Category: reason

If it doesn’t look like avocado toast, you can’t have it. That’s the message I get loud and clear from Uncle Sam when I read story after story about the Food and Drug Administration’s latest foray into stopping ordinary Americans from doing what ordinary Americans like to do.

Take the latest news that the FDA is thinking about requiring tobacco companies to lower the nicotine in all cigarettes sold in the United States. Its goal is to fight nicotine addiction. The paternalists at the FDA are also considering whether this proposal should be paired with a ban on menthol products.

This comes from the agency that has badly botched the COVID-19 response by delaying test and vaccine authorizations that could have saved countless lives. Now it has the nerve to tell Americans, most of whom are stressed out of their minds after a year of the pandemic and lockdowns, what they can or can’t inhale.

While it may sound old-fashioned, I don’t believe that it’s the role of the government to tell fully consenting adults what they can and cannot do with their own bodies, even if their choice is something that most people disapprove of. And if you tell me that socialized medicine should give Uncle Sam the right to boss us around, I’ll tell you that two wrongs don’t make a right.

Besides, these measures are nonsensical. According to The Wall Street Journal, the idea behind the nicotine reduction measure is that it “would lower the chemical in cigarettes to nonaddictive or minimally addictive levels, aiming to push millions of smokers to either quit or switch to less harmful alternatives such as nicotine gums, lozenges, or e-cigarettes.” Note that this same FDA has waged a war on these same e-cigarettes by banning the most popular flavors to ensure that these new and less harmful products were as unappealing as a plate of raw broccoli for breakfast.

Ask yourself this question: Do the geniuses at the FDA not realize that many people will simply smoke a greater number of cigarettes per day in order to get their nicotine fix?

Why would the FDA expect smokers to respond in a radically different way than all the people the government has tried to nudge with failed nanny state interventions to get to stop smoking or drinking sugary drinks in the past? I understand the superficial belief that raising the price of an item with taxes or other means as this proposal effectively suggests could discourage its consumption. But studies show that this isn’t what happens in practice.

In fact, consumers have a knack for finding ways to consume the same amount of stuff that the government is trying to diminish the consumption of, especially when it comes to drugs, alcohol, or sugar. Sometimes they switch to substitutes that are even more dangerous.

For instance, studies find that smokers in high-tax states tend to consume cigarettes that are longer and higher in tar and nicotine than the ones consumed by smokers in low-tax states. This effect is especially pronounced among 18- to 24-year-olds because they have less money and insist on getting more bang for their buck. The same is true of harder drug prohibition. As the Cato Institute’s Trevor Burrus tells me, “Prohibition makes drugs stronger for the same reason people smuggle flasks and not 12 packs at sporting events.”

The same will happen with this latest nanny state gambit by the FDA. At the margin, a few, mostly light, smokers will give up the habit, but longtime and heavy smokers will likely start smoking more cigarettes to get their desired amount of nicotine. As with drugs and other prohibitions, this move is not neutral health-wise because, while nicotine doesn’t lead to cancer or real harm, according to the FDA, the tar in each cigarette does. According to Cato Institute Senior Fellow Jeff Singer, who is also a fellow of the American College of Surgeons, “While nicotine is addictive, the tars in tobacco smoke are what do all of the damage to health. Reducing nicotine content might paradoxically make smoking more dangerous.”

So, there you go: With its latest headline-grabbing proposal, the FDA would make smokers poorer and less healthy. We should also expect the black market to expand and offer smokers the stuff they’ve been wanting all along, including menthol cigarettes.

Why not, in this self-proclaimed land of the free, simply let adults choose as they wish.

COPYRIGHT 2021 CREATORS.COM

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3aP4pRG
via IFTTT

President Joe Biden isn’t letting a crisis go to waste. 

His administration is using the pandemic as an excuse to push a list of preexisting Democratic policy priorities, few of which have much to do with COVID-19, and some of which were initially pitched as temporary measures. 

But in last night’s address to a joint Congress, Biden made clear that he wants to extend some these policies, turning COVID-era emergency measures into permanent expansions of federal power, using the virus as an excuse. For Biden, the pandemic has become a catchall justification for a wide array of big-government programs that he and the Democratic Party already wanted to pursue. 

Take, for example, Biden’s push to expand subsidies for health insurance purchased via the Affordable Care Act, the health law commonly known as Obamacare. 

Biden’s American Rescue Plan—the $1.9 trillion aid bill passed in March—included $34 billion to temporarily boost subsidies for health coverage purchased through Obamacare’s marketplaces. The subsidy boost was set to last for two years. 

One could perhaps argue that a pandemic that left millions out of work would justify a temporary program to make health insurance premiums less directly costly for struggling low-income individuals. 

But Biden’s subsidy expansion was structured in a way that would expand subsidy availability to families with quite high incomes. The expanded subsidy is tied to local premiums, and so it varies geographically. In some parts of the country, however, it could make tens of thousands of dollars in annual subsidies available to households earning $350,000 a year. 

In a pandemic-induced recession whose negative economic effects have been concentrated almost entirely at the bottom of the income ladder, there’s no non-ridiculous way to justify that sort of handout to the well-off as pandemic relief. It’s just a straightforward bid to make an existing big-government program even bigger. 

And what was initially touted as a temporary subsidy expansion is now being upsold as a permanent upgrade. Last night, Biden announced that he wants to extend the subsidy boost indefinitely, which would cost an estimated $200 billion over the next decade. He then went on to praise Obamacare as a “lifeline for millions of Americans” and insist that “the pandemic has demonstrated how badly it is needed.” 

The pandemic, in other words, was a convenient excuse—first for a temporary expansion of an already large federal program, then for an even more expensive permanent expansion of that same program. Big government for now swiftly becomes bigger government forever. 

Biden is using this playbook to extend and expand other programs as well. His $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan also included a one-year expansion of the child tax credit. Much of it is refundable, and the plan allows for it to be paid monthly, meaning that it is essentially a regular check cut to parents by the government. As a New York Times report put it recently: “Though framed in technocratic terms as an expansion of an existing tax credit, it is essentially a guaranteed income for families with children.” 

The one-year cost of expanding the child tax credit was about $100 billion. In last night’s speech, Biden pushed Congress to extend the boost to 2025, likely costing hundreds of billions more. And while some of the benefits would go to low-income households, this plan, too, is structured in a way that delivers benefits to families with six-figure earnings; the White House fact sheet offers an example of a family of four making $100,000 a year that would see thousands of dollars in benefits from this plan. 

If Biden’s cash for kids program is extended through 2025, it would be unlikely to end there. It might be reauthorized and extended on a rolling basis, but it would effectively become an ongoing program, another untouchable entitlement in America’s already sizable federal policy firmament. Indeed, some Democrats have already publicly pushed the president to simply make the program permanent. And from there, it’s easy to imagine that the next push would be to make the benefit even larger. Big government has already become bigger government, and under Biden, it is on track to grow larger and larger still. 

And somehow it’s all justified by the pandemic. His speech last night started with the words, “Tonight, I come to talk about crisis.” As he took office in January, he said, he had “inherited a nation in crisis.” The speech, and its laundry list of pricey new programs and policies, was thus framed as an extended response to that crisis. 

It’s not. In part that’s because so many of his proposals are either poorly targeted (large checks for households with stable six-figure incomes) or totally irrelevant to any actual problems stemming from the pandemic (bailouts for union pension funds). 

And in part because the crisis itself is fading from the scene, or at least becoming less severe. Thanks to vaccines, COVID-19 cases and deaths are falling rapidly. And thanks to the improving picture around coronavirus health and safety, the economy is rebounding too. The crisis is, if not entirely gone, much less of one than it was a few months ago, and thus much less of a plausible justification for extreme measures in response. Yet even as COVID fades away, Biden is pursuing massive expansions of federal power premised on crisis response. 

That’s because despite the speech’s framing, crisis response isn’t really the goal—or, at the very least, it’s only part of it. Biden is pursuing a historically unprecedented expansion of government spending and power for its own sake. And no one is really trying to hide it either. The post-speech headline at the top of The New York Times main page this morning read, “Biden Makes Case to Vastly Expand Government’s Role.” It described his speech as an “ambitious agenda to rewrite the American social compact.”  

Biden’s presidency is barely three months old, but it’s already fallen into a predictable pattern: Point to the pandemic. Declare that it’s an emergency, and that something must be done. Then insist on an expensive, expansive policy overhaul that Democrats have pushed for years—first, in some cases, as a temporary measure, and then, inevitably, for much longer. It’s deceptive and dangerous. And if he keeps this up, he may leave a new crisis in his wake.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/330RQOM
via IFTTT

President Joe Biden’s hour-long paean to massive government spending Wednesday evening deliberately focused on job creation. He insisted that his American Jobs Plan will “create millions of good paying jobs—jobs Americans can raise their families on.”

But then in practically the next breath, Biden called on Congress to pass the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act and send it to his desk. The PRO Act will, if passed, destroy hundreds of thousands of careers across the country.

When Biden and the bill’s supporters talk about the PRO Act, they only mention that it helps protect the right for workers to attempt to unionize. But that’s not all the PRO Act does. The PRO Act does tremendous harm to the workforce by making it hard—nearly impossible—for many freelance workers to continue working independently.

This isn’t speculation. We know what this law bill will do to freelancers because it’s based on A.B. 5, legislation passed in California in 2019 that codified extremely restrictive rules controlling who was allowed to work as an independent contractor. The law was written deliberately to attack the gig economy and companies like Uber and Lyft, which operate on a business model in which drivers are classified as independent contractors. This means they can set their own hours and control their work schedules, but also means they don’t qualify for certain benefits. And it also makes it much harder for union supporters to organize them.

But A.B. 5 was written so broadly that in practice it affected thousands of different jobs, threatening hairdressers, freelance journalists, real estate agents, translators, musicians, and many, many others. Ultimately, the bill’s own creator had to pass legislation last year that carved out a bunch of occupational exemptions. The ride-sharing and delivery drivers were left in, but then California voters in November supported a ballot initiative that exempted them as well.

A.B. 5 is in tatters but is still officially on the books. A federal ruling had exempted truck drivers from A.B. 5, accepting the argument that it was preempted by federal transportation law. But on Wednesday, a panel of three judges in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed the lower court’s order, meaning that independent truckers may soon be affected by the law, hampering their ability to find work unless a company takes them on as employees.

Circuit Judge Mark J. Bennett was the sole dissenter, noting that “[California Trucking Association’s] members will now suffer irreparable injury.”

Embedded within the PRO Act is text to take A.B. 5 nationwide, despite California voters’ rejection of the measure. It sets the exact same rules restricting who is permitted to be classified as an independent contractor, regardless of what the worker actually wants. This, to be clear, is completely intentional. A.B. 5 proponent Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D–San Diego) dismissed the concerns of freelancers, saying, “These were never good jobs.” It was very clearly her goal to dismantle and destroy the ability for workers to decide to make careers out of being independent contractors.

Biden can say that he wants to create new jobs all he likes, but the only jobs that the PRO Act actually cares about are union jobs. The bill is actively hostile to jobs that aren’t unionized. That’s a recipe for neither economic growth nor individual freedom.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Sf6FeA
via IFTTT

There are various indicators showing that the U.S. could be headed for a currency crisis. One of them has paws.

Written and performed by Remy; music tracks and mastering by Ben Karlstrom; video produced by Meredith and Austin Bragg

Photos: Stefani Reynolds—Pool via CNP / MEGA / Newscom/RSSIL/Newscom; Greg Nash—Pool via CNP/picture alliance / Consolidated News Photos/Newscom; Andrew Harnik—Pool via CNP / MEGA / Newscom/RSSIL/Newscom

LYRICS:
Coming up: Bad news for savers as even those with high-interest savings accounts
are seeing their money disappear thanks to inflation
But first, we’ll detail every possible thing you could die from

He’s a rational investor, dividend digester
Saves some of his paycheck just like all his ancestors
Him looking for high yields? That’s never the case
He’s seeking six percent returns, slow and steady wins the race!

But when he checks his accounts just to see what they’re fielding
It’s like driving in Maryland—ain’t nobody yielding
What is he to do? He shouldn’t be in a drought
So he visits his adviser just to sort it all out

Inflation’s higher than your bond rates
That’s what I was fearing
And so your savings account is slowly disappearing
And your CDs are pointless
That’s not very funny
What would you like me to do?
Put it all in dog money

Dog money, dog money, dog money, dog money
I’m trading it in for dog money
Dog money, dog money, dog money, dog money
I’m putting it all in dog money

My 401(k) is now a 401(K9)
The sum of my net worth ain’t no longer in a straight line
I’m making smart moves, I ain’t gonna be a pun
I sold my IRA and bought an NFT of one

All in on doge, I dish ’em out like a Tommy gun
You’d think I was statehood the way I’m passing on Washingtons
I feel like Matt Gaetz, you know what I mean?
Assuring everybody it’s above 18

It’s a modern-day gold rush, the prices’ll boom
Like Reggie White vs. the Oilers, I’m heading straight to the moon
My broker’s calling? You KNOW that it’s on
Buy dog money, don’t stop till it’s dawn

One more air base, two more museums
Three more walls, four more Supremes
Five more stadiums—we’re all out of fiat?
Can you take trillions of these and go and make a xerox?

We pay our debts in our currency, that might be unfurled
If it’s no longer the reserve currency of the world
Confidence in the dollar is permanent, just ask any scholar!
People are exchanging their dollars for dog money
Dog money?
Dog money
Dog money…

We’re trading it in for dog money!
Dog money, dog money, dog money, dog money
I’m putting it all in dog money

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3nvOYCW
via IFTTT

Prof. Howard Friedman (Religion Clause) reports:

Yesterday Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed HB 6423 (full text) which eliminates the previously available religious exemption from the state’s immunization requirements for school children. However, the new law allows children who have previously been granted a religious exemption to maintain the exemption, with certain exceptions for grade-school children.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3ez2zFq
via IFTTT

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education reports (or you can read FIRE’s letter to the university president):

A university embroiled in sexual abuse scandals has abruptly fired a tenured professor who criticized the handling of those controversies and alleged that the university’s president and chair of its Board of Trustees made anti-Semitic comments…. On Tuesday, Linfield ousted professor Daniel Pollack-Pelzner after he lambasted the college’s handling of sexual abuse allegations and accused college president Miles K. Davis of making anti-Semitic remarks, which Davis denies. Two other faculty members have subsequently come forward with allegations that Davis made similar remarks….

Pollack-Pelzner, a tenured English literature professor and Shakespeare scholar, is one of many Linfield faculty members and students who have pushed back against the allegedly poor handling of sexual abuse and [harassment] claims by the administration. In one such case, a longtime trustee resigned in 2019 (for “health reasons,” the university said) after being accused of sexually abusing a student. (He has since been indicted.)

On March 29, Pollack-Pelzner posted a Twitter thread claiming that the school failed to protect the college community from the sexual abuse of multiple trustees. He also said he was threatened with “public humiliation” by the board if he continued to report incidents of sexual misconduct. The thread goes on to detail several incidents of anti-Semitism on the part of college employees, including Davis, who allegedly remarked on the size of Jewish people’s noses. In April, the Oregon Board of Rabbis called on Davis to resign, and Linfield’s arts and sciences faculty gave Davis a 59-11 vote of no confidence.

On Monday, the Linfield administration shut down faculty email lists. The following day, Pollack-Pelzner was fired and the university issued a public statement within an hour afterward. In an email to college faculty, aptly titled “Extraordinary step,” Linfield provost Susan Agre-Kippenhan announced the termination for “false public accusations that have, sadly, harmed the university.” Two university spokespeople also sent an email stating Pollack-Pelzner was fired because he “propagated false and defamatory statements.”

Linfield’s faculty handbook states that before being terminated, tenured professors are entitled to a statement of charges and to a faculty hearing, during which the administration bears the burden of producing “clear and convincing” evidence of misconduct. The handbook also declares that “[d]ismissal will not be used to restrain faculty members in their exercise of academic freedom or other rights of American citizens.”

Pollack-Pelzner was afforded neither due process nor protection from the university for his speech.

“Instead of adhering to the bright lines in the handbook, Linfield’s administration has drawn its own,” said [FIRE attorney Adam] Steinbaugh. “By skipping out on the part where it would have to actually prove its accusations, Linfield’s administration signals that the accusations can’t be proven. Giving yourself the authority to decide your critic is wrong — and then firing him without a hearing — is an obvious conflict of interest.”

Though Linfield is a private institution not bound by the First Amendment, it is required to live up to its promises of free expression and due process.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3gNCzZL
via IFTTT

Can a public school punish a student for an off-campus social media post? Or does the First Amendment protect student speech that occurs outside of school grounds and school-sponsored functions?

The U.S. Supreme Court tackled those questions this week during oral arguments in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. The case arose in 2017 when a high school freshman and junior varsity cheerleader who had failed to make the varsity squad vented her frustration on the social media site Snapchat. The student—known by the initials B.L.—posted a picture of herself and one of her friends with their middle fingers raised. The post went up on a Saturday and was accompanied by the message “fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything.” B.L. was kicked off the team for a year after a coach saw the post and took offense.

In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), the Supreme Court said that school officials may not interfere with students’ First Amendment rights on school grounds unless the speech “would materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline and in the operation of the school.”

Lisa Blatt, the attorney for the Mahanoy Area School District, urged the Supreme Court to apply the Tinker standard to student speech that occurs off-campus if the speech may cause an “on-campus disruption.” According to Blatt, “the internet’s ubiquity, instantaneous and mass dissemination, and potential permanence make the speaker’s location irrelevant.”

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lawyer David Cole, the attorney for B.L. and her parents, told the Court that the school’s approach “would require students to effectively carry the schoolhouse on their backs in terms of speech rights everywhere they go.” For example, Cole said, “a father shouldn’t have to worry that if he brings his daughter to a Black Lives Matter protest about mistreatment of a black student at school, and she posts a photo on Facebook, she might be suspended based on potential disruption at the school.”

Several justices seemed to be concerned about that very thing, asking whether the school’s approach would result in students getting punished for talking about politically controversial topics. Justice Samuel Alito offered this hypothetical:

A student believes that someone who is biologically male is a male, and there is a student who is biologically male but identifies as a woman, has adopted a female name, but the student who has the objection refers to this person by the person’s prior male name and uses male pronouns. Can the school do something about that?

Justice Elena Kagan made a similar point while questioning Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart, who appeared as an amicus in support of the Mahanoy Area School District. Say a student emails her classmates “that they should refuse to do any work for English class until the teacher changes the syllabus to include more authors of color.”

That’s “school speech,” Stewart answered. “So that can be punishable,” Kagan replied, sounding surprised. It can be punished “if it causes substantial disruption” at school, the government attorney answered.

ACLU lawyer Cole came in for his share of grilling too. In particular, several of the justices seemed concerned that his preferred approach would leave school officials with no tools to stop online bullying and similarly abusive behavior among students.

Cole responded by stressing the need for “clear definitions of off-campus bullying and harassment consistent with First Amendment principles.” He concluded by reminding the Court that the school punished this particular student “for a momentary expression of frustration on a weekend out of school.” To let that be the rule, he said, “would teach students they can never speak candidly with their friends without worrying that a school official will deem their views potentially disruptive and suspend them or punish them. That is exactly the wrong lesson to teach.”

A decision in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. is expected by late June.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3gLLlr9
via IFTTT