As recent posts in this space indicate, advocates of individual liberty have a variety of views on the proper policy response to illegal immigration. Whatever the disagreements, I suspect there's some degree of consensus that certain proposed remedies are entirely too Draconian. From the California Labor and Employment Law Blog:
The U.S. Attorneys Office in San Diego has recently criminally prosecuted a French bakery for allegedly engaging in an intentional pattern and practice of hiring unauthorized workers. As part of the indictment, the Government is seeking hefty monetary fines, prison time for the owner and management, and asset forfeiture of the entire business to the Government. While the Government does not have experience running a French bakery, they are getting very serious about enforcing I-9 regulations.
More details on the French Gourmet prosecution can be found at the San Diego Union-Tribune and Restaurant Hospitality.
When government began pushing for asset forfeiture powers, some imagined that the formidable power would remain mostly confined to use in, say, illegal drug or money laundering prosecutions. But that's not how it has worked. And immigration is hardly the only area in which employers should be worried about the expanding bounds of criminalization. Bills pending in Congress would criminalize "misclassification" of employees -- which commonly consists of disagreeing with the government or with labor unions as to whether particular employees should count as independent contractors not covered by overtime and similar federal labor laws. Are we far from the day when prosecutors will start proposing forfeitures against employers over such infractions?
Last week Paul Krugman seized on the Gulf oil spill as another occasion to bash libertarians in general and the great Milton Friedman in particular. On Friday David skewered the Times columnist over his odd rhetorical ploy of treating politicians' failure to follow Friedman's principles as a refutation of those principles. Now economist Alex Tabarrok at Marginal Revolution reports that Krugman also completely misunderstands the current set of laws governing oil spill liability:
The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), which is the law that caps liability for economic damages at $75 million, does not override state law or common law remedies in tort (click on the link and search for common law or see here). Thus, Milton Friedman's preferred remedy for corporate negligence, tort law, continues to operate and there is no doubt that BP's potential liability under common law alone would be in the billions of dollars.
...The point of the OPA was not to limit tort law but to supplement it.
Tort law, as traditionally understood, could only be used to recover damages to people and property rather than force firms to pay cleanup costs per se. Thus, in the OPA as I read it -- and take the details with a grain of salt since I'm not a lawyer--there is no limit on cleanup costs. Moreover, the OPA makes the offender strictly liable for cleanup costs which means that if these costs are proven the offender must pay them regardless (there are a few defenses, such as an act of war, but they are unlikely to apply). The offender is also strictly liable for up to $75 million in economic damages above and beyond cleanup costs. Thus the $75 million is simply a cap on the strictly liable damages, the damages that if proven BP has to pay regardless. But there is no limit, even under the OPA, on economic damages in the event that BP failed to follow regulations or is otherwise shown to be negligent (same as under common law).
The link Krugman supplies, and perhaps the source of his error, was this Talking Points Memo item baldly describing "the maximum liability for oil companies after a spill" as "a paltry $75 million." Even the most passing acquaintance with the aftermath of real-world oil spills should have been enough for Krugman and TPM author Zachary Roth to realize that liability for assessments to this one federal rainy-day fund is but one component, perhaps but a minor one, of liability for overall spill damage. And even as regards this one specialized federal fund, Krugman and Roth got it wrong, as a glance at the May 1 edition of Krugman's own paper would have revealed:
When a rich and well-insured company like BP is responsible for the spill, the government will seek reimbursement of what it spends on cleanup from the company and its insurers.
So Krugman's post not only strained to take a cheap shot at libertarians, but also thoroughly botched a factual background that it would have been easy enough for him to have looked up. Other that that, it was fine.
The Wall Street Journal has an important editorial today on how the financial "reform" bill being considered by Congress could help kill the angel investment industry in the United States.
Burying angels under new regulations would be part of a one-two knock-out blow for this group of more than 300,000 higher-income Americans who invest directly into start-up companies. The Obama administration's tax-increase policies would be the other blow, as I testified to the Senate earlier this year.
Angels have played a crucial role in America's dynamic job-creating economy over the decades. Policymakers would be absolutely crackers to screw up such a successful part of our innovation economy.
The Obama administration thinks it has discovered the perfect formula to cram legislation through in a hurry: Demonize some prominent firm within an industry you plan to redesign, and then pass a law that has nothing to do with the accusation against the demonized firm. They did this with health insurance and now they’re trying it with finance.
With health insurance, the demon was Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of California, which Obama accused of raising premiums by “anywhere from 35 to 39 percent.” Why didn’t some curious reporter interview a single person who actually paid 39% more, or quote from a letter announcing such an increase? Because it didn’t happen. Insurance premiums are regulated by the states, and California wouldn’t approve such a boost. Yet the media’s uncritical outrage over that 39% rumor helped to enact an intrusive, redistributive health bill that has nothing to do with health insurance premiums (which remain regulated by the states).
Today, the new demon de jour is Goldman Sachs, a handy scapegoat to promote hasty financial rejiggering schemes The SEC’s suspiciously-timed civil suit against Goldman looks as flimsy as the last month’s health insurance story. It also looks unlikely to win in court.
As Washington Post columnist Sebastian Mallaby explains, “This is a non-scandal. The securities in question, so-called synthetic collateralized debt obligations, cannot exist unless somebody is betting that they will lose value.” In such a zero-sum contest, big investors who went long knew perfectly well that other investors had to be taking the other side of the bet. Goldman lost $90 million by betting this CDO would go up; John Paulson went short.
Columnists have moralized about the unfairness of the short investor (Paulson) negotiating the terms of this deal with a long investor, ACA Management, which had the last word. This too, notes Mallaby, “is another non-scandal. An investor who wants to bet against a bundle of mortgages is entitled to suggest what should go into the bundle. The buyer is equally entitled to make counter-suggestions. As the SEC's complaint states clearly, the lead buyer in this deal, a boutique called ACA that specialized in mortgage securities, did precisely that.”
Like the earlier fuming about Anthem California, this new SEC publicity stunt is likewise irrelevant to the pending legislation. Congress hopes to get standardized derivatives traded on an exchange. But synthetic collateralized debt obligations dealing with a customized bundle of securities could not possibly be traded on an exchange, and would therefore be untouched by reform.
Losses sustained by a few financial speculators on one exotic derivative had nothing to do with starting a global recession in December 2007 or the related financial crisis of September 2008. The core of the latter crisis was mortgage-backed securities per se, yet Goldman was only the 12th largest private MBS issuer in 2007. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were and are the biggest risk; any reform that excludes them is a fraud.
The SEC’s dubious civil suit against Goldman is a wasteful diversion at best. It has nothing to do with the Obama administration’s suicidal impulse to impose more tough regulations and taxes on banks to encourage them to lend more.
[Cross-posted at NRO's The Corner]
Alex Nowrasteh and Ryan Young of the Competitive Enterprise Institute make the case for immigration reform in an especially appealing way in a fresh op-ed this week in the Detroit News.
In a commentary article titled, “Fix immigration rules to crush black market,” they dissect a well-meaning but flawed Obama administration effort to fix the dysfunctional H-2A visa program for temporary farm workers. Instead of fine tuning an unworkable law, Nowrasteh and Young advocate liberalization:
That means making H-2A visas inexpensive, easy to obtain, and keeping the related paperwork and regulations to a minimum. That means no minimum wage hike. No costly background check requirements. People rarely break laws that are reasonable and easy to obey.
When legal channels cost too much in time and money, people will turn to illegal channels every time. That's how the world works. Getting rid of immigration's black market begins with admitting that fact.
- Countdown: A quick rundown of some of the best (and worst) ideas for health care reform.
- The case for high-deductible health insurance: "Of every dollar spent on health care in this country, just 13 cents is paid for by the person actually consuming the goods or services....As long as someone else is paying, consumers have every reason to consume as much health care as is available....This all but guarantees that health care costs and spending will continue their unsustainable path. And that is a path leading to more debt, higher taxes, fewer jobs and a reduced standard of living for all Americans."
- McDonald v. Chicago: A new Supreme Court battle over the right to bear arms.
- Reality: The real housing crisis was the bubble, not the bust. "Washington must stop and re-learn basic economics. First, when you’re in a hole, stop digging. In the case of housing, as a country, we built too much. The cure is to build less."
- Podcast: "Charge Back, Forward on Financial Regulations" featuring Mark A. Calabria.
Yesterday the Washington Post ran a nice profile about Tom Palmer and other DC residents who are challenging the constitutionality of regulations that make it a crime for people to bring their firearm outside of their residence for purposes of self-defense. Most criminal attacks occur outside the home (around 87%) and the criminals are armed and always have the advantage of choosing when they'll strike -- and that's usually when there are no cops around.
Related Cato scholarship here. More here.