Topic: Government and Politics

The Libertarian Vote: New Returns Trickle In

Don’t miss the latest from David Kirby and me on the libertarian vote. In Cato Policy Report (pdf; less attractive HTML version here) we report the results of our Zogby International poll of 2006 voters.

In the Zogby survey, 15 percent of voters gave libertarian answers to our three questions. And those libertarian-leaning voters showed the same shift away from Republican candidates that we had identified in the 2004 election. Clearly, “two more years of war, wiretapping, and welfare-state social spending” had not brought back any of the wandering libertarians.

We did some new tests in the Zogby survey. We asked voters to identify themselves ideologically. Full results are in the article, but most respondents whom we identified as libertarian described themselves as “conservative” (41 percent) or “moderate” (31 percent). Only 9 percent called themselves “libertarian.”

But … when we asked half the respondents, “Would you describe yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal?” we were quite surprised that fully 59 percent said yes. And when we asked the other half of the sample, “Would you describe yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal, also known as libertarian?” we knew the number would go down. But it only went down to 44 percent. So 44 percent of American voters are willing to label themselves as “libertarian” if it’s defined as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal.”

We point out to Republican strategists:

After the 2000 election Karl Rove was convinced that 4 million Christian evangelicals had stayed home, and he was determined to get them to the polls in 2004. By our calculations, Republicans carried the libertarian vote by 5.5 million votes in the off-year election of 2002 and by only 2.9 million votes in 2006. That’s a swing of 2.6 million libertarian voters. Remember, it takes two new base voters to replace one swing voter who switches from one party to the other. Rove and his colleagues should have been watching out for the libertarian vote as well.

Read the article.

But wait, there’s more!

Since that article was written, David Kirby (whose number-crunching skills prove that you can actually learn something useful at the Kennedy School of Government) has analyzed newly released data from the American National Election Studies, the gold standard of public opinion research. ANES’s 2006 survey once again found that 16 percent of voters held libertarian values. And David found the following shifts from the 2002 midterm elections:

How Libertarians Voted

House              2002                2006 
D candidate       23                     46 
R candidate       70                     54 

In other words, among libertarians, the margin for Republican House candidates dropped from 47 to 8 points, a 39-point swing. (Note: ANES asked the question a slightly different way, so that votes for third-party or independent candidates were not recorded in 2006. Libertarian voters seem to vote for alternative candidates at a higher rate than other voters.)

Turning to the upper chamber,

Senate             2002                2006 
D candidate       15                     48 
R candidate       74                     52 

Among libertarians, the margin for Republican Senate candidates dropped from 59 to 4 points, a 54-point swing.

As we noted in the Cato Policy Report article, “To put this in perspective, front-page stories since the election have reported the dramatic 7-point shift of white conservative evangelicals away from the Republicans. The libertarian vote is about the same size as the religious right vote measured in exit polls, and it is subject to swings more than three times as large.”

We reiterate our advice above to Karl Rove, and invite Democratic strategists to look carefully at the gift that Republicans are offering them.

Much Regulatory Ado about Nothing?

This story has all the makings of a Shakespearean comedy: a public watchdog asleep at the switch, a scorned woman, and the silliness of politics.

(OK, I’m hyping a post about regulation. But really, the other elements are in here and it’s a good tale. So keep reading.)

SLEEPING WATCHDOG   Last January 18, President Bush quietly approved major changes to the federal regulatory review process. Federal agencies will now be required to offer greater justification for new regulations, estimate those regulations’ costs and benefits, and the White House will have oversight of agencies’ quasi-regulatory “guidance documents,” which until now have been largely free from executive review.

The changes initially went unnoticed by the media — almost. Lauren Morello of the energy & environment trade publication Greenwire (subscription required) ran a good article the next day (full disclosure: I was one of her interviewees). But, unless I missed it, none of the major media reported the story.

None, that is, until this week. On Tuesday, Bloomberg Media’s Cindy Skrzycki dutifully reported the changes in her column “The Regulators.” The same day, the New York Times ran the story front-page, above-the-fold. But for more than a week, the major policy change went unnoticed by the press, other than Greenwire. And, I might add, Greenwire did by far the best job of explaining the new policy’s substance and controversy.

THE SCORNED WOMAN   The policy change has been attributed to new White House regulatory affairs adviser Susan Dudley. Dudley came to national attention last summer, when President Bush nominated her to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), a small but very important part of the Office of Management and Budget. At the time, Dudley was directing the Regulatory Studies Program at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, and she has contributed a number of articles to Cato’s Regulation Magazine. (For a fun read, see her short article “A Regulated Day in the Life” from the Summer 2004 issue.)

Dudley’s nomination was met with considerable controversy, and even nastiness, reminiscent of the earlier OIRA fight over Harvard professor John D. Graham. Graham was ultimately approved by the Senate, but Dudley’s nomination never received a committee vote.

I have read some of Dudley’s work, and I’ve found it to be well reasoned and illustrative of issues of legitimate concern — even though I’ve sometimes disagreed with her conclusions. OIRA’s job, as I interpret it, is to scrutinize regulatory agencies’ proposals and require the agencies to justify why they would restrict people’s interactions and impose costs. Such scrutiny is, after all, part of deliberative policymaking. Perhaps Dudley’s scrutiny would have been unreasonably difficult, but a good OIRA chief would certainly ask the tough questions that Dudley’s analyses raise.

THE NEW POLICY   Technically, what President Bush did on Jan. 18 was issue Executive Order 13422, amending President Bill Clinton’s Executive Order 12866. EO 12866 pushes federal regulatory agencies to consider the costs of the various regulations they propose, and to examine alternative regulations that could accomplish the same goals at lower costs. EO 12866 also places several transparency and openness requirements on the regulatory process. Finally, EO 12866 gives OIRA a regulatory review role — albeit a less muscular one than what OIRA had under President Ronald Reagan’s Executive Order 12291. (For more on OIRA and EO 12866, read Dudley’s “Bush’s Rejuvenated OIRA” from the Winter 2001 Regulation.)

The new Bush amendments make four important changes to EO 12866:

  1. Regulatory agencies will have to identify what “market failure” a proposed regulation is intended to address. In other words, an agency will have to explain why the “problem” addressed by the proposed regulation cannot be solved through private action.
  2. Agencies must give some estimate of the aggregate costs and benefits of their regulations.
  3. Guidance documents, which give informal direction for how to comply with various federal regulations, will have to undergo OIRA review if they are considered “significant.”
  4. A political appointee in each agency will have oversight of that agency’s regulatory process.

The first amendment should be unobjectionable, at least on a theoretical level. ”Market failure” is the fundamental justification for government regulation (e.g., pollution should be regulated because no one “owns” the environment), so requiring a regulating agency to cite the relevant market failure when proposing a new regulation seems an appropriate requirement. Indeed, this requirement was part of the original EO 12866 and of President Ronal Reagan’s previous EO12291, but compliance with the requirement has been weak. That is unfortunate, because clearly identifying the market failure should help agencies to formulate effective and efficient regulations.

Likewise, the second amendment seems unobjectionable, at least in theory. Most citizens assume (incorrectly, it turns out) that government regulations undergo and pass a cost-benefit test. Requiring an estimation of the aggregate costs and benefits of regulation would help to ensure that regulation produces a net gain in public welfare — which, I take it, is the ultimate goal of regulation.

The third amendment involves guidances, a broad category of agency-issued documents that try to explain the application of various statutes and regulations. Guidances lack the force of law and also are not subject to the sort of rigorous review process that regulations are. Guidances are thus subject to a number of complaints, including that agencies do not adequately identify the documents as “advisory” and thus not having the force of law, and that agencies improperly use guidances as a way to expand government’s regulatory reach while avoiding the scrutiny of regulatory review. Those concerns are supposed to be addressed by the amendment’s subjecting “significant guidances” to OIRA scrutiny.

Finally, the fourth amendment is intended to put the regulatory process more under the control of the President. A justification for this change is that the public is better served if greater regulatory responsibility is taken by the appointees of an elected official than by career civil servants.

SILLY POLITICS   But is this shift in regulatory responsibility such a good thing? And, indeed, don’t each of the amendments put regulation more under the control of politicians? A good cost-benefit analysis or thoughtful consideration of market failure would certainly improve the regulatory process, but if politicians are in charge of the analysis (whether a President Bush or, say, a President Al Gore), could we trust the analysis they produce?

To be honest, I’m not sure whether we’d be better served by having the politicians, or the bureaucrats, lead the regulatory state. And I’m also not sure that the fight over EO 12866 matters.

In the Fall 2006 Regulation, New York Law School professor and environmental lawyer David Schoenbrod tells the disturbing story of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Faustian bargain. Schoenbrod claims that Congress created the EPA to be a whipping boy, making the difficult decisions and absorbing the abuse that Capitol Hill’s politicians want to avoid. Congress gets the accolades for voting to “save the environment”; the EPA gets the nightmare of figuring out how to do it, how much of it to save, and who absorbs the cost. And the EPA suffers the wrath of angered environmentalists and industrialists.

I would extend Schoenbrod’s analysis to all regulatory agencies: Congress is supposed to oversee the laws and consider the difficult tradeoffs implicit in regulation. But, because Congress has abdicated its duty, regulatory analysis has fallen to the White House and/or the federal bureaucracy — a situation that serves no one particularly well.

And what is more, it may not really matter whether the White House mandates additional regulatory analysis or who carries it out. As Rutgers University’s Stuart Shapiro argues in the Summer 2006 Regulation, the findings of regulatory analysis have surprisingly little effect on a proposed regulation; what seems to matter is the White House’s position on the regulation. If the White House likes the regulation, the regulation usually gets adopted regardless of the analysis; if the White House dislikes the regulation, it usually gets abandoned regardless of the analysis.

Despite the immense blood-feud over it, regulatory analysis seems to have neither produced the rational, low-cost regulatory paradise that proponents envisioned, nor the misery-plagued wasteland that opponents decried. Instead, as Cato chairman Bill Niskanen has cynically observed, regulatory analysts produce a bunch of lonely numbers that the politicians usually ignore. I suspect Bush’s EO 12866 amendments will produce more of the same — which is to say, the current brouhaha is much ado about nothing.

[Hat tip to Dr. Richard Belzer for correcting my description of EO 13422’s second amendment. You can read Dr. Belzer’s thoughts on EO 13422 at www.neutralsource.org.]

It Pays to Waste Money

Despite a long history of political advocacy and fiscal mismanagement, the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) will get a $22 million budget increase if a spending bill recently passed by the House becomes law.

You might recall that the LSC made the news last year when its inspector general revealed that LSC executives were living large on tax dollars — enjoying chauffer-driven limousine rides around D.C., expensive meals, foreign trips, and a posh office suite in Georgetown. And as retribution for exposing those excesses, the LSC almost fired its inspector general.

Now the agency, a target of fiscal conservatives for decades, is poised to receive a 6.3 percent budget increase — from $327 million in fiscal year 2006 to $349 million in FY 2007.

Though the practice of rewarding mismanagement with more funding is commonplace in Washington, Congress had promised to do things differently this year. The spending bill was supposed to simply continue funding the federal government at 2006 levels. 

Unfortunately, it appears that old spending habits are hard to break.

Get Ahead of the News with Cato@Liberty

In Thursday’s Wall Street Journal, Fred Barnes makes a point (paid reg. req.) that I made here last week: Hard as it to believe, Sen. Hillary Clinton may campaign as the least statist of the Democratic presidential candidates. Barnes writes:

As surprising as this may sound, Mrs. Clinton starts her campaign as the Democratic candidate furthest to the right. The only two Democrats who might have gotten to her right — Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana and former Gov. Mark Warner of Virginia — dropped out of the race. 

I had made that point. And I also noted that Sen. Russell Feingold would have criticized Hillary on civil liberties issues. With Feingold, Bayh, and Warner all out of the running, Hillary’s determination to constrain her big-government instincts during the campaign will be sorely tested as she fends off challengers like Sen. Barack Obama, former senator John Edwards, and maybe former vice president Al Gore.

A footnote: Barnes and I have both ignored New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, who has persuaded Larry Kudlow that he’s a “a pro-growth, tax cutting Democrat.” Maybe moderate Democrats will have a choice after all.

The Republican Future

In today’s Washington Examiner, I have a column on future directions for the Republican party. One point:

Republicans need to look to the future: Younger voters are more likely to be libertarian, more likely to accept gay marriage, and more likely to have voted Democratic in 2006.

Republicans need to reach them before the Democrats lock them in. They can do that with an optimistic, inclusive message of liberating people from the dead hand of the federal bureaucracy — a smaller and less intrusive federal government, encouragement of enterprise and economic growth, a government that respects but doesn’t embrace religion, and a de-escalation of the culture wars.

John McCain’s Empty Threat

The NYT has a front-pager this morning on the fact that “In Senate, Allies of Bush Attempt to Halt Iraq Vote.” It describes a resolution offered by John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and Lindsey Graham that seeks to “set benchmarks for the Iraqi government and describe the troop increase as a final chance for the United States to restore security in Baghdad.”

“Final chance?” Sounds serious. But is it? Consider McCain and Lieberman were at AEI earlier this month, warning, in the case of Senator McCain, that if we were to leave, it would be “the beginning of the end, in some respects” of Western civilization.

But say you’re an adviser to Maliki, and you see these two offering a resolution that says this is your last chance, this is it, we’ll pull the plug if you can’t get it together. (Put aside the fact that there’s no chance either of them would ever vote to actually cut off funding for the war, the only practical tool Congress has to stop it.) Then your researchers bring you their AEI presentation in which McCain says it’s the beginning of the end of Western civilization if we leave.

Would you be worried? Would you think “Uh oh, if we don’t meet all of the American objectives, John McCain and Joe Lieberman are going to stop supporting the war. Of course, in their own minds, leaving on those terms would mean the beginning of the end of Western civilization, but they still might do it!” Doubtful.

If John McCain and Joe Lieberman think the stakes are as high as they implied at AEI, then they should just say flat-out: We can’t leave, no matter what, unless we achieve our goals. That’s an honest position, although one I think profoundly misguided.

Of course, the American people wouldn’t be too hot on such a proclamation. They certainly wouldn’t be inclined to, say, elect someone who said that to be president. But consistency’s never been McCain’s strong point.

It’s almost like the guy’s running for president or something.

Public Choice in Action

The Washington Post ran a story today that could be a case study in a Public Choice textbook, “Maverick Costco CEO Joins Push to Raise Minimum Wage.”

The chief executive of Costco Wholesale, the nation’s largest wholesale club, yesterday became the most prominent member of a new organization of business owners and executives pressing Congress to approve an increase in the federal minimum wage.

Wow, Costco’s Jim Sinegal must be a really moral and public-spirited CEO. Sinegal “said he signed onto the effort because he thinks a higher minimum wage would be good for the nation’s economy as well as its workers.” The CEO explained: “The more people make, the better lives they’re going to have and the better consumers they’re going to be… It’s going to provide better jobs and better wages.”

Who does Sinegal think he is fooling? His real aim is to use the government to squash any low-end competition. 

Costco, of Issaquah, Wash., would suffer no direct impact from a higher minimum wage because its lowest-paid employees now make about $11 an hour, Sinegal said, adding that the average worker in the company’s 504 stores in the United States makes $17 an hour.