Harvard economists have proven one of the major theses of American Nightmare, which is that land-use regulation is a major cause of growing income inequality in the United States. By restricting labor mobility, the economists say, such regulation has played a “central role” in income disparities.

When measured on a state-by-state basis, American income inequality declined at a steady rate of 1.8 percent per year from 1880 to 1980. The slowing and reversal of this long-term trend after 1980 is startling. Not by coincidence, the states with the strongest land-use regulations–those on the Pacific Coast and in New England–began such regulation in the 1970s and 1980s.

Forty to 75 percent of the decline in inequality before 1880, the Harvard economists say, was due to migration of workers from low-income states to high-income states. The freedom to easily move faded after 1980 as many of the highest-income states used land-use regulation to make housing unaffordable to low-income workers. Average incomes in those states grew, leading them to congratulate themselves for attracting high-paid workers when what they were really doing is driving out low- and (in California, at least) middle-income workers.

As Virginia Postrel puts it, “the best-educated, most-affluent, most politically influential Americans like th[e] result” of economic segregation, because it “keeps out fat people with bad taste.” Postrel refers to these well-educated people as “elites,” but I simply call them “middle class.”

Middle class doesn’t mean middle income; it means people with managerial, creative, or other jobs that require thinking, not repetitive or physical labor. As a proxy, I use college education: less than 30 percent of working-age Americans have a bachelor’s degree or better. Though some people with college degrees flip burgers just as some without such degrees gained enough knowledge on the job to be promoted into management, it seems likely that about 30 percent of the population are middle- or upper-class while 70 percent are working- or lower-class.

Census data show that, in the late 1970s, the average worker with a high school diploma but no college education earned more than 64 percent as much as the average worker with a bachelor’s degree. By 2010, it was less than 53 percent.

As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, the barrier between the 1 percent and the 99 percent is far more porous than the one between middle class and working class. The rising cost of higher education and the high cost of moving into regions with land-use regulation prevent less-educated people from bettering themselves. Increased regulation of commercial operations limit people’s ability to start small businesses. Increased traffic congestion (favored by “progressive” anti-auto cities) also hits working-class people harder than middle-class workers as the former are less likely to be able to take advantage of flex-time, telecommuting, and other ways of avoiding congestion.

Britain, which has regulated land use since 1947, is suffering many of the same problems. As the Telegraph reports, this regulation has divided “the nation between old and young, haves and have-nots.”

Of course, many urban planners still refuse to believe that land-use regulation makes housing expensive. Never mind the fact that economists at Harvard, Whartons, and a wide range of other universities agree that it does. Let’s just ignore the fact that such regulation is destroying our economy and oppressing low-income families. All that is important is that the middle-class elites who benefit are happy.

Yesterday’s DC Court of Appeals ruling throwing out an omnibus petition against EPA’s first tranche of carbon dioxide restrictions rested largely on the Court’s decision that EPA’s “Endangerment Finding” from related global warming stands as is. In particular, it noted that the petitioners’ argument that “uncertainty” about climate change was not sufficient grounds to void the Finding.

Indeed, “uncertainty” is thin ice if EPA is in the business of saving us from almost-certain doom. A better argument would have been a direct assault on the Finding’s science, or rather, selective science.

But this is beyond the capabilities of most litigators, who simply aren’t trained to wade through the enormous technical literature on global warming and its effects. That’s about to change.

The next battle with EPA is likely to come over their proposed regulation that would essentially outlaw coal-fired electrical generation. Here at Cato, we are preparing the definitive answer to its Endangerment Finding.

With regard to climate change impacts in the U.S., the Finding relies primarily on one document, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. It was produced by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), a mélange of agencies all dependent upon climate change dollars. This document is about as inclusive as one would expect it to be—i.e. it avoids a massive amount of inconvenient science. You can find it here.

Since April, 2011, along with several colleagues around the country, I have been working on the scientific counter to the USGCRP document. It looks like it, section by section. It flows exactly like it. It has more references and notes—almost twice as many—as the USGCRP document. As in the adage, “you can take it to court.”

While it’s not yet in final copy, the latest draft is sufficient to give you the idea: this is the document to take down the Endangerment Finding. You can download it here.

We expect this document is going to figure heavily in the next round in the fight to prevent EPA from imposing scientifically senseless but economically disastrous restrictions on energy use.

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) introduced three amendments to the recently passed Energy & Water appropriations bill that would have eliminated a slew of business subsidies at the Department of Energy. Unfortunately, House Republicans once again teamed up with their Democratic colleagues to keep the corporate welfare spigot flowing.

From The Hill:

The largest spending cut proposal came from Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.), which would have eliminated the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account at the Department of Energy and used the $1.45 billion in savings toward deficit reduction. Like other Republicans, McClintock argued that this account needlessly spends money on questionable private investments that have not led to any measurable returns. But the House rejected McClintock’s amendment in a 113-275 vote, in which 113 Republicans voted for it but 107 Republicans joined every Democrat in opposition.

From a second article from The Hill:

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) proposed ending all nuclear energy research subsidies to private companies, which would have saved $514 million and used that money to lower the deficit. But the House rejected that amendment in a 106-281 vote that divided Republicans 91-134. McClintock also proposed language cutting fossil energy research subsidies, which would have saved $554 million. But the House killed that amendment 138-249, as Republicans split again 102-123.

A few comments:

First, Democrats voted overwhelmingly to continue to subsidize commercial interests. And here I thought Democrats were concerned about the have and have-nots.

Second, Rep. McClintock deserves a round of applause for his efforts. These votes speak volumes about a member’s beliefs about the proper role of the federal government. A lot of members—especially Republicans—talk a good game when it comes to spending, limited government, free markets, etc. However, when the time comes to put their money where their mouths are, many choose to instead put other people’s money in the mouths of special interests.

For those taxpayers who are interested in seeing how their member voted, the following are the roll call tallies for McClintock’s amendments:

• Reduce the energy efficiency and renewable energy account by $1.45 billion:  http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll311.xml.
• Reduce the construction and expansion account of nuclear energy by $514 million: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll315.xml.
• Reduce the fossil energy research and development account by $554 million: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll317.xml.

[See here for more on why energy subsidies should be eliminated.]

Update: Steve Ellis from Taxpayers for Common Sense alerted me to an amendment introduced by Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and McClintock that would have shut down the Department of Energy’s Title 17 loan guarantee program. That’s the program that gave us Solyndra. The amendment failed 136-282 with 127 Republicans joining 155 Democrats to defeat the amendment. That the Republican-led House couldn’t get rid of the program that begot Solyndra is about as low as it gets.