The post Thursday Open Thread (Friday This Week) appeared first on Reason.com.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3lbpNFO
via IFTTT
Category: reason
Thursday Open Thread (Friday This Week)
The post Thursday Open Thread (Friday This Week) appeared first on Reason.com.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3lbpNFO
via IFTTT
That Time Mikhail Gorbachev Appeared in a Pizza Hut Commercial
There may not be a more striking metaphor for capitalism’s victory over the Soviet Union than a 60-second Pizza Hut ad that originally aired more than 20 years ago but continues to get passed around the internet as a fascinating tidbit of 1990s political commentary.
The ad, filmed in November 1997, features former (and final) Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev visiting a Pizza Hut ostensibly located in the middle of Moscow. Gorbachev does not speak a single line of dialogue in the ad—nor does he take a bite of pizza, as he reportedly agreed to do the spot with the condition that he would not have to eat on-camera—but he is undeniably the star, as other patrons in the restaurant notice their fallen comrade and debate his significance to Russia, freedom, and pizza.
It’s not hard to see the ad as a notable bit of now-quaint 1990s commentary on the supposed “end of history” and American hegemony—and perhaps an overly optimistic view of how Russia would evolve in the post-Soviet era. If nothing else, it says, capitalism provides cheap pizza for the masses—and that’s far more than communism could ever do.
But there are layers of meaning that extend well beyond the obvious political commentary. Gorbachev agreed to appear in Pizza Hut’s ad, according to The New York Times, because he was hard-up for cash six years after stepping down as the leader of a global superpower. He was paid an undisclosed amount that was rumored to be near $1 million, according to the Times’ contemporaneous report.
“I thought that it is a people’s matter—food,” he told the paper.
According to University of Massachusetts political science professor Paul Musgrave’s detailed recap of how the ad came to be, filming took place on Thanksgiving—fitting, since the holiday is a quintessentially American celebration of food and the surpluses made possible by capitalism. Musgrave calls the final product “a beautiful short film and a very weird advertisement.”
It is definitely both of those things, but the most interesting and significant part of the ad has little to do with Gorbachev or pizza. During the Soviet era, Russians were not likely to gather over a warm meal and freely discuss politics. As Reason‘s Liz Wolfe details in the December issue of the magazine, much of the social structure of Soviet life was designed to prevent exactly that sort of thing: “Prior to the revolution, families could speak their minds comfortably while preparing and sharing a meal. But Stalin felt privacy created far too much space for dissent to take root and multiply. His solution was to abolish familial intimacy as much as possible. In his new kommunalkas, you would never be far from the watchful eye of a compatriot who might snitch.”
Even after Gorbachev liberalized parts of the economy, restaurant culture took a long time to bounce back from how it had atrophied under restrictive Soviet rule. Yes, the demise of the Soviet system allowed Russians to finally enjoy Pizza Hut, but also everything else that comes with enjoying a nice meal prepared in a restaurant.
The post That Time Mikhail Gorbachev Appeared in a Pizza Hut Commercial appeared first on Reason.com.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/30X7PjJ
via IFTTT
That Time Mikhail Gorbachev Appeared in a Pizza Hut Commercial
There may not be a more striking metaphor for capitalism’s victory over the Soviet Union than a 60-second Pizza Hut ad that originally aired more than 20 years ago but continues to get passed around the internet as a fascinating tidbit of 1990s political commentary.
The ad, filmed in November 1997, features former (and final) Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev visiting a Pizza Hut ostensibly located in the middle of Moscow. Gorbachev does not speak a single line of dialogue in the ad—nor does he take a bite of pizza, as he reportedly agreed to do the spot with the condition that he would not have to eat on-camera—but he is undeniably the star, as other patrons in the restaurant notice their fallen comrade and debate his significance to Russia, freedom, and pizza.
It’s not hard to see the ad as a notable bit of now-quaint 1990s commentary on the supposed “end of history” and American hegemony—and perhaps an overly optimistic view of how Russia would evolve in the post-Soviet era. If nothing else, it says, capitalism provides cheap pizza for the masses—and that’s far more than communism could ever do.
But there are layers of meaning that extend well beyond the obvious political commentary. Gorbachev agreed to appear in Pizza Hut’s ad, according to The New York Times, because he was hard-up for cash six years after stepping down as the leader of a global superpower. He was paid an undisclosed amount that was rumored to be near $1 million, according to the Times’ contemporaneous report.
“I thought that it is a people’s matter—food,” he told the paper.
According to University of Massachusetts political science professor Paul Musgrave’s detailed recap of how the ad came to be, filming took place on Thanksgiving—fitting, since the holiday is a quintessentially American celebration of food and the surpluses made possible by capitalism. Musgrave calls the final product “a beautiful short film and a very weird advertisement.”
It is definitely both of those things, but the most interesting and significant part of the ad has little to do with Gorbachev or pizza. During the Soviet era, Russians were not likely to gather over a warm meal and freely discuss politics. As Reason‘s Liz Wolfe details in the December issue of the magazine, much of the social structure of Soviet life was designed to prevent exactly that sort of thing: “Prior to the revolution, families could speak their minds comfortably while preparing and sharing a meal. But Stalin felt privacy created far too much space for dissent to take root and multiply. His solution was to abolish familial intimacy as much as possible. In his new kommunalkas, you would never be far from the watchful eye of a compatriot who might snitch.”
Even after Gorbachev liberalized parts of the economy, restaurant culture took a long time to bounce back from how it had atrophied under restrictive Soviet rule. Yes, the demise of the Soviet system allowed Russians to finally enjoy Pizza Hut, but also everything else that comes with enjoying a nice meal prepared in a restaurant.
The post That Time Mikhail Gorbachev Appeared in a Pizza Hut Commercial appeared first on Reason.com.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/30X7PjJ
via IFTTT
No Mass Transit Grants for California, Biden Administration Rules
In terms of entertaining political news, it’s hard to top the latest events from the Biden administration. Democrats are devouring each other as the president’s approval ratings slip into Jimmy Carter territory. There’s that video of Vice President Kamala Harris talking about “zee plan” with scientists in Paris—seemingly in a fake French accent.
Then on Thursday the House of Representatives censured loony GOP congressman Paul Gosar for circulating “a manipulated video on his social media accounts depicting himself killing Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and attacking…Biden.” It’s quite the circus.
Yet arguably the week’s most-enjoyable D.C. story involves a bureaucratic interpretation of an arcane federal statute and its intersection with a 2013 California law. It’s a chuckle-inducing dispute once you delve into the complex backstory—and look at the unhinged reactions of California officials who are being hoisted on their own union-built petard.
We just learned that the U.S. Department of Labor has denied California $12 billion in transit funding, including grants from the recently signed infrastructure bill. The reason? A 1964 federal law requires the labor department to certify that the state agencies seeking any mass-transit grants are “protecting the interests of any affected employees,” The Fresno Bee reported.
So, the Biden administration is claiming that California—the state that provides its public employees with unparalleled pay and pension benefits, and provides collective-bargaining rights unheard of anywhere else—is being mean to its “affected” public employees because the state passed a 2013 law, authored by Democrats, that infinitesimally reined in pension benefits.
As SFist summarized, “Biden is withholding giant amounts of federal money from California public transit because the state’s public-employee pension system is apparently not paying people enough.” Labor-allied California politicians—facing a reduction in funds for beloved transit programs—are so angry they’re almost sounding sensible. You see why I’m laughing?
For instance, Gov. Gavin Newsom penned an artfully written letter on Nov. 10 to Labor Secretary Marty Walsh blasting the funding cut off. In it, he laments that the department’s grant-denial decision “is a complete reversal of (the agency’s) final determination in 2019 that California’s statewide pension reform legislation…’does not present a bar to certification.'”
The labor-friendly governor is furious at the labor-friendly Biden administration for adopting a labor-friendly position. Adding to my delight, Newsom favorably cites the previous administration, which, as noted, determined that the pension law does not harm state workers. Yes, Newsom is citing a Trump appointee to overturn his Biden-administration replacement.
It gets better. Pension-reform critic Newsom makes a powerful argument defending the 2013 pension-reform law, known as the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act: “After multiple years of litigation, the reviewing federal court found in California’s favor three times, and the department did not pursue appeals. The department’s own lawyers noted that the federal court’s decisions were ‘thoroughly reasoned’ … That should conclude the matter.”
As a refresher, Gov. Jerry Brown led the charge for PEPRA. The state was facing budget shortfalls and pension costs were obliterating local budgets (they still are, actually). It pared back some of the most generous pension formulas for new hires and eliminated pension-spiking schemes such as “air time,” which allowed public employees to buy future retirement credits for pennies on the dollar.
The law in no way impaired collective-bargaining rights. In fact, the main purpose of PEPRA was political. It helped Brown convince the public that he was serious about reforming the budget process—and PEPRA’s passage softened up voters enough to pass the Proposition 30 tax hike.
Any perusal of Transparent California will show the eye-popping compensation packages that California public employees still receive. No other governor or Legislature hands out such lush benefits to public employees—and yet the Biden administration is punishing California for a Democratic-sponsored law that imposed only the slightest restraint.
In an act of hubris, some California public-employee unions sued over PEPRA—and claimed the rollback of pension-spiking gimmicks violated the California Rule. There is no actual rule, but a series of court interpretations concluded that governments cannot reduce pensions going forward unless they provide something of equal value.
Admirably, Brown defended PEPRA in court—and made a broader argument for rolling back that blasted California Rule, which prevents cities from limiting overly generous pension formulas that are obliterating their budgets.
Brown pointed to a lower-court ruling that said that public employees have the right to a reasonable pension—”not an immutable entitlement to the most optional formula of calculating the pension.” The California Supreme Court upheld the pension-reform law, but punted on the California Rule. That should indeed be the end of the matter, but the feds still are smarting over any effort to reform pensions.
I’m not bemoaning the potential loss of transit funds given they tilt heavily toward climate-change folderol. It is funny, however, watching California Democrats get tripped up by their own union allies.
This column was first published in The Orange County Register.
The post No Mass Transit Grants for California, Biden Administration Rules appeared first on Reason.com.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3CSSD3R
via IFTTT
No Mass Transit Grants for California, Biden Administration Rules
In terms of entertaining political news, it’s hard to top the latest events from the Biden administration. Democrats are devouring each other as the president’s approval ratings slip into Jimmy Carter territory. There’s that video of Vice President Kamala Harris talking about “zee plan” with scientists in Paris—seemingly in a fake French accent.
Then on Thursday the House of Representatives censured loony GOP congressman Paul Gosar for circulating “a manipulated video on his social media accounts depicting himself killing Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and attacking…Biden.” It’s quite the circus.
Yet arguably the week’s most-enjoyable D.C. story involves a bureaucratic interpretation of an arcane federal statute and its intersection with a 2013 California law. It’s a chuckle-inducing dispute once you delve into the complex backstory—and look at the unhinged reactions of California officials who are being hoisted on their own union-built petard.
We just learned that the U.S. Department of Labor has denied California $12 billion in transit funding, including grants from the recently signed infrastructure bill. The reason? A 1964 federal law requires the labor department to certify that the state agencies seeking any mass-transit grants are “protecting the interests of any affected employees,” The Fresno Bee reported.
So, the Biden administration is claiming that California—the state that provides its public employees with unparalleled pay and pension benefits, and provides collective-bargaining rights unheard of anywhere else—is being mean to its “affected” public employees because the state passed a 2013 law, authored by Democrats, that infinitesimally reined in pension benefits.
As SFist summarized, “Biden is withholding giant amounts of federal money from California public transit because the state’s public-employee pension system is apparently not paying people enough.” Labor-allied California politicians—facing a reduction in funds for beloved transit programs—are so angry they’re almost sounding sensible. You see why I’m laughing?
For instance, Gov. Gavin Newsom penned an artfully written letter on Nov. 10 to Labor Secretary Marty Walsh blasting the funding cut off. In it, he laments that the department’s grant-denial decision “is a complete reversal of (the agency’s) final determination in 2019 that California’s statewide pension reform legislation…’does not present a bar to certification.'”
The labor-friendly governor is furious at the labor-friendly Biden administration for adopting a labor-friendly position. Adding to my delight, Newsom favorably cites the previous administration, which, as noted, determined that the pension law does not harm state workers. Yes, Newsom is citing a Trump appointee to overturn his Biden-administration replacement.
It gets better. Pension-reform critic Newsom makes a powerful argument defending the 2013 pension-reform law, known as the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act: “After multiple years of litigation, the reviewing federal court found in California’s favor three times, and the department did not pursue appeals. The department’s own lawyers noted that the federal court’s decisions were ‘thoroughly reasoned’ … That should conclude the matter.”
As a refresher, Gov. Jerry Brown led the charge for PEPRA. The state was facing budget shortfalls and pension costs were obliterating local budgets (they still are, actually). It pared back some of the most generous pension formulas for new hires and eliminated pension-spiking schemes such as “air time,” which allowed public employees to buy future retirement credits for pennies on the dollar.
The law in no way impaired collective-bargaining rights. In fact, the main purpose of PEPRA was political. It helped Brown convince the public that he was serious about reforming the budget process—and PEPRA’s passage softened up voters enough to pass the Proposition 30 tax hike.
Any perusal of Transparent California will show the eye-popping compensation packages that California public employees still receive. No other governor or Legislature hands out such lush benefits to public employees—and yet the Biden administration is punishing California for a Democratic-sponsored law that imposed only the slightest restraint.
In an act of hubris, some California public-employee unions sued over PEPRA—and claimed the rollback of pension-spiking gimmicks violated the California Rule. There is no actual rule, but a series of court interpretations concluded that governments cannot reduce pensions going forward unless they provide something of equal value.
Admirably, Brown defended PEPRA in court—and made a broader argument for rolling back that blasted California Rule, which prevents cities from limiting overly generous pension formulas that are obliterating their budgets.
Brown pointed to a lower-court ruling that said that public employees have the right to a reasonable pension—”not an immutable entitlement to the most optional formula of calculating the pension.” The California Supreme Court upheld the pension-reform law, but punted on the California Rule. That should indeed be the end of the matter, but the feds still are smarting over any effort to reform pensions.
I’m not bemoaning the potential loss of transit funds given they tilt heavily toward climate-change folderol. It is funny, however, watching California Democrats get tripped up by their own union allies.
This column was first published in The Orange County Register.
The post No Mass Transit Grants for California, Biden Administration Rules appeared first on Reason.com.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3CSSD3R
via IFTTT
Biden Wants To Empower the IRS Despite Its Track Record of Trampling Rights and Undermining Privacy
President Joe Biden’s plan to beef up IRS enforcement and snoop on Americans’ bank accounts will require hiring more than 80,000 additional tax cops—expanding a federal bureaucracy with a long track record of flouting due process and undermining privacy.
As part of Biden’s “Build Back Better” plan, the IRS would get $80 billion in additional funding over the next 10 years. The bulk of those new funds, nearly $45 billion, would be directed toward enforcement actions with the goal of doubling the number of annual audits of small businesses. By comparison, the bill spends a relatively meager $1.93 billion on improving taxpayer services, including education and filing assistance.
In short, for every new dollar the IRS will spend helping Americans understand the endlessly complicated federal tax code, the agency will spend roughly $23 new dollars on enforcing those same rules.
Everyone should pay the taxes they owe, of course, but the IRS’ track record suggests that more enforcement will also mean more trampling of Americans’ due process rights.
“It’s a systematic practice at the IRS to violate due process and to abuse taxpayers,” says Isabelle Morales, a policy specialist for Americans for Tax Reform, a conservative nonprofit that opposes tax increases. Biden is proposing to boost funding “for an agency that needs reform,” Morales tells Reason, “and that will only lead to us fueling their bad practices.”
In 2017, for example, an inspector general report found that IRS agents investigating so-called “structuring”—legal cash deposits that the agency believes to have been part of an attempt to skirt tax obligations—routinely failed to follow well-established procedures meant to protect the rights of individuals being investigated. Among other things, targets of IRS investigations are supposed to be told of the reason for the investigation and read their Miranda rights before an interview with an IRS agent. Of the 229 interviews reviewed by auditors, however, there were “only five” cases where targets were informed of their rights before speaking to investigators.
“Individuals and businesses who are not engaged in unlawful conduct may be less guarded in speaking with law enforcement about their banking transactions, and the absence of information about what their rights are might lead them to make statements that are later used against them,” auditors wrote in the report.
Morales points out that the 2017 audit report is just one data point in a long line of similar behavior. The most well-known example of the IRS abusing its power, of course, is the 2012 scandal in which the agency was caught applying stricter scrutiny to conservative nonprofits.
But even when the IRS isn’t engaging in outright political favoritism, there are reasons to worry about what expanding enforcement capabilities might mean for individuals and businesses. A 2016 inspector general report found that the IRS had lost track of more than 1,000 computers that might contain sensitive taxpayer information. A year later, an audit found that the IRS had recently rehired at least 200 employees who were previously fired for conduct or performance issues.
Biden is pitching his plan for enhanced IRS enforcement by promising that it’s all about ensuring billionaires pay what they owe.
That’s disingenuous. As the details of his proposal make clear, enhanced tax enforcement will mean hoovering up more data from crypto wallets, bank accounts, and third-party payment providers such as PayPal and Venmo. And that comes after Biden already ordered the IRS to give greater scrutiny to transactions in the so-called sharing economy. In total, Biden’s plan envisions the IRS carrying out 1.2 million more audits each year, according to the House Ways and Means Committee’s analysis of the Build Back Better plan. About half of those audits would target households making less than $75,000 annually.
Combined with a separate effort that makes it more difficult to shift assets overseas, Biden’s plan amounts to total financial surveillance, as Reason‘s Matt Welch has written.
That surveillance would be carried out by an agency that has a long history of disregarding the guardrails placed on its power. What could go wrong?
The post Biden Wants To Empower the IRS Despite Its Track Record of Trampling Rights and Undermining Privacy appeared first on Reason.com.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3nSeEvf
via IFTTT
Today in Supreme Court History: November 26, 1829
11/26/1829: Justice Bushrod Washington dies. He was President George Washington’s nephew.
The post Today in Supreme Court History: November 26, 1829 appeared first on Reason.com.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3p2kzNP
via IFTTT
Biden Wants To Empower the IRS Despite Its Track Record of Trampling Rights and Undermining Privacy
President Joe Biden’s plan to beef up IRS enforcement and snoop on Americans’ bank accounts will require hiring more than 80,000 additional tax cops—expanding a federal bureaucracy with a long track record of flouting due process and undermining privacy.
As part of Biden’s “Build Back Better” plan, the IRS would get $80 billion in additional funding over the next 10 years. The bulk of those new funds, nearly $45 billion, would be directed toward enforcement actions with the goal of doubling the number of annual audits of small businesses. By comparison, the bill spends a relatively meager $1.93 billion on improving taxpayer services, including education and filing assistance.
In short, for every new dollar the IRS will spend helping Americans understand the endlessly complicated federal tax code, the agency will spend roughly $23 new dollars on enforcing those same rules.
Everyone should pay the taxes they owe, of course, but the IRS’ track record suggests that more enforcement will also mean more trampling of Americans’ due process rights.
“It’s a systematic practice at the IRS to violate due process and to abuse taxpayers,” says Isabelle Morales, a policy specialist for Americans for Tax Reform, a conservative nonprofit that opposes tax increases. Biden is proposing to boost funding “for an agency that needs reform,” Morales tells Reason, “and that will only lead to us fueling their bad practices.”
In 2017, for example, an inspector general report found that IRS agents investigating so-called “structuring”—legal cash deposits that the agency believes to have been part of an attempt to skirt tax obligations—routinely failed to follow well-established procedures meant to protect the rights of individuals being investigated. Among other things, targets of IRS investigations are supposed to be told of the reason for the investigation and read their Miranda rights before an interview with an IRS agent. Of the 229 interviews reviewed by auditors, however, there were “only five” cases where targets were informed of their rights before speaking to investigators.
“Individuals and businesses who are not engaged in unlawful conduct may be less guarded in speaking with law enforcement about their banking transactions, and the absence of information about what their rights are might lead them to make statements that are later used against them,” auditors wrote in the report.
Morales points out that the 2017 audit report is just one data point in a long line of similar behavior. The most well-known example of the IRS abusing its power, of course, is the 2012 scandal in which the agency was caught applying stricter scrutiny to conservative nonprofits.
But even when the IRS isn’t engaging in outright political favoritism, there are reasons to worry about what expanding enforcement capabilities might mean for individuals and businesses. A 2016 inspector general report found that the IRS had lost track of more than 1,000 computers that might contain sensitive taxpayer information. A year later, an audit found that the IRS had recently rehired at least 200 employees who were previously fired for conduct or performance issues.
Biden is pitching his plan for enhanced IRS enforcement by promising that it’s all about ensuring billionaires pay what they owe.
That’s disingenuous. As the details of his proposal make clear, enhanced tax enforcement will mean hoovering up more data from crypto wallets, bank accounts, and third-party payment providers such as PayPal and Venmo. And that comes after Biden already ordered the IRS to give greater scrutiny to transactions in the so-called sharing economy. In total, Biden’s plan envisions the IRS carrying out 1.2 million more audits each year, according to the House Ways and Means Committee’s analysis of the Build Back Better plan. About half of those audits would target households making less than $75,000 annually.
Combined with a separate effort that makes it more difficult to shift assets overseas, Biden’s plan amounts to total financial surveillance, as Reason‘s Matt Welch has written.
That surveillance would be carried out by an agency that has a long history of disregarding the guardrails placed on its power. What could go wrong?
The post Biden Wants To Empower the IRS Despite Its Track Record of Trampling Rights and Undermining Privacy appeared first on Reason.com.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3nSeEvf
via IFTTT
Today in Supreme Court History: November 26, 1829
11/26/1829: Justice Bushrod Washington dies. He was President George Washington’s nephew.
The post Today in Supreme Court History: November 26, 1829 appeared first on Reason.com.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3p2kzNP
via IFTTT