Category: reason

Brickbat: A Failure to Communicate

Lucio Delgado was proud to have the chance to become a U.S. citizen. But his dreams were dashed when he flunked the reading portion of the naturalization test. Delgado is blind, but examiners refused to provide that portion of the exam in Braille. Delgado says he was told he would have to bring a doctor’s note saying he was blind, something he says he can’t afford.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3aMfJM0
via IFTTT

Brickbat: A Failure to Communicate

Lucio Delgado was proud to have the chance to become a U.S. citizen. But his dreams were dashed when he flunked the reading portion of the naturalization test. Delgado is blind, but examiners refused to provide that portion of the exam in Braille. Delgado says he was told he would have to bring a doctor’s note saying he was blind, something he says he can’t afford.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3aMfJM0
via IFTTT

The Law That Killed Freelance Work

Freelance jobs are “feudalism,” says Democratic California Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez.

She persuaded California’s legislature to pass a new law reclassifying freelance workers as employees. That means many people who hire them must now give them benefits like overtime, unemployment insurance, etc. Politicians said it would help freelancers a lot.

Of course, much of the media agreed. Vox called it “a victory for workers everywhere”!

Sigh. Young reporters just don’t understand that stifling economic freedom always creates nasty side effects.

Actually, more understand now, because they got a very personal lesson. Once the bill passed, Vox media cut hundreds of freelance writing jobs.

When Gonzalez was asked if she felt bad about that, she sneered, those weren’t “real jobs.”

The arrogance of politicians! People choose jobs. Freelancers like flexibility. Politicians have no right to say certain jobs aren’t good enough.

“You’re thinking you’re helping us, but you’re not,” says musician Ari Herstand in my new video. He says the anti gig-work law could “crash the California music economy.”

Why? Before the law passed, if he played a gig where he’d hire a drummer, bassist, and guitar player, “I just cut (each) a check for $200. Now, I have to take that drummer, put him on payroll, W2 him, get workers’ comp insurance, unemployment insurance. I have to pay payroll taxes. I also have to now hire a payroll company.”

All to hire musicians for one just night. The paperwork alone might cost more than the music.

The anti-gig-work law originally targeted rideshare companies like Uber and Lyft, because unions claimed the companies abuse drivers.

But now many rideshare drivers are upset because the law takes away their freedom.

“I liked being independent!” said one. “I don’t want a boss to tell me when or where to drive.”

Herstand says Uber and Lyft drivers would often tell him: “I’m a photographer and this is my fourth side gig. I want to do this when I want to do this, and if now I’m an employee, and I’m W2’d, they’re going to dictate my hours. I don’t want that. (The law is) preventing us from doing what we want to do.”

The law upset independent truck drivers, too. After some nosily drove big rigs in front of the legislature, they got an exemption from the law. Other politically connected professions, like lawyers and realtors, got exemptions as well.

Now Herstand’s working on getting an exemption for musicians, too.

“Why is that good law?” I asked him. “An exception for whoever is clever enough to get to the politicians?”

“It’s definitely not the solution,” laughed Herstand. “‘Write us out of this law and help us out? Here’s money for your next campaign.’ No, that doesn’t seem like that’s a way to legislate.”

But that’s how it’s often done. The more rules politicians pass, the more money they extract from people who are regulated.

Now other politicians want to copy California’s law. New York, New Jersey, and Illinois have their own versions of gig economy bills. The House of Representatives wants to nationalize the law. And, this week, Democratic front-runner Joe Biden cluelessly said such a law “will give workers the dignity they deserve.”

Democrats do what unions ask them to do. Politico points out that just a few years ago, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) called gig work “a great service for people, giving people jobs. I don’t think government should be in the business of trying to restrict job growth.” He even joked that Uber drivers might earn more than he does.

But now he wants to outlaw most gig work and calls it “exploitive, abusive!”

It’s no surprise that Gonzalez’s biggest political donors are unions. She talks a lot about “protecting our union jobs.” But now that her bill is killing jobs, she wouldn’t agree to an interview.

Neither would the California unions, or any of 75 law professors, political scientists, sociologists, etc., who published a letter in support of the law.

Yes, we contacted all 75.

Herstand says that’s because the law now embarrasses its supporters, but politicians won’t repeal it because “no politician ever wants to admit they did something wrong.”

COPYRIGHT 2020 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/39EIhXu
via IFTTT

The Law That Killed Freelance Work

Freelance jobs are “feudalism,” says Democratic California Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez.

She persuaded California’s legislature to pass a new law reclassifying freelance workers as employees. That means many people who hire them must now give them benefits like overtime, unemployment insurance, etc. Politicians said it would help freelancers a lot.

Of course, much of the media agreed. Vox called it “a victory for workers everywhere”!

Sigh. Young reporters just don’t understand that stifling economic freedom always creates nasty side effects.

Actually, more understand now, because they got a very personal lesson. Once the bill passed, Vox media cut hundreds of freelance writing jobs.

When Gonzalez was asked if she felt bad about that, she sneered, those weren’t “real jobs.”

The arrogance of politicians! People choose jobs. Freelancers like flexibility. Politicians have no right to say certain jobs aren’t good enough.

“You’re thinking you’re helping us, but you’re not,” says musician Ari Herstand in my new video. He says the anti gig-work law could “crash the California music economy.”

Why? Before the law passed, if he played a gig where he’d hire a drummer, bassist, and guitar player, “I just cut (each) a check for $200. Now, I have to take that drummer, put him on payroll, W2 him, get workers’ comp insurance, unemployment insurance. I have to pay payroll taxes. I also have to now hire a payroll company.”

All to hire musicians for one just night. The paperwork alone might cost more than the music.

The anti-gig-work law originally targeted rideshare companies like Uber and Lyft, because unions claimed the companies abuse drivers.

But now many rideshare drivers are upset because the law takes away their freedom.

“I liked being independent!” said one. “I don’t want a boss to tell me when or where to drive.”

Herstand says Uber and Lyft drivers would often tell him: “I’m a photographer and this is my fourth side gig. I want to do this when I want to do this, and if now I’m an employee, and I’m W2’d, they’re going to dictate my hours. I don’t want that. (The law is) preventing us from doing what we want to do.”

The law upset independent truck drivers, too. After some nosily drove big rigs in front of the legislature, they got an exemption from the law. Other politically connected professions, like lawyers and realtors, got exemptions as well.

Now Herstand’s working on getting an exemption for musicians, too.

“Why is that good law?” I asked him. “An exception for whoever is clever enough to get to the politicians?”

“It’s definitely not the solution,” laughed Herstand. “‘Write us out of this law and help us out? Here’s money for your next campaign.’ No, that doesn’t seem like that’s a way to legislate.”

But that’s how it’s often done. The more rules politicians pass, the more money they extract from people who are regulated.

Now other politicians want to copy California’s law. New York, New Jersey, and Illinois have their own versions of gig economy bills. The House of Representatives wants to nationalize the law. And, this week, Democratic front-runner Joe Biden cluelessly said such a law “will give workers the dignity they deserve.”

Democrats do what unions ask them to do. Politico points out that just a few years ago, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) called gig work “a great service for people, giving people jobs. I don’t think government should be in the business of trying to restrict job growth.” He even joked that Uber drivers might earn more than he does.

But now he wants to outlaw most gig work and calls it “exploitive, abusive!”

It’s no surprise that Gonzalez’s biggest political donors are unions. She talks a lot about “protecting our union jobs.” But now that her bill is killing jobs, she wouldn’t agree to an interview.

Neither would the California unions, or any of 75 law professors, political scientists, sociologists, etc., who published a letter in support of the law.

Yes, we contacted all 75.

Herstand says that’s because the law now embarrasses its supporters, but politicians won’t repeal it because “no politician ever wants to admit they did something wrong.”

COPYRIGHT 2020 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/39EIhXu
via IFTTT

The Bloomberg and Steyer Fiascoes Should Give Pause to Speech Restrictionists

Two and a half weeks after Bernie Sanders slammed Michael Bloomberg for trying to “buy this election,” the former New York City mayor dropped out of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, having spent $570 million of his own money to win 61 delegates. Tom Steyer, the other billionaire in the race, did even worse, abandoning his campaign after spending more than $250 million and earning zero delegates.

Those spectacular failures should give pause to the politicians and activists who argue that money poses a grave threat to democracy—so grave that the Constitution must be amended to authorize limits on campaign spending. The Bloomberg and Steyer fiascoes show that no amount of money can buy victory for candidates who fail to persuade voters.

Bloomberg’s unprecedented ad blitz seemed to be effective at first, boosting his standing in national polls from around 3 percent in November to as high as 19 percent by early March. But when push came to shove on Super Tuesday last week, Democrats keen to replace President Donald Trump did not buy Bloomberg’s argument that he was the man to do it.

The arrogance embodied in Bloomberg’s strategy of skipping the early contests and debates, flooding the airwaves and internet with ads, and swooping in to rescue a party he joined less than two years ago goes a long way toward explaining why primary voters found him so unappealing. His disastrous performance during the first debate in which he participated surely didn’t help, and neither did his wooden demeanor or the generally uninspiring vibe of his TV spots, which one Democratic strategist described as “mediocre messaging at massive scale.”

Steyer, a hedge fund manager who had previously spent many millions of his personal fortune to support mostly losing Democratic candidates, saw almost no visible return on his investment in his own campaign. He was polling at 0 percent last July and by the time he dropped out in February had climbed all the way to 1 percent.

These meager to modest results are consistent with research on the role of money in congressional races. Although the candidate who spends the most generally wins, that pattern can be explained almost entirely by donors’ eagerness to back strong contenders.

For incumbents, who were reelected 91 percent of the time in the House and 84 percent of the time in the Senate last time around, it has proven remarkably difficult to show that spending more attracts more votes. Money matters most for challengers, which means that caps on spending are apt to help maintain the status quo rather than shake things up.

While “money isn’t speech,” as advocates of restrictions keep reminding us, money is necessary for speech to reach a wide audience, which is especially important for candidates who do not enjoy the manifold advantages of incumbency, including name recognition, constant visibility, good will earned through constituent service, and voters’ tendency to stick with the guy they know unless there is a compelling reason to take a chance on someone else. Restrictions on spending impair a candidate’s ability to get his message across, just as direct restrictions on the use of telephones, video equipment, computers, or the internet would, even though those technologies are not speech either.

Limiting access to the means of mass communication obviously would violate the First Amendment, and so does limiting their use by telling candidates how much money they can spend, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly held. Yet Democrats are so obsessed with the supposedly corrupting impact of money in politics that they are ready to authorize such restrictions by fundamentally rewriting the law of free speech, as a constitutional amendment backed by every Democrat in the Senate and more than nine out of 10 Democrats in the House would do.

Contrary to the fears underlying that illiberal initiative, voters are perfectly capable of rejecting even the most powerfully amplified messages. Just ask Bloomberg and Steyer.

© Copyright 2020 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Q4noNK
via IFTTT

The Bloomberg and Steyer Fiascoes Should Give Pause to Speech Restrictionists

Two and a half weeks after Bernie Sanders slammed Michael Bloomberg for trying to “buy this election,” the former New York City mayor dropped out of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, having spent $570 million of his own money to win 61 delegates. Tom Steyer, the other billionaire in the race, did even worse, abandoning his campaign after spending more than $250 million and earning zero delegates.

Those spectacular failures should give pause to the politicians and activists who argue that money poses a grave threat to democracy—so grave that the Constitution must be amended to authorize limits on campaign spending. The Bloomberg and Steyer fiascoes show that no amount of money can buy victory for candidates who fail to persuade voters.

Bloomberg’s unprecedented ad blitz seemed to be effective at first, boosting his standing in national polls from around 3 percent in November to as high as 19 percent by early March. But when push came to shove on Super Tuesday last week, Democrats keen to replace President Donald Trump did not buy Bloomberg’s argument that he was the man to do it.

The arrogance embodied in Bloomberg’s strategy of skipping the early contests and debates, flooding the airwaves and internet with ads, and swooping in to rescue a party he joined less than two years ago goes a long way toward explaining why primary voters found him so unappealing. His disastrous performance during the first debate in which he participated surely didn’t help, and neither did his wooden demeanor or the generally uninspiring vibe of his TV spots, which one Democratic strategist described as “mediocre messaging at massive scale.”

Steyer, a hedge fund manager who had previously spent many millions of his personal fortune to support mostly losing Democratic candidates, saw almost no visible return on his investment in his own campaign. He was polling at 0 percent last July and by the time he dropped out in February had climbed all the way to 1 percent.

These meager to modest results are consistent with research on the role of money in congressional races. Although the candidate who spends the most generally wins, that pattern can be explained almost entirely by donors’ eagerness to back strong contenders.

For incumbents, who were reelected 91 percent of the time in the House and 84 percent of the time in the Senate last time around, it has proven remarkably difficult to show that spending more attracts more votes. Money matters most for challengers, which means that caps on spending are apt to help maintain the status quo rather than shake things up.

While “money isn’t speech,” as advocates of restrictions keep reminding us, money is necessary for speech to reach a wide audience, which is especially important for candidates who do not enjoy the manifold advantages of incumbency, including name recognition, constant visibility, good will earned through constituent service, and voters’ tendency to stick with the guy they know unless there is a compelling reason to take a chance on someone else. Restrictions on spending impair a candidate’s ability to get his message across, just as direct restrictions on the use of telephones, video equipment, computers, or the internet would, even though those technologies are not speech either.

Limiting access to the means of mass communication obviously would violate the First Amendment, and so does limiting their use by telling candidates how much money they can spend, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly held. Yet Democrats are so obsessed with the supposedly corrupting impact of money in politics that they are ready to authorize such restrictions by fundamentally rewriting the law of free speech, as a constitutional amendment backed by every Democrat in the Senate and more than nine out of 10 Democrats in the House would do.

Contrary to the fears underlying that illiberal initiative, voters are perfectly capable of rejecting even the most powerfully amplified messages. Just ask Bloomberg and Steyer.

© Copyright 2020 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Q4noNK
via IFTTT

Establishment Candidate Joe Biden Delivers Near-Fatal Blow to Sanders’ Socialist Campaign

Joe Biden delivered decisive Tuesday primary wins over Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.), cementing the former vice president’s frontrunner status and dealing what might be a fatal blow to the democratic socialist’s campaign for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

Biden nabbed the crucial state of Michigan, which was a notable loss for Sanders, who managed a much-celebrated surprise victory in that state in the 2016 primary. Also among Biden’s haul are Mississippi and Missouri, the latter of which Sanders lost by a razor-thin margin—0.24 percent, to be exact—just four years ago.

It was not close this time. 

So clear was Biden’s lead that the Associated Press called both Missouri and Mississippi mere minutes after the polls closed. Michigan wasn’t far behind.

Sanders and his surrogates have spent a considerable amount of airtime arguing that the Vermont independent is the best candidate to expand the Democratic electorate. “Now is the time for us to really double down on coalition building, positivity expansion, and focusing on the vision that Senator Sanders has for this country,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.), one of his more high-profile supporters, said after his disappointing Super Tuesday showing. 

But with that coalition diminishing significantly when compared to Sanders’ 2016 showing, that expansion is not looking likely. The democratic socialist senator has historically depended heavily on youth turnout, which has been especially low this cycle.

Biden’s strong rebound last week, when he won 10 of 14 Super Tuesday states, can be at least partially attributed to endorsements from South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D–Minn.), both of whom suspended their candidacies to throw their support behind the former vice president. Sanders blamed Biden’s success on “the establishment” bogeyman, arguing that the Democratic machine had conspired against him. But his loss might have more to do with a Democratic Party that is not yet ready to embrace Sanders’ brand of socialism.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3aHBM6o
via IFTTT

Establishment Candidate Joe Biden Delivers Near-Fatal Blow to Sanders’ Socialist Campaign

Joe Biden delivered decisive Tuesday primary wins over Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.), cementing the former vice president’s frontrunner status and dealing what might be a fatal blow to the democratic socialist’s campaign for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

Biden nabbed the crucial state of Michigan, which was a notable loss for Sanders, who managed a much-celebrated surprise victory in that state in the 2016 primary. Also among Biden’s haul are Mississippi and Missouri, the latter of which Sanders lost by a razor-thin margin—0.24 percent, to be exact—just four years ago.

It was not close this time. 

So clear was Biden’s lead that the Associated Press called both Missouri and Mississippi mere minutes after the polls closed. Michigan wasn’t far behind.

Sanders and his surrogates have spent a considerable amount of airtime arguing that the Vermont independent is the best candidate to expand the Democratic electorate. “Now is the time for us to really double down on coalition building, positivity expansion, and focusing on the vision that Senator Sanders has for this country,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.), one of his more high-profile supporters, said after his disappointing Super Tuesday showing. 

But with that coalition diminishing significantly when compared to Sanders’ 2016 showing, that expansion is not looking likely. The democratic socialist senator has historically depended heavily on youth turnout, which has been especially low this cycle.

Biden’s strong rebound last week, when he won 10 of 14 Super Tuesday states, can be at least partially attributed to endorsements from South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D–Minn.), both of whom suspended their candidacies to throw their support behind the former vice president. Sanders blamed Biden’s success on “the establishment” bogeyman, arguing that the Democratic machine had conspired against him. But his loss might have more to do with a Democratic Party that is not yet ready to embrace Sanders’ brand of socialism.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3aHBM6o
via IFTTT