In a fit of common sense, the FCC is discussing lifting its ban on in-flight calls because it possesses no evidence showing that those calls pose a safety threat.  It is a rare instance of the government actually removing unwarranted and outdated regulations.  The Chairman of the FCC couldn’t have said it better than he did:

 I do not want the person in the seat next to me yapping at 35,000 feet any more than anyone else. But we are not the Federal Courtesy Commission. Our mandate from Congress is to oversee how networks function.  I am painfully aware of the emotional response this proposal has triggered. Yet, I firmly believe that if we are serious about eliminating regulations which serve no purpose, the decision is clear.

And so it is.  However, just as good sense was being instated at the FCC, the Transportation Department decided that it would take it upon itself to be the Courtesy Commission.  Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx says he has heard from numerous people (fliers, flight attendants, lawmakers, etc.) “who are all troubled over the idea of passengers talking on cell phones in flight—and [Foxx] is concerned about [the] possibility as well.”

So, Foxx has decided to insert the government into  a place where it has no business because, he claims, it is his job to decide if allowing calls on airlines is “fair to consumers.”  Here is a perfect example of a government bureaucracy overstepping its legitimate reason for existence (safety) and taking on a new mission (arbiter of values).  Foxx doesn’t like the idea of people talking on cell phones and disrupting other passengers (frankly, neither do )I.  However, on what basis should it be the Transportation Department’s prerogative to decide what will and what will not be allowed on board?  Why shouldn’t the airlines and the market be the arbiters of what is appropriate?

If airline customers really don’t like cell phones on planes, they will let their opinions be known, either by complaining or by voting with their feet.  Airlines will quickly be able to determine whether allowing customers to use cell phones is so disruptive that it drives away other customers.  If it does, the airlines will fashion a remedy.  Either some airlines will compete on the basis of not allowing phone conversations or, more likely, just as Amtrak does with its quite cars, the airlines will institute cell-free sections.

Once the issue of safety has been taken care of, cell phone use is an issue of convenience (or annoyance).   The market is very, very good at identifying the things that customers enjoy or hate and responding to them accordingly.  A Transportation Department takeover of the cell phone regulations can only lead to a monolithic solution which stifles innovation and consumer choice.  The FCC is fulfilling its duties as a public agency by relinquishing unnecessary government intervention.  The Transportation Department should not rush in to reestablish it.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, responding to the botched launch of the HealthCare.gov health-insurance website, said Wednesday she has called for a review of contracting practices and a new official to oversee risk.

She also said the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversaw the HealthCare.gov launch, will bring in a new chief risk officer who will oversee “risk management practices associated with major agency initiatives.”

Maybe the problem isn’t with the contractors (as bad as they are), but with the entire conceit that a centrally-managed approach to health care by the federal government is the best way to produce a quality system.  Just a thought.

Ron Fournier seems confused – about a lot of things.  Here’s the title of his latest column:  Clueless, Heartless, and Gutless: Today’s GOP – Republican brand at risk over food stamps, unemployment benefits, economic inequality, and trust.  According to Fournier:

 The most charitable thing you can say about the Republican Party is that it has an image problem. Even if you support its policies, no clear-eyed observer can deny that on any given day the GOP looks clueless, heartless, and gutless…  it takes just four stories to see how much worse things are for the GOP.

So, Fournier has four stories, which he picked to highlight his theory that republicans are “clueless, heartless and gutless.”  Leaving aside the maxim that the plural of anecdote is not data, Fournier has a bit of a problem – with the (possible) exception of his fourth story, none of his examples prove his point.  Fournier simply cites a story and then, with no factual basis or connection, simply declares Republicans to be whatever pejorative term he has chosen.  If we were in court, an objection would be sustained on the grounds that he has laid no foundation for his assertion.

Story #1 is a long quote from “Invisible Child: Dasani’s Homeless Life“, which is a profile in the New York Times about homelessness and children.  Here is the entirety of Fournier’s commentary:

Written by Andrea Elliott and illustrated by photographer Ruth Fremson, Dasani’s story is an indictment of a political system that is aiding and abetting America’s division by class, where the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class gets squeezed into oblivion. Both major parties are complicit, but Republicans, more than Democrats, seem especially eager to widen and exploit American inequality.

So, using an article in the Times which profiles homelessness in Manhattan as a springboard, Fournier attributes the failings of the system to both parties, but finds the Republicans particularly at fault because, according to Fournier, Republicans exploit class divides more than Democrats.  This in interesting for two reasons.  First, the mayor of New York is an Independent (and back when he was a Republican, Bloomberg was a decidedly liberal Republican) and the city legislature (as well as the state) is dominated by Democrats.  Therefore linking New York’s problems to Republican actions is highly suspect.  Second it is on the left that you see the the 99%/1% rhetoric.  It’s the Democrats who run the candidates who play the divided nation card (John Edwards, De Blasio) and it is Democrats who like to talk about income inequality being a wedge issue.  Just standing up and saying, as Fournier is essentially doing, “it’s the Republicans’ fault!” is not much of an argument.

Store #2 is about a quote from Rand Paul and a link to a Huffington Post piece titled “Rand Paul: Unemployment Benefits Extension Would Be a ‘Disservice’ to Workers.”  Here Fournier, once again, simply declares facts, without actually offering up any evidence in support of his statements.   For example, here is Fournier’s response to Paul citing a study saying that if you extend unemployment benefits beyond 26 weeks it is a disservice to workers:

He’s wrong, and he’s making the GOP look clueless. Studies typically cited by the GOP are old and irrelevant to the current economy, which is in the midst of a once-a-century economic shift that makes it extraordinarily difficult for some workers to adjust.

Let’s look at what Fournier has done here.  Paul has made an assertion and based it upon a study.  Fournier has, once again, simply stated Paul is wrong.  Here’s his exact statement: “He’s wrong, and he’s making the GOP look clueless.  Studies typically cited by the GOP are old and irrelevant to the current economy, which is in the midst of a once-a-century economic shift that makes it extraordinarily difficult for some workers to adjust.”

Look at his last sentence.  He simply declares that we are in a once-a-century moment and, therefore, studies which contradict his thesis (i.e., the thesis of liberal think tanks and economists) are therefore incorrect.  However, it is Fournier who is wrong.  Far from the matter being settled, there is active debate as to the effects of long-term unemployment insurance, including under today’s conditions, (see here, here and (most damningly) here, for examples).  This is another place where Fournier is lucky he isn’t an attorney.  An attorney has a duty to the court to present all precedent relevant to a case, including that which might be unfavorable, in the interests of truth.  I guess journalists aren’t held to such a high standard.  Fournier may be correct, but to simply flat-out state Paul is incorrect and his studies are out-of-date represents careless journalism or worse on Fournier’s part.

Story #3 is an op-ed n The Washington Post by Robert Rubin, Roger Altman, and Melissa Kearney titled “Making the Poor Poorer.”  Their argument is “that GOP-led plans to reduce food stamps would be ‘economically and morally unsound.’”   Fournier’s entire analysis of this (again, hand-picked) example is:

Republicans argue that the food-stamp program is growing, which they blame on Democrats rather than a global economic revolution and the lingering effects of a recession rooted in Clinton- and Bush-era policies. It most cases, poverty isn’t the fault of the poor. Trust us, the GOP says. And yet …

Who can even tell what Fournier is saying here?  Is he saying the GOP is clueless because the politics look bad?  If so, why not cite some evidence that the GOP is getting slammed in the polls for perceived heartlessness?  Is his point that the GOP is clueless about food stamp operations?  If so, he offers no evidence to that effect.  All he does is cite the opinion of some economists that cutting food stamps is bad.  Whether it is true or not, and whether it is having an impact on the GOP’s image or not is left entirely unanswered.

Clueless.  Heartless.  Gutless.  Those are the charges that Fournier levels.  Perhaps he is right.  However, if this is the best he can muster in support of his thesis then the Republican party has nothing to worry about.

Irin Carmon, on MSNBC, defends Obamacare.  In her defense of Obamacare as a “women’s issue” she quotes Barbra Boxer:

“If this court is really about what it’s supposed to be about, standing up for individual rights, they will back the individual rights of the employee to make decisions about their health care,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer of the Supreme Court taking up the case.  ”What if your boss believes you should just pray your way to health?”

It is depressing, though unsurprising, that a senator knows so little about the Constitution.

Over at the Guardian, Ana Marie Cox writes about the fallacy of using anecdotal evidence to support an argument.  Specifically, she repudiates the individual horror stories about Obamacare that have dominated much of the press coverage.  According to Cox:

The failure of the exchanges created an information vacuum as far as Obamacare successes went; in rushed the individual stories of those who claimed to have been hurt by the changes to the market. It didn’t matter that these stories are, even without enrollment numbers from the exchanges, demonstrably unrepresentative! Only a fraction of Americans, 5%, even have the kind of policies that could have been cancelled – these were the people who could claim to have been “lied to”… or worse. Their stories became part of an Obamacare horror story canon.

She has a point.  Individual stories, while powerful, should not be mistaken for the truth about a social program.  Of course, Obama is as guilty of this technique as anyone, telling stories about people for whom Obamacare has been a success. Actually, even there the administration has bungled, given that Jessica Stanford, who was cited by Obama in the Rose Garden as being emblematic of all of the good that the ACA does, can’t afford her new insurance.  That issue aside, the problem with Cox’s argument is that she provides no statistical evidence to show Obamacare is working.  The reason for this is because there is none.  Even the lone figure that Cox cites above – the 5% – is false.  The American Enterprise Institute estimated that between 50 and 100 million people will have their insurance policies terminated in a second wave of cancellations when small businesses are forced into new standards in 2014.  The 5% figure Cox cites only applies to individual policy holders, who are the vanguard of a much larger problem.

I applaud Cox’s desire to separate anecdote from statistics.  Anecdotes can be powerful conveyors of ideas, but rigorous analysis must always guide policy making.  It’s just a shame that Obamacare fails on both counts.

Writing in the Daily Beast, Eleanor Clift talks about the gun control law (the Undetectable Firearms Act) that mandates guns be detectable by airport screeners.  She then discusses how 3D printing of guns could neuter the law.  She is right.  The ability to print an all-plastic gun is a serious challenge to the Undetectable Firearms Act.  However, it is completely unclear that Clift recognizes this fact.  She ends her piece by stating:

For most people, there’s no upside to being able to manufacture firearms in your basement that you can then carry onto a plane. It would be nice if laws could keep up with the times, but leaving well enough alone may well be the price of victory on guns for this Congress.

Again, Clift is right – there is no upside for most people to carrying a concealed weapon on a plane.  However, there is a BIG upside for terrorists in doing so.  Those terrorists aren’t going to be stopped by the Undetectable Firearms Act.  Moreover, the characterization of 3D printed guns as “ loopholes that make it possible to evade the law with new technologies” (Clift quoting White House assistant press secretary Matt Lehrich) demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of what is happening here.  3D printed guns are not loopholes, they are technological advances that will render the law completely obsolete.  As long as manufacturing of a plastic gun required sophisticated techniques, it can be controlled.  Once a (truly) functional plastic gun can be created by the push of a button the law is finished.  It may exist, but it offers no protection.  To stop plastic guns from winding up on planes requires new, innovative technologies, not legislation.

John Nichols, writing in The Nation, criticizes U S Bankruptcy Judge Steven Rhodes’ decision to allow Detroit to file for bankruptcy, arguing that “the process has been framed in a manner that runs the risk of undermining the city’s long-term recovery by taking money away from the most vulnerable residents of Detroit.”  Quoting parties who are politically interested in not allowing Detroit to file for bankruptcy (the National Public Pension Coalition, Demos) Nichols argues that the city doesn’t really have a major fiscal problem and that investors (whom he defines as “Wall Street”) should bear the burden of Detroit’s problems and that pensions should be entitled to all of the money and benefits they were promised when the spendthrifts elected to run Detroit were handing out money.

The gist of the piece is that the entire process is a subversion of Democracy because the people of Detroit overwhelmingly voted against the governor who appointed the city manager and the mayor has been stripped of most of his authority.  ‘Unfair!’, cries Nichols, who apparently thinks that democracy means that if a law is passed which defies fiscal reality then reality should bend to the law.  Under the Nichols’ philosophy of government, if the city of Detroit bans gravity and people don’t start to float away then that is an indication that the universe is wrong.

Nichols’ choice of language in decrying the appointment of an emergency manager to resolve the fiscal crisis in Detroit is telling.  Apparently he believes it is the job of the mayor, when faced with a massive fiscal hole, to shield public employees and pensions, not to fix the long-term problems.  Under Nichols’ formulation, the taxpayers of Detroit and the people who loaned Detroit money, with guarantees, should take whatever hits come and his favored constituencies should get a free pass:

Snyder had to develop the new emergency manager law after a previous version of the legislation—which he had used to take over smaller cities—was overturned by Michigan voters in a statewide referendum. In Detroit, 82 percent of voters said they did not want the emergency manager law. But they got it anyway. So it is that, while Mayor Duggan may be assigned some responsibilities, he will not have the clearly defined authority that an elected mayor should have to protect pensions, preserve labor agreements and set priorities when it comes to the delivery of basic services.

Nichols talks a lot about democracy, but nowhere does he mention that we don’t operate in a democracy, we operate in a republic, and that applies to the states, too.  The states are sovereign bodies, but the cities are not.  Detroit is not independent of Michigan, and its authority stems from power that Michigan grants it.  It doesn’t matter what Detroit voters want – Detroit voters are the ones who elected the politicians that bankrupted the city.  If the voters had been more responsible in their choices perhaps the city would be in better shape.   Or perhaps not, systemic forces may have doomed Detroit anyways.  Regardless, the idea that because Detroit’s voters are against a law then the law shouldn’t take effect is ludicrous in a system where the state is the sovereign.

Finally, here is my favorite section of the article:

By relying on what the Demos study identifies as “extraordinarily aggressive assumptions”—and by accepting premises advanced by the same financial institutions that urged Detroit officials to make unwise financial choices—the judge has shaped a bankruptcy process that errs on the side of helping Wall Street rather than the citizens of Detroit.

At the same time, the judge has empowered an emergency manager who has a track record of acting on those “simply inaccurate” premises, rather than the officials just chosen by Detroit voters to guide their city toward fiscal and social stability.

To sum up the situation, for years, the voters placed irresponsible, and sometimes criminal, politicians in charge of Detroit.  For years, politicians made promises that were fiscally irresponsible.  For years, Democrat-controlled unions, allied with the city politicians, pushed through increases in wages and benefits that were unsustainable in the long run.  Now, argues Nichols, the officials chosen by Detroit voters, who have such a great track record of fiscal management, should be entrusted to “to guide their city toward fiscal and social stability.  Perhaps they should pass a law declaring Detroit solvent.  That should solve the problem.