U.S. DoJ Won’t Charge Darren Wilson, Excoriates Ferguson In Report

Confirming expectations, the U.S. Department of Justice has announced that it will not file federal civil rights charges against the police officer who shot Michael Brown following a confrontation on the streets of Ferguson, Mo. Contrary to a visual theme repeated before countless news cameras through weeks of protests, “no, Michael Brown’s hands probably were not up” at the time of the shooting. In the end, “Hands Up — Don’t Shoot” 2014’s iconic protest gesture, was founded in the self-serving, oft-repeated eyewitness account of Brown chum/soon-established-robbery-accomplice Dorrian Johnson. And he was credible why?

At the same time, the report released yesterday by the U.S. Department of Justice makes clear that the Ferguson, Mo. police department was up to its hip in bad practices, ranging from the rights-violative (knowingly baseless arrests and stops, arresting persons for recording police actions) to the cynical (“revenue policing” aimed at squeezing money out of the populace over subjective/petty offenses that include “manner of walking.”)

Another Fishy Regulation

All across the globe, people see the United States as a land of opportunity and dream of making their way here to work hard and enjoy the prosperity that our system of laws helps provide. Cindy Vong made that dream a reality by emigrating from Vietnam, becoming a U.S. citizen, and starting her own nail salon in Gilbert, Arizona. Thanks to a state occupational-licensing scheme, however, Ms. Vong may no longer be free to pursue her vision of happiness.

The Arizona Board of Cosmetology—yes, that’s an actual entity—got wind that Ms. Vong’s spa offered a treatment that uses small fish to exfoliate dead skin from the feet. This is a perfectly safe practice popular in East Asia and the Middle East. Learning that the Board intended to apply its exfoliation-instrument sterilization standards to her fish—how does one sterilize a fish?—Ms. Vong volunteered her spa as a test project until the Board was able to revise its existing rules to address this increasingly popular treatment. Without so much as bothering to evaluate whether the fish treatment is unsafe—there is no such evidence anywhere—the Board ignored her request and, summarily concluding the treatment unsafe, shut down Ms. Vong’s business. So much for “Land of the Free.”

Another Petty Dispute Involving U.S. Allies

Alliances tend to entangle America in confrontations that have little or no relevance to the security and liberty of the republic.  A prime example of that problem is the ongoing, bitter dispute between Japan and South Korea over some largely uninhabited rocks and the waters surrounding them.  Tokyo and Seoul cannot even agree on the correct name of the islands or the body of water.  Japanese call the islands Takeshima, while South Koreans insist on the name Dokdo.  For Japanese (and most of the world), the spits of rock are located in the Sea of Japan, but South Koreans hate that name and instead call it the East Sea.

As I discuss in a recent National Interest Online article, outsiders might be tempted to snicker at such a parochial feud, but it has significant policy implications.  U.S. officials are seeking to strengthen Washington’s alliances with both Japan and South Korea to counter China’s growing power in East Asia.  A key component of that strategy is to encourage closer bilateral military cooperation between Tokyo and Seoul.  The Takeshima/Dokdo dispute is a major impediment to such cooperation.  Beijing has been quick to take advantage of the animosity by actively courting South Korea.  

Japanese and South Korean leaders also pressure Washington to take sides in the controversy.  Such efforts should be rebuffed firmly.  Which country has sovereignty over the islands and the surrounding fishing waters should be a matter of profound indifference to all Americans.

There is a larger lesson in this petty territorial dispute.  As my colleague Doug Bandow has correctly observed, Washington collects allies with less thought and discrimination than most people collect Facebook friends.  In doing so, we also collect all of the disputes and feuds that those “friends” wage with other parties.  That is an unnecessary and unwise policy for a superpower.

Audit the Fed: What Would Milton Friedman Say?

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced a bill (S.264) which is popularly known as “Audit the Fed” (ATF). The bill picked up 30 initial co-sponsors. Although the Fed is already extensively audited in the accounting sense of the term, the ATF bill would expand the scope and scale of Fed auditing. Indeed, monetary policy decisions, which have been exempt from any sort of “auditing” since 1978, would see their auditing exemption lifted if the bill becomes law.

There is popular support for the idea that the Fed should be audited. More than three-quarters of registered voters would give the general idea of auditing the Fed a green light. It’s no surprise, then, that there has been bipartisan support for similar proposals in the past. However, none of these have become law because the push-back from Fed officials and other “experts” has been strong. Today is no different, with the Fed and the Obama White House all singing the same tune: “It’s Dangerous.” 

The real issue at stake is whether the Fed should be independent. The opponents of the ATF bill naturally think that the law would imperil the Fed’s autonomy and that this would be objectionable.

What would Milton Friedman say? Well, we don’t know for certain because unfortunately he is unable to read S.264. That said, Friedman weighed in on the issue of central bank independence on several occasions. Indeed, an essay he penned in 1962 was titled “Should there be an Independent Monetary Authority?” (In: In Search of a Monetary Constitution, edited by Leland B. Yeager, Harvard University Press). Friedman concluded that “The case against a fully independent central bank is strong indeed.”

Milton Friedman’s position on this issue was quite clear at the time. There is little doubt as to whether he would see the situation at hand any differently. 

The Court’s Consequential Concerns: King v. Burwell

Among the countless analyses now going on of today’s 84 minutes of oral argument before the Supreme Court in King v. Burwell, perhaps none is more perceptive than that offered by SCOTUSblog’s Lyle Denniston, the dean of Supreme Court reporters. As many of us feared, however, it appears that the focus of several of the justices, perhaps a majority, was less on the law than on the “dire consequences” that would follow if the Court decided that the law was clear and that, accordingly, the government should lose. (See here for background on the case.)

Here’s Denniston:

From the time that the Supreme Court agreed in November to hear the challenge to subsidies on the thirty-four insurance exchanges set up by the federal government instead of by the states, the Obama administration and its supporters have talked darkly about the collapse of the entire ACA if that challenge succeeded. … The uncertain thing, as the hearing approached, was whether that message would get through to the nine members of the Court who would be the deciders.  If there was one dominant theme at the actual hearing, aside from how to read a complex federal statute, it was that a victory for the challengers would come at perhaps a serious loss—perhaps a constitutional loss, but at least a human and social loss in the end of the most ambitious (and audacious) health care plan ever enacted in America.

The point should not be missed. For “the Obama administration and its supporters,” the question was not whether the challengers should succeed on the law—but what will happen if they do. In a court of law, no less, the Obama team wants policy to trump law.

Denniston reports that it looks like the government has the Court’s more liberal members in its pocket, while Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are likely with the challengers. Chief Justice Roberts said relatively little. That leaves Justice Kennedy, not surprisingly, who “sort of leaned toward the idea that the language of the ACA” was clear and thus the government should lose. “But in a broader sense,” Denniston continues, Kennedy was concerned with “a difficult constitutional question”: “that Congress should ordinarily not be allowed to coerce the states into doing something that Congress wants,” which arguably it did when it told the states to create exchanges or their citizens would be ineligible for federal tax credits for their health insurance, which would “send the insurance market into a death spiral.”

But what follows from that “difficult constitutional question,” sounding in federalism? Scalia put his finger on it, asking rhetorically, Denniston writes, “whether, if a correct reading of a law creates a constitutional problem, the Court has the authority to rewrite it.” In other words, is the Court simply one more legislative branch, to which the government turns when Congress has botched its job (“We need to pass the law to find out what’s in it,” the lady said.”)? Or is it a court of law, charged with saying what the law is, even when Congress has made a mess of things and should, by rights, face the music of the people for having done so? If consequences are indeed our concern, let’s focus on the most fundamental of them, starting with those that follow from abandoning the rule of law.

What Does “Fully Funded” Mean?

Maryland is on the verge of enacting a trailblazing expansion of educational freedom.

The Maryland Education Tax Credit would grant tax credits worth 60 percent of donations to nonprofit scholarship organizations that help low-income families cover certain educational expenses. Were it to become law, Maryland would become the second state, following New Hampshire, to allow families to use tax-credit scholarship funds on a wide variety of educational expenses beyond tuition, such as tutoring, books, education-related technology, transportation, and special-needs services. The legislation has some flaws–for example, eligible schools cannot charge tuition higher than the statewide average per pupil expenditure at district schools–but it still represents a significant step in the right direction.

Unfortunately, the proposal might not get an up-or-down vote in the legislature. Today, the Baltimore Sun reports that Maryland Speaker of the House Michael E. Busch opposes the school choice proposal because Maryland’s assigned schools are not “fully funded”:

“It’s hard for the legislature to fund private religious schools when Governor Hogan fails to fully fund the public education system,” said Busch, an Anne Arundel County Democrat.

There are numerous mistaken assumptions in that statement–tax credits are not government appropriations;  parents can use the scholarships at religious or secular schools; scholarship tax credits generally produce fiscal savings by reducing expenditures more than tax revenue,  etc.–but the claim that Maryland’s district schools are not fully funded raises the question: what does “fully funded” mean?

Will the TPP Promote Minimum Wage Laws?

This is from the White House blog, explaining that the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) will be “the most progressive trade agreement in history”:

They further explain:

If we don’t secure this trade agreement, Americans will be forced to accept the status quo – which is bad for small businesses, bad for American workers, and bad for our future leadership. 

Here’s why: 

We would fail to secure strong labor and environmental standards for trade in the world’s fastest-growing region: 

  • There’d be no enforceable rules ensuring countries set a minimum wage, end child labor, or enforce workplace safety.

So should those of us who are skeptical about the benefits of a minimum wage law panic here?  Will the TPP spread and promote minimum wage laws around the world?

My sense is that the answer is no (although no one has seen the full text of the TPP yet, so I suppose there could be some surprises). Instead, I think the TPP will say that countries have to enforce their own labor laws.  Thus, if you have a minimum wage law on your books, you have to enforce it (with credit to my colleague Bill Watson for this explanation).  That’s a lot less scary (but still a little scary).

At the same time, the whole idea of marketing trade agreements as “progressive” and making reference to minimum wage laws seems like an attempt to garner support from liberals (unlikely) that will quite possibly scare off free market conservatives.  I’m not sure exactly what the White House has in mind; this may very well backfire on them.