Category: reason

An NYPD Cop Was Sentenced to a Day in Jail for a Lie That Nearly Doomed a Man to 15 Years in Prison

Michael Bergmann of the New York Police Department (NYPD) testified that Pedro Barbosa intentionally attempted to run him over with his vehicle. Barbosa faced a minimum of 15 years in prison if convicted. When video surveillance didn’t match the officer’s story, Bergmann was indicted for perjury. This week, a judge sentenced him to one day in jail and four years probation.

The Washington Post reports that Barbosa has struggled with drugs; thanks to a series of possession arrests, he lost his job, his ability to pay child support, and, finally, his driver’s license. In a low moment, Barbosa stole rolls of quarters to purchase drugs. Bergmann and Barbosa were well-acquainted with each other, and a contentious relationship grew out of Bergmann’s rather obsessive desire to get Barbosa off the streets.

Scott Hechinger, senior attorney at the Brooklyn Defender Services and Barbosa’s public defender, says Bergmann followed Barbosa around and stopped him multiple times in an effort to implicate him in a crime. Bergmann was unsuccessful each time.

Their paths crossed once again after midnight on February 1, 2019. When Barbosa parked his car on the street, Bergmann and an unnamed NYPD officer pulled up beside him, knowing he had a suspended license. Barbosa recognized Bergmann and drove off.

Bergmann’s version of events is more dramatized. In his story, he and his partner exited their SUV. Barbosa then allegedly reversed his car quickly, purposefully positioned the car where Bergmann was between the headlights, and slammed on the gas to try to run him over. Bergmann claimed that he managed to jump out of the way before he was hit, landing on the ground and scratching his elbow.

Bergmann not only included this tale in his police report but swore before a jury that his account was true. Painted as a violent offender, Barbosa was convicted of attempted assault in the first degree.

Fortunately for Barbosa, surveillance footage from a mechanic shop captured the interaction.

Hechinger wrote a motion to dismiss the charges and sent both the motion and the footage to the prosecutor. “He was speechless,” Hechinger recalls. The prosecutor was appalled that Bergmann lied about “something so egregious.” 

As a result, Bergmann was charged with perjury and pleaded guilty. He was also fired.

This week Judge Danny Chun sentenced Bergmann to a single day in jail, which he has already served, plus four years probation. Prosecutors initially asked for a sentence of a year in jail. The district attorney’s office believed they would have better luck getting Chun to agree to six months in jail. Regardless, Chun considered six months “unduly harsh.”

So one day in jail plus probation for a lie that nearly cost a man 15 years of his life. Contrast that with the fate of low-income people trapped behind bars because of expensive pre-trial bail. Though the law considers them innocent until proven guilty, they often spend far more time in jail than Bergmann while waiting for their day in court. In one infamous case, Kalief Browder spent three years in Rikers Island without a trial because his bail was set at an unaffordable $3,000.

“It isn’t that I wish greater harshness,” Hechinger says. “It’s that I wish that the majority of the people coming through the system—mostly poor people, predominantly black and Latino—were treated with the same kind of individualized justice, due process, and care and consideration for their lives that police officers are.”

This may be a pattern with Chun. Hechinger has tweeted several examples of the judge sentencing NYPD officers to probation for such offenses as having sex with a teen in exchange for her freedom, shooting a man in the mouth out of jealousy and then tampering with the evidence, and shooting a man who was walking in a stairwell.

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

Connecticut Racial Ridicule Prosecution: One Student Agrees to Probation, the Other’s Case Is Still Pending

According to the Hartford Courant (David Owens),

One of two UConn students charged with yelling racial slurs [in particular, “nigger” -EV] outside a university apartment complex was granted a special form of probation Tuesday that could result in the charge against him being dismissed.

Jarred Karal, 21, of Plainville, will be on probation for six months and must complete 20 hours of community service and undergo diversity and bias training. Rockville Superior Court Judge James Sicilian approved Karal’s application for accelerated rehabilitation, finding that his offense was not of a serious nature and that it was unlikely Karal would offend again.

As I argued in this New York Daily News article, the statute is unconstitutional, and on its face not even applicable to the speech here; but I can understand why a defendant might prefer to make the case go away quickly rather than fighting. The other student, though, seems not to have made any such deal; I hope to know more soon about whether he’ll be challenging the constitutionality of the prosecution.

Here, in the meantime, is a quick summary of the problems with the statute:

[1.] Connecticut General Statutes § 53-37 (which, oddly enough, is listed in some Connecticut government documents under the “affirmative action” category, as in this Affirmative Action Policy Statement and this Affirmative Action—Laws List) provides:

Any person who, by his advertisement, ridicules or holds up to contempt any person or class of persons, on account of the creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race of such person or class of persons, shall be fined not more than fifty dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days or both.

And, as best we can tell, prosecutors have averaged a bit over one conviction per year under the statute from 2000 to 2016, and in 2017 they had four prosecutions—two that were dropped, and two that were still pending as of the end of 2017. (Because records of prosecutions that don’t lead to convictions are purged fairly promptly, I can’t get information on unsuccessful prosecutions in past years.)

[2.] The statute, though, is pretty obviously unconstitutional, because it suppresses speech based on its content (and viewpoint), and because there’s no First Amendment exception for speech that insults based on race or religion. Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952) did uphold a “group libel” statute that banned derogatory statements about racial and religious groups, but that decision is widely and rightly regarded as obsolete, given the last 50 years of First Amendment jurisprudence. The only part of Beauharnais that likely survives is its general conclusion that there is a libel exception to the First Amendment; since then, that exception has been dramatically narrowed. As the Court has repeatedly held, racist and religiously bigoted speech is as constitutionally protected as speech that expresses other ideas.

But it turns out that Connecticut prosecutors aren’t enforcing the law as it is written. I have found no prosecutions for advertisements that ridicule people based on race or religion—not for commercial advertisements (which in any event would be pretty bad for business these days) and not for political advertisements.

Rather, based on the 13 police reports that I’ve read, prosecutors seem to be enforcing the statute to punish people for race- or religion-based “fighting words”: generally speaking, face-to-face personal insults that include racial or religious slurs. (The facts of the cases are a mix: Three involved racial insults of police officers, one case with anti-white insults and another with anti-black insults. The other ten mostly involved insults of black ordinary citizens, though one was of a Hispanic, one of someone perceived to be Muslim, and one of an ambiguously labeled “nigga cracker.” The defendants were mostly whites, but two were likely Hispanic and one was black.)

Now that might be less troubling than trying to punish, say, political advertisements. But is itself unconstitutional, for three related reasons.

[A.] First, such insults may be offensive and empty of serious arguments, but they aren’t advertisements, under any definition of the word “advertisement.” The convicted defendants are not guilty of the crime they were charged with, given the plain text of the statute. And there are no appellate decisions reinterpreting the text of the statute (as there are for some statutes), so the defendants weren’t guilty under either the law as written or the law as authoritatively construed. Indeed, the one nonprecedential decision I could find, National Socialist White People’s Party v. Southern New England Telephone Co. (D. Mass. 1975) (3-judge court), and the one decision cited in that case, State v. Jensen (Conn. Cir. Ct. 1969), read the statute—consistently with its text—as genuinely limited to “advertisements.”

Yet a 2008 report from the Connecticut legislature’s Office of Legislative Research and a 2014 East Haven Police Department manual describe the statute simply as covering “ridicul[ing] any person or class of people on account of creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality, or race,” likewise dropping the “advertisement” requirement. The prosecutors in the cases cited above for which I’ve seen arrest reports (more than half of the list) likewise seem to be ignoring that requirement.

[B.] Even if prosecutors are reading the state as only banning race- or religion-based fighting words—contrary to its text—there’s no reason to think that all the judges are reading it that way, or will read it that way. Some guilty verdicts might thus easily be entered without the judges finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the speech constituted fighting words. Indeed, this very case involves speech that is unlikely to be viewed as “fighting words,” since that narrow First Amendment exception is limited to “personally abusive epithets” that are “directed to the person of the hearer”; these words weren’t directed to any particular person.

[C.] But even if the statute were somehow read as banning race- or religion-based fighting words—contrary to its text—there’s a Supreme Court decision squarely holding such statutes unconstitutional: R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992). R.A.V. struck down a ban on those fighting words that “arouse[] anger, alarm or resentment in others” based on, among other things, race or religion; this statute seems to be read as a ban on those fighting words that “ridicule[] or hold[] up to contempt any person or class of persons” based on, race, religion, or nationality. The words of R.A.V. apply just as well to this statute: Even assuming that “all of the expression reached by the [statute] is proscribable under the ‘fighting words’ doctrine,” the statute “is facially unconstitutional in that it prohibits otherwise permitted speech solely on the basis of the subjects the speech addresses.”

The 1999 “Hate Speech on the Internet” report from the Office of Legislative Research has noted that the statute’s “constitutionality is questionable under the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings.” But a 2008 report written by the same lawyer doesn’t include that note.

[3.] One might ask: Why hadn’t defense lawyers objected to this earlier, or appealed the cases? (I could find no appellate decisions that mention the statute.)

I suspect some defense lawyers are objecting, and some (perhaps many) prosecutors aren’t bringing charges because they realize the statute is unconstitutional. Other defense lawyers might agree to charges under the statute as part of a plea bargain that they think is better for their clients, if in the absence of these charges the clients might have faced more serious ones (or more serious sentences on other accompanying charges). Still others might not recognize the First Amendment problems. I’ve tried digging a bit, and ran into lawyers’ normal tendency to keep quiet.

[4.] A few historical points. First, the statute was enacted in 1917, and the act that passed it was titled “An Act concerning Discrimination at Places of Public Accommodation.” It really was aimed at “advertisement[s]” for businesses, not at (say) KKK rallies or the like.

Second, the reference to “creed” seems to refer to religion, perhaps to make clear (together with “denomination”) that all religious discrimination was covered (e.g., so people can’t say “I’m not contemptuous of Catholics, but only of people who believe in adherence to the Pope”), or perhaps because of the lawyer’s habit of using multiple synonyms for the same thing (which might itself stem from a desire to avoid any inadvertent gaps in coverage).

Certainly the cases from the early and mid-1900s confirm that, and modern cases also take the same view: “The word ‘creed’ has a definite meaning, as a formal declaration of religious belief.” Hammer v. State (Ind. 1909). “In my opinion the [New York] Legislature in [a law banning housing discrimination] used the words ‘creed’ and ‘religion’ interchangeably. I cannot subscribe to the argument of the petitioners that the word ‘creed’ may refer to any beliefs, be they economic, political or sociological. Viewed in the light of the history of the statute, the evils it intended to cure, and its constitutional forerunner, I hold that ‘creed’ means religious belief.” Cummings v. Weinfeld (N.Y. trial ct. 1941). “The rubric ‘race, color, creed or religion’ … has attained too fixed a meaning to permit political groups to be brought within it.” Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952) (which I think is good evidence of the legal meaning of the term at the time, even though its constitutional analysis is not consistent with more recent precedents).

Continue reading “Connecticut Racial Ridicule Prosecution: One Student Agrees to Probation, the Other’s Case Is Still Pending”

An NYPD Cop Was Sentenced to a Day in Jail for a Lie That Nearly Doomed a Man to 15 Years in Prison

Michael Bergmann of the New York Police Department (NYPD) testified that Pedro Barbosa intentionally attempted to run him over with his vehicle. Barbosa faced a minimum of 15 years in prison if convicted. When video surveillance didn’t match the officer’s story, Bergmann was indicted for perjury. This week, a judge sentenced him to one day in jail and four years probation.

The Washington Post reports that Barbosa has struggled with drugs; thanks to a series of possession arrests, he lost his job, his ability to pay child support, and, finally, his driver’s license. In a low moment, Barbosa stole rolls of quarters to purchase drugs. Bergmann and Barbosa were well-acquainted with each other, and a contentious relationship grew out of Bergmann’s rather obsessive desire to get Barbosa off the streets.

Scott Hechinger, senior attorney at the Brooklyn Defender Services and Barbosa’s public defender, says Bergmann followed Barbosa around and stopped him multiple times in an effort to implicate him in a crime. Bergmann was unsuccessful each time.

Their paths crossed once again after midnight on February 1, 2019. When Barbosa parked his car on the street, Bergmann and an unnamed NYPD officer pulled up beside him, knowing he had a suspended license. Barbosa recognized Bergmann and drove off.

Bergmann’s version of events is more dramatized. In his story, he and his partner exited their SUV. Barbosa then allegedly reversed his car quickly, purposefully positioned the car where Bergmann was between the headlights, and slammed on the gas to try to run him over. Bergmann claimed that he managed to jump out of the way before he was hit, landing on the ground and scratching his elbow.

Bergmann not only included this tale in his police report but swore before a jury that his account was true. Painted as a violent offender, Barbosa was convicted of attempted assault in the first degree.

Fortunately for Barbosa, surveillance footage from a mechanic shop captured the interaction.

Hechinger wrote a motion to dismiss the charges and sent both the motion and the footage to the prosecutor. “He was speechless,” Hechinger recalls. The prosecutor was appalled that Bergmann lied about “something so egregious.” 

As a result, Bergmann was charged with perjury and pleaded guilty. He was also fired.

This week Judge Danny Chun sentenced Bergmann to a single day in jail, which he has already served, plus four years probation. Prosecutors initially asked for a sentence of a year in jail. The district attorney’s office believed they would have better luck getting Chun to agree to six months in jail. Regardless, Chun considered six months “unduly harsh.”

So one day in jail plus probation for a lie that nearly cost a man 15 years of his life. Contrast that with the fate of low-income people trapped behind bars because of expensive pre-trial bail. Though the law considers them innocent until proven guilty, they often spend far more time in jail than Bergmann while waiting for their day in court. In one infamous case, Kalief Browder spent three years in Rikers Island without a trial because his bail was set at an unaffordable $3,000.

“It isn’t that I wish greater harshness,” Hechinger says. “It’s that I wish that the majority of the people coming through the system—mostly poor people, predominantly black and Latino—were treated with the same kind of individualized justice, due process, and care and consideration for their lives that police officers are.”

This may be a pattern with Chun. Hechinger has tweeted several examples of the judge sentencing NYPD officers to probation for such offenses as having sex with a teen in exchange for her freedom, shooting a man in the mouth out of jealousy and then tampering with the evidence, and shooting a man who was walking in a stairwell.

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

The 2020s Will Be the Decade of Deficit Doomsday

The decade that just ended saw a period of uninterrupted economic growth. In the decade to come, we’ll pay for squandering it.

Since the so-called Great Recession officially ended in the third quarter of 2009, the United States has enjoyed 42 consecutive quarters of solid if unspectacular economic growth. That’s the longest run of uninterrupted growth since government economists began tracking the business cycle in the 1850s, far outpacing the average economic expansion of 18 months. Employment has increased by 12 percent, the jobless rate reached record lows, and America’s gross domestic product (GDP) has increased by more than 25 percent.

It has been, by almost any measure, one of the best times in American history. Almost.

Hanging over this decade of good news is the gloom of a missed opportunity. After piling up trillions of dollars in deficit spending during the last recession, the federal government took some modest steps towards reducing that red ink during the middle years of the 2010s. But after Republicans took full control in 2017, spending skyrocketed and the deficit inflated again.

Since Trump was inaugurated, Washington has added $4.7 trillion to the national debt—almost entirely the result of a gigantic spending binge, but with a small assist from the 2017 tax cuts, which reduced revenues without offsetting spending cuts.

Now, more than a decade after the last recession ended, the United States is carrying a record amount of debt: more than $23 trillion. The country is on track to add more than $1 trillion to that total in every year of the coming decade, with old age entitlements ramping up as Baby Boomers retire and the country as a whole ages.

“Debt matters because it’s the one issue that impacts all others,” says Michael A. Peterson, CEO of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, a nonpartisan policy center dedicated to fiscal issues. “Debt threatens our economic health and hinders our ability to make important investments in our future. If we want to tackle big issues like climate change, student debt or national security, then we shouldn’t saddle ourselves with growing interest costs.”

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the national debt will approach the size of the entire U.S. economy by the end of the current decade—and will keep on growing until it hits 144 percent of U.S. GDP in 2049. The current situation, warns the Government Accountability Office (GAO), is “unsustainable.”

Compare all this with early 2001, at the end of the second-longest economic expansion in history. The federal government was running a surplus. The national debt was falling and amounted to only 31 percent of GDP. That’s what you’d expect to see now, since deficits typically fall when the economy is growing and grow when the economy is rotten.

Indeed, since the end of World War II, the U.S. has seen deficits greater than 4 percent of GDP only in years when the country was either deep in the throes of a serious recession or emerging from one.

In the short term, deficit spending—or tax cuts that aren’t offset with spending cuts—can juice the economy and boost growth. But in the long term, high levels of debt drag down economic growth. The CBO projects that the average American household will lose between $2,000 and $6,000 in annual wealth by 2040 if the current trajectory continues. It also says America’s GDP will shrink by 2 percent over the next two decades if current policies continue and the debt keeps growing.

And the CBO projections are probably too rosy. They predate the approval of a new bipartisan budget deal in late 2019 that is expected to add another $1.7 trillion to the national debt over 10 years. Furthermore, the CBO is required to build projections based on current policies. Those assume, among other things, that some of the 2017 tax cuts will expire in the middle of this decade. Politically, that’s unlikely to happen.

Worse yet, the CBO’s projections don’t account for the inevitable eventual end to this run of economic growth. If we’re running a trillion-dollar deficit in the good years, what happens when the next downturn occurs?

“A recession could quickly push the deficit up towards $2 trillion,” says Brian Riedl, a former Republican congressional staffer now based at the Manhattan Institute. A recession would likely trigger politically motivated calls for even more deficit spending, causing the debt to skyrocket even more than it already has.

It might also cause interest rates to spike, compounding America’s debt problem. Every percentage point that interest rates rise will add $1.8 trillion in added costs over the decade.

“A nervous bond market could demand higher interest rates, further weakening both the economy and the deficit,” says Riedl. “So while the economy looks strong and the deficit seems irrelevant, the fiscal situation is quite fragile.”

It may require a crisis before anyone in Washington takes the situation seriously. The American political system seems incapable of planning for the long term. Even passing a federal budget through the normal committee process appears to be impossible, a testament to the failure of both parties’ current congressional leaders. Congress lurches from one crisis to another—some real, some manufactured to score political points—and Trump’s tempestuous presidency has only made things worse.

Assigning blame isn’t the most important thing, but there is plenty to go around. The Trump administration and current crop of Republicans in Congress have made the problem worse than it already was. Some of them—like former deficit hawk Mick Mulvaney and former House Speaker Paul Ryan, who made his name in Congress as the GOP’s budget-maker—deserve special ignominy for abandoning their fiscal conservatism when it was most needed. Trump came into office promising to eliminate the national debt in eight years, and that’s even more of a joke now than it was then.

Meanwhile, Democrats’ aversion to spending reductions and their refusal even to consider changes to entitlement programs—the biggest driver of the national debt—are equally large obstacles to any meaningful attempt at fixing this mess. The party’s progressive wing is pushing for Medicare for All and expanding Social Security benefits, while elevating economic theories that say we should ignore the deficit.

And neither party seems to have a serious plan to rein in military spending, despite two decades and more than a trillion dollars spent in the Middle East quagmire.

In contrast to their elected officials, most Americans believe the debt and deficit are important. A Pew Research Center poll conducted earlier this month found that 53 percent of Americans view the federal budget deficit as a “very big” problem facing the country. That’s a larger share of the public than the portion that views terrorism (39 percent), racism (43 percent), or climate change (48 percent) as a major problem.

But you’ll hear much more talk about climate change, terrorism, and racism during the 2020 election. You’ll here much more talk about many other things too. Neither party is taking the debt seriously right now, and no prominent national politicians appear positioned to lead a deficit reduction effort—at least not until the next Democrat is inaugurated and Republicans pretend to care about spending again.

“Lawmakers should work to manage our fiscal outlook now, when the economy is performing well and while we have time to manage the debt gradually and responsibly,” says Peterson.

We had time. We may yet have more. But Washington is more likely to squander the 2020s, just like it did the latter half of the 2010s.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/309EvkZ
via IFTTT

The 2020s Will Be the Decade of Deficit Doomsday

The decade that just ended saw a period of uninterrupted economic growth. In the decade to come, we’ll pay for squandering it.

Since the so-called Great Recession officially ended in the third quarter of 2009, the United States has enjoyed 42 consecutive quarters of solid if unspectacular economic growth. That’s the longest run of uninterrupted growth since government economists began tracking the business cycle in the 1850s, far outpacing the average economic expansion of 18 months. Employment has increased by 12 percent, the jobless rate reached record lows, and America’s gross domestic product (GDP) has increased by more than 25 percent.

It has been, by almost any measure, one of the best times in American history. Almost.

Hanging over this decade of good news is the gloom of a missed opportunity. After piling up trillions of dollars in deficit spending during the last recession, the federal government took some modest steps towards reducing that red ink during the middle years of the 2010s. But after Republicans took full control in 2017, spending skyrocketed and the deficit inflated again.

Since Trump was inaugurated, Washington has added $4.7 trillion to the national debt—almost entirely the result of a gigantic spending binge, but with a small assist from the 2017 tax cuts, which reduced revenues without offsetting spending cuts.

Now, more than a decade after the last recession ended, the United States is carrying a record amount of debt: more than $23 trillion. The country is on track to add more than $1 trillion to that total in every year of the coming decade, with old age entitlements ramping up as Baby Boomers retire and the country as a whole ages.

“Debt matters because it’s the one issue that impacts all others,” says Michael A. Peterson, CEO of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, a nonpartisan policy center dedicated to fiscal issues. “Debt threatens our economic health and hinders our ability to make important investments in our future. If we want to tackle big issues like climate change, student debt or national security, then we shouldn’t saddle ourselves with growing interest costs.”

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the national debt will approach the size of the entire U.S. economy by the end of the current decade—and will keep on growing until it hits 144 percent of U.S. GDP in 2049. The current situation, warns the Government Accountability Office (GAO), is “unsustainable.”

Compare all this with early 2001, at the end of the second-longest economic expansion in history. The federal government was running a surplus. The national debt was falling and amounted to only 31 percent of GDP. That’s what you’d expect to see now, since deficits typically fall when the economy is growing and grow when the economy is rotten.

Indeed, since the end of World War II, the U.S. has seen deficits greater than 4 percent of GDP only in years when the country was either deep in the throes of a serious recession or emerging from one.

In the short term, deficit spending—or tax cuts that aren’t offset with spending cuts—can juice the economy and boost growth. But in the long term, high levels of debt drag down economic growth. The CBO projects that the average American household will lose between $2,000 and $6,000 in annual wealth by 2040 if the current trajectory continues. It also says America’s GDP will shrink by 2 percent over the next two decades if current policies continue and the debt keeps growing.

And the CBO projections are probably too rosy. They predate the approval of a new bipartisan budget deal in late 2019 that is expected to add another $1.7 trillion to the national debt over 10 years. Furthermore, the CBO is required to build projections based on current policies. Those assume, among other things, that some of the 2017 tax cuts will expire in the middle of this decade. Politically, that’s unlikely to happen.

Worse yet, the CBO’s projections don’t account for the inevitable eventual end to this run of economic growth. If we’re running a trillion-dollar deficit in the good years, what happens when the next downturn occurs?

“A recession could quickly push the deficit up towards $2 trillion,” says Brian Riedl, a former Republican congressional staffer now based at the Manhattan Institute. A recession would likely trigger politically motivated calls for even more deficit spending, causing the debt to skyrocket even more than it already has.

It might also cause interest rates to spike, compounding America’s debt problem. Every percentage point that interest rates rise will add $1.8 trillion in added costs over the decade.

“A nervous bond market could demand higher interest rates, further weakening both the economy and the deficit,” says Riedl. “So while the economy looks strong and the deficit seems irrelevant, the fiscal situation is quite fragile.”

It may require a crisis before anyone in Washington takes the situation seriously. The American political system seems incapable of planning for the long term. Even passing a federal budget through the normal committee process appears to be impossible, a testament to the failure of both parties’ current congressional leaders. Congress lurches from one crisis to another—some real, some manufactured to score political points—and Trump’s tempestuous presidency has only made things worse.

Assigning blame isn’t the most important thing, but there is plenty to go around. The Trump administration and current crop of Republicans in Congress have made the problem worse than it already was. Some of them—like former deficit hawk Mick Mulvaney and former House Speaker Paul Ryan, who made his name in Congress as the GOP’s budget-maker—deserve special ignominy for abandoning their fiscal conservatism when it was most needed. Trump came into office promising to eliminate the national debt in eight years, and that’s even more of a joke now than it was then.

Meanwhile, Democrats’ aversion to spending reductions and their refusal even to consider changes to entitlement programs—the biggest driver of the national debt—are equally large obstacles to any meaningful attempt at fixing this mess. The party’s progressive wing is pushing for Medicare for All and expanding Social Security benefits, while elevating economic theories that say we should ignore the deficit.

And neither party seems to have a serious plan to rein in military spending, despite two decades and more than a trillion dollars spent in the Middle East quagmire.

In contrast to their elected officials, most Americans believe the debt and deficit are important. A Pew Research Center poll conducted earlier this month found that 53 percent of Americans view the federal budget deficit as a “very big” problem facing the country. That’s a larger share of the public than the portion that views terrorism (39 percent), racism (43 percent), or climate change (48 percent) as a major problem.

But you’ll hear much more talk about climate change, terrorism, and racism during the 2020 election. You’ll here much more talk about many other things too. Neither party is taking the debt seriously right now, and no prominent national politicians appear positioned to lead a deficit reduction effort—at least not until the next Democrat is inaugurated and Republicans pretend to care about spending again.

“Lawmakers should work to manage our fiscal outlook now, when the economy is performing well and while we have time to manage the debt gradually and responsibly,” says Peterson.

We had time. We may yet have more. But Washington is more likely to squander the 2020s, just like it did the latter half of the 2010s.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/309EvkZ
via IFTTT

Seattle Public Library Reaffirms Rights of Trans-Skeptical Feminist Group (and Everyone Else)

I wrote about this controversy here and here, and I’m glad to pass along this latest development, a message posted today by Chief Librarian Marcellus Turner:

Dear patrons,

Since Dec. 5, we have received thousands of comments from Seattle and all over the world regarding a private meeting room booking at the Central Library made by a group called the Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF). While many have called on the Library to cancel the booking due to the group’s beliefs regarding transgender identity and transgender rights, many others have called on us to support the event organizers’ right to gather and freely express their beliefs in a public space.

The Library Board of trustees today reaffirmed its belief in and support for the Library’s existing Intellectual Freedom and Meeting Room Use policies, which support the group’s use of our publicly available meeting room spaces regardless of their beliefs or affiliations.

This decision is one I support, and I want to share and clarify a few facts to help patrons and the public understand the Library’s position:

  • Intellectual freedom – which is the right of every individual to both seek and receive information from all points of view without restriction – is a core value of The Seattle Public Library and libraries across the United States.
  • WoLF’s event is not a Library-sponsored event, and the decision to uphold our current policies does not mean the Library endorses the views of this group, or any other group that uses our meeting room spaces for its gatherings.
  • The Seattle Public Library supports our transgender colleagues, families, and friends in their pursuit of personal freedoms and protections. The Library Board and I believe the decision to maintain our current policies is consistent with this value – we do not believe that stifling speech for anyone will result in positive outcomes for anyone, particularly marginalized and vulnerable communities. The board’s statement regarding this issue is also available on our website.
  • This decision also does not slow the pace of, or detract from, the Library’s commitment to building an equitable and inclusive public library. If anything, it reminds us of the importance of that work and we are looking forward to doing more.
  • While it is not Library practice to evaluate the viewpoints or beliefs of a group wishing to use our spaces, it is Library practice to listen carefully and respond thoughtfully and thoroughly when our public is raising concerns about Library policies. I want to thank the community for your input and patience as we have worked through many discussions regarding these concerns.

Our Library policies, in compliance with local and federal law, are rooted in the value of Intellectual Freedom and state the following:

“Libraries which make exhibit spaces and meeting rooms available to the public they serve should make such facilities available on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use.”

“The Library does not discriminate based on age, race, color, religion, sex, national origin, marital status, parental status, sexual orientation, gender identity, political ideology, creed, ancestry, or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical disability.”

We promote this value in our collections, programs and services. As such, we do not deny meeting room space to an individual or organization because they are discussing controversial topics or views that we disagree with or find offensive.

These values are easy to stand by when we agree with the viewpoints being shared, but when viewpoints challenge us in uncomfortable ways, it certainly becomes more difficult. It is in these difficult moments we must stand particularly firm in supporting the right to free speech in order to preserve that right for everyone.

To narrow or restrict this value based on a group’s beliefs or affiliations would put at risk the hard-fought past efforts of, and future support for, other groups who need these same values and laws on their side.

All communities, and particularly vulnerable communities, rely on free speech protections to reach public understanding and advance their rights or beliefs. I believe that, once one exemption to free speech is accepted, that same exemption will be used to suppress the speech and views of others in our community and beyond. In 2019, for example, we saw communities lobby their library systems to censor LGBTQ children’s books in Kansas and West Virginia, a transgender author in Texas, and Drag Queen Story Times right here at home. Deciding who gets to gather and speak, and what they get to speak about, opens up a slippery slope for public libraries that can’t be controlled or defended. The practice would certainly harm the people who need these protections the most.

With the board’s direction and support, we now begin the work of preparing for this event to occur safely for everyone – Library patrons, event attendees, rally protesters, Library staff and passersby. We will be talking more with Library staff and community groups supporting Seattle’s transgender population to develop and support strong partnerships moving forward. We will look at programming opportunities – for topics such as intellectual freedom, intersectional feminism, and positive and educational transgender programming – that will allow us to carry these conversations forward in a way that brings people together to build our communities up.

Because activities related to this booking could disrupt Library services and affect users, the event has been moved to an alternate time when the Central Library is closed. For the safety of all who plan to be on Library grounds that evening, we have planned for increased security.

We truly appreciate the many people who have shared their voices on this issue. The Library will continue working to provide resources, programs and collections that matter to our community. We will be having more conversations about these topics here at the Library and we hope you will continue to participate.

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

Rudy Giuliani Wants the Supreme Court To Nullify Trump’s ‘Unconstitutional’ Impeachment

Rudy Giuliani, Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, argues in a Daily Caller column that the Supreme Court should block the president’s Senate trial by declaring his impeachment unconstitutional. The impeachment articles, he notes, allege that Trump abused his power and obstructed Congress. Since “abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are not crimes of any kind,” Giuliani says, the House clearly exceeded its power to impeach the president for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

This argument is so dubious that Giuliani himself does not believe it. During a June 2018 interview on NBC’s Meet the Press, Chuck Todd asked Giuliani about the possibility that Trump could preemptively pardon himself for any crimes that might be uncovered by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Giuliani noted that “there’s nothing that limits the presidential power of pardon [for] a federal crime.” But he added that “the president of the United States pardoning himself would just be unthinkable” and “it would lead to probably an immediate impeachment.” In other words: A presidential self-pardon would not be a crime, but it would still be an impeachable offense.

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, the lone Republican witness at the House Judiciary Committee’s December 4 hearing on impeachment, repeatedly made the point that “high crimes or misdemeanors” are not limited to violations of criminal statutes. Turley, who harshly criticized the impeachment process as rushed and incomplete, warned that abuse-of-power allegations can be dangerously amorphous when detached from the elements required to prove a crime. He nevertheless conceded that “the use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.”

Turley noted that James Madison, although he opposed including “maladministration” as grounds for impeachment, later said the process was meant to address “the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate.” Alexander Hamilton likewise said impeachment was aimed at “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” The phrase “or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” Turley observed, “reflects an obvious intent to convey that the impeachable acts other than bribery and treason were meant to reach a similar level of gravity and seriousness (even if they are not technically criminal acts).”

People can and do argue about whether the allegations against Trump—that he perverted foreign policy for personal ends by pressuring the Ukrainian government to announce an investigation of a political rival and then obstructed the House’s inquiry into his conduct—”reach a similar level of gravity and seriousness” as bribery or treason. Turley himself has repeatedly said that temporarily withholding congressionally approved military aid from Ukraine as part of a scheme to discredit former Vice President Joe Biden, a leading contender to oppose Trump in this year’s  election, would, if proven, meet that standard.

The House obviously reached the same conclusion. Does the Supreme Court have the authority to second-guess that judgment, as Giuliani contends? Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution says the House “shall have the sole power of impeachment,” while Section 3 says “the Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.” On the face of it, that does not leave much room for the Supreme Court.

“The Constitution is silent on the Supreme Court’s role in an impeachment except to provide that [the Senate trial] is presided over by the chief justice,” Giuliani concedes. “However, the Constitution is also silent on the court’s power to declare federal and state laws and government action unconstitutional. It was determined by former Chief Justice John Marshall that judicial review is implicit as the only logical answer to constitutional standoffs between the legislative and executive branches or between the federal and state governments. The reasoning of Marbury v. Madison certainly supports the court having the power to declare an impeachment as unconstitutional if it is an overreach of the carefully balanced separation of powers.”

But while judicial review of “federal and state laws and government action” is meant to ensure that they stay within constitutional limits, the only limit cited by Giuliani here is a specious one: his newfound belief that impeachment must be based on criminal violations. The Supreme Court itself has rejected Giuliani’s analogy. “The Judiciary, and the Supreme Court in particular, were not chosen to have any role in impeachments,” Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who had published a book on the subject the previous year, said in a 1993 decision involving the impeachment of Walter Nixon, a federal judge.

Nixon argued that his trial, during which a committee heard evidence against him and delivered a report to the full Senate, violated the provision saying “the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” The justices unanimously rejected the judge’s plea for the Court’s intervention. Seven justices agreed that Nixon’s claim was “nonjusticiable,” meaning it involved a political question not subject to judicial review.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/39Uj2ky
via IFTTT

Seattle Public Library Reaffirms Rights of Trans-Skeptical Feminist Group (and Everyone Else)

I wrote about this controversy here and here, and I’m glad to pass along this latest development, a message posted today by Chief Librarian Marcellus Turner:

Dear patrons,

Since Dec. 5, we have received thousands of comments from Seattle and all over the world regarding a private meeting room booking at the Central Library made by a group called the Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF). While many have called on the Library to cancel the booking due to the group’s beliefs regarding transgender identity and transgender rights, many others have called on us to support the event organizers’ right to gather and freely express their beliefs in a public space.

The Library Board of trustees today reaffirmed its belief in and support for the Library’s existing Intellectual Freedom and Meeting Room Use policies, which support the group’s use of our publicly available meeting room spaces regardless of their beliefs or affiliations.

This decision is one I support, and I want to share and clarify a few facts to help patrons and the public understand the Library’s position:

  • Intellectual freedom – which is the right of every individual to both seek and receive information from all points of view without restriction – is a core value of The Seattle Public Library and libraries across the United States.
  • WoLF’s event is not a Library-sponsored event, and the decision to uphold our current policies does not mean the Library endorses the views of this group, or any other group that uses our meeting room spaces for its gatherings.
  • The Seattle Public Library supports our transgender colleagues, families, and friends in their pursuit of personal freedoms and protections. The Library Board and I believe the decision to maintain our current policies is consistent with this value – we do not believe that stifling speech for anyone will result in positive outcomes for anyone, particularly marginalized and vulnerable communities. The board’s statement regarding this issue is also available on our website.
  • This decision also does not slow the pace of, or detract from, the Library’s commitment to building an equitable and inclusive public library. If anything, it reminds us of the importance of that work and we are looking forward to doing more.
  • While it is not Library practice to evaluate the viewpoints or beliefs of a group wishing to use our spaces, it is Library practice to listen carefully and respond thoughtfully and thoroughly when our public is raising concerns about Library policies. I want to thank the community for your input and patience as we have worked through many discussions regarding these concerns.

Our Library policies, in compliance with local and federal law, are rooted in the value of Intellectual Freedom and state the following:

“Libraries which make exhibit spaces and meeting rooms available to the public they serve should make such facilities available on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use.”

“The Library does not discriminate based on age, race, color, religion, sex, national origin, marital status, parental status, sexual orientation, gender identity, political ideology, creed, ancestry, or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical disability.”

We promote this value in our collections, programs and services. As such, we do not deny meeting room space to an individual or organization because they are discussing controversial topics or views that we disagree with or find offensive.

These values are easy to stand by when we agree with the viewpoints being shared, but when viewpoints challenge us in uncomfortable ways, it certainly becomes more difficult. It is in these difficult moments we must stand particularly firm in supporting the right to free speech in order to preserve that right for everyone.

To narrow or restrict this value based on a group’s beliefs or affiliations would put at risk the hard-fought past efforts of, and future support for, other groups who need these same values and laws on their side.

All communities, and particularly vulnerable communities, rely on free speech protections to reach public understanding and advance their rights or beliefs. I believe that, once one exemption to free speech is accepted, that same exemption will be used to suppress the speech and views of others in our community and beyond. In 2019, for example, we saw communities lobby their library systems to censor LGBTQ children’s books in Kansas and West Virginia, a transgender author in Texas, and Drag Queen Story Times right here at home. Deciding who gets to gather and speak, and what they get to speak about, opens up a slippery slope for public libraries that can’t be controlled or defended. The practice would certainly harm the people who need these protections the most.

With the board’s direction and support, we now begin the work of preparing for this event to occur safely for everyone – Library patrons, event attendees, rally protesters, Library staff and passersby. We will be talking more with Library staff and community groups supporting Seattle’s transgender population to develop and support strong partnerships moving forward. We will look at programming opportunities – for topics such as intellectual freedom, intersectional feminism, and positive and educational transgender programming – that will allow us to carry these conversations forward in a way that brings people together to build our communities up.

Because activities related to this booking could disrupt Library services and affect users, the event has been moved to an alternate time when the Central Library is closed. For the safety of all who plan to be on Library grounds that evening, we have planned for increased security.

We truly appreciate the many people who have shared their voices on this issue. The Library will continue working to provide resources, programs and collections that matter to our community. We will be having more conversations about these topics here at the Library and we hope you will continue to participate.

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

Rudy Giuliani Wants the Supreme Court To Nullify Trump’s ‘Unconstitutional’ Impeachment

Rudy Giuliani, Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, argues in a Daily Caller column that the Supreme Court should block the president’s Senate trial by declaring his impeachment unconstitutional. The impeachment articles, he notes, allege that Trump abused his power and obstructed Congress. Since “abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are not crimes of any kind,” Giuliani says, the House clearly exceeded its power to impeach the president for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

This argument is so dubious that Giuliani himself does not believe it. During a June 2018 interview on NBC’s Meet the Press, Chuck Todd asked Giuliani about the possibility that Trump could preemptively pardon himself for any crimes that might be uncovered by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Giuliani noted that “there’s nothing that limits the presidential power of pardon [for] a federal crime.” But he added that “the president of the United States pardoning himself would just be unthinkable” and “it would lead to probably an immediate impeachment.” In other words: A presidential self-pardon would not be a crime, but it would still be an impeachable offense.

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, the lone Republican witness at the House Judiciary Committee’s December 4 hearing on impeachment, repeatedly made the point that “high crimes or misdemeanors” are not limited to violations of criminal statutes. Turley, who harshly criticized the impeachment process as rushed and incomplete, warned that abuse-of-power allegations can be dangerously amorphous when detached from the elements required to prove a crime. He nevertheless conceded that “the use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.”

Turley noted that James Madison, although he opposed including “maladministration” as grounds for impeachment, later said the process was meant to address “the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate.” Alexander Hamilton likewise said impeachment was aimed at “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” The phrase “or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” Turley observed, “reflects an obvious intent to convey that the impeachable acts other than bribery and treason were meant to reach a similar level of gravity and seriousness (even if they are not technically criminal acts).”

People can and do argue about whether the allegations against Trump—that he perverted foreign policy for personal ends by pressuring the Ukrainian government to announce an investigation of a political rival and then obstructed the House’s inquiry into his conduct—”reach a similar level of gravity and seriousness” as bribery or treason. Turley himself has repeatedly said that temporarily withholding congressionally approved military aid from Ukraine as part of a scheme to discredit former Vice President Joe Biden, a leading contender to oppose Trump in this year’s  election, would, if proven, meet that standard.

The House obviously reached the same conclusion. Does the Supreme Court have the authority to second-guess that judgment, as Giuliani contends? Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution says the House “shall have the sole power of impeachment,” while Section 3 says “the Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.” On the face of it, that does not leave much room for the Supreme Court.

“The Constitution is silent on the Supreme Court’s role in an impeachment except to provide that [the Senate trial] is presided over by the chief justice,” Giuliani concedes. “However, the Constitution is also silent on the court’s power to declare federal and state laws and government action unconstitutional. It was determined by former Chief Justice John Marshall that judicial review is implicit as the only logical answer to constitutional standoffs between the legislative and executive branches or between the federal and state governments. The reasoning of Marbury v. Madison certainly supports the court having the power to declare an impeachment as unconstitutional if it is an overreach of the carefully balanced separation of powers.”

But while judicial review of “federal and state laws and government action” is meant to ensure that they stay within constitutional limits, the only limit cited by Giuliani here is a specious one: his newfound belief that impeachment must be based on criminal violations. The Supreme Court itself has rejected Giuliani’s analogy. “The Judiciary, and the Supreme Court in particular, were not chosen to have any role in impeachments,” Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who had published a book on the subject the previous year, said in a 1993 decision involving the impeachment of Walter Nixon, a federal judge.

Nixon argued that his trial, during which a committee heard evidence against him and delivered a report to the full Senate, violated the provision saying “the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” The justices unanimously rejected the judge’s plea for the Court’s intervention. Seven justices agreed that Nixon’s claim was “nonjusticiable,” meaning it involved a political question not subject to judicial review.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/39Uj2ky
via IFTTT

A $15 Federal Minimum Wage Would Destroy Jobs and Hurt America’s Poorest Workers

“The idea of using a minimum wage to overcome poverty is old, honorable—and fundamentally flawed,” The New York Times editorial board wrote in 1987. “It’s time to put this hoary debate behind us, and find a better way to improve the lives of people who work very hard for very little.”

Last week, the Times editorial board revisited the issue and reached a different conclusion: “The American economy is generating plenty of jobs; the problem is in the paychecks,” the paper writes. “The solution is a $15 federal minimum wage.”

The current federal minimum wage is $7.25.

The paper’s editorial board points to America’s strong economy and low unemployment rate as proof that we can afford to raise the federal minimum wage. It dismisses the possible job-killing consequences—the same ones raised by the paper in 1987—as “never entirely sincere” and says the data we have now shows that doubling the minimum wage will have no unintended consequences for low-wage workers. 

Yet the research is anything but decisive, something that freelance business writer Dee Gill points out in the nonpartisan UCLA Anderson Review. “Some 60 years and hundreds of research papers from prestigious universities, government agencies, and private organizations have created little consensus on the subject [of the minimum wage], academic or otherwise,” she writes. “Just last year, [in 2017], separate Seattle minimum wage studies by researchers at the University of Washington and the University of California Berkeley suggested polar opposite effects.”

The short version of the minimum wage debate can be summed up as follows: some economists say that mandating a higher base pay helps workers without harming their employers; other economists contend that the policy forces employers to slash hours and cut jobs, which ultimately harms workers.

To refute these concerns, the Times board cites a 1993 study by economists David Card and Alan Krueger in which they compared fast-food restaurants in New Jersey, which had recently implemented a minimum wage increase, with businesses in nearby Pennsylvania, which had not raised the minimum wage. Card and Krueger found that raising the minimum wage did not reduce employment in New Jersey.

But consider the first wave of data collected by Card and Krueger in February and March of 1992, before the wage hike took effect on April 1 of that year. At that time, Pennsylvania’s fast-food restaurants averaged 23.2 full-time workers, while New Jersey’s only employed 20.2. That may not have been mere coincidence. “Employers typically don’t like to fire workers,” writes Thomas Firey, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, “so a rational strategy to prepare for the policy change would have been to reduce employment through attrition in anticipation of the policy change, rather than issue morale-crushing pink slips on March 31, 1992.”

The Times also invokes British economist Arindrajit Dube’s compilation of studies, from which he deduced that raising the minimum wage has a “very muted effect on employment.” Yet you don’t have to look very far to find studies that come to the opposite conclusion. “Although the wide range of estimates is striking, the oft-stated assertion that the new minimum wage research fails to support the traditional view that the minimum wage reduces the employment of low-wage workers is clearly incorrect,” write economists David Neumark and William Wascher. “Indeed, in our view, the preponderance of the evidence points to disemployment effects.” Approximately two-thirds of studies they surveyed show a negative impact on jobs.

Neumark and Wascher add that “among the papers we view as providing the most credible evidence, almost all point to negative employment effects, both for the United States as well as for many other countries.”

What makes for credible evidence? No two economies are identical or immediately comparable, a fact researchers have been wrestling with since they started exploring the minimum wage question. Regional, state, and municipal economies vary in ways that lead to different outcomes when wage floors change. This fact helps explain the vast variability among researchers’ conclusions.

“For many years, researchers have manipulated these control groups to weed out factors that don’t equally affect employment in both locations,” notes Gill. “But there are huge differences among experts over how the data can justifiably be manipulated.”

In all reality, the result of any given minimum wage hike likely lies somewhere in a mushy middle: some workers see a bump in pay; some workers see no change in income (because they’re making at or just above the new minimum wage); some workers are let go; some workers are never hired.

The research can be confusing, so let’s consider Target’s $15 minimum wage. In 2017, the retail colossus promised to voluntarily bump pay nationwide, and eventually delivered. Except, for many of the intended beneficiaries, the results weren’t positive.

“I got that dollar raise but I’m getting $200 less in my paycheck,” a Target employee named Heather, whose hours have been cut from about 40 to 20, explained to CNN. Twenty-two other Target employees were interviewed by the network, all of whom had seen their hours reduced even as their hourly pay increased. Put another way, minimum wage increases don’t have to lead to layoffs to hurt the people who are supposed to benefit. Companies can reduce hours to keep take-home pay roughly the same, or slash hours even further, as happened to Heather.

The Times never addresses the very real potential for companies to reduce hours in response to wage increases. But they do eventually grant a more dire concession: “It is possible that a national $15 standard would produce the kinds of damage critics have long predicted,” they write at the end of their piece in reference to unemployment issues they initially dismissed. Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently estimated that about 1.3 million workers would be priced out of the labor market entirely should Congress double the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.

“For most low-wage workers, earnings and family income would increase, which would lift some families out of poverty,” the CBO writes. “But other low-wage workers would become jobless, and their family income would fall—in some cases, below the poverty threshold.”

That comports with the conclusions of Neumark and Wascher, who say that research looking at how the minimum wage affects low-wage workers “provide relatively overwhelming evidence of stronger disemployment effects for these groups.”

Yet those individuals wouldn’t be the only ones to suffer under a $15 federal minimum wage. Tipped workers, often employed at bars and restaurants, earn a fraction of the mandated minimum and make up the rest of their pay in tips. These employees would see an explosion in hourly base pay from the current federal tipped-wage floor of $2.13. If New York City’s tipped wage increases are any guide to what we’d see in other parts of the country, then restaurant staff and their patrons stand to lose quite a bit from a federally mandated increase in the minimum wage. 

And what about communities outside of big city centers? An approximate 100 percent increase in Mississippi’s minimum wage, for instance, would likely shutter small businesses across the state. 

The Times editorial board proposes a workaround to these concerns: a directive “to include exemptions from the $15 standard for low-wage metropolitan areas and rural areas.” How would that exemption process work? What it would cost to review requests? How much would businesses and cities spend lobbying for or against carveouts? And with so much money on the line, why not just leave the decision in the hands of policymakers closer to the problem? After all, 24 states raised their respective minimum wages at the start of 2020. 

As localities across the U.S. continue to engage in this discussion, politicians and pundits alike should remember that objections to a minimum wage are rooted in genuine concern for the people who will bear the brunt of these policies if they fail. 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/37UxLtQ
via IFTTT