Cato Op-Eds

Individual Liberty, Free Markets, and Peace
Subscribe to Cato Op-Eds feed

A New York Times/CBS News poll from 2013 asks, “Which is more important to you – to protect American industries and jobs by limiting imports from other countries, or to allow free trade so you can buy good products at low prices no matter what country they come from?” I like this question because it addresses protectionism as a policy rather than trade agreements.

When the options were protectionism or free trade, the result was 51% in favor of limiting imports and 41% supporting free trade.  Now that isn’t a majority of American favoring free trade, but it strikes me as an incredibly high number considering how broadly the question is worded.  It didn’t ask if we should lower tariffs; it asked if we should have any at all?  Do 41% of Americans really oppose all tariffs?

That’s worth keeping in mind as the public becomes more involved in the debate over trade promotion authority and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.  We’re going to be hearing more from the news media about Americans’ attitudes toward trade and globalization, and it’s important to remember that polls about trade vary greatly depending on how the question is worded. 

A 2013 Gallup poll focusing on general attitudes toward trade asked respondents, “Do you see foreign trade more as an opportunity for economic growth through increased U.S. exports or a threat to the economy from foreign imports?”  The problem with this question is that it assumes that trade is supposed to meet some mercantilist goal of exports exceeding imports and asks whether that goal is being met.  Unfortunately, this is how most supporters of the TPP have framed their arguments.  Still, the poll found support for trade at 57% with 35% opposed.

A new Pew Research Center poll shows that most Americans think trade agreements have been good for the United States, but when asked whether those agreements have been good for them personally, the results are more mixed:

Majorities across income categories say free trade agreements have been a positive thing for the U.S., but there are much wider income differences in opinions about the personal impact of free trade agreements.

Overall, somewhat more say their family’s finances have been helped (43%) than hurt (36%) by free trade agreements. Among those with family incomes of $100,000 or more, far more feel they have been helped (52%) than hurt (29%) financially. But among those in the lowest income group (less than $30,000), 38% say their finances have benefited from free trade agreements, while 44% say they have been hurt.

My colleague Simon Lester has noted that these results might be different if people were more informed about the regressive costs of protectionism.

Trade opponents have been quick to point out that polls about past agreements don’t actually ask if people support the TPP.  They also point to other polls that show strong public opposition when the question links trade agreements to specific hot-button issues like currency manipulation or outsourcing. 

Shawn Donnan of the Financial Times has noted how the Pew poll demonstrates a disconnect between the American public and their elected representatives.

What is remarkable is the consistency with which polls have pointed to support for trade and trade agreements in some important demographics.

Polls have shown a majority of Democratic voters support trade agreements even as most of the party’s representatives in both houses of Congress do not. The same is true for Republicans, voters under 30 and Hispanics, last week’s Pew poll found.

In fact the Pew survey found that a majority in all income groups thought trade agreements had been a “good thing” for the US economy even if they took contrasting views on what the impact had been on their own family finances.

Largely because of the political discourse in Washington, the US often looks from the outside like a parochial nation in retreat from the world, particularly when it is put up against a resurgent China. But from the ground, the US seems more comfortably interconnected with the world than it has in decades.

Just as polls show Americans are more comfortable with gay marriage than they once were they also reflect the fact that Americans are more accepting of globalisation than they have been in the past.

One of the criticisms of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) is that it’s “not about trade.”  While it is true that the TPP goes beyond trade, and addresses issues such as labor, environment and intellectual property protection (in ways that I’m not always happy about), its impact on traditional protectionist measures such as tariffs should not be ignored.  Here is Politico on this issue:

Vietnam slaps tariffs of 70 percent on U.S. cars and machinery, 35 percent on U.S. chemicals, 30 percent on U.S. biscuits and baked goods, and 25 percent on U.S. recording equipment. Japan marks up our oranges 16 percent from June through November and 32 percent from December through May; it marks up our beef exports 38.5 percent all year long. Cars made in America face a 30 percent tariff in Malaysia, which might not seem stiff compared to 50 percent on motorcycles or 35 percent on plywood, except that cars made in Japan and other Asian nations don’t face any tariff in Malaysia.

These burdensome overseas tariffs, provided to POLITICO by US Trade Representative Michael Froman, are the kind of problems President Obama hopes to address with the free trade deal known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which has not yet been finalized but has recently erupted into one of the most contentious topics on Washington’s agenda. 

Overall, the U.S. imposes an average tariff of 1.4 percent on foreign goods, less than half the average for the rest of the nations Froman is negotiating with, barely a fourth the average in Vietnam and Malaysia. And it can get much worse for specific industries and products. TPP nations have tariffs ranging up to 100 percent on textiles, 87 percent on corn, and 75 percent on consumer goods, not to mention selected Japanese tariffs that amount to 189 percent on U.S. shoes and a don’t-even-think-about-it 778 percent on U.S. rice above a certain annual quota.

Even our friendly trading partner to the north has some brutal anti-American protectionism on its books. The North American Free Trade Agreement of 1994 broke down a slew of barriers between the U.S. and Canada, but it exempted the poultry and dairy industries, which is why U.S. eggs face tariffs of up to 163.5 percent—and not less than 79.9 cents per dozen—in the land of ice hockey and eh. U.S. yogurt, milk, cheese, and frozen chicken all face tariffs between 237.5 percent and 249 percent in Canada.

Of course, when you talk to a U.S. government official, the focus will be on the protectionism of others, and U.S. protectionism will be ignored.  In reality, the U.S. is not all that great either.  Among other things, we have some “tariff peaks” of our own, we abuse anti-dumping duties, and there is lots of protectionism in government procurement (e.g., Buy America laws).  But the overall point is still valid: There is plenty of protectionism for trade agreements to take on.  The key, from my perspective, is how much of it the TPP actually gets rid of.  For that, we need to wait for the TPP to be completed, and see what the negotiators have accomplished.  Then, whatever has been achieved in this regard needs to be balanced against the other parts of the TPP.

Secretary of State John Kerry recently visited Seoul and South Korean President Park Geun-hye will head to Washington later this month. The main agenda item: what to do about North Korea.

As usual, no one knows what is going on in Pyongyang. Its internal politics appears to be bloodier than usual. Ironically, this might provide an opportunity for Washington to initiate talks over a more open bilateral relationship.

The latest rumor is that young dictator Kim Jong-un had his defense minister executed with anti-aircraft fire for disrespectful conduct. Hyon Yong-chol probably has been purged, though South Korea’s intelligence agency acknowledged that it could not confirm his gruesome death. If Hyon was executed, it probably was because the military man was plotting, or at least feared to be plotting, against the North’s leadership.

There has been striking turnover among party and military officials since Kim Jong-un took over after his father’s death in December 2011. Most dramatic was the arrest and execution of Kim’s uncle, Jang Song-taek, seen as the regime’s number two, in December 2013. Overall some 70 top apparatchiks and more than 400 lower level officials apparently have been killed this year.

This brutality towards the power elite sets Kim apart from his father and grandfather. While Kim Jong-un’s apparent penchant for executions may reflect a peculiarly sadistic nature, it more likely grows out of insecurity. Only 28 or maybe 27 when his father died, Kim’s succession was pushed extremely quickly after his father suffered a stroke in August 2008.

Although there is no sign of organized resistance to the latest Kim, continuing turnover suggests that Kim is not, or at least does not see himself, as yet secure. Instead of cowing resistance, promiscuous executions, even for acts short of actual rebellion, might make subordinates believe it is worth going for broke.

Repression is rising in other ways. For instance, the regime apparently has been employing “Patrol Teams” as press gangs to fill out its construction work force for projects to be finished by October, the 70th anniversary of the founding of the Korean Workers’ Party. The regime also has strengthened border controls with China.

If Kim retains control, none of this might matter. However, everyone is wary of something other than the usual predictable unpredictability in Pyongyang. South Korean President Park Geun-hye noted “growing concern” over “an extreme reign of terror within North Korea.”

Governance matters since the North continues to expand its nuclear capabilities. While nothing suggests that Kim is suicidal—members of the dynasty appear to prefer their virgins in this world rather than the next—Pyongyang’s decision-making process could become more unilateral, unpredictable, or both.

Unfortunately, there is little that the U.S. can do to directly influence events within the DPRK. War would be foolhardy, tougher sanctions aren’t likely to work, and the Kim regime is well beyond the reach of moral suasion.

Nor is negotiation likely to have much effect. While the North recently launched an international charm offensive, it continues to highlight weapons development and spout rehashed threats against America and the South. The Kim regime is not likely trade away the one factor causing the world to follow events in the DPRK.

Nevertheless, as I point out in Forbes, “the possibility of division and dissension in Pyongyang gives Washington a new reason to suggest direct discussions without preconditions, but with the prospect of benefits for a change in direction. If the regime is unsettled, those disaffected might benefit if Washington stood ready to reward a new approach.”

A peace treaty, diplomatic relations, and end of economic sanctions all should be on the table. It’s still a long-shot, but so is almost any other proposal to address the North.

Someday Pyongyang will change. Engagement is the best way to prepare for that day.

Like the 2009 Oscar award-winning Pixar film Up, Venezuela’s annual inflation rate has soared sky high (see the chart below). On December 31, 2014, Venezuela’s bolivar traded at a VEF/USD rate of 171 and the implied annual inflation rate stood at 169%. In May of 2015, Venezuela’s bolivar collapsed and the implied annual inflation rate broke the 500% barrier. On May 28, 2015, the VEF/USD rate was 413, a 59% depreciation in the bolivar since January 1st. Not surprisingly, the implied annual inflation rate stood at a staggering 495%.

Daniel Hannan writes in the Wall Street Journal today about Magna Carta, whose 800th anniversary will also be celebrated at a Cato conference next week. Alas, he persists in an error that I regret to say he’s made before.

Hannan is a great advocate of liberty and particularly of English liberty. His patriotism is admirable in an English representative to the European Parliament. But he fails to grasp the shift in the idea of liberty that took place in America in the 1770s. Hannan, I think correctly, celebrates Magna Carta as the great foundation of ordered liberty, of what I have called the greatest libertarian achievement in history, bringing power under the rule of law:

As Lord Denning, the most celebrated modern British jurist put it, Magna Carta was “the greatest constitutional document of all time, the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot.”

It was at Runnymede, on June 15, 1215, that the idea of the law standing above the government first took contractual form. King John accepted that he would no longer get to make the rules up as he went along. From that acceptance flowed, ultimately, all the rights and freedoms that we now take for granted: uncensored newspapers, security of property, equality before the law, habeas corpus, regular elections, sanctity of contract, jury trials.

But he goes wrong when he glosses over the change in thinking that occurred around 1776 in the American colonies:

The American Revolutionaries weren’t rejecting their identity as Englishmen; they were asserting it. As they saw it, George III was violating the “ancient constitution” just as King John and the Stuarts had done. It was therefore not just their right but their duty to resist, in the words of the delegates to the first Continental Congress in 1774, “as Englishmen our ancestors in like cases have usually done.”

Nowhere, at this stage, do we find the slightest hint that the patriots were fighting for universal rights. On the contrary, they were very clear that they were fighting for the privileges bestowed on them by Magna Carta. The concept of “no taxation without representation” was not an abstract principle. It could be found, rather, in Article 12 of the Great Charter: “No scutage or aid is to be levied in our realm except by the common counsel of our realm.” In 1775, Massachusetts duly adopted as its state seal a patriot with a sword in one hand and a copy of Magna Carta in the other.

I recount these facts to make an important, if unfashionable, point. The rights we now take for granted—freedom of speech, religion, assembly and so on—are not the natural condition of an advanced society. They were developed overwhelmingly in the language in which you are reading these words.

When we call them universal rights, we are being polite.

It’s true that the colonists came here with the spirit of English liberty running in their veins. They brought with them the books of Locke and Sydney, the examples of Lilburne and Hampden, the writings of Edward Coke. In the 18th century they read Cato’s Letters and William Blackstone. They petitioned Parliament and the king for their rights as Englishmen. 

But the Declaration of Independence marks a break in that thinking. When Thomas Jefferson sat down to write “an expression of the American mind,” he did not appeal to the rights of Englishmen. Instead, the Americans declared:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (emphases added)

They appealed not to the British Parliament nor to King George III, but rather to “the opinions of mankind…a candid world…the Supreme Judge of the world.” Hannan glosses over this when he makes reference to 1774 and writes, “Nowhere, at this stage, do we find the slightest hint that the patriots were fighting for universal rights.” True, not in 1774. But by 1776, when Thomas Paine published Common Sense, in which he defended “the natural rights of all mankind” and denounced kings as “ruffians” and “a French bastard landing with an armed banditti,” and the Continental Congress made its case on the basis of the unalienable rights of all men, American thinking had changed. Americans declared their belief in universal rights and their independence from a nation that denied those rights.

As I was researching this post, I found a similar argument from Tim Sandefur a year ago. Alas, Hannan persists in making this error year after year. Besides citing the argument of the Declaration, Sandefur presents in evidence the thoughts of John Quincy Adams on the 50th anniversary of the Constitution:

English liberties had failed [the Patriots]. From the omnipotence of Parliament the colonists appealed to the rights of man and the omnipotence of the God of battles. Union! Union! was the instinctive and simultaneous cry throughout the land. Their Congress, assembled at Philadelphia, once—twice had petitioned the king; had remonstrated to Parliament; had addressed the people of Britain, for the rights of Englishmen—in vain. Fleets and armies, the blood of Lexington, and the fires of Charlestown and Falmouth, had been the answer to petition, remonstrance and address.

Independence was declared. The colonies were transformed into States. Their inhabitants were proclaimed to be one people, renouncing all allegiance to the British crown; all co-patriotism with the British nation; all claims to chartered rights as Englishmen. Thenceforth their charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by themselves, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truths proclaimed in the Declaration…. The omnipotence of the British Parliament was vanquished. The independence of the United States of America, was not granted, but recognized. The nation had “assumed among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station, to which the laws of nature, and of nature’s God, entitled it.”

Daniel Hannan is a thoughtful, forceful, and eloquent advocate of liberty under law. But he needs to read the Declaration of Independence and respect what it says, that the United States of America, though inspired by the tradition of English liberty, was founded on the self-evident truth that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and that those rights reside in all men and women in every country of the earth.

 

In my prior post, “The Futility of Stimulus,” I examined whether Federal Reserve Policy has provided economic stimulus. I employed standard measures of money-supply growth to evaluate the question. I concluded that Federal Reserve policy has resulted in less expansion of the money supply than would normally be expected. The weakness of the current economic expansion testifies to that.

In this post, I employ an alternative measure of monetary stimulus. I rely on a recent lecture at the University of Nevada Reno by Professor John Taylor of Stanford University. With a series of charts, he made a convincing case that successive rounds of Quantitative Easing provided no monetary stimulus. Taylor looked at the interest-rate channel, particularly longer-term interest rates. If monetary policy stimulates the economy through real capital investment, then we must look to longer-term interest rates.

Taylor specifically examined the effects on 10-year Treasury yields of each round of Quantitative Easing by the Fed. In each case, there was an announcement effect. When the Fed announced a new round of bond purchases, interest rates on 10-year Treasuries did drop. As QE was executed, however, the 10-year rate recovered to its previous level or even moved higher. On the assumption that rates on corporate bonds price off Treasuries, there was no measurable effect on investment and economic growth. Again, the weakness of the economic expansion is consistent with Taylor’s argument.

There is policy background here. Taylor is the author of a monetary rule, which others have dubbed the Taylor Rule. It is a rule for adjusting short-term interest rates (the Fed Funds rate) to changes in inflation and real economic activity. The Taylor Rule calculates that the Fed Funds should by 1.5 percent versus the current reality of near-zero. Taylor did not advocate an immediate increase to that level, but the beginning of gradual increases.

What of the economic recovery? If Taylor is correct, then low short-term interest rates have not contributed to the economic expansion and raising them will not slow economic growth.

Have very low short-term interest rates had any effect? Janet Yellen recently hinted they might have contributed to unsustainably high equity prices. I will not argue with the Fed Chair on that point, but only suggest that other financial bubbles may also have been financed by Fed policy. To repeat a hackneyed phrase (nonetheless accurate), Wall Street has benefited but not Main Street.

To sum up, following Taylor’s analysis of the interest-rate channel, I conclude that Fed policy has not stimulated economic growth. It has had consequences, which some would consider undesirable. Taylor has provided a reasonable case for beginning to raise interest rates. I doubt that will happen soon. But the debate should continue.

This morning, a car bomb exploded outside a mosque in Saudi Arabia, the second such attack in a week. The attacks, which have killed at least 25 people, were aimed at the minority Saudi Shi’a community. In doing so, ISIS is expertly capitalizing on Saudi Arabia’s internal sectarian divide, which is worsened not only by domestic repression, but by the propaganda supporting Saudi Arabia’s activist foreign policy in Syria, Yemen and elsewhere. Saudi rulers should remember that sectarianism, though convenient for political purposes, also carries substantial risk.

In an interview shortly before the recent Camp David summit, President Obama committed the faux-pas of pointing out the internal problems faced by many of the GCC states. He noted that these states contain “populations that, in some cases, are alienated, youth that are underemployed, an ideology that is destructive and nihilistic, and in some cases, just a belief that there are no legitimate political outlets for grievances… The biggest threats that they face may not be coming from Iran invading. It’s going to be from dissatisfaction inside their own countries.”

He’s not wrong. Saudi Arabia is well-known as one of the world’s most repressive states, with little political representation and no rights for women or minorities. Further, oil prices remain low, and while the Saudi state has massive cash reserves, the rise of shale oil has diminished its role as the world’s main oil producer. Saudi Arabia also has a growing youth population, with 51% of the population under the age of twenty five.

This is itself less concerning than the inability of the oil-dependent Saudi state to provide stable employment opportunities; the unemployment rate for those between fifteen and twenty-five years of age is at least 30%. It is no wonder that many of the unemployed youth of Saudi Arabia are attracted by movements like ISIS. Indeed, by some estimates, more than 2,500 of the foreign fighters in Syria come from Saudi Arabia. The newest iteration of this threat is seen in attacks like those of the last week, as young men susceptible to ISIS avoid travel to Syria, and instead carry out attacks inside Saudi borders.

Yet the ISIS attacks also highlight the pernicious influence of state-supported sectarianism. The bombers astutely aimed the bombings not at Sunnis, but at the state’s minority Shi’a population. While targeting Sunnis would likely have increased resolve among Saudi citizens, targeting Shi’a mosques instead served to cast worshippers as heretics, highlighting domestic sectarian tensions.

The attacks remind Saudi Shi’ites that their own government uses sectarian messaging on state TV, and has close ties to clerics which rail against Shi’a heretics. Shi’ites in Saudi Arabia don’t even enjoy the same minimal political rights that their Sunni compatriots do, and the state has repeatedly cracked down on calls for increased representation.

These tensions are being further inflamed by the war in Yemen, which is being presented by Saudi state TV as a crusade against Houthi Shi’ites. The same applies to the state’s newly activist foreign policy, which is portrayed broadly as a challenge to Iranian and Shi’a interests across the region. The high civilian death toll in Yemen – as many as 2,000 people – and the reticence of the Saudi government to seek a political settlement with the Houthis also contributes.

In short, the ISIS attacks targeted a potential cause of instability within the Saudi state, requiring Saudi rulers to strike a delicate balancing act. They must show support for the attacked communities, while avoiding upsetting the hardline Sunni clerics which support the royal family. Balancing these factors while continuing to use sectarian language to justify the state’s wars in Yemen and elsewhere may prove impossible.

As the Arab Spring illustrated, even states which appear relatively stable can suffer from instability and chaos. It also showed that once the Pandora’s Box of sectarianism has been opened, it is extremely difficult to shut. As ISIS attacks within Saudi Arabia seek to increase tensions between Sunni and Shi’a populations, this is a lesson Saudi Arabia’s rulers would be wise to bear in mind.  

I’ve argued that the centralization of government spending in Washington over the past century has severely undermined good governance. Citizens get worse outcomes when funding and decisionmaking for education, infrastructure, and other things are made by the central government rather than state and local governments and the private sector. The problem is the same in the European Union, as a new article in Bloomberg on the funding of Polish airports illustrates:

Local authorities are spending some 205 million zloty ($58 million), including more than $44 million in EU subsidies, to build runways and a new terminal that could accommodate more than 1 million passengers a year. The Olsztyn Mazury Airport is scheduled to open next January, but traffic and revenue forecasts developed by the project’s backers are “very far from reality,” says Jacek Krawczyk, a former chairman of LOT Polish airlines who advises the EU on aviation policy through its European Economic and Social Committee.

Szymany adds to a burgeoning supply of costly new airports across Poland. Since 2007, the EU has spent more than €600 million ($666 million) to build or renovate a dozen Polish airports.

… Mostly, though, Poland’s new airports have been a financial bust. A report in December by the European Court of Auditors found that EU-subsidized airport projects in Poland, as well as others in Estonia, Greece, Italy, and Spain, had “produced poor value for money.” Traffic at most airports fell far short of projections, and there was little evidence of broader economic benefits, such as job creation, the report found.  

With respect to U.S. infrastructure, there is ongoing pressure to increase federal investment, despite decades of experience on the inefficiency of it. Politicians and lobby groups constantly complain that America does not spend enough on infrastructure. But they rarely discuss how to ensure efficiency in spending, or cite any advantages of federal spending over state, local, and private spending.

I’ve discussed the many downsides to federal aid for infrastructure and other local activities here and here. But I was alerted to an additional argument against aid from this Regulation article by William Fischel and this book by James Bennett. Federal aid encourages local governments to expropriate private property, often for dubious purposes.

The article and book discuss the expropriation of Detroit homes for the benefit of General Motors in the 1980s. The “Poletown” project would not have happened without $200 million in federal and state loans and grants to the city. So Fischel makes the point that (abusive) government uses of eminent domain—such as the Kelo case in New London, Connecticut—are encouraged by the flow of federal and state funds to cities. That is, money for “economic development” and the like.

State and local governments would make better decisions if they were responsible for their own funding of programs and projects. The annual flow of more than $600 billion in federal aid to state and local governments should be phased out over time and eliminated.

Discontent at a land-use control process perceived as “condescending and obnoxious” helped fuel a surprise voter revolt in affluent Chevy Chase, Md., just across the D.C. border in Montgomery County, reports Bill Turque at the Washington Post. Aside from intensive review of requests to expand a deck or convert a screened-in porch to year-round space, there are the many tree battles:

[Insurgents] cite the regulations surrounding tree removal as especially onerous. Property owners seeking to cut down any tree 24 inches or larger in circumference must have a permit approved by the town arborist and town manager attesting that the tree is dead, dying or hazardous.

If turned down, residents can appeal to a Tree Ordinance Board, which applies a series of nine criteria to its decision, including the overall effect on the town’s tree canopy, the “uniqueness” or “desirability” of the tree in question and the applicant’s willingness to plant replacement trees.

MorePhilip K. Howard with ideas for fixing environmental permitting. [cross-posted from Overlawyered and Free State Notes]

With debate about NSA spying continuing in the Senate, it’s worth looking at some of the historical and modern precedents for protecting our communications and communications data. A few highlights:

  • The earliest precedent for protection of communications in the United States is the treatment of mail. The founders used postal mail to communicate their revolutionary ideas and even to plan their insurrection against the tyranny of King George, so they prioritized protecting the privacy of the mail. In the Act of Feb. 20, 1792, passed a few short years after ratification of the Constitution, the U.S. Congress enshrined protections for mail in the law, creating heavy fines for opening or delaying mail.
  • The Supreme Court confirmed the existence of constitutional protection for postal communications in Ex Parte Jackson. In that 1877 case, the Court described the Fourth Amendment’s guarantees in very interesting and clear language: “Letters and sealed packages … are as fully guarded from examination and inspection, except as to their outward form and weight, as if they were retained by the parties forwarding them in their own domiciles.” Though we place mail in the hands of government agents, the Fourth Amendment protects it like it’s inside our homes.
  • The year Ex Parte Jackson case was decided, both Western Union and the Bell Company began providing voice telephone service. The Supreme Court addressed constitutional protection for phone calls some decades later in 1928. The Olmstead case was wrongly decided, we now know. It found that telephone communications weren’t protected by the Constitution. So the dissents are where to look for precedential language. Justice Brandeis’s famous dissent spoke of the “right to be let alone,” but Justice Butler provided thinking and language that should have more lasting value: “The contracts between telephone companies and users contemplate the private use of the facilities employed in the service,” he wrote. “The communications belong to the parties between whom they pass.” The communications belong to the parties. That’s a fasacinating and important way to think about our communications, as property that we own.

When the Court reversed Olmstead in 1967’s Katz decision, it unfortunately and inadvertently produced a Fourth Amendment doctrine basing constitutional protection on “reasonable expectations of privacy.” People do reasonably expect privacy in their communications, but “reasonable expectations” doctrine is not well equipped for administering the Fourth Amendment. We saw that in Smith v. Maryland, the 1979 case in which the Court used no research or even consideration of the opposing view in finding that people have no expectation of privacy in data about their phone calls. Happily, the Court has eschewed “reasonable expectation” doctrine in many recent cases.

When the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the NSA spying program is illegal a few weeks ago, it treated data as property. When we reduce our thoughts and records to digital form and send them over the Internet, we’re doing the same thing the founders did when they wrote letters and put them in the mail. Those communications are still ours, and they should be protected in transit as if they are in the home. America’s private telecommunications system is not like the U.S. mail, of course. We’re not handing our calls over to the government like we hand our letters to the U.S. Postal Service. Our calls and Internet communications should be more protected than the mail because we are using service providers that are obligated by contract and regulation to protect our privacy.

The communications data the NSA is accessing belongs to the parties between whom it passes. It is not the government’s to take—not without a particularized warrant based on the requisite level of suspicion. There’s good precedent for that.

Back in March, I shared a remarkable study from the International Monetary Fund which explained that spending caps are the only truly effective way to achieve good fiscal policy.

And earlier this month, I discussed another good IMF study that showed how deficit and debt rules in Europe have been a failure.

In hopes of teaching American lawmakers about this international evidence, the Cato Institute put together a forum on Capitol Hill to highlight the specific reforms that have been successful.

I moderated the panel and began by pointing out that there are many examples of nations that have enjoyed good results thanks to multi-year periods of spending restraint.

I even pointed out that we actually had an unintentional - but very successful - spending freeze in Washington between 2009 and 2014.

But the problem, I suggested, is that it is very difficult to convince politicians to sustain good policy on a long-run basis. The gains of good policy (such as what was achieved in the 1990s) can quickly be erased by a spending binge (such as what happened during the Bush years).

Unless, of course, there’s some sort of constraint on the desire to spend money. And the panelists discussed the three most successful examples of reforms that constrain the growth of government.

We started with a presentation by Daniel Freihofer from the Swiss Embassy. He talked about Switzerland’s “Debt Brake,” which actually is a spending cap.

It’s remarkable how well Switzerland has performed while most other European nations have suffered downward spirals of more spending-more taxes-more debt. Here’s a chart I put together on what’s happened to spending in Switzerland ever since 85 percent of voters imposed the Debt Brake early last decade.

By the way, Herr Freihofer said during the Q&A session that support for the Debt Brake is now probably about 95 percent, so Swiss voters obviously understand that the policy has been very successful.

Our second speaker was Clement Leung, Hong Kong’s Commissioner to the United States. He talked about Article 107 and other rules from Hong Kong’s Basic Law (their constitution) that limit the temptation to over-tax and over-spend.

And if you want to see some of the positive results of these rules in Hong Kong, here’s some of what Commissioner Leung presented.

By the way, the burden of government spending in Hong Kong averages about 18 percent of economic output. That’s the most impressive result. And Commissioner Leung explained that there’s a commitment to keep the burden of spending below 20 percent of GDP.

The final panelist was Jonathan Williams from the American Legislative Exchange Council, and he talked about Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights, popularly known as TABOR.

Jonathan talked about how the pro-spending lobbies keep attacking TABOR, and he mentioned that they narrowly succeeded in getting a five-year suspension of the law back in 2005. But Colorado voters generally understand they have a good policy.

The most recent attempt to enable more spending came in the form an increase in the state’s flat tax back in 2013 and voters rejected it by a stunning 66-34 margin (almost as impressive as the recent vote against tax hikes in Michigan) even though Jonathan said advocates outspent opponents by a 289-1 margin.

Here’s a slide from his presentation showing what happened during other attempts to enable more spending.

By the way, Jonathan also mentioned that Colorado’s voters are about to get a TABOR-mandated tax cut because taxes on marijuana are pushing revenues above the limit. Talk about a win-win situation!

To wrap up, one of the big lessons from all the presentations is that governments generally get in trouble because they can’t resist over-spending when the economy is doing well and generating lots of tax revenue.

I fully agree, and I’ve previously explained this is why Alberta got in fiscal trouble, and also why California suffers a boom-bust budgetary cycle.

The way you solve this problem is not with a balanced budget requirement (which often serves as the justification for tax hikes), but some sort of spending limitation rule.

The skepticism was evident in conservative talk-show host Laura Ingraham’s voice when she referred to the working relationship between President Obama and Senate Majority Leader McConnell as a “burgeoning bromance.” Her sentiment is shared by a number of Republicans in Congress, who are unhappy that Senate and House leadership is working with the president to secure Trade Promotion Authority.

Perhaps it’s no longer axiomatic that trade divides Democrats and unites Republicans.  According to Politico, “about 40 to 45 of the 245 Republicans in Congress are hard ‘nos’ on [TPA]” with many asking: Why would Republicans want to give this president, who has aggrandized his authority and disregarded congressional prerogatives, any more power?  Well, they shouldn’t.  However, TPA would not give the president any power to make mischief.

Trade Promotion Authority is neither a congressional capitulation nor an executive power grab.  It is a compact between the branches, which effectively deputizes the president to negotiate trade agreements on behalf of Congress, which meet parameters and fulfill objectives spelled out by Congress, which are put to votes in both chambers of Congress. 

If the concluded trade agreement meets Congress’s parameters and fulfills its objectives, legislation to implement the agreement is considered without amendments on an expedited timetable by an up-or-down vote.  If the agreement fails to meet Congress’s parameters or fulfill its objectives, it can be taken off the so-called fast-track through a resolution of disapproval.  And, ultimately, members and senators can always vote “no” if they don’t like the deal.  

For members who see trade liberalization as a way to expand economic freedom and generate economic growth, rejecting trade promotion authority would be a mistake.  Without TPA, the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement simply cannot be completed.  Negotiating partners would be unwilling to put their best and final offers on the table without the assurances – provided under TPA – that the agreement wouldn’t be picked apart and altered by Congress. 

The TPP will include provisions that reduce trade barriers and offer some of the economic opportunities that went missing over the past six years.  But it will also include some provisions that are protectionist or otherwise impede liberalization.  The TPP is managed trade, not free trade.  So without making the perfect the enemy of the good, each member of Congress should review the agreement and decide whether it is liberalizing on net, liberalizing enough, or whether it exceeds whatever benchmarks each deems appropriate.

Without TPA, there won’t be a TPP to assess.  If TPA is passed, the TPP can conclude and Congress, the public, and Cato’s trade analysts will have ample opportunity to scrutinize its details and make informed judgments about the desirability of TPP.  Concerns about granting the president more power are misplaced. The only mischief the president can make under this arrangement is mischief that earns the endorsement of majorities in both chambers.

George Selgin has recently focused on the failure of Federal Reserve policy to finance a normal recovery. The Fed has greatly expanded its balance sheet and created a large quantity of excess reserves, which, for a variety of reasons, commercial banks have not mobilized into credit creation. Instead, banks seem content to earn the 25 basis points of interest the Fed now pays on reserves.

This anomalous behavior shows up in the M1 money multiplier, which is at record lows – less than half its value before the financial crisis. The Fed is creating reserves, but commercial banks are not creating as much bank money as has been historically true. Compounding this is the fact that the velocity of M1 – the rapidity with which each dollar is spent annually – has hit a 40-year low. Consequently, the Fed’s efforts to produce monetary stimulus have failed.

(A similar story can be told for other money supply measures. Data and charts can be found at FRED, the online data center at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.)

I do not think economists fully understand all of the factors contributing to this policy failure. But Selgin has surely identified one relevant factor, the payment of interest on reserves. On the margin, it creates a disincentive for commercial banks to create money and credit in a normal fashion. There are also fiscal reasons for ending the payments, as they reduce the payments the Fed makes to the Treasury. As it is, the payment of interest on reserves constitutes a fiscal transfer from taxpayers to commercial banks. In a normal world, I would endorse his call to end the interest paid on reserves.

We do not live in a normal world. The Fed has replaced liquid, short-term assets on its balance sheet with illiquid, long-term assets. Normally, to raise the Fed Funds rate, the Fed would sell Treasury bills. It has none to sell. Analysts and pundits speculate on when the Fed will raise interest rates. They should be asking how the Fed will raise interest rates.

Stanford’s John Taylor thinks the Fed will need to increase the interest rate paid on reserves to accomplish that goal. Markets through arbitrage would then increase the interest rates banks pay each other to borrow reserves. I suspect he is correct, with two caveats. First, there is no longer much of a market for federal funds. Banks aren’t lending each other reserves. Second, there are other possible mechanisms for raising short-term interest rates like the tri-party, reverse repo facility at the New York Fed. This, and other facilities, are untested as a means to implement a policy change. Their use would put monetary policy in unchartered waters.

To sum up, monetary policy has failed to simulate economic activity. It has failed even to finance a normal economic recovery. In pursuing a failed stimulus policy, the Fed has tied its policy hands going forward. At some point, interest rates will need to rise. The Fed will need to rely on novel means to accomplish a turn in policy. Paying higher interest rates on bank reserves may be one method. It is an unpleasant reality. It is only one consequence of the Fed’s experiment with extraordinary monetary policy.

Last December the federal Department of Justice concluded an investigation of the Cleveland Police Department.  That investigation found a pattern of excessive force in violation of the Constitution.  On Monday, Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson agreed to a legal settlement with the feds to overhaul his police department’s policies and practices regarding the use of force and how it handles complaints and monitors the actions of its officers.  This is just the most recent police department to be scrutinized.  Following the riot in Baltimore, Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced that the Dept of Justice would be launching a pattern and practice investigation of that police department as well.  Local policymakers in Baltimore, Cleveland, and elsewhere, have let serious problems fester in their police departments and addressing those deficiencies is long overdue.  At the same time, we should also remember that policymakers are also doing a generally poor job on a broader range of issues, including the schools.  As it happens, our friends at Reason did a short film a while back titled “Saving Cleveland.”  The film covers several important issues and what needs to be done.

Reason Saves Cleveland With Drew Carey

Last week, Cato hosted an event on Capitol Hill, Lessons from Baltimore, which covers additional issues not in the Reason film.  Policing, body cameras, and social welfare spending.  That event can be viewed here.

As more journalists and commentators discuss the Trans-Pacific Partnership, we’ve seen very conflicting descriptions of the agreement.  For some, the TPP isn’t about trade at all but about giving power to corporations and ending U.S. sovereignty, or about containing China and building U.S. influence in Asia.  When commentators do focus on the potential economic impact of the agreement, they either describe the TPP as a very big deal or as a very small one.  It all depends on your perspective.

My colleague Simon Lester has written about problems in how GDP gains from the TPP have been estimated.  I’d like to take issue with a different figure commonly cited to bolster the idea of the TPP’s hugeness—that the 12 countries involved account for almost 40% of global GDP.  This number is correct but highly misleading as a gauge of the TPP’s economic significance.

For one thing about 22.5% of global GDP comes from the United States.  So, one could claim accurately that the U.S.–Jordan Free Trade Agreement covers almost a quarter of the global economy.  Also, most of the remainder comes from Canada and Mexico, with whom the United States already has a free trade agreement.  In fact, the United States has free trade agreements with all but five countries in the TPP negotiations.

The only large economy country in the TPP that the United States doesn’t already have a free trade agreement with is Japan.  So, if you’re going to measure the “size” of the TPP, it would be best understood as a U.S.–Japan free trade agreement.  That’s a pretty big deal, actually, but it’s not two-fifths of the world.

Talking about trade agreements in terms of their size also obscures what trade agreements actually do.  Contrary to the rhetoric we hear from the White House, trade agreements benefit the United States because they lower artificial trade barriers, not because “we” get to write “the rules” instead of China.

But those claiming that the TPP is really small are missing something too.  Paul Krugman, for example, points out that U.S. tariffs are already really low, so the TPP won’t make much of a difference.  This argument misses the fact that while U.S. tariffs are low on average, a number of tariffs remain very high in order to protect domestic industries from competition.  Moreover, many of the high tariffs are on basic consumer goods like clothes and shoes.  These are essentially regressive consumption taxes, and their negative impact goes beyond a simple dollar amount. 

That’s why the inclusion of Vietnam in the TPP is so significant.  Tariff-free trade in labor-intensive manufactured goods from Vietnam could have great benefits for Vietnamese workers (and potential workers) and American consumers.  But U.S. negotiators may reduce those benefits by securing long tariff phaseouts or complex rules of origin at the behest of politically powerful domestic industries.

What all this means for the TPP is that its economic value hinges on how extensively, deeply, quickly, and uniformly it reduces existing trade barriers, something we won’t know until the negotiations are completed.

A piece in the New York Times today suggests that rich people are more likely than poor people to support free trade:

The Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal making its way through Congress is the latest step in a decades-long trend toward liberalizing trade — a somewhat mysterious development given that many Americans are skeptical of freer trade.

But Americans with higher incomes are not so skeptical. They — along with businesses and interest groups that tend to be affiliated with them — are much more likely to support trade liberalization. Trade is thus one of the best examples of how public policy in the United States is often much more responsive to the preferences of the wealthy than to those of the general public.

Skepticism toward free trade among lower-income Americans is often substantial. Data from a 2013 CBS/New York Times poll show that 58 percent of Americans making less than $30,000 per year preferred to limit imports to protect United States industries and jobs, while only 36 percent preferred the wider selection and lower prices of imported goods available under free trade. But the balance of opinion reversed for those making over $100,000. Among that higher-income group, 53 percent favored free trade versus 44 percent who wanted to limit imports.

Similarly, a Pew Research Center survey released on Wednesday found that a plurality of Americans making under $30,000 per year say that their family’s finances have been hurt by free trade agreements (44 percent) rather than helped (38 percent). By contrast, those making more than $100,000 per year overwhelmingly believe free trade has been beneficial — 52 percent said trade agreements have helped their family’s finances versus only 29 percent who said they have hurt.

I am sometimes skeptical of polls on these issues, mainly due to badly phrased questions.  But regardless, I would be interested to see if the answers were affected by information on who actually pays the most in tariff revenue (as a percentage of their income), which, it turns out, is poor people:

Should a movie star’s maid pay higher sales taxes than her famous boss?

The truth is, she often does. She just doesn’t know it.

Low-income moms buying polyester shirts, plastic purses, and cheap canvas sneakers are unwittingly taxed five, ten, and sometimes even 30 times higher than movie stars shopping for silks, cashmeres, and snakeskin on Rodeo Drive. This is the hidden scandal of the American tariff system—a small and almost forgotten tax, which likely costs low-income families nearly $2 billion a year.

Because the tariff system raises most of its money from cheaper shoes and clothes, its tilt against the poor is especially steep—much steeper than that of any other federal tax. Each year, single-parent families spend about $13 billion buying clothes, shoes, and other home goods. Tariffs drive up the cost of these goods by about 15 percent, adding about $1.6 billion to the total bill.

So, the next time they conduct one of these polls on how people of different income levels feel about free trade, maybe give them these details first and then see how they answer.

Expanded maternity and child care benefits are expected to be a pillar of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. These policies seek to make it easier for women to balance the challenges of being a working mother. While they may well be well-intentioned, but they backfire. The New York Times highlighted the downside.

First, the article focused on maternal leave policies in Spain:

Spain passed a law in 1999 giving workers with children younger than 7 the right to ask for reduced hours without fear of being laid off. Those who took advantage of it were nearly all women.

Over the next decade, companies were 6 percent less likely to hire women of childbearing age compared with men, 37 percent less likely to promote them and 45 percent more likely to dismiss them, according to a study led by Daniel Fernández-Kranz, an economist at IE Business School in Madrid. The probability of women of childbearing age not being employed climbed 20 percent. Another result: Women were more likely to be in less stable, short-term contract jobs, which are not required to provide such benefits.

The results in Chile were similar:

The child-care law in Chile, the most recent version of which went into effect in 2009, was intended to increase the percentage of women who work, which is below 50 percent, among the lowest rates in Latin America. It requires that companies with 20 or more female workers provide and pay for child care for women with children under 2, in a location nearby where the women can go to feed them.

It eases the transition back to work and helps children’s development, said María F. Prada, an economist at the Inter-American Development Bank and lead author of a new study on the effects of the law. But it has also led to a decline in women’s starting salaries of between 9 percent and 20 percent. Researchers compared pay at the same companies before and after they were big enough to be forced to comply with the law. (Another approach by companies, especially smaller ones, has been simply not to comply with the law.)

A broader analysis of 22 countries found that women were more likely to work when these types of policies are in place, but their jobs more likely to be “dead-end” positions and less likely to be managerial posts.

Even the Family Medical Leave Act, which provides up to 12 weeks of unpaid medical leave here in the United States, has hurt female job prospects. Women are slightly more likely to stay employed, but receive fewer promotions because of the law, according to research cited by the New York Times.

Balancing the challenges of working while raising children is difficult, but having the government force employers to provide additional maternal and childcare benefit is the wrong approach. Such policies harm job prospects for women and make the work-life balance even tougher to achieve.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that district school bureaucrats are “proceeding with an ambitious plan to offer a wider range of education options.”

Superintendent Robert Avossa is leaving the 96,000-student district for the larger Palm Beach County system in Florida. Ken Zeff, who takes over as interim superintendent next week, shares Avossa’s view that parents want and deserve choices.

An array of choices may lessen the exodus of by parents who want a non-traditional setting for their children. More than 15 percent of Fulton families opted for private schools this school year.

While Fulton has increased its number of district-approved charter schools, the AJC reports more than 1,600 families are on charter school wait lists for next fall, largely in south Fulton where school performance is not as high as north Fulton. 

(North Fulton is one of the state’s most affluent areas and boasts some of the highest achieving high schools in Georgia. Its schools are a major draw for new families moving to the metro region.)

Not every student learns in the same way so Fulton is expanding school design options.

“This is not an attempt to dismantle traditional public schools,” said Zeff in an AJC news story by Fulton Schools reporter Rose French. “Traditional-model schools are performing great for a lot of kids. But some parents want and some students would do better in a different environment.”

In other words, when parents chose schools other than their child’s assigned district school–perhaps using Georgia’s tax-credit scholarships–the government school system responded by being more responsive to parental demands. 

This is not an isolated phenomenon. Out of 23 empirical studies of the impact of school choice policies on district school performance, 22 found a statistically significant positive impact. Recently, the prestigious peer-reviewed American Economic Journal published the results of a study by David Figlio of Northwestern University and Cassandra Hart of the University of California-Davis on the impact of a school choice program in Florida on district schools. The study found that the academic performance of students at public schools improved as a result of increased competition:

We find greater score improvements in the wake of the program introduction for students attending schools that faced more competitive private school markets prior to the policy announcement, especially those that faced the greatest financial incentives to retain students. These effects suggest modest benefits for public school students from increased competition.

As I’ve noted previously, district schools often operate as monopolies, particularly those serving low-income populations with no other financially viable options. And sadly, a monopolist has little incentive to respond to the needs of its captive audience. Thankfully, the evidence suggests that when those families are empowered to “vote with their feet,” the district schools become more responsive to their needs.

Good ideas in Congress rarely have a chance. Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) is sponsoring legislation to speed drug approvals, but his initial plan was largely gutted before he introduced it last month.

Drug discovery is an uncertain process. Companies consider between 5,000 and 10,000 substances for every one that ends up in the pharmacy. Of those, only one-fifth actually makes money—and must pay for everything.

As a result, the average per drug cost exceeds $1 billion, most often thought to be between $1.2 and $1.5 billion. Some estimates run more.

Naturally, the Food and Drug Administration insists that its expensive regulations are worth it. Unfortunately, while the agency undoubtedly prevents some bad pharmaceuticals from getting to market, it delays or blocks far more good products.

The average delay in winning approval of a new drug rose from seven months in 1962, when the FDA’s power was dramatically increased, to 30 months in 1967. Approval time now is estimated to run as much as 20 years.

Economist Sam Peltzman found no evidence that changing the law reduced the introduction of ineffective or unsafe pharmaceuticals. After all, companies don’t make money selling medicines that don’t work. And putting out something dangerous is a fiscal disaster. Observed Peltzman:  the “penalties imposed by the marketplace on sellers of ineffective drugs prior to 1962 seem to have been enough of a deterrent to have left little room for improvement by a regulatory agency.”

Alas, the FDA increases the cost of all medicines, delays the introduction of most pharmaceuticals, and prevents some from reaching the market. That means patients suffer and even die needlessly.

Congress has applied a few bandages over the years. One was to create a process of user fees through the Prescription Drug User Fee Act. The measure was estimated to save as much as $30 billion and as many as 310,000 life years.

A special procedure for “Accelerated Approval” of drugs aimed at life-threatening conditions also was created. Unfortunately, noted Nature Biotechnology, few medicines qualified and “in recent years, FDA has been ratcheting up the requirements.”

The Wall Street Journal reported that some desperate patients today who are “frustrated by the slow pace of clinical drug trials or unable to qualify, are trying to brew their own version of an experimental compound at home and testing it on themselves.” Overall, far more people die from no drugs than from bad drugs.

The deadliest pre-1962 episode involved Elixir Sulfanilamide and killed 107 people. Around 3500 users died from Isoproterenol, an asthmatic inhaler. Vioxx was blamed for a similar number of deaths, though the claim was disputed. Most of the more recent incidents would not have been prevented from a stricter approval process. 

The death toll from agency delays of medicines like beta-blockers is much greater. Analyst Dale Gieringer figured that the benefits of FDA regulation “could reasonably be put at some 5,000 casualties per decade or 10,000 per decade for worst-case scenarios.  In comparison … the cost of FDA delay can be estimated at anywhere from 21,000 to 120,000 lives per decade.”

Fundamental reform is necessary. The FDA should be limited to assessing safety. Further, the agency should be stripped of approval monopoly. As a start, drugs okayed by other industrialized states should be available in America.

As I argue in the Freeman, “Patients and their health care providers also could look to private certification organizations, which today are involved in everything from building codes to electrical products to kosher food. Medical organizations already maintain pharmaceutical databases and set standards for drug treatments. They could move into testing and assessment.” 

No doubt, some people would make mistakes. But they do so today. With more options, more people’s needs would be better met.

Instead of arguing over regulatory minutiae Congress should address who decides who gets treated how. Today it is Uncle Sam. Tomorrow it should be all of us.

                                                  

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, exercising power purportedly delegated to it pursuant to Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce, has classified the ubiquitous Utah prairie dog, which has no commercial value and has never dug holes in any lands beyond southwestern Utah, as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), thereby prohibiting the “take” of said prairie dogs—which essentially means doing anything that disturbs the little rodents’ habitat. If the varmints invade their property, human residents cannot build homes, start or operate certain businesses, or, in the case of Cedar City, protect playgrounds, an airport, and a local cemetery from their burrowing and barking.

Joining as People for the Ethical Treatment of Property Owners (PETPO), and represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, residents filed suit, claiming that the “take” rule for the noncommercial, intrastate Utah prairie dog exceeds Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. Congress has the power to regulate “commerce among the states,” not species. PETPO’s suit argues that the ESA cannot reach activities that are intrastate and noncommercial—activities, for example, like filling holes in your lawn or otherwise developing land where prairie dogs might live. The federal district court agreed and therefore struck down the “take” regulation. The case is now before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Joined by constitutional law professors Jonathan H. Adler, James L. Huffman, and Josh Blackman, Cato has filed a brief supporting the landowners. We argue, consistent with prior Supreme Court precedent, that the Constitution’s Commerce Clause affords Congress the power to regulate only items, channels, or instrumentalities of interstate commerce. If Congress wants to regulate activities that “substantially affect” interstate commerce, that power rests in the Necessary and Proper Clause, which gives Congress the means to regulate interstate commerce—provided those means are both necessary and proper. But the prohibited activities do not substantially affect interstate commerce. Moreover, the “take” rule is not necessary for regulating interstate commerce; Congress can regulate that commerce without prohibiting these residents from using their property. Nor is the rule proper since the power to regulate uses of property that do not affect interstate commerce belongs to the states. For those several reasons the “take” rule as applied to the Utah prairie dog exceeds the powers the Founders and the Founding generation delegated to Congress.

Pages