BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

Monday

4

June 2012

Obama Continues Cynical Campaign of Division, Trots Out Unequal Gender Pay Myth

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Free Markets, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

In a cynical, dishonest and divisive effort to boost his flailing campaign and distract from the latest jobs report reflecting his dismal economic record, President Obama is trumping the Paycheck Fairness Act (or as I like to call it, the Trial Lawyer Payout Enhancement Act), a new onerous regulatory regime which will benefit trial lawyers at the expense of businesses and the economy, and which is based on the discredited premise that women earn less than men for equal work.

The administration propaganda machine is now offering e-cards that you can send to annoy your friends and remind everyone you know that America is still an awful, sexist country. Here is an example:

Notice the fundamental dishonesty here. A “typical 25-year-old woman” is not the same as “a typical 25-year-old man.” Women are more risk-averse, make different career choices, work different hours and value different rewards. So why should they be expected to earn the same?

Individuals draw paychecks, not identity groups, and it is their individual choices which determine what that pay check is. Men, for instance, work in more dangerous jobs and, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2010 (the most recent year for which data is available) were 12 times more likely to die from work-related injuries than women. Should we also create a new government agency to randomly kill enough female workers each year until this grisly inequality is eliminated? The BLS American Time Use Survey also reveals that men work more hours, even when only looking at those with full-time jobs, averaging 8.2 hours per workday for men compared to 7.8 for women.

When actually looking at the facts, it is rather ridiculous to look just at average pay for full-time men and women and conclude that any difference is necessarily the result of discrimination, as the feminists do whenever they trot out the context-less “pay gap.” Even the White House has in the past acknowledged these facts by observing that men choose to work in higher paying fields than women (many of which are higher paying because they are deadly, as evidenced above).

In fact, when comparing apples to apples, women often come out ahead:

When you compare apples to apples, the so-called wage gap disappears. Young, childless, single urban women earn 8 percent more than their male counterparts. Women who have never had a child earn 113 percent of what men earn. Unmarried college-educated males between the ages of 40 and 64 earn nearly 15 percent less than their female counterparts.

The Paycheck Fairness Act, in other words, is based on a faulty premise. Men earn more on average because they choose, on average, to work in riskier jobs, work longer hours, and are also more likely to negotiate salaries and ask for raises. That’s not discrimination; It’s individuals making free choices in a free society. This is not jut my own conclusion, but also that of Obama’s own Deparment of Labor:

“This study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers.”

Unfortunately, the faulty premise behind the Paycheck Fairness Act is not its only problem.  Aside from being unnecessary, the law would have significant negative consequences if enacted. The Wall Street Journal explains:

The law automatically lists women as plaintiffs in class actions when lawyers sue employers, thereby requiring female employees to opt-out of litigation with which they don’t agree. Businesses would be treated as guilty until shown to be innocent, having to prove in court that their pay practices aren’t the result of workplace bias. The legislation contains no caps on damage awards, allowing plaintiffs to claim unlimited punitive damages even in cases of unintentional discrimination.

The bill is also a first step toward federal pay mandates. It requires the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to collect data from employers about how they compensate on the basis of sex, race and national origin. Government rarely collects data merely to put it in a vault. These numbers will form the basis of class-action suits and will invite regulators to issue federal compensation guidelines.

This is a bad law to treat a non-existent problem. Worse, it is being advanced solely for the purpose of further dividing Americans in order to elevate President Obama’s reelection campaign. Because he has no record worth running on, the President will continue dredging up every myth, fable and scare-story imaginable in order to hit on every perceived identity grievance in existence.

Friday

1

June 2012

Overgovernment: Big Soda Edition

Written by , Posted in Big Government, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is at it again. A frequent cause of overgovernment, the King of the Nanny Staters now wants to ban sugary sodas over 18 oz from restaurants and movie theaters:

If Mayor Bloomberg gets his way, and it looks like he will, large sodas and other sugary drinks will be a thing of the past, at least at restaurants, movie theaters, cafes, and stadiums across the five boroughs.

Under the mayor’s proposed plan, drinks at these locations would not be over 16 ounces. If businesses break the rule, they’ll be hit with a $200 fine.

Thomas Farley, the city’s health commissioner, said the measure is a new way to fight obesity. He estimates that over 60 percent of New Yorkers are overweight.

…

The backlash from businesses was swift and strong. McDonald’s said the ban is misguided. The New York City Beverage Association said the Department of Health has an unhealthy obsession with attacking soft drinks. Robert Bookman, an attorney for NYC Restaurants, predicted that a legal challenge is on its way.

“It is clearly outside the scope of the Department of Health’s legal authority to pass something like this,” Bookman said. “And I have no doubt that it will be found in violation of the commerce clause of the United States Constitution.”

He’s talking about you, Nanny Bloomberg

There are several issues one can take with this, with the obvious being the unconstitutional assault on individual liberty. But other issues include 1) the wrongful attempt to turn a personal and indivudual health issues into a “public health epidemic,” 2) the practical stupidity of limiting the size of containers as a way to reduce consumption when people can simply use two containers, and 3) the inconsistency of banning one sugary item, but ignoring and even celebrating the availability of countless other unhealthy foods (not that we should be giving His Nanniness any ideas on what to ban next).

George Scoville also makes a good point about the inherent gutlessness behind Bloomberg’s nannyism:

If Politicians Really Cared about Obesity…

…they would just outlaw being fat. …The quick and easy solution to the obesity epidemic would be to threaten people with imprisonment for being fat… BMI too high? Five years for you! Maybe we can throw people into the hole and put them on a bread and water diet until they slim down!

…Bloomberg doesn’t have the guts to be this kind of tyrant, so along with his campaigns against salt, trans-fats, and smoking, he’s taking incremental steps . . . to preserve his own job. People, after all, tend to notice a little less when the policy change isn’t so sweeping. Otherwise, Bloomberg would find himself unemployed and out of politics.

In the face of almost universal ridicule, Bloomberg doubled-down on totalitarianism and offered this gem:

“We’re not taking away anybody’s right to do things, we’re simply forcing you to understand that you have to make the conscious decision to go from one cup to another cup.”

Tyranny emphasized.

Tuesday

29

May 2012

When Special Interests Collide

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Energy and the Environment

The President has made promotion of “green energy” a central part of his agenda. His efforts have thus far been littered with waste, fraud and abuse, but nevertheless it remains a key plank of the President’s platform.

So why then is his administration slapping tariffs on solar panel imports?

The United States on Thursday announced the imposition of antidumping tariffs of more than 31 percent on solar panels from China.

…The antidumping decision is among the biggest in American history, covering one of the largest and fastest-growing categories of imports from China, the world’s largest exporter.

…Many solar panel installers in the United States have opposed tariffs on Chinese panels, contending that inexpensive imports have helped spur many homeowners and businesses to put solar panels on their rooftops. The new tariffs are likely to mean a substantial increase in the price of solar panels here.

…Chinese officials have been indignant at American criticism of their solar power industry, pointing out that the United States has urged China for years to embrace renewable energy as a way to reduce air pollution, combat climate change and limit the need for oil imports from politically volatile countries in the Mideast.

Chinese confusion is understandable given the rhetoric of this administration.  But there’s more than one special interest in Obama’s coalition, and while environmentalists like the proliferation of solar panels no matter their source, unions and other domestic manufacturing fetishists would rather limit their availability and harm consumers by raising prices in an effort to insulate domestic producers from competition.

“Anti-dumping” rules in general, because they are designed by and cater to these very same special interests, are a counter productive and unnecessary burden on the economy, and often work at cross-purposes with other policy actions, as explained by this video from the Cato Institute:

Monday

28

May 2012

Common Cause Was For Filibusters Before They Were Against Them

Written by , Posted in The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort, Waste & Government Reform

Common Cause, which is part of the left’s organized campaign to silence ALEC, recently filed a silly lawsuit seeking to have the Senate filibuster declared unconstitutional:

For years, critics of the filibuster have failed to convince senators to change the procedural delaying tactic. Now they’re taking their case to the courts.

The nonpartisan nonprofit Common Cause sued the U.S. Senate on Monday, challenging the constitutionality of the filibuster rules that require routine 60-vote thresholds for bills and nominations that often have majority support. Several House Democrats and three undocumented students who would be aided by the so-called DREAM Act also joined the suit.

Constitutionally the suit is easy to dismiss. Congress has the authority to set its own rules, and the Court neither has the authority nor the desire to say otherwise. There’s also the issue of standing, which these three undocumented illegal immigrant students don’t have just because they would have theoretically benefited from some bill that was not passed. That is just a mind boggling argument all the way around.

Common Cause would be on slightly stronger ground if they challenged the filibuster’s use to oppose appointments, rather than legislation, where the Senate has a constitutional duty to advise and consent. But even then the argument is flimsy, and the court would likely not intervene given the wide discretion it rightfully gives Congress on managing its own affairs (which contrasts with the unfortunately wide discretion it gives Congressional legislation, which should instead be closely examined for Constitutional fidelity).

But such debate assumes that Common Cause can be taken at face value as a good faith participant in the political process. The facts suggest, however, that they are merely partisan hacks staking out a position of convenience because they disagree with the ideology of the Senate’s current minority. To wit, consider Common Cause’s position when Senate roles were reversed (Hat-tip: Outside the Beltway):

In 2005, Common Cause vigorously defended the filibuster when some Republicans proposed invoking the “nuclear option” to end the filibuster of judicial nominees.  From a 2005 press release:

Common Cause strongly opposes any effort by Senate leaders to outlaw filibusters of judicial nominees to silence a vigorous debate about the qualifications of these nominees, short-circuiting the Senate’s historic role in the nomination approval process.

“The filibuster shouldn’t be jettisoned simply because it’s inconvenient to the majority party’s goals,” said Common Cause President Chellie Pingree. “That’s abuse of power.”

Saturday

26

May 2012

Big Government Does Not Make America Great

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Culture & Society, Liberty & Limited Government

In yet another screed against the Tea Party, Van Jones offers a vehement defense of gigantic govenrment:

“At this point in this struggle, it’s the so-called patriots who are the ones who are smashing down every American institution,” Jones said last weekend in Milwaukee. “It’s the so-called patriots, the ones who come out here with their Tea Party and the flags and call themselves patriots — they’re the ones that are smashing down our unions, smashing down public education, smashing down every American institution that we built, and our parents built, and our grandparents built to make this country great.”

As is the wont of the statist, Van Jones confuses the country for its government, and America’s institutions for government bureaucracies. The institutions that truly make America great – the families, the churches, and the businesses – are not administered by appointed lackeys, nor found in federal budgets. They come from free peoples allowed to flourish relatively unencumbered by overbearing governments.

Thursday

24

May 2012

Overgovernment: Anonymous Commenting Edition

Written by , Posted in Big Government

Is anonymous internet posting a good thing?  There’s plenty of room to debate the question, weighing the potentially negative impact it has had on civility in political debate and society in general, versus the benefits of encouraging more speech and protecting people from retaliation for expressing their views. But just because something might be said to be harmful, doesn’t mean government ought to have a role in doing anything about it. This is one of those cases, though a number of New York Republicans seem to disagree:

Nearly half of the Republicans serving in the New York State Assembly have proposed legislation that would ban anonymous online comments.

If enacted, the legislation would require websites — including social networks and online newspapers — to remove all anonymous comments that are brought to the attention of administrators.

An anonymous comment could remain if the author “agrees to attach his or her name to the post and confirms that his or her IP address, legal name, and home address are accurate.”

This awful idea is an affront to the very notion of free speech, and Wired humorously but devastatingly notes that this legislation would have banned the pseudonymous Federalist Papers from being distributed online.

The arguments given by the bills supporters are the legislative equivalent of burning down a house to kill termites. Consider this:

Republican state Assemblyman Jim Conte praised the legislation, writing that it would eliminate “mean-spirited and baseless political attacks that add nothing to the real debate.”

The legislation would “demand that those who spread rumor, conjecture or outright lies online be willing to come forward and defend the comments they post,” Republican Assemblywoman Claudia Tenney added. “We, as a society, have never expected anything less when potentially harmful words are put into print.”

But there are already satisfactory remedies to all of these supposed problems. The answer to bad speech is good speech. Mean-spirited and baseless attacks can be countered with fact-based rebuttals. Harmful lies, meanwhile, are covered under slander and libel laws, and even anonymous users can today be compelled to be revealed if they cross legal lines. There is, in other words, no rational basis for the legislation even if we ignore the issue of its unconstitutional and liberty-restricting nature.

Wednesday

23

May 2012

Joe Biden's Imagination

Written by , Posted in General/Misc.

Joe Biden says to “imagine where we’d be if the Tea Party hadn’t taken control of the House of Representatives.”

Thanks to new, cutting edge technology I have tapped into Joe’s brain and extracted just such imagination in lyrical form:

Imagine there’s no Tea Party,
It’s easy if you try.
No investigations for us,
Our only limits are the sky.
Imagine all the Keynesians
Spending for today.

Imagine there’s no elections,
It isn’t hard to do.
Nobody to elect or vote for,
And no Constitution too.
Imagine all the bureaucrats
Dictating life in peace.

You may say Old Joe’s a socialist,
But I’m not the only one.
Someday you’ll be forced to join us,
And the Party will be as one.

Imagine no free choices,
I wonder if you can.
No need for self-reliance,
Julia’s life is in our hands.
Imagine all the people,
Sharing Obama’s stash.

You may say I’m a schemer,
But I’m not the only one.
I know someday you’ll join us,
And we’ll all worship The One.

Thursday

17

May 2012

Obama Makes History

Written by , Posted in Culture & Society

There’s been lots of talk regarding the discovery that the White House website has appended pro-Obama propaganda to the official biography of numerous past Presidents. Included among the chatter has been well deserved and extremely funny mockery.

The consensus has been that this is another example of Obama’s narcissism. And while I largely consider him the most narcissistic president in our nation’s history (though I don’t profess to be a presidential historian, and have only personally lived under a few administrations), it isn’t my biggest takeaway from the story. In fact, it’s unlikely the President even had knowledge of the additions before they happened. At least, I can’t imagine a President being involved in such minutia, but I’ve also never occupied nor worked in the White House.

What concerns me is the continued parallels, this being yet another in a long line of examples, between the whole apparatus surrounding Obama – his campaign and followers – and the behavior of tyrants. A common feature of dictatorships, for instance, is the erosion of the line between the individual leader and the state, and even the nation. He is the state. He is the nation. The two cannot be separated. This is why you see the faces of people like Saddam Hussein or Hugo Chavez plastered all over the place.

The leader’s presence is everywhere, not just within the nation, but also its history. The leader is tied into the very fabric of the nation’s history, often times through out-and-out revisionism, but also in more subtle ways, such as through carefully crafted narratives, either embellished or outright falsified, whereby the leader’s story becomes an archetype for the social and cultural values of his people.

Obama, in his attitudes toward governance, his policy preferences and the disposition of his followers, resembles more the typical South American strongman than an American Chief Executive. I do not worry that Obama is going to become a dictator in any real sense of the word, but the willingness of a certain sect of the population, namely his most ardent followers, to not only so readily accept these attitudes but to gleefully propagate them through their own initiative is concerning. It is not entirely surprising, as they are the folks who already ideologically lean toward collectivism, but it nonetheless highlights a disturbing strain of political thought in this country, and ought to remind us that freedom is only ever a generation away from extinction.

Sunday

13

May 2012

Overgovernment: Distracted Walking Edition

Written by , Posted in Big Government, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

The old joke says that blondes can’t walk and chew gum at the same time, but the government of Fort Lee, N.J. might soon be taking it seriously if their new law is anything to go by. After all, they take a rather dim view of the capabilities of their citizens:

Avid texters beware: Fort Lee, N.J. police said they will begin issuing $85 jaywalking tickets to pedestrians who are caught texting while walking.

“It’s a big distraction. Pedestrians aren’t watching where they are going and they are not aware,” said Thomas Ripoli, chief of the Fort Lee Police Department.

Ripoli said the borough, which is home to approximately 35,000 residents, has suffered three fatal pedestrian-involved accidents this year. He hopes his crackdown on people who display dangerous behavior while walking will make his town safer…

They even pulled out the big guns, grabbing some hotshot college aca-deem-ics to “study” the problem.

Two professors at Stony Brook University in New York conducted a study on walking and texting. They found texters are 60 percent more likely to veer off line than non-texters.

I’m glad they settled the important question of whether people who don’t look where they are going are more likely not to walk straight. It was keeping me up all night.

Three pedestrians got themselves killed this year. Tragic, no doubt, but not cause for legislative action. First of all, how many pedestrians normally get killed? Were those three even on their phones? Alas, there was no real journalist around to ask the question.

This sort of social micro-management is unbecoming a free society, and probably has more to do with police budget shortfalls than an earnest effort to protect people. And even if it were born of good intentions, protecting people from themselves is no business of government. It is a waste of police resources to be nagging citizens into self-awareness.

Friday

11

May 2012

Democrat Brad Miller Cheers JP Morgan Loses

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Liberty & Limited Government

JP Morgan Chase lost a lot of money – $2 billion, in fact. This is big news to financial markets, and JP Morgan’s customers, but in a free society you wouldn’t expect the political class to care too much about the individual ups and downs of private companies. Yet Democrats are already pouncing on the episode to push bigger government, and Representative Brad Miller was particularly blunt in his expressing his glee, posting the following to his Facebook page:

In the article he links he is quoted as saying:

“The gigantic size of megabanks, and the perception in the marketplace that they are too big for the government ever to permit to fail, gives them an unfair competitive advantage over smaller financial institutions that distorts the market and discourages competition.” said Miller. “The lack of competition in the banking industry, in turn, leads to ever-higher levels of risk in the system.”

Here’s a thought. If the problem is the perception that banks will be bailed out, then stop bailing them out. But Brad Miller and the big government interventionists can’t say no. That’s a government problem, not a banking problem.

The article also says his legislation would “set a series of caps on the size and reach of the nation’s ‘megabanks.'” Given the glee with which politicians seek to kneecap any business that stands too tall, how about “a series of caps on the size and reach of the nation’s” federal government, instead?

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →

About Me

profileI serve as Vice President of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, a non-profit think tank dedicated to preserving tax competition and free markets. This site features my personal views, which are not reflective of CF&P.

Search Site

Categories

Archives