Reason Foundation - Out of Control Policy Blog

U.S. Challenge to Chinese Export Subsidies Hypocritical

sam.staley@reason.org (Samuel Staley) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:51:00 EDT

The U.S. recently launched a challenge to China with the World Trade Organization, arguing that it is actively subsidizing exports to protect domestic industries. This is more than a bit hypocritical, as the American Entrprise Institute's Philip Levy recently pointed out, when the U.S. is dumping billions of dollars into domestic companies through guarantees and subsidies. As Levy writes,

"The Obama Administration last week launched a complaint against China for effectively subsidizing its producers. While China's policies do look like subsidies, the United States has been embracing massive subsidies of its own. To provide leadership for the global trading system, the United States needs to practice what it preaches."

By launching its own aggressive industrial policy subsidies favored quarters of U.S. industry, the U.S. has lost any moral authority for challenging other nation's for abrogating free trade principles even though it may still have the legal ability to purse these challenges.

Texas Legislature Punts on Private Toll Roads

leonard.gilroy@reason.org (Leonard Gilroy) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:50:00 EDT

The Texas legislature closed its special session yesterday sidestepping the issue of extending the state's authority to enter to agreements with private firms to finance, build and modernize transportation infrastructure, which will expire this year. I've written extensively regarding the need to preserve this valuable procurement tool, given the state's massive infrastructure needs. Roughly 1,000 people move to Texas every day, as the story goes, and they bring cars and demands for goods and services with them. Port and freight traffic is projected to continue increasing as well, exacerbating traffic gridlock in and around the state's major metro areas.

Given the threat this poses to the state's long-term economic health, the legislature's inaction on this issue is indeed perplexing, but it's also a mixed bag, in my opinion. On the bright side, I've been told that the failure to extend this procurement authority will not jeopardize the private road contracts signed or in the procurement process to date, including the $2+ billion North Tarrant Express project (which just reached commercial close) and the New LBJ/I-635 Managed Lanes project. These megaprojects would not be feasible without private financing.

Further, given the volatility and political angst on the issue on display in the 2009 legislative session, a two-year breather—though short-sighted and a setback for the state's efforts to sustain investor interest—may not be such a bad thing. The late architect of Texas' embrace of private infrastructure financing, former legislator and Texas Transportation Commission Chairman Ric Williamson, acknowledged in a 2007 Reason Foundation interview that:

Even with the retrenchment of the last session—that was to have been expected. You can't go as far, as fast, and as hard as we did without having some pushback from some of your citizens and from some of your policymakers. What we went though was entirely understandable and entirely expected. And it really is good for the system—it washes out the anger and lets it get to the side of the road, so to speak, where you can move on down the road.

Many observers hoped that the last two years would have provided ample breathing room, but for a variety of reasons it didn't. For Texas' sake, let's hope that another two-year breather helps to calm the issue and let cooler heads prevail in the 2011 session.

On the downside, however, legislative inaction is just kicking the can down the road. Florida, Virginia North Carolina and others have a number of privately financed transportation projects in the pipeline. California, New York, Michigan, Arizona and other states have taken significant steps in the last seven months towards developing robust public-private partnership laws and programs to facilitate such projects. Texas was once far and away the vanguard in this field earlier this decade; now it puts itself in the position of sitting by and watching other states surpass it and render it less attractive to investors.

And it would be perfectly rational and understandable if some infrastructure investors rethink dedicating time and resources to Texas. Sure, there are a ton of needs and potential investment opportunities, but why take on the political risk of Texas when you can go to Cali, Florida and several other states where policymakers are opening their arms? Such passivity just seems downright out-of-character for Texas.

In their cooling off period, I would hope that legislators reassess the benefits of the projects undertaken to date in Texas and seriously confront the underlying reality I discussed in an April blog post:

Texas would need several magnitudes higher than the current tax rate to close its infrastructure gap. That will never happen, so what's left if Texas takes private financing off the table? Not much. With the increasingly constrained funding on the horizon, Texas (like many states) will barely be able to maintain the roads it already has, and it won't be building the new ones needed to keep people, goods and the state economy moving. Then Texas grinds to a crawl and loses its economic edge.

Texas legislators need to do some soul-searching. If they truly believe that we’re actually getting good results from our government-monopolized education system, our government-run social welfare systems, our government-controlled housing market, and today, our increasingly government-run economy, then it would be perfectly consistent to double down and give government exclusive monopoly control on Texas' transportation system.

But we all know government's abysmal track record in those areas. The phrase "good enough for government work" exists for a reason. The idea that transportation is the one magical area where government will actually get it right for once is pure fantasy.

The simple fact is this: the government is failing at delivering transportation infrastructure, and Texas needs an infusion of money to solve this problem and keep the state moving. The private sector offers that, as the state's own legislative study committee recently concluded. Texas legislators may be tempted to lock private toll roads in a last-resort, "only use in case of emergency" box, but before they do so they should realize that the emergency is already here.

» Reason's Transportation Research and Commentary

Broadband: The Next Stimulus Disaster

steven.titch@reason.org (Steven Titch) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:21:00 EDT

In its announcement of the broadband stimulus rules Wednesday, the U.S. government has defined broadband as 768 kilobits per second (kb/s) downstream, 200 kb/s upstream, signaling that any company applying for federal stimulus funds only has to meet the broadband standards of 1995.

By comparison, most cable modems connect at 6 Mb/s (almost 8 times as fast), with service reaching 10 Mb/s in some areas. Fiber-to-the-home connections transmit between 50 and 100 Mb/s.

That said, 768 kb/s is an improvement over the 200 Kb/s definition the FCC had been using until now, but there’s no question advocates of government broadband, who envisioned taxpayer-funded fiber to every home, are disappointed. The government says the low speed was set to encourage wireless development. But even now, wireless broadband is pushing speeds twice that.

But given the network neutrality rules the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the Department of Agriculture will require, perhaps the low bar was intended to get someone—anyone—to apply for the grants. The major phone, cable and wireless carriers have already said the rules will keep them from applying. The network neutrality rules would prevent any grant winner from optimizing its network for specific Web applications, especially video. It also could bar a wireless winner from entering an exclusive deal with a handset manufacturer, such as what AT&T and Sprint have done with Apple and Palm, respectively. In laymen’s terms, it means stimulus winners will have problems streaming YouTube and won’t be able to sell any BlackBerry model that’s less than one year old.

These stipulations automatically place any stimulus recipient at a competitive disadvantage. With the stimulus timetable calling for the first round of grants to be issued Nov. 7, and all stimulus money to awarded by September 2010, the pressure on to get cash out the door. That means, on top of everything else, a rushed application process. Under the current terms, it’s all but guaranteed that the broadband stimulus will end up funding a lot of money-losing projects that will struggle to survive once the subsidy stops. In the scheme of things, the broadband portion represents barely one percent of the total stimulus. But $7.2 billion wasted is still $7.2 billion wasted.

California Budget Follies: IOUs and 1-in-4 Debt Default Risk

leonard.gilroy@reason.org (Leonard Gilroy) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:52:00 EDT

Per Forbes, the markets are betting that there's a 1-in-4 chance that California will default on its debt payments in the next five years:

What are the odds that California defaults on its debt payments? Using the market for credit insurance as a guide, one in four within five years. Those are amazing odds, signalling that those who buy insurance on debt think that the federal government will allow California to fail where it thought that AIG and Citigroup simply had to be rescued.

In the past month, rating agencies have warned that California’s $24 billion budget shortfall for the fiscal year beginning in July threatens its credit ratings -- its mark of A already makes it the lowest-rated state in the U.S. on Standard & Poor’s scale -- and the Obama administration has reportedly spurned requests for a bailout. The price of credit default swaps, a form of insurance on bonds, has made a predictable turn: a 5-year credit default swap on California’s debt jumped from a midpoint of 250 basis points on May 22 to 325 on June 23. On Tuesday, dealers asked for 339 basis points, which works out to $339 million on $10 million in debt, implying a 26% chance of default.

And in another ominous sign of the fiscal times, California is now issuing debt to cover ongoing operations. As I mentioned previously, yesterday California began sending out IOUs to contractors, vendors, local governments, and taxpayers. The first batch of 28,742 IOUs (called "warrants") totalled $53.3 million in value. Per the New York Times:

It was only the second time the state had adopted the emergency payment method since the Great Depression. The National Conference of State Legislatures had no record of any other state’s ever using them.

It was unclear whether the i.o.u.’s, known as warrants, would be accepted by all of the banks in California, which were caught off guard by the move and seemed hesitant to entrust the state to repay the them — at an interest rate of 3.75 percent — in October, as promised.

The controller, John Chiang, issued 28,742 warrants totaling $53.3 million. If state lawmakers fail to reach a budget agreement by the end of August, the amount would grow to $4.8 billion. [...]

So California is now just like a family that spends more than it takes in and holds off on the cable bill while paying the mortgage: its expenses are greater than its revenues. The state, which previously used i.o.u.’s in 1992 and 1933, will issue them rather than checks to those it can get away with not immediately paying.

Most warrants will go to Californians waiting for tax refunds, vendors doing business with the state and local governments, especially in social service areas. Federal and state laws prohibit i.o.u.’s from being issued to state employees, schools or Medicaid recipients.

While it is against federal law for a state to declare bankruptcy, California’s move Thursday will not go unnoticed by Wall Street or escape consequences. The state’s credit rating is already shaky, and any further downgrades from rating agencies could send interest rates on its bonds soaring, forcing deeper service cuts. Furthermore, if California comes up short on cash this fall, other creditors will have to wait behind the warrant holders, who would most likely end up in superior credit positions.

In a news conference here Thursday, Mr. Schwarzenegger did not apologize for the state of California’s fiscal affairs and instead stood defiantly against the people he had alternatively battled and wooed for the better part of six years — chiefly Democratic lawmakers, public employee unions and so-called special interests. “At the end of the day, they haven’t accomplished anything,” Mr. Schwarzenegger said, speaking of an effort by the Legislature to stave off the i.o.u.’s with stopgap measures to cut education financing. “So I sent the budget back, doing it forcefully and without any hesitation.” [...]

“We did everything in our power to avert the i.o.u.’s,” Darrell Steinberg, the president pro tempore of the State Senate, said in a news conference in Sacramento. “This was a strategic move by the governor and the Senate Republicans.”

Right..."everything in our power" except anything that would meaningfully reduce the price of California government and break the stranglehold that public employee unions—perhaps the largest obstacle to reform—have placed on budget and management decisions. I digress:

On Thursday, a few banks — including Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Bank of the West — indicated they would accept the i.o.u.’s but only through the middle of the month. The California Bankers Association offered less-than-overwhelming optimism that more banks would step up, citing the technical difficulties in managing the warrants coupled with fear of getting paid in early October, when the warrants are to mature. If California’s fiscal situation significantly improved before then, however, the state could repay the warrants earlier at a lower rate.

“In evaluating potential registered warrant acceptance, banks have been advised by regulatory authorities to consider such issues as credit quality, capital requirements and concentration limits,” the bankers’ association president, Rod Brown, said in a statement. “Given the poor credit rating of California, the worst in the nation, banks may be hesitant to extend credit to the state.”

So the Golden State dysfunction continues.

» Reason's California Research and Commentary

Firefighters Unions Holding Taxpayers Hostage in Nevada

leonard.gilroy@reason.org (Leonard Gilroy) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:33:00 EDT

Our friends over at the Nevada Policy Research Institute are ruffling some firefighter union feathers in that state by daring to suggest that taxpayers may be being held hostage by fat and bloated contracts and union demands for ever-increasing pay. Per the Las Vegas Sun (emphasis mine):

There's no question that firefighters work hard, and the summer heat doesn't make anything easier. But when they cash their checks, they get paid quite well -- some more than $200,000 a year, much of that in overtime.

One local think tank says that's simply too much and the union won't talk about it. The same union that wants to keep raises when everyone else in the state is taking pay cuts.

The Nevada Policy Research Institute, a libertarian research group, compiled salaries for county workers and found firefighters rank at nearly all the top spots. The department routinely used high overtime and remote pay in places like Laughlin as sorts of incentives to keep veterans happy.

NPRI's fiscal analyst Geoff Lawrence finds this ongoing squabble over pay increases frustrating. He is bothered that both the police and public employee unions deferred pay raises. Meanwhile, the firefighters union plays tough, holding on despite the county and state's economic downturn.

"I think taxpayers are really getting the shaft here. They're getting ripped off and exploited by the firefighters union, which is basically holding an essential service hostage from them unless they pay more and more every year to get that service," he said.

The Clark County Fire Department still says they're not hiring right now. The easiest way to reduce overtime is to hire more personnel. Taxpayers are left with little choice in the matter. Massive contract negotiations are slow-moving affairs and firefighting is a monopoly.

Unfortunately this scenario repeats itself over and over across the country.

Look—teachers, police and firefighters do noble work. No one disputes that. But that should not immunize them from the same budget cuts, pay restrictions, etc. that other government employees experience, and it should not prevent policymakers and taxpayers from standing up and calling a spade a spade when taxpayers are being bilked like this.

Friday Fun Graph: Record Unemployment

anthony.randazzo@reason.org (Anthony Randazzo) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:00:00 EDT

Here's your friday fun graph... happy 4th of July!

Via: Ezra Klein

Health Care Sticker Shock

anthony.randazzo@reason.org (Anthony Randazzo) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 09:30:00 EDT

Whew, health care will only cost $611 billion! That's the line in Washington right now. An estimate from the CBO on the draft legislation from the Senate health committee is $1 trillion less than its estimate of a previous draft version. Of course the massive cut has the effect of making $611 billion seem like a small number, as the massive numbers coming out of Washington increasing dull away the enormity of the spending numbers. What's another billion or so? is now common thought. And a million dollars... well, that's just candy money.

Yesterday, I tried to argue that from an economic theory perspective, the health care costs don't make much sense. The analysis is largely apart from the debate of the effectiveness of a government plan, though it is worth noting that the CBO also suggests that $611 billion would only cover 39 percent of the uninsured. And that likely means more spending in the future, so don't get too comfortable with the $611 billion.

But again, even if Congress could design a public health bill that would provide quality services efficiently, without wasting money like Medicare and Medicaid, and actually provide coverage for those 21 million people or so, while keeping the cost at $611 billion, there are still two problems.

The first is that we don't have $611 billion to spend. The national debt is over $11 trillion and climbing fast, especially considering the massive deficits projected for the next ten years. So even if there is $611 billion in the budget right now, or even if $611 billion can be found by saving money elsewhere, that is still $611 billion not used to pay down that debt. Not used to cut interest payments. At the end of the day, every dollar we spend creating a program that competes with private medical providers and insurers, is exponentially increased over the life of our national debt. What if I said, because of interest on the loans needed to cover the extra debt the health bill added, the cost was hypothetically actually $7 trillion over 20 years. Would that be too much?

And the second problem is one I pointed out on the blog yesterday. If the government creates a successful program for 21 million people, others will want to be a part of it as well. And why shouldn't they? It's their tax dollars paying for the program too. But such things are not scalable, as the president himself has admitted. So eventually the program would collapse.

Does Bernanke Deserve a Second Term as FED Chairman?

sam.staley@reason.org (Samuel Staley) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 08:36:00 EDT

Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke's first term is nearing expiration, and many are wondering if he will be reappointed by Pres. Barack Obama to a second term. Some think that his willingness to shore up the financial services sector with hundreds of billions of federal dollars and guarantees might have raised his stature high enough for Obama's economic advisors to recommend a reappointment.

The American Enterprise Institute's Desmond Lachman isn't so sure. Writing in The American, Lachmann notes that Bernanke's background and expertise should have allowed him to see the impending financial services meltdown.

"What Bernanke’s supporters happily gloss over is the policy role that he played in both the run-up to and in the deepening of the country’s worst economic recession in the three and half years since he was first sworn in as Federal Reserve chairman in February 2006. They also make no mention of how closely involved Bernanke was with former Secretary Treasury Henry Paulson’s less than successful attempts to promote financial stability through the (correctly) much maligned Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Nor do they mention Bernanke’s involvement with the Lehman debacle.

"In rating Bernanke’s overall tenure as Federal Reserve chairman, one might start by asking why he was as passive as he was in 2006 when the worst of the sub-prime mortgage loans were being made under his watch. During that year, a total of around $600 billion in sub-prime mortgage lending, or around one half the final amount of sub-prime lending that was extended, was made on conditions that were materially more lax than earlier vintages of sub-prime lending. Indeed, it became commonplace for banks to extend loans up to 100 percent of the value of the underlying property and to make such loans to borrowers without incomes, without jobs, and without assets."

Of course, Lachman's analysis assumes that these events could have been forecast effectively. It's not clear to me that anyone but a handlful of highly knowledgeable financial analysts really understanood the implications of subprime mortgage foreclosure fall-out on the financial services industry. It wasn't the subprime lending per se, it was the peculiar way the loans and guarantees were packaged into mortgage backed securities.

Freedom in 50 States: A New Study

shirley.ybarra@reason.org (Shirley Ybarra) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 07:53:00 EDT

The Georgia Public Policy Foundation's Friday Facts, point out a new report from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University entitled Freedom in 50 States: An Index of Personal and Economic Freedom. The authors of the report, William Ruger (currently serving in Afganistan) and Jason Sorens present "...the first-ever comprehensive ranking of the American states on their public policies affecting individual freedoms in the economic, social, and personal spheres." All of the data used is publicly available:

"This study improves on prior attempts to score economic freedom for American states in three primary ways: (1) it includes measures of social and personal freedoms such as peaceable citizens’ rights to educate their own children, own and carry firearms, and be free from unreasonable search and seizure; (2) it includes far more variables, even on economic policies alone, than prior studies, and there are no missing data on any variable; and (3) it uses new, more accurate measurements of key variables, particularly state fiscal policies.

We find that the freest states in the country are New Hampshire, Colorado, and South Dakota, which together achieve a virtual tie for first place. All three states feature low taxes and government spending and middling levels of regulation and paternalism. New York is the least free by a considerable margin, followed by New Jersey, Rhode Island, California, and Maryland. On personal freedom alone, Alaska is the clear winner, while Maryland brings up the rear. As for freedom in the different regions of the country, the Mountain and West North Central regions are the freest overall while the Middle Atlantic lags far behind on both economic and personal freedom. Regression analysis demonstrates that states enjoying more economic and personal freedom tend to attract substantially higher rates of internal net migration."

It is well worth a read. Handy maps are presented as well as a state-by-state analysis with comments at the end of the report.

State Budget Woes Worsen

leonard.gilroy@reason.org (Leonard Gilroy) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:57:00 EDT

Fiscal year 2010 is already off to an inauspicious start, and it appears that things may get worse before they get better. New data released by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities this week indicate that budget woes are mounting (emphasis mine):

[Fiscal Year 2010] brings an austere continuation of recession-driven cuts in essential services and poor prospects for improvement through 2011, according to a series of updated reports on state budget conditions issued today by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

The reports include new data on state budgets showing that:

- The total shortfall for fiscal year 2010 — including gaps that have been addressed through budget cuts and other measures, and newly emergent gaps — now totals $166 billion across 48 states. Total gaps through 2011 will exceed $350 billion.

- At least 39 states have made cuts that harm vulnerable residents to help close budget gaps.

- The federal economic recovery act is providing needed relief, reducing the size and extent of cuts and closing roughly 40 percent of state budget shortfalls.

- Twenty five states have raised taxes this year and another 12 are considering doing so, as states increasingly realize that the budget holes are too big to be filled by cuts alone.

"State policymakers face an increasingly challenging battle against an economy that is still getting weaker," said Nicholas Johnson, director of the Center’s State Fiscal Project. "There is no letup in sight when it comes to making hard choices."

An April report on state fiscal conditions released by the National Association of State Budget Officers and the National Governors Association offers a similarly bleak outlook for states in the near term. Reducing the price of government should be the #1 priority of state policymakers if they ever hope to get back on a path of fiscal sustainability.

» Reason's Privatization Research and Commentary

Union Against Union

shikha.dalmia@reason.org (Shikha Dalmia) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:45:00 EDT

Guess who is now expressing concern that scrapping the right of workers to hold a secret ballot before forming a union - as the so-called card check bill would do -- will lead to intimidation and harassment of workers by union apparatchiks?

Evil Republicans? No. Those rapacious exploiters at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce? Nah. Reactionaries at the Reason Foundation. Wrong again.

The correct answer is: The Service Employees International Union. Yup - you heard it right. The very same union that has been at the forefront of pushing the card check bill otherwise called the Employee No Choice - oops, sorry! - Free Choice Act in Congress.

But before anyone gets too excited, bear in mind that SEIU has not formally withdrawn its support for this travesty. However, it basically ceded the case of the bill's critics recently when it challenged its rival, National Union of Healthcare Workers', attempt to represent nearly 100,000 of its members in California. SEIU claimed that the National Union's modus operandi, which involved asking workers to sign a petition, might not reflect the true feelings of the workers because they might have felt pressured to sign!

The irony isn't lost on the National Union Vice President John Borsos, who told Los Angeles Times reporter Paul Pringle: "The SEIU is advocating free choice for every employee in the United States, unless you're an SEIU member." I wouldn't call a card-check process "free choice" -- but you get the point.

Incidentally, the bill, whose prospects had been near dead in Congress, thanks to the threat of a Republican filibuster, had gotten a shot in the arm with the seating of EFCA-supporter Al Franken to the Senate last week and Sen. Arlen Specter's decision to switch his position, yet again, after he moved over to the Democratic side of the aisle.

At a recent union rally, Specter assured attendees that they should disregard his previous opposition to the bill. "I believe you will be satisfied with my vote on this issue," he said.

It remains to be seen if Specter's switch will be cancelled by the SEIU's to neutralize the bill yet again!

Film at Eleven.

New FDIC Rule Proposals Would Restrict Private Equity Investment in Failed Banks

anthony.randazzo@reason.org (Anthony Randazzo) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:14:00 EDT

Earlier today, the FDIC voted to move forward a proposal that would place restrictions on private equity groups seeking to participate in restoring failed banks. The WSJ reports:

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.'s board of directors on Thursday voted to seek comment on a proposal that would set new limits on allowing private equity firms to purchase failed banks. The staff proposal calls for investors to maintain certain capital levels at the acquired bank—a minimum 15% Tier 1 leverage ratio for at least three years—and would put other restrictions on ownership changes and where credit can be extended.

Beyond the capital requirements, the proposal would prevent certain types of investment structures from purchasing a failed FDIC-insured institution. Specifically, agency staff said it would not be appropriate to allow firms "involving complex and functionally opaque ownership structures" to buy a failed bank. Bair said the FDIC has already received bids from some firms whose legal structures raised red flags, which is one of the reasons they want to put the new rules in place.

This proposal is troubling, especially considering there have been 51 bank failures in the past 18 months. When private equity very interested in investing in these failed banks to bring them out of bankruptcy, such restrictions threaten to extend the amount of time failed banks feed off FDIC life support. The WSJ report continues:

But critics were quick to suggest the proposal in its current form would be too prohibitive and would discourage private equity investment.

"It may be well intentioned but I think it could guarantee that there will be no more private equity coming into banks," investor Wilbur Ross told Dow Jones Newswires. Ross' investment firm was part of the private-equity consortium that negotiated with the FDIC to acquire failed Florida bank BankUnited FSB in May. [...]

Comptroller of the Currency John Dugan said he was concerned that some of the restrictions are too onerous, and suggested they should be scaled back before a final rule is put in place.

Dugan was not alone in his concerns. The requirement to keep the bank "well capitalized" even after three years and other restrictions that could affect smaller shareholders could dissuade private equity firms from buying banks, said Lawrence Kaplan, an attorney at Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP.

"Even in proposed format, it's very frightening to entities that are not used to dealing with the government," Mr. Kaplan, a former attorney at the Office of Thrift Supervision, said of the proposal.

So the question becomes, why is the FDIC doing this?

"There is a significant need for capital and there's significant capital out there...We want to accommodate that, but accommodate it in a way that is prudent," FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair said in a statement. [...]

Regulators, however, are wary that private investors may not be committed to the long-term ownership of a healthy bank and that allowing some firms into the market could just result in future bank failures.

"We are particularly concerned with the owners' ability to support depository institutions with adequate capital and management expertise," Ms. Bair said.

Thus is the problem with market regulation, it too often restricts opportunities to create wealth. It is understandable that the FDIC be prudent in who is sells the banks it has receivership power over too. Afterall, they have to clean up the mess if the bank fails again. But it is also imprudent to require three year interest stakes in a bank when dozens of banks are sitting around looking for buyers.

Highlights from SF Fed President Yellen's Speech

anthony.randazzo@reason.org (Anthony Randazzo) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:15:00 EDT

Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco President Janet Yellen spoke at the Commonwealth Club of California on Tuesday about the progress of economic recovery. There has been some speculation that she might succeed Ben Bernanke as Fed Chairman when his term ends next year. She expects a slow recovery, but recovery nonetheless. Here are highlights from her speech:

I am not going to go into detail about the alphabet soup of Fed programs created during this period [fall of 2008]. But I want to stress that these policies—in some cases improvised in very short order—did succeed in averting a full-blown meltdown. The panic of 2008 subsided. Increasingly, banks and corporations have been able to raise funds on reasonable terms. Confidence in the financial system is slowly returning...

The news during the past few months has been encouraging. Even though house prices are continuing to fall in most markets, housing sales and new construction appear to have stabilized. Consumers have recovered some spirit and their spending has also stabilized, thanks in part to government stimulus programs. Payrolls are still shrinking at an awful pace, but the momentum of job losses has slowed considerably in the past two months.

Financial markets are in much better shape today than we ever would have dreamed six months ago. Investors have gone from disregarding risk, to being paralyzed by it, to once again being willing to take on a reasonable bit. The stock market has rallied and investor appetite for corporate bonds and other assets has rebounded, restoring access to capital for healthy companies. Even so, I am concerned that mortgage rates, which have risen of late, could place a drag on a still very sick housing market, potentially driving home prices still lower and pushing more borrowers into foreclosure. The recent run-up in oil prices may also reflect greater confidence in the global outlook...

I expect the recession will end sometime later this year. That would make it the longest and probably deepest downturn since the Great Depression. Growth will come from a variety of sources. One is federal government spending resulting from the stimulus program passed by Congress earlier this year. This package provides tax cuts that leave more cash in consumers’ pockets, as well as direct government spending increases that add to payrolls and boost economic output. But it will take more than fiscal policy to really get the economy moving forward...

History also teaches us that it often takes a long time to recover from downturns caused by financial crises. In particular, financial institutions and markets won’t heal overnight. Our major banks have made excellent progress in establishing the capital buffers needed to continue lending even through a downturn that is more serious than we anticipate. But they are still nursing their wounds and credit will remain tight for some time to come...

If the economy fails to recover soon, it is conceivable that this very low inflation could turn into outright deflation. Worse still, if deflation were to intensify, we could find ourselves in a devastating spiral in which prices fall at an ever-faster pace and economic activity sinks more and more. But I don’t view this as likely. The vigorous policy actions of the Fed and other central banks, combined with sizable fiscal stimulus here and abroad, have sent a clear message that deflation won’t be tolerated. Based on measures of inflation expectations, the public appears confident that the Fed will adopt policies that will maintain a low, positive rate of inflation.

Public Option is an Economic Nightmare

anthony.randazzo@reason.org (Anthony Randazzo) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:09:00 EDT

In a town hall speech yesterday, the President made a pitch for his health care plan, arguing it makes economic sense. I am not a health care expert, but I do think about things in economic terms. The President may make an argument about universal health care as just. He may say it would benefit the medical community. He could argue that a public option would save lives. On those arguments and more I would direct you to my colleague Shikha Dalmia, and her recent column in Forbes.

But the President can not argue that ObamaCare would be an economic boon. From an economics perspective, and as someone who wants affordable health coverage, this is my thought process:

Why would I want my employer to pay for health care, if I can get it cheaper from the government? Why not just get it from the government and have my employer pay me what would have gone to Blue Cross?

The answer is that the public option will probably be lower quality than private insurance. Otherwise it would make more economic sense to go with the government option. At the President's town hall yesterday, a woman named Debby Smith broke down crying that she has kidney cancer and no way to treat it. If the public option could help anyone with this problem, everyone would flock to it. But that's not how the public option is being designed, it is only intended to cover a percentage of those currently uninsured. So, ostensibly, the $1.6 trillion public option draft legislation (according to the CBO) and mandate—not $1 trillion as the President originally laid out—will create a lower quality service for some of those that don't have coverage now. How does that help all the Debby Smiths?

Now, the only way a lower quality insurance program will work is to ration services. Which means not helping everyone. It also means long waits and picking and choosing who gets help. But at least some people would be helped, right? The question becomes, is spending $1.6 trillion worth it for getting a handful of American's health coverage? From an economics perspective, no. Even if the public option could help everyone under its plan, it wouldn't be a good use money because we have no way to pay for it and the nation is already trillions in debt.

Now lets say that the ObamaCare public option is successful. Suppose Uncle Sam can keep costs down and provide for people (the goal). If it is working then I will want to be a part of it. And so will everyone else. That's the prudent financial decision. Suddenly the public option starts pulling people away from private companies. Those companies will need to charge more for their decreased number of clients.

Eventually, the private insurance companies will be charging very high premiums, putting a strain on businesses who are providing coverage, and the costs to individuals. In the mean time the public option will be over run, and be maxed beyond its capacity. Can we have a single payer system work in America? According to President Obama, no we can not. He said yesterday that the government is not capable of running all health care in this country, which is why his public option isn't trying to take people from the private system.

Ultimately, from an economic perspective, either the public option works and draws in a lots of people until it can't anymore, or it doesn't work and is an economic mess. Either way, it's not pretty.

Update: I originally misstated the CBO's scoring of universal health care spending. They said on June 16 that the universal health care draft bill being considered then would cost $1.6 trillion, but that did not include the cost of a public option. Which means the public option could increase the cost of the legislation if it is not completely paid for by premiums. Of course the final ObamaCare bill could be lower, but even if it is $500 billion, it doesn't change the broader financial status of the federal government—severely in debt.

Privatization Leader Sandy Springs, GA Continues to Innovate

leonard.gilroy@reason.org (Leonard Gilroy) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:30:00 EDT

Regular readers of this blog are certainly familiar with the young city of Sandy Springs, Georgia, which seceded from Fulton County in late 2005 and, rather than creating a traditional city government, hired a contractor to manage all of the city's administrative functions and perform all of the hands-on, non-safety-related parts of the government. Sandy Springs' successes have even inspired four other nearby communities to incorporate since 2006 and follow its contract city model, as discussed in Reason Foundation's Annual Privatization Report 2008.

Last Saturday, an article by Atlanta Journal-Constitution reporter April Hunt shows that Sandy Springs continues to break ground, as evidenced by a new program to offer cash incentives for employee innovation. An excerpt (emphasis mine):

Sandy Springs, whose existence is a model of municipal privatization, has adopted a policy it hopes will keep it in the forefront of the movement to deliver local government services in new ways.

The city’s recently adopted innovation and visioning policy sets up a formal quarterly process for city workers to offer, and be rewarded for, new ideas and suggestions on how to best serve the 87,000 people in the northern Fulton County city.

That most of those workers are actually employees of a private firm the city contracts with for its basic functions is exactly the point. “We started with a blank sheet of paper starting this government, and I don’t ever want to throw that blank sheet away,” said Councilman Rusty Paul, who fashioned the policy. “We must continually look at how else we can do things.”

Voters carved the suburban city out of Fulton County nearly four years ago in large part out of a belief that the taxes they paid subsidized emergency services and infrastructure needs in the southern part of the county. Elected officials, all of whom actively pushed for cityhood, immediately recognized those needs as priorities when Sandy Springs incorporated on Dec. 1, 2005.

The city has since spent about $15 million to pave 63 miles of roads and $2 million to put sidewalks on all main roads and around schools. Another $4 million will be spent in the coming year for both programs and, for the first time, to begin rebuilding the city’s worst streets. [...]

The policy calls for more than just ideas, though. A review process will be set up, to test ideas and allow for feedback to perfect, for example, how the city will partner with nonprofits to further develop parks.

The employee who offers up the idea will receive a one-time merit bump of a few hundred dollars in his or her paycheck. That bonus program is already included in the budget. “This says a lot about us,” said Councilman Tibby DeJulio. “We have a vision for vision.”

Incentives like these are critical for facilitating dynamic government by offering a formal mechanism that effectively creates continual tension in the system. If other "traditional" cities were as fiscally responsible as Sandy Springs, they too might be in a position to appropriate funds for similar programs. Unfortunately, right now, many local governments are just trying to stop the fiscal bleeding.

More on Sandy Springs here, here, here and here.

VP Biden on Broadband "Information Overline"

steven.titch@reason.org (Steven Titch) — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:55:00 EDT

You knew the White House was taking its chances sending out Vice President Joe Biden to talk up the broadband stimulus. And Old Joe was on form, as usual.

This afternoon outside Erie, Pa., the veep was on hand to announce the criteria the federal government will use to hand out $7.2 billion in stimulus funds aimed at developing the broadband infrastructure in underserved areas.

In his address to 200 people at Seneca High School near Erie, The Wall Street Journal reported Biden saying, “The bottom line is, you can't function -- a nation can't compete in the 21st century -- without an immediate, high-quality access for everything from streaming video to information overline.”

Commenters are invited to speculate exactly what “information overline” is. Yeah, it’s funny, until you realize the vice president in an administration that has called for an unprecedented level of aggressive and pre-emptive Internet regulation can’t even speak articulately about basic broadband connectivity.

For more Bidenisms, see this Reason.tv clip.

Pittsburgh to Privatize City Parking Garages

leonard.gilroy@reason.org (Leonard Gilroy) — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:27:00 EDT

The Pittsburgh Business Times reports that the Pittsburgh City Council has approved a five-year fiscal recovery plan that includes a section authorizing the privatization of the City's parking garages. Sounds like they're learning some lessons from Chicago, which privatized four downtown parking garages in a $563 million deal in 2006.

More details to come on Pittsburgh's plans as they're available.

Defending Complex Contracts from a Consumer Protection Agency

anthony.randazzo@reason.org (Anthony Randazzo) — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:10:00 EDT

The White House unveiled details on a key part of its regulatory reform plan yesterday, sending a 152-page draft bill to Congress to create a Consumer Financial Protection Agency. The Washington Post reports the bill suggests establishing a five-member board to run the new agency: four individuals nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, plus the new head of the National Bank Supervisor (another proposed, consolidation agency, by the administration).

One of the main policy objectives of the administration is to protect consumers. Part of that objective is the proposed creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA). This new federal agency would be tasked with protecting consumers from "unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices" of credit card companies, mortgage lenders, commodities traders, mutual fund brokers, and other firms that originate products.

President Obama said that, if the bill becomes law, "Those ridiculous contracts with pages of fine print that no one can figure out—those things will be a thing of the past." I've seen a lot of this talk recently, about complicated contract terms. It is one of the leading issues driving reform efforts to make things easier for consumers. What I haven't seen much of is anyone standing up for the complicated contracts.

I'll grant that contracts are written with terms designed to maximise profit (that's just good business) and often have sneaky tricks. But that said, the push for simplification seems incredibly American—the lazy part of being an American. Is it too much to expect that someone buying a house or taking out a credit card should be able understand the deal they are making? If someone is responsible enough to own a home, they should be responsible enough to read a mortgage contract. This doesn't speak well to the education level in our country. Reading through a credit card contract should be a teenage rite of passage before getting your first card (I was nerdy enough at 15 to read several, trying to get my mind around the system). Or if you prefer, don't read the contract (it is your free right after all) and find out through the learning process called experience.

I guess I just don't understand how putting financial product contracts in simpler terms solves any problems. Fine print didn't cause the financial crisis, irresponsible lenders and borrowers did. It would seem that understanding a contract is a good threshold for whether someone is a good credit risk.

Ironically, another American tradition has been a key driver of complicated contracts: the frivolous lawsuit. Many financial product contracts are highly detailed to cover all potential legal scenarios. How ironic would it be if the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit lady got confused about a mortgage contract and wound up defaulting? Sometimes, legal concepts just need to be put in legal terms... kind of like bills in Congress. Here is a challenge for lawmakers, if simplicity is important for protecting individuals, then write laws that the average American can understand. Put the CFPA bill in short, easy to understand terms. Why not?

To be clear: I understand the value of a simple contract. But I don't understand how increasing compliance and production costs for firms by forcing simple contracts solves any problems. It seems letting banks use the simplicity of forms as a competitive advantage would yield better results: "We're Wells Fargo: simple terms, simple prices" or "JP Morgan Chase: where the only complex choice you have to make is what to do with all the money you'll earn through our products."

More Legislative Roadblocks Over Private Toll Roads in Texas?

leonard.gilroy@reason.org (Leonard Gilroy) — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:14:00 EDT

Just hours into a special session called in part to address the need to extend and modify the state's authority to enter into private toll road contracts, the Austin American-Statesman reports that the prospects of resolution may be dimming as Texas legislators seemingly continue to be held politically hostage by solution-less opponents of road privatization.

Ironically, these opponents have gotten a lot of mileage out of their disingenuous "tolls=taxes" rhetoric (toll roads are voluntary—i.e., you don't drive them if you don't want to pay; meanwhile, when was the last time you paid a "voluntary" tax?). Yet, when asked to present their solution for Texas' massive transportation funding gap, opponents' only proposed fix is to...(drumroll)...raise the gas tax. Last time I checked, fuel taxes are mandatory and tolls are not, but that seemingly intuitive point remains lost on many Texas legislators.

So instead of recognizing that, for example, the recently completed private contract to develop the multi-billion dollar, congestion-busting North Tarrant Express project in the Metroplex area is the only realistic way that vital project would have ever been completed, many legislators seem content to ignore such evidence and remain fiddling on toll roads while Texas transportation burns.

The status quo is failing to deliver the infrastructure Texas needs to remain economically competitive over the long-term, and the sooner legislators realize that they need all financing tools at their disposal—including private toll concessions—the better. For more on the Texas toll road situation, see here and here.

» Reason's Transportation Research and Commentary

(Un)Happy New Fiscal Year: Tax Hikes, Missed Budget Deadlines, State Shutdowns and Ongoing Fiscal Woes

leonard.gilroy@reason.org (Leonard Gilroy) — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:31:00 EDT

Today, forty-six states begin Fiscal Year 2010, but ongoing fiscal woes and the widespread rollout of economy-dampening tax and fee hikes promise to make this one of the more challenging budget years in some time for cash-strapped states. As Stephen Fehr at Stateline.org reports today, FY 2010 is already off to an inauspicious start:

Four states closed billions of dollars in budget shortfalls and approved spending plans in the last 24 hours, but legislatures and governors in six states were still far apart on their budgets as the fiscal year began Wednesday (July 1).

Indiana, Mississippi and Delaware averted disruptions in government services by approving budgets in time for the new fiscal year. It was not immediately clear whether Arizona would escape a shutdown, even though its Legislature sent Gov. Jan Brewer (R) a final-hour $8.4 billion budget plan. The budget did not contain a temporary sales tax proposal the governor had sought to put on the November ballot. If she vetoes the budget, the government could stop operating. [...]

States without budgets on the first day of the new fiscal year are Connecticut, Illinois, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Ohio. California lawmakers approved a budget in February but falling revenue has knocked it out of balance by $24 billion.

California officials said they will be forced to issue IOUs because they will not have the money to pay all of the state's bills. Pennsylvania and Illinois officials say they will keep essential operations going, but a protracted stalemate could begin affecting day-to-day services in those states in a few weeks.

Shutdowns were not a threat in Connecticut, North Carolina and Ohio, even without a new budget plan in time, because those states have provisions to temporarily spend without a budget. [...]

The last time so many states blew the deadline was two years ago, when six states could not agree on a budget by July 1. The widening of the problem this year reflects a steady drop in tax revenue because of the recession, which has forced 48 states nationwide to close $166 billion of budget gaps.

Even in states that have approved budgets, July 1 is a day of reckoning because many of the budget cuts and tax and fee increases enacted by legislatures go into effect. In Nevada, for example, a record $1 billion in tax increases begin; Las Vegas now has an 8.1 percent sales tax. Twenty-five states boosted taxes this year, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington, D.C., think tank.

Hardly a week goes by without another state budget problem surfacing. On Tuesday, Kansas Gov. Mark Parkinson (D) said that since the Legislature approved a pared-down state budget earlier this year, tax revenue has fallen so sharply in May and June that another $135 million in cuts will be needed as the fiscal year begins.

Without the federal economic stimulus package, state budgets would be even more out of whack. Stimulus money has closed about 40 percent of state budget shortfalls, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

In many ways, while we did see some modest state belt-tightening in FY 2009 and a lot of interest in privatization, streamlining government, and developing fiscally sustainable budget tools and processes, the influx of federal stimulus dollars papered over budget problems in many states and helped policymakers avoid making necessary and politically unpopular decisions.

Despite routine Chicken Little claims of "decimating vital programs" and "cutting needed spending to the bone" across the states (a guaranteed rhetorical response to cutting ANY spending), draconian cuts hardly occurred in most states. Spending cuts rarely exceeded 10 percent (hardly "decimating") for agencies, programs or categorical spending, by and large, in most places.

But the stimulus gravy train is going to run out, and policymakers are going to have to starting facing the inevitability of substantial reductions in the size, scope and price of government in earnest this fiscal year to close well in excess of $150 billion in budget deficits this year. That's why, for example, the Arizona House of Representatives' decision yesterday to let politics destroy a bill that would have created the strongest privatization and government efficiency board in the nation is so disheartening and puzzling (it obviously wasn't a statement on privatization, as there are several discrete privatization and asset sale/lease proposals embedded in the budget). Conversely, the looming intensification of the budget crunch also explains why the Louisiana legislature's passage of a bill codifying Gov. Bobby Jindal's Commission on Streamlining Government into statute is such a prescient and sensible action.

Solutions like these need to become part of the fiscal solution for states immediately, because if you think "Happy New Fiscal Year" sounds like a joke now, just wait until this time next year. The only thing standing between a "Year of Fiscal Responsibility" and a "Year of Budget Insanity" is the political will to take the necessary steps to reduce the cost of government.

» Reason's Privatization Research and Commentary

Public Pension Shortfall is Worse than You Think

adrian.moore@reason.org (Adrian Moore) — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 12:58:00 EDT

A new research paper, "Public Pension Promises: How Big are They and What are They Worth?," from the University of Chicago looks at nationwide public pension obligations and funding. The author's summarize the paper as:

We calculate two present value measures of already-promised state pension liabilities using discount rates that reflect their risk. If benefits have the same priority in default as general obligation debt, aggregate underfunding is $1.21 trillion. If states cannot default on these benefits, underfunding is $3.12 trillion. The first measure is a lower bound on the value of the liability to taxpayers, and is more than the $0.94 trillion in state municipal debt. The second measure is a better benchmark for funding adequacy. We also estimate broader concepts of accrued liabilities that account for projected salary growth and future service.

You can download the paper here.

From their conclusion

[O]ur calculations focus only on liabilities accrued until now. Our summary numbers therefore assume that states will fully fund new liabilities accrued in the future, both from current and future workers. Munnell et al (2008) report that 57% of state and local governments paid their full Annual Required Contributions (ARCs) in 2006, with 16% contributing 80-99%, 13% contributing 60-79%, and 14% even less than 60%. Mitchell and Smith (1994) find wide variations in this funding behavior. Since there is no material penalty for not funding newly accrued benefits (i.e. for violating the ARCs implied in the funding standards), states do not always comply with funding to their own standards.

and

as shown by Lucas and Zeldes (2009), if taxation to correct pension underfunding has nonlinear distortionary costs, investing underfunded public pensions in risky assets with high expected returns and high volatility may impose a large expected cost of distortionary taxation on future generations.

The bottom line of this paper is that:

a) By the most realistic measure, public pensions in America are underfunded by more than $10 trillion.

b) Future taxes to pay for the benefits promised but not funded by current political leaders will be very burdensome and will distort the economy.

Future generations will curse us for this.

Obama's Not-So-Noble Health Care Lies

shikha.dalmia@reason.org (Shikha Dalmia) — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 12:51:00 EDT

Obama came to office, not as a mere mortal - but a near deity who was going to elevate the cesspool that is politics by always telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god. But as I argue in my Forbes column this morning, when it comes to healthcare, Obama has only told lies, lies and more lies.

As I note:

"Lie One: No one will be compelled to buy coverage.

During the campaign, Obama insisted that he would not resort to an individual mandate to achieve universal coverage. In fact, he repeatedly ripped Hillary Clinton's plan for proposing one. "To force people to buy coverage," he insisted, "you've got to have a very harsh penalty." What will this penalty be, he demanded? "Are you going to garnish their wages?" he asked Hillary in one debate.

Yet now, Obama is behaving as if he said never a hostile word about the mandate. Earlier this month, in a letter to Sens. Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., he blithely declared that he was all for "making every American responsible for having health insurance coverage, and making employers share in the cost."

But just like Hillary, he is refusing to say precisely what he will do to those who want to forgo insurance. There is a name for such a health care approach: It is called TonySporanoCare.

Lie Two: No new taxes on employer benefits.

Obama took his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, to the mat for suggesting that it might be better to remove the existing health care tax break that individuals get on their employer-sponsored coverage, but return the vast bulk--if not all--of the resulting revenues in the form of health care tax credits. This would theoretically have made coverage both more affordable and portable for everyone. Obama, however, would have none of it, portraying this idea simply as the removal of a tax break. "For the first time in history, he wants to tax your health benefits," he thundered. "Apparently, Sen. McCain doesn't think it's enough that your health premiums have doubled. He thinks you should have to pay taxes on them too."

Yet now Obama is signaling his willingness to go along with a far worse scheme to tax employer-sponsored benefits to fund the $1.6 trillion or so it will cost to provide universal coverage. Contrary to Obama's allegations, McCain's plan did not ultimately entail a net tax increase because he intended to return to individuals whatever money was raised by scrapping the tax deduction. Not so with Obama. He apparently told Sen. Baucus that he would consider the senator's plan for rolling back the tax exclusion that expensive, Cadillac-style employer-sponsored plans enjoy, in order to pay for universal coverage. But, unlike McCain, he has said nothing about putting offsetting deductions or credits in the hands of individuals.

In other words, Obama might well end up doing what McCain never set out to do: Impose a net tax increase on health benefits for the first time in history.................."

For three more lies, go here.

More Casualties of Internet Tax Overreach

steven.titch@reason.org (Steven Titch) — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 12:29:00 EDT

Overstock.com is ending its marketing affiliate program in four states that have passed dubious legislation declaring online affiliates the equivalent of a brick-and-mortar shops, thereby making Overstock.com and other online retailers subject to sales taxes. New York State attempted this last year but reversed course after Overstock threatened to end its affiliate program in the Empire State passed a similar law last year and Overstock dropped 3400 affiliates in the Empire State.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

Overstock.com Inc. informed its marketing affiliates in California, Hawaii, North Carolina and Rhode Island that it is ending its business with them to avoid collecting sales tax.

Lawmakers in the states have passed or are preparing to pass legislation that would require companies to collect sales tax if they have marketing affiliates in the state. Affiliate marketers run blogs or Web sites and get a sales commission by featuring links to outside e-commerce sites.

Rival Amazon.com Inc. has taken similar steps in the past few days, ending ties with affiliates in three of the same states and warning about California.

"It's painful to have to terminate these relationships with affiliates, simply because they live in states where counterproductive (and likely unconstitutional) laws are being passed," Overstock Chairman and Chief Executive Patrick Byrne said. "However, politicians have to remember that a tax is a price that government charges for a service, and when they raise their prices, we're going to buy less of their services."

Defining online affiliates as a physical "nexus" is a stretch to begin with. Affiliates are not merchants. In many cases they are Mom-and-Pop website set-ups that do not sell products online but earn a commission based on sales they generate through “clickthroughs” on advertising links they host. At the same time, such sales taxes, which rely solely on semantics to reach across state lines, arguably violate the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution. In the meantime, the habit of many state governments have of turning to telecom and the Internet to feed their tax-and-spend ways continues to kill the very e-commerce development that has been boosting household incomes.

Arizona Privatization/Efficiency Board Bill Falls Victim to Toxic Budget Politics

leonard.gilroy@reason.org (Leonard Gilroy) — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 11:17:00 EDT

Having passed the full Senate and the House Appropriations Committee in recent weeks, Arizona's SB 1466 (see here and here for details) came two votes shy of passage in the full House yesterday (29-30-1) amid the chaotic scramble to pass a budget to avoid a government shutdown.

It would be less frustrating if the vote was based on the policy merits, but by all accounts policy and logic had nothing to do with it. Rather, despite the support of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Americans for Tax Reform, Americans for Prosperity and a number of other influential groups, several House members decided to tank SB 1466 purely as a personal shot against the bill sponsor in retaliation for her positions on unrelated pieces of the budget package.

It's certainly not the first time good policy fell victim to stupid politics, and it won't be the last. But to let personal politics trump sound fiscal policy in a state facing among the worst budget problems in the country is downright immature and serves taxpayers appallingly poorly.

Way to utterly squander an opportunity, guys. Get ready to see this bill again, as the budget problems aren't going away anytime soon in Arizona.

Federal Highways Report on HOT Lanes

shirley.ybarra@reason.org (Shirley Ybarra) — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 11:14:00 EDT

An excellent report about high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes has just been posted on the Federal Highway Administration website.

HOT lanes operate beside existing highway lanes and offer users choice. Carpools with three or more people in the car (HOV 3), van pools, buses and motorcycles travel for free on the HOT lanes. Drivers traveling alone or with only one other person have a choice: They can stay in the existing free lanes or pay a toll to travel faster in the HOT lanes. Tolls are based on real time traffic conditions. When traffic is heaviest the tolls are the highest. This variable toll pricing (also known as congestion pricing) limits the number of vehicles entering the HOT lanes, to keep them free flowing at the maximum speed allowed. Most operators of HOT lanes have a toll system that allows drivers to pay tolls and enter the lanes without slowing down; there are no toll booths.
An excellent report and a serious guide for state transportation officials however the authors did not recognize the history of HOT lanes and congestion pricing as well they should have.

Hence the reasons for my post: 1) to highlight the report and 2) to give my colleague Bob Poole the credit he deserves.

Bob Poole, founder of Reason first wrote about congestion pricing in 1988 here and about HOT lanes in 1993 here.

A long time in coming but the good news is we are seeing numerous projects around the country utilizing HOT lanes and congestion pricing in states including: California, Washington, Minnesota, Virginia, Florida and Texas.