sown with Obama continue today because of the overemphasis on race even in scenarios that have nothing to do with it. We have abandoned the vision of a colorblind society. None of this is more apparent than the recent days of violence in the wake of the George Floyd tragedy. Though this was a tragic clear case of police wrongdoing, it is not clear that there was any racial motivation; that argument is tenuous. Is the killing of a black individual by a white policeman (creating a cascade of protests costing millions of dollars) as significant or more significant than the numbers of black deaths at the hands of other black perpetrators? According to the FBI crime database for 2016, the most recent year for which statistics are available, out of 2870 murders of blacks, 2570 of them were committed by other blacks, and only 243 were committed by whites, only a small percentage of whom were police. Thus, is this one (possibly) race-related death that much more important than other black-on-black deaths that occur daily? The looters and vandals, instead of bringing attention to the issue, dishonor the legacy of MLK with their behavior. He adamantly believed that:
“riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. I’m still convinced that nonviolence is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom and justice. I feel that violence will only create more social problems than they will solve.”
Colorblindness should continue to be a goal. We need the gentle wisdom of Martin Luther King now more than ever if we wish to get past this current era of racial divide.
by | BLOG, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, LAW
The world is going nuts. Between May 29-May 31, “Chicago saw its deadliest weekend of gun violence this year as protests, riots, and looting continued to rock the city after the death of George Floyd at the hands of a Minneapolis police officer. A total of 24 people were killed and at least 61 injured by gun violence…. Chicago Police Superintendent David Brown said that 17 of the gun deaths occurred on Sunday alone.”
Yet according to the Washington Post police database that has tracked the number of people shot and killed by police since 2015 there were 9 unarmed blacks and 19 unarmed whites were killed by law enforcement in the entire country in 2019. In other words, more people were killed by rioters and looters in one weekend in Chicago than the total number of unarmed black men in all of 2019. And over Father’s Day weekend, 104 people were shot, 15 fatally, in Chicago. Where is the outrage? What is the REAL problem?
by | BLOG, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, LAW
In the wake of the George Floyd tragedy, there have been calls to take over police stations and even defund police departments as solutions to perceived systemic racial inequality in law enforcement. Even if systemic racism is a real and serious problem, defunding the police is not in any way a fix. The key reason for this is: any systemic inequality and other systemic bias has been created by the very people who are now demonstrating, because they are responsible for putting in the people who created this problem into office.
Some people are protesting against policing that sends black people disproportionately to jail, claiming police are in more black communities to make arrests. Yet of course many of the 911 calls for police help come from within black communities. To a certain extent, there’s frustration against racism, but the protestors are not advocating for solutions, because they know there’s no simple fix; the liberal democrats and a large number of black leaders have been responsible for the entire political environment of every major city for the last several decades in which there have been protests. So here’s what they should advocate for:
Reform in the areas of qualified immunity, public service union protections, taxpayer funded lawsuit settlements, removing police from non-police activity, such as routine traffic violations and mental health issues, decriminalizing some behaviors and demilitarizing police will go a lot farther to solving issues instead of removing law enforcement altogether.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, FREEDOM, LAW, POLITICS
I’ve been thinking a lot about the riots lately from my apartment in Manhattan, watching the looters come down my streets without a cop in sight. At first, I understood the protests to be about George Floyd and wanting appropriate action for the officers who were responsible for his death. So far, that has been handled correctly as the powers in charge have said the right things, and the perpetrators have been charged with murder. But now the tone has shifted; the assertion is that systemic police bias exists. However, the proposed fix has now become an outright assault on law enforcement, culminating in some cases in the takeover of police stations and the call for defunding of police units. That is neither okay nor actually productive.
One of the biggest problems with the systemic bias narrative is the fact that the overwhelming majority of cases of racist police brutality have occurred in cities where liberal Democrats, supported by significant involvement of black officials, have been running the system for roughly 50 years. In other words, if systemic racism exists, it exists within the realm of Democrat policies and leadership. Thus the majority of those protesting are–at the same time–the very people responsible for such a racist system in the first place.
A recent article in the WSJ reviewed the very idea of systemic police bias and found that statistics don’t bear out such a charge. “Crime and suspect behavior” on the other hand, are the factors that drive most actions taken by law enforcement. For instance, in 2019, African-Americans accounted for just under 25% of those fatally killed by police, which was a statistic relatively unchanged for the prior 4 years. Likewise, the Washington Post police database shows that in 2019, 9 unarmed blacks and 19 unarmed whites were killed by law enforcement, a number which had decreased since 2015. Furthermore the National Academy of Sciences published an important report in 2019 on the very topic of “officer characteristics and racial disparities in fatal officer-involved shootings” which concluded: “we did not find anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparity.”
The problem is more police quality control than it is police bias. Very often, police unions use their power to represent a bad cop (as is their job), giving bad cops protection instead of accountability. In the case of George Floyd, the officer who knelt on his neck allegedly had a total of 18 misconduct reports in his file, and yet he was still allowed to hold a badge. But this isn’t a new thing. The Atlantic took pains back in 2014 to chronicle how police unions and arbitrators keep bad cops on the street. Yet they still exist largely unchecked today. Want true systemic reform? Tackle the issue of police unions.
In fact, there are other policy changes that can be done to ameliorate the situation. Starting with ending ludicrous public service union protections as mentioned above, we can also limit qualified immunity, make the offending police individual or department be responsible for lawsuit settlements, and end militarizing the police. Such items are the result of years and years of liberal and minority policies that have produced the broken system we see today. These areas of police reform will go a long way toward rebuilding public trust instead of removing law enforcement from the public altogether.
by | BLOG, CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, HEALTHCARE
Certificate of Need laws, otherwise known as CON laws, are laws required in many states and some federal jurisdictions before proposed acquisitions, expansions, or creations of healthcare facilities are allowed. They are also absolutely ridiculous and entirely based entirely on cronyism. CON laws are irresponsible, damaging to the economy, and a prime example of an assault on economic liberty. We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and we are entitled to their protections by virtue of our Constitution. This economic right to earn a living –this pursuit of happiness–began to be eroded during the FDR era for reasons having to do with partisanship and policy; SCOTUS has subsequently not enforced it rationally. As economic liberty is no longer considered a primary liberty, we get laws such as CON laws that are ultimately unconstitutional. The original argument for CON laws was very specifically to make costs cheapers for the public by virtue of less competition. Instead, CON laws stifle competition by requiring regulatory permission for any new services and equipment within a given region. This is an egregious, suppressive scheme. These burdensome economic rules should be unconstitutional under federal (if not also state) constitutions.
The federal government isn’t supposed to restrict this pursuit of happiness. But once FDR began regulating economic rights, we have a situation where certain liberties are more equal than others . Now, 1st Amendment rights are subject to “strict scrutiny”; these are high, narrow standards used to evaluate the constitutionality of a law. In other words, there must be a damn good reason why such a law violates a 1st amendment right. But when it comes to economic rights, it’s not strict scrutiny, and so sometimes the states can get away impinging on your rights to earn a living by coming up with some ridiculous argument or restriction. For instance, say you are a florist and your state requires licensing in order to operate. Such a concept is ridiculous — what health and safety concerns supersede the right for a person to earn a living as a florist? And yet some court cases have ruled that this licensing is justifiable; one in particular argued successfully that someone could possibly be pricked by a thorn and therefore needs regulation and specialized training. And that’s the problem. You can come up with any conceivable basis for enacting some ridiculous regulation even if it’s unconstitutional.
CON laws are even more ridiculous than the aforementioned thorn-pricking argument, because they are entirely based on something that is economically incorrect — that by restricting competition (as CON laws do), you’ll make the competition cheaper. But that concept is fundamentally wrong.
Unfortunately getting these laws removed is difficult for several reasons. Most of the time, judges tend to defer to government agencies. But even more importantly, when we talk about healthcare as opposed to restaurants, many people believe (incorrectly) that healthcare is some special kind of market that operates differently than other markets do. However, this is simply untrue. Healthcare is just like any other market except that it operates within an extremely complicated incentive structure that was created by the government. Can you imagine a restaurant owner having to submit to a review panel any plans he had to build a restaurant or remodel an existing one? Then why do we tolerate such a thing within the healthcare sector?
Ultimately, CON laws are unconstitutional because of their inherent economic favoritism. There’s no reason why some liberties should be treated differently than economic liberty and the right to earn a living should not be considered as fundamental as other rights. CON laws and their cronyism should be eliminated.
by | BLOG, FREEDOM, MEDIA
Alan Dlugash is a member of the New York State Society of CPAs (NYSSCPAs) serving on the Individual Tax Committee (and a previous chair), and is currently also a member of the IRS Relations Committee. He has also served on the Society’s Task Force on Tax Simplification as well as on the Special Committee for Reform of the Tax System whose report had been widely circulated. Additionally, he is a member of the American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) and its Tax Division.
Mr. Dlugash has over 40 years of accounting and taxation experience and recently gave an interview to the Atlas Society talking about taxes, bailouts, and New York City. Here are some highlights.
On taxing the rich:
“The standard view of Robin Hood is that he stole from the rich to give to the poor. But that’s not really what happened. Robin Hood didn’t steal from the rich. He stole from the government, which was impoverishing the people with excessive and inappropriate taxes. He stole from tax collectors, not the rich. Robin Hood, read correctly, is a libertarian.
The rich are people who create things that people want to buy. The government, on the other hand, doesn’t do anything productive. It takes your money then redistributes it to special-interest groups.
Taxing wealthy people and giving it to poor people does not make people more equal. It does the exact opposite. High taxes mean less money reinvested in businesses, which means fewer jobs. Moreover the people who get the money transfers are less likely to risk those benefits, which keeps them dependent and relatively poor. The idea that we can tax the rich to solve our problems is just wrong. Taxing the rich is just a recipe for making everybody worse off.
There are many, many ways in which the tax code is ridiculously unfair, but because high earners are often the victims, no one cares. There hasn’t been an honest article written on taxes in the New York Times in 20 years.”
On bailouts:
“In 2008 – 2010, the need for the Treasury to get involved was legitimate. Once they determined that the economy wasn’t going to tank, however, and that the banking system wasn’t going to collapse, after the first week or ten days, that should have been the end of it. Their review showed that the banking system was safe.
But politics overruled logic. There were really only a handful of banks that were in trouble because of the mortgages that the banks were holding. Most of the banks were not in danger. They were able to quantify their situation. But the Treasury decided that they were going to force every bank to take a bailout as if it were failing. This way, people wouldn’t know which banks were in trouble but think that all the banks were in trouble instead. I don’t know what they were drinking, because it was the dumbest idea ever. And they lied. That was the other thing. The government forced the banks under threat of criminal prosecution. If anyone hasn’t read John Allison’s book, The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure, about his experience at BBT, then read it now.
To me, the ensuing Obama Stimulus was criminal. Either stupid or evil, I’m not sure which. Obama just called it a stimulus package, but it was nothing of the sort. A stimulus is a one-time deal. The money goes out and is spent, and the budget returns to what it was. The administrative state had grown so big, however, that nothing like a shovel-ready project was possible. What Obama did instead was increase welfare, increase teacher pay, lower the threshold for people to qualify for food stamps, and other things that would not disappear as a one-time stimulus outlay but rather remain in the budget, which created huge deficits during the rest of his Administration.
Now, with the coronavirus pandemic, things are going to get even worse. We’re in a horrific situation, because we do need to deal with the virus. And we will need to spend. The best we can hope for is that they decide on an amount to spend in that regard, then make a commitment that once the virus danger is over to cut the budget.
Without the virus problems, which are new and severe, most of the budget is Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. If those programs are not reformed, our budget deficits will be impossible, coronavirus or not. There will be a tipping point. For a long time people have said, “Yes, we have a massive deficit, but it hasn’t hurt us so far, so let’s keep spending.” They ignore Stein’s Law: “If something can’t go on forever, it won’t.”
Well, we will wake up one day, and the rest of the world will have decided not to buy our debt any more. Our ability to keep printing money will end. People will no longer be willing to buy our bonds. There will either be huge inflation, or we’ll be unable even to refinance our maturing bonds. When something like that happens, I don’t know how we will undo it. I think we need to practice fiscal restraint now. Deal with the virus, absolutely, but afterwards commit to cut entitlements.
And it isn’t just the responsibility of government. People have to stop electing irresponsible politicians, stop believing pie-in-the-sky promises. Government has never been the answer. It is individuals who will pay the consequences of these massive deficits, and individuals who need now to take responsibility for their own finances and their own well-being.”
The interview is worth to read in its entirety, which you can find here.
by | BLOG, BUSINESS, COVID, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT
The WSJ had a thoughtful opinion piece a couple of days ago. The author wanted to “quantify how many deaths were caused by delayed shutdown orders on a state-by-state basis”as a means to examine the efficacy of quick shutdown. Below are some key takeaways, and you can read the piece in full here.
“To normalize for an unambiguous comparison of deaths between states at the midpoint of an epidemic, we counted deaths per million population for a fixed 21-day period, measured from when the death rate first hit 1 per million—e.g.,‒three deaths in Iowa or 19 in New York state. A state’s “days to shutdown” was the time after a state crossed the 1 per million threshold until it ordered businesses shut down.
We ran a simple one-variable correlation of deaths per million and days to shutdown, which ranged from minus-10 days (some states shut down before any sign of Covid-19) to 35 days for South Dakota, one of seven states with limited or no shutdown. The correlation coefficient was 5.5%—so low that the engineers I used to employ would have summarized it as “no correlation” and moved on to find the real cause of the problem. (The trendline sloped downward—states that delayed more tended to have lower death rates—but that’s also a meaningless result due to the low correlation coefficient.)
No conclusions can be drawn about the states that sheltered quickly, because their death rates ran the full gamut, from 20 per million in Oregon to 360 in New York. This wide variation means that other variables—like population density or subway use—were more important. Our correlation coefficient for per-capita death rates vs. the population density was 44%. That suggests New York City might have benefited from its shutdown—but blindly copying New York’s policies in places with low Covid-19 death rates, such as my native Wisconsin, doesn’t make sense.”
The author then went on to examine Sweden’s policies (less restrictive than ours) and integrated those into his analysis:
“How did the Swedes do? They suffered 80 deaths per million 21 days after crossing the 1 per million threshold level. With 10 million people, Sweden’s death rate‒without a shutdown and massive unemployment‒is lower than that of the seven hardest-hit U.S. states—Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Louisiana, Connecticut, Michigan, New Jersey and New York—all of which, except Louisiana, shut down in three days or less.
We should cheer for Sweden to succeed, not ghoulishly bash them. They may prove that many aspects of the U.S. shutdown were mistakes—ineffective but economically devastating—and point the way to correcting them.”
Only time will tell what methodologies worked and what didn’t, but this is an important conversation to have, especially since the economy continues to worsen.
