October 8, 1999
Microsquashed?
Maintain A Healthy Balance
More Emissions From Washington
Liar, Liar, Open Fire
Microsquashed?
Rep. Tom Campbell (R-Calif.) said Tuesday that if Microsoft is found liable in the Justice Department antitrust case now under consideration, the company should be broken up into smaller companies, Reuters reports. Campbell, who represents a swath of Silicon Valley and who sometimes teaches antitrust law at Stanford Law School, said that he was not prejudging the outcome of the case, but feels that should the software maker lose, a breakup is the best option. "The only remedy that makes sense is structural. That is, to separate the operating system from the software development," Campbell said. The moderate Republican, who is considering a bid for the U.S. Senate, argued that slicing up Microsoft would be better than applying close federal oversight. "I don't want a federal court or, heaven forbid, an Internet Commerce Commission," Campbell said.
But what "crimes" has the successful software maker committed that would justify its destruction? "Welcome to the postmodern world of high-tech antitrust where big is once again bad, lofty profit margins are a wakeup call to government regulators, executives are brought to heel for aggressively worded e-mails, pricing too high is monopolistic, pricing too low is predatory, propping up politically wired competitors is the surreptitious aim, bundling products that consumers want is illegal, and successful companies are rewarded by dismemberment. That's the Orwellian world in which Microsoft finds itself, a year into probably the most important and manifestly the least justified antitrust crusade of our generation," Robert A. Levy writes in the new Cato Policy Analysis "Microsoft Redux: Anatomy of a Baseless Lawsuit".
"Antitrust law aside, the principle of the matter is simple: Microsoft created its operating system and has a right to sell the system as it sees fit. But antitrust law pays little attention to such niceties as property rights. Instead, the reigning shibboleths are economic efficiency and consumer welfare. The antitrust questions, therefore, are whether Microsoft has a monopoly, whether it's misusing its market power, and whether government can find a cure that isn't worse than the disease. The answers are no, no, and no. Microsoft is behaving not like a monopolist but like a company whose very survival is at stake. Its prices are down and its technology is struggling to keep pace with an explosion of software innovation. Facing competition from new operating systems, consumer electronics, and Web-based servers, Microsoft now operates in a world where anyone running a browser will soon have the same capabilities as today's Windows user. Meanwhile, antitrust officials are preoccupied with antiquated notions-tying arrangements, exclusionary contracts, predatory pricing, and a host of other purported infractions-all wholly irrelevant, unless the real purpose, of course, is to pacify rent-seeking executives trying to attain in the political arena what they have been unable to attain in the market. It's time for our government to acknowledge that bankrupt antitrust doctrine is destructive of a modern Internet economy."
Maintain A Healthy Balance
The House passed a package of tax breaks Wednesday to help the uninsured afford health care coverage, AP reports. Democrats expressed fears that the plan would be financed out of surplus Social Security funds. The vote, largely along party lines, preceded Thursday's debate on health management reform. "The American people are concerned about the fact that they can't gain access to affordable health care," said Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.).
The Cato Institute held a book forum on Empowering Health Care Consumers through Tax Reform in September; that event can be played in RealVideo format or downloaded for later viewing.
"The way to restore freedom in health care is to provide every American a tax credit for health insurance, whether purchased privately or through an employer or other organization. A universal tax credit, along with legislation to make MSAs available to all Americans, would help put choices about health care coverage back in the hands of the people… The United States can help restore health freedom in the 21st century--without mandates--by changing the current tax law. The universal tax credit policy would give Americans the freedom to choose their own health insurance, whether fee-for-service plans, HMOs, or MSAs. Individuals would also be free to purchase their health insurance individually; through their employers; or through professional associations, churches, or labor unions. No existing health reform proposal or government mandate comes close to restoring that amount of freedom to health care," Sue A. Blevins wrote in the 1997 Cato Policy Analysis "Restoring Health Freedom: The Case for a Universal Tax Credit for Health Insurance".
More Emissions From Washington
The Senate Environment and Public Works Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee has not yet hinted if it will enact any of the recommendations of a special Environmental Protection Agency-convened panel that concluded that Congress should remove a 1990 Clean Air Act mandate for fuel additives. The panel believes that methyl tertiary butyl ether, or MTBE, should be eliminated from fuel because it may harm the drinking water supply. The panel called for MTBE to be "reduced substantially" and also recommends that Congress do away with the Clean Air Act mandate that 2 percent of reformulated gasoline by weight consist of oxygen.
MTBE is discussed in the Cato Policy Analysis "The Increasing Sustainability of Conventional Energy", released in April: "In November 1992, 39 cities in 20 states not in compliance with the Clean Air Act began using gasoline blended with oxygenates, primarily MTBE but also ethanol, during the four-month winter driving season to reduce carbon monoxide emissions. Major East Coast cities were prominently represented, as was the entire state of California. An increased cost of several cents per gallon and a 1 percent to 4 percent loss of fuel mileage initially resulted. The winter oxygenated-gasoline program of 1992 was supplemented on January 1, 1995, with a federal year-round reformulated gasoline requirement for nine areas around the country with the worst ozone (summer-time urban smog) problems, as well as other 'opt-in' areas… The reduction of emissions of volatile organic compounds contributing to summer smog and the reduction of year-round toxic emissions were achieved at an initial premium of 2 to 5 cents per gallon in addition to some loss in fuel efficiency. Refiners reported the changeover as 'blissfully uneventful,' while consumers reported no operational problems with the cleaner reconstitution. The Natural Resources Defense Council praised the reformulated oil product." The earlier Cato Policy Analysis "The Truth About Ozone and Urban Smog" also mentions MTBE.
Liar, Liar, Open Fire
An expert retained by the House committee investigating the government assault on the Mount Carmel religious community near Waco, Texas, in 1993 has concluded that videotape of the standoff shows the FBI fired shots on the siege's final day, which the FBI has denied for years, AP reports. Waco Special Counsel John Danforth has been briefed by another expert who reached a similar conclusion, but the FBI continues to deny firing on Mount Carmel practitioners. "There has been no evidence developed to date to indicate that any FBI agents fired any rounds during the standoff at Waco," said FBI spokesman Tron Brekke.
The Cato Institute held a screening of the Academy Award-nominated documentary Waco: The Rules of Engagement in September. That event, which featured Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.) of the House Judiciary Committee, Waco survivor David Thibodeau, and David Kopel, Cato associate policy analyst and co-author of No More Wacos, can be viewed in RealVideo format. The film offers evidence that the government forces did in fact open fire on April 19, 1993.