Archives: 11/2015

Paris Changed Nothing. We Still Have Every Reason to Welcome Syrian Refugees

This week, we’ve heard calls from all quarters to close our doors to the modest number of Syrian refugees President Obama proposed welcoming to the United States. Thirty governors have vowed to bar Syrian refugees from entering their states; the House of Representatives voted 289-137 to place impossibly tight restrictions on admission of refugees from Iraq and Syria;  and 2016 presidential candidates disingenuously decried the possible influx of “100,000,” “200,000” or even “250,000” refugees that no one has proposed — remember Obama only called for letting in 10,000 Syrians next year.

But after the Paris terrorist attacks of a week ago, not only should we not give in to this paranoia, we should offer entry to as many Syrian refugees as we can — it’s more important than ever to demonstrate to both our allies and our adversaries that America will live up to the values of sheltering innocents and constructively intervening to end civil war.

Not only that, in the long run, it’ll make us safer.

Et tu, Princeton?

As a proud Princeton alum, I’ve been experiencing a fair bit of schadenfreude over the safe-space shenanigans at Yale and Dartmouth. No way could such tomfoolery happen at Ol’ Nassau, I thought. (Trigger warning: The Ol’ Nassau nickname refers to the House of Orange-Nassau, which engaged in “speech acts” that weren’t politically correct, among other foibles.)

But alas, it was not to be. Students with nothing better to do than occupy the president’s office in protest of… malaise or something (Jimmy Carter, call your office)… ended up eking out a pledge from the administration that the Board of Trustees would “initiate conversations concerning the present legacy of Woodrow Wilson on this campus,” as well as a commitment “to working toward greater ethnic diversity of memorialized artwork on campus.”

Well, I can’t help with the art, but as a classical liberal whose undergraduate degree is from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs (aka “Woody Woo”), I have some sympathy for those to whom the very thought of our 28th president – who was also president of the university – is a micro-aggression. So here’s my suggestion: If the criteria for acceptable memorialization are not being a racist while making a positive contribution to international affairs, then rename the policy school after Ronald Reagan. I’d love to say that I attended “Ronny Roo.”


Left Hand, Meet Right Hand: The U.S. National ID Bureaucracy

One reason to avoid the creation of a national ID system in the United States is that it would facilitate direct regulation of Americans from Washington, D.C. If you want to see why we should minimize regulation of the states and people from Washington, look no further than the Department of Homeland Security’s administration of of the U.S. national ID program itself.

Congress is at fault for the passage of the REAL ID Act, of course. It didn’t even hold a hearing to assess the merits or difficulties of coercing states into implementing a national ID. But the Department of Homeland Security has made a continuing hash of the national ID program since then.

Passed in May 2005, the REAL ID Act called for states to begin issuing national IDs in three years. DHS took until January 2008—four months before the deadline—to issue final regulations telling states what they were expected to do.

Needless to say, the DHS had to issue deadline extensions, as it has done repeatedly and en masse ever since. When states learned the costs and consequences of producing a national ID, more than half objected or barred themselves from complying. DHS has given every state extensions for the last eight years, whether it wanted to or not, and every state is operating under an extension right now.

Will Obama Make Housing Affordable?

Property-rights and housing-affordability advocates were surprised and elated that the chair of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors, Jason Furman, gave a speech blaming housing affordability problems on zoning and land-use regulation. They shouldn’t be: while Furman is correct in general, he is wrong about the details and the prescriptions he offers could make the problems worse than ever.

There is no doubt, as Furman documents in his speech, that land-use regulation is the cause of growing housing affordability problems. Yet Furman fails to note the fact that these problems are only found in some parts of the country. This is a crucial observation, and those who fail to understand it are almost certain to misdiagnose the cause and propose the wrong remedies.

Citing Jane Jacobs (who was wrong at least as often as she was right), Forman blames affordability problems on zoning that “limits density and mixed-use development.” Such zoning is found in almost every city in the country except Houston, yet most cities don’t have housing affordability problems. Thus, such zoning alone cannot be the cause of rising rents and home prices.

Based on this erroneous assumption, Furman endorses what he calls the administration’s agenda, which is its Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing program. Rather than making housing more affordable, this program is aimed at ending racial segregation of middle-class suburbs by requiring the construction of multifamily housing in suburbs that are not racially balanced relative to their urban areas. It assumes that multifamily housing is less costly (and thus more affordable to low-income minorities) than single family, but that is only true because units are smaller: on a dollar-per-square-foot basis, multifamily costs more than single family, especially for mid-rise and high-rise apartments. Multifamily also uses more energy per square foot than single family, which means heating bills will be higher.

CBO: Tangled Web of Welfare Programs Creates High Tax Rates on Participants

The dozens of different programs that form our tangled welfare system often impose high effective marginal tax rates that make it harder for low-income people to transition out of these programs and lift of those programs and into the middle class. As the people in these programs enter the workforce, get a promotion, or work more hours, they can lose a significant portion of those earnings through reduced benefits and increased taxes. A new report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) illustrates this predicament: many households hovering around the poverty level face steeper effective marginal tax rates than even the highest earners. These prohibitively high tax rates can discourage work and limit their prospects, ultimately making them less likely to escape poverty.

Debating Police Practices

If you are an advocate for school choice, you must risk being called “anti-teacher” by the political left.  But did you know there is a similar phenomenon on right side of the political spectrum?  If you are an advocate for reforming police practices, you must risk being called “anti-police.”  I experienced this last week when I spoke at the National Convention of the Federalist Society.  In this post, I will briefly describe what happened.

I was invited to speak on a panel titled, “Ferguson, Baltimore, and Criminal Justice Reform.”  By way of background, I have spoken at Federalist Society events many times and the Fed Soc folks have always been professional and courteous.  The panels typically consist of speakers with a variety of viewpoints.  Last week, when it was my turn to speak, my goal was to highlight many reforms that I thought were worthwhile and to explain why.  Among the topics were civil asset forfeiture reform, municipal court reform, getting an accurate annual tally of persons who die in police custody, and a tally of persons shot by the police. 

Robert Woodson, President of the Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, was the final speaker on our panel.  He was mad.  He immediately complained about what we had “heard so far.”  That was a weird complaint.  Four panelists had just delivered their presentations.  Two defended the police against what they said were unfair criticisms.  And two offered ideas for police and criminal justice reform.  Woodson seemed upset that all of the of the preceding talks were not to his liking.

Time to Overhaul the Criminal Justice System?

This week I hosted a debate between two federal appellate judges on the question, “Does the American Criminal Justice System Need an Overhaul?”  Judge Alex Kozinski says it does; Judge Jay Harvey Wilkinson says it does not.  Watch it here and decide for yourself.

By way of background, Kozinski authored a much discussed article titled, “Criminal Law 2.0.”  One problem he identifies (among many others), is that federal prosecutors too often shirk their legal and ethical obligations.  The Department of Justice tried ignoring his criticism, but is now responding.  Here is a snippet from an article in the National Law Journal (November 16 – sorry, pay wall for this one).

Justice Department Rebuts Judge Kozinski’s Criticism of Prosecutors

In a rare public war of words, top officials at the U.S. Department of Justice are pushing back against recent criticism about prosecutors’ ethics from Judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The thrust of the DOJ argument is the familiar, “Trust us – we’ll do the right thing.”  Kozinski rightly insists upon a “trust, but verify” posture as it relates to government promises.

Related items here & here.