Once again, a court has refused to recognize any meaningful limit to Congress’s authority to regulate Americans’ private lives through the Commerce Clause. On Wednesday, after a long delay in considering the case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed a district court order that had declared the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)’s regulations prohibiting the “taking” of the Utah prairie dog (effectively, anything that may disrupt its habitat) unconstitutional. (This is a case in which Cato had filed a brief nearly two years ago.)
The court held that, since Congress had a rational basis to believe that protecting the prairie dog “constituted an essential part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme that, in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce,” the FWS regulations are authorized under Article I, section 8. This, despite acknowledging that “taking” the prairie dogs—which exist solely within the borders of Utah and have no economic value—is a “noncommercial, purely intrastate activity.”
The economist Herbert Stein, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under Richard Nixon, once quipped,
Most of the economics that is usable for advising is at about the level of the introductory undergraduate course.
One lesson from such courses is that minimum wage laws reduce employment, so this is reassuring:
I critically review the recent findings regarding the effects of minimum wages on employment. Contrary to often asserted statements, the preponderance of the evidence still points toward a negative impact of permanently high minimum wages.
From Jesus Fernandez‐Villaverde at the University of Pennsylvana.
In a recent Wall Street Journal column defending Obamacare 3.8% surtax on investment income on joint returns above $250,000, Peggy Noonan ends by quoting Tucker Carlson’s Fox News interview with Paul Ryan which questioned the now-suspended health plan’s elimination of that surtax:
“Looking at the last election, was the message of that election really, ‘We need to help investors?’ I mean, the Dow is over 20,000. Are they really the group that needs the help?. . .“The overview here is that all the wealth, basically, in the last 10 years, has stuck to the top end. That’s one of the reasons we’ve had all the political turmoil, as you know. And so, kind of a hard sell to say ‘Yeah, we’re gonna repeal Obamacare, but we’re gonna send more money to the people who’ve already gotten the richest over the last 10 years.’ I mean, that’s what this does, no? I’m not a leftist, it’s just—that’s true.”
The simplistic notion that organisms are “dumb” when it comes to changing environments goes like this: Species X lives in a relatively stable environment and with a certain defined range of temperature. So, if the temperature changes enough, species X will go extinct.
In resuming our series on biological adaptation to environmental change, we are going to be looking in depth at the evolutionary and environmental nuances that—with some limits—invalidate the simple point of view. And, in doing so, we will discover important implications for environmental and climate-related policies.
We begin with revolutionary classic in evolutionary biology published in 1984 by Peter Hochachka and George Somero called “Biochemical Adaptation.” It summarized and expanded on much of their earlier work on what they called “phenotypic plasticity”.
At least in Serbia, people know that politicians’ promises are ridiculous. NPR reports on a satirical candidate named Ljubisa Beli Preletacevic, or just Beli for short:
A new politician is here to save you. I’m pure and clean. Whatever the other politicians promise you, I will promise you three times more.
I’ll give jobs to everyone and big pensions to everyone. I’m going to move the sea here because we need a beach.
Satire it may be, but his new party won 12 council seats in his home town, and most of his party’s candidates are seriously seeking election. Reporter Joanna Kakissis continues:
There will be no corruption, excluding my own of course, he declares to one crowd. Please send all money directly to my pockets. Drama student Danka Svetilova laughs and asks for a selfie. She says mainstream politicians have lied to Serbs for years.…
So that’s why she and her schoolteacher mom are voting for Beli in this Sunday’s presidential election. Better a fake candidate who tells the truth about lying, she says, than a real one who lies about telling the truth.
The Cato Institute recently released Monetary Alternatives: Rethinking Government Fiat Money, a collection of essays 30 years in the making. As George Selgin explains in the foreword,
The complacency wrought by the Great Moderation, not to mention the limited interest in fundamental monetary reform before then, resulted in a dearth of serious inquiries into potentially superior arrangements….Cato kept the subject alive, offering a safe haven, in the shape of its Annual Monetary Conference, for the minority of experts that continued to stress the need for fundamental monetary reform. Although fundamental reform has been a consistent theme of Cato’s monetary conferences, those conferences have never been dominated by one approach to reform. The articles in this book present a variety of ideas for improving the monetary regime — including proposals for a formal “monetary constitution,” various monetary rules, competing currencies, and establishing a new gold standard.
In sum, Monetary Alternatives explores fundamental and controversial ideas that would move our monetary system and economy beyond repeated crises to sustainable stability and prosperity. The contributors to the volume energetically question the status quo and provide compelling arguments for moving to a monetary system based on freedom and the rule of law.
The North Carolina legislature has passed and sent to Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper H.B. 142, unveiled last night as a compromise intended to end the state’s acrimonious year‐long battle over discrimination laws and transgender persons’ access to bathrooms and changing rooms. From what I can see, it’s a basically sound measure that gives both sides much of what they legitimately asked.
HB2, the bill passed last March, was a response to a successful push in the city of Charlotte to enact anti‐discrimination laws going well beyond state law in numerous areas, including making LGBT persons a protected class and regulating private actors in various ways (including bathroom policies) through employment and public accommodations laws. Opponents went to the state legislature and — as has happened in other states lately as well — proposed yanking back those portions of home rule that allowed for local ordinances to go beyond state law. (How you feel about yanking back home rule powers probably has a lot to do with how you feel about the substantive laws involved, since neither libertarians nor most other thinkers hold to a rigid always‐or‐never view of municipal home rule powers. Should towns in your state have the power to jail people for using alcohol or medical marijuana? Enact rent control? Ban the construction of any residence worth less than $1 million?)
One part of HB2, then, eliminated towns’ and cities’ power to go beyond state law in some areas of employment and public accommodations law. But HB2 went a fateful step further by enacting into law the idea of some organized social conservatives that transgender persons should use the bathroom of their sex at birth, unless they succeed in jumping over the legal hurdles needed to get a changed certificate. There are all sorts of things wrong with that approach, and I said some of them in a Wall Street Journal letter last year.
[The relevant section] of the bill imposes affirmative, uniform new duties of exclusion on North Carolina government entities such as schools, town halls, courthouses, state agencies and the state university system, taking away what had generally been local discretion. This not only will inflict needless burdens on a small and vulnerable sector of the public, but presumes to micromanage local governments and districts in an area where they had not been shown to be misusing their discretion. Whatever the merits of the rest of the bill, the provisions on state‐furnished bathrooms are a good example of how legislation in haste from the top down can create new problems of its own.
The new HB142 compromise retreats, and rightly so, from this worst portion of HB2, but it does not retreat (or at least not very much) from the other elements, including those that are not so bad. By repealing HB2, it abandons the wretched aim of trying to prohibit transgender‐friendly bathrooms. But it also takes away local governments’ power to mandate them in the private sector. It provides that “State agencies, boards, offices, departments, institutions, branches of government, including The University of North Carolina and the North Carolina Community College System, and political subdivisions of the State, including local boards of education, are preempted from regulation of access to multiple occupancy restrooms, showers, or changing facilities, except in accordance with an act of the General Assembly.”
“Regulation of access to” is not an entirely clear phrase in this context. Clearly, cities like Charlotte need to go on carrying on the “regulation of access to” their own city‐run facilities. The debate in the legislature today, according to several sources, emphasized sound local discretion — Charlotte can run bathrooms in municipal buildings the way it sees fit.
The bill further pre‐empts municipalities temporarily from enacting discrimination laws that go beyond the states’. “No local government in this State may enact or amend an ordinance regulating private employment practices or regulating public accommodations. That latter pre‐emption expires in 2020.
The new compromise is being met with peals of outrage from some of the predictable ultras on both sides. But it looks to me like a more careful attempt to respect the legitimate rights of both sides than we’ve seen in this controversy up to now.