Category Archives: #NeverNeeded

In the News: Tariff Relief

Reason‘s Eric Boehm was kind enough to draw on my recent paper on tariff reform in a piece urging the inclusion of tariff relief in the next coronavirus stimulus bill. The article is here; the paper is here.

Interview: #NeverNeeded Regulations

I recently appeared on the John Locke Foundation’s HeadLocke podcast via Zoom to talk about regulatory reform and CEI’s #NeverNeeded campaign.. The video is now on YouTube. Astute viewers will notice my cat Bella putting in a cameo around the 4:00-4:30 mark.

How to Make #NeverNeeded-Style Reforms Stick

There are lots of good regulatory reform ideas out there. The ideas with the most staying power share a common theme. They don’t just treat this or that rule. They treat the larger rulemaking system that keeps churning out those harmful rules. With a tough economic recovery ahead once masks, prudence, and treatments defeat COVID-19, now is a good time to implement them.

In a recent paper, I outlined two institution-level reform ideas: an independent Regulatory Reduction Commission, and automatic sunsets for all new rules. For those who don’t have time for the paper-length version, there is now an op-ed version, courtesy of Inside Sources. It concludes:

Dealing with COVID-19’s health and economic effects are the two top political priorities right now. Nothing else even comes close. As policymakers find and eliminate never-needed regulations that are blocking recovery, they must also reform the system that made those rules possible in the first place.

If left untreated, that regulatory sludge will build back up, and stifle the next emergency response in ways no one can predict today. Repeal is not enough.

We also need resilience.

The whole piece is here. The original paper is here. For more regulatory reform resources, see neverneeded.cei.org.

New #NeverNeeded Paper: Remove or Reduce Tariffs

Trade barriers are an obvious #NeverNeeded candidate for removal during a pandemic and a recession. They make medical supplies scarcer and more expensive. They raise consumer prices at a time when millions of people are losing their jobs and wondering how to make ends meet. And because other countries retaliate every time President Trump raises a tariff, U.S. businesses find shrunken markets for their goods through no fault of their own. Tariffs are a self-harming policy. They must go.

In a new paper for CEI’s #NeverNeeded series, I lay out a plan for making that happen. But simply getting rid of the Trump-era tariffs is not enough. Reformers need to make sure they do not come back. That means, as with so many areas, that institution-level reform is necessary. In this case, that reform involves the separation of powers.

The backstory is that Congress originally delegated away some of its tariff-making power in the 1960s and 1970s to the president because it found itself incapable of reducing tariffs the way it wanted to in the early postwar era. Vote-trading and favor exchanges that are a common part of congressional operating procedure weakened trade liberalization attempts. The thinking was that the president, with a national constituency, would be less prone to giving narrow favors to a single congressional district at the expense of the whole country.

This worked until an ideologically protectionist White House more than doubled U.S. tariff rates in just three years. Those tariffs and the retaliations they inspired are costing roughly a half percentage point of growth. The country might be able afford this kind of ideological luxury good during a boom, but not during COVID.

The tariffs must go, and Congress must reclaim its authority. Fortunately, the reform is pretty simple. Congress can repeal three sections from two different trade bills to reclaim its proper taxing authority from an executive branch that will not use it responsibly.

Those sections are Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and Sections 201 and 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.

The whole paper is here.

A brader agenda for reducing trade barriers is in Iain Murray’s and my paper Traders of the Lost Ark.

CEI’s #NeverNeeded website is here.

Podcast: Reforming #NeverNeeded Regulations

Mitch Kokai at the John Locke Foundation was kind enough to invite me on his HeadLocke Podcast to talk about #NeverNeeded regulations that are harming the pandemic response, and how to reform them. We discuss individual rules as well as the need to reform the rulemaking process itself that generates 3,000 or so new regulations each year.

The John Locke Foundation also has released a Rebound Plan for North Carolina, where the organization is based—the basketball reference is a nice touch. It contains COVID-related reform ideas for a variety of issues including health care, education, and of course, regulation. Many of the ideas can be applied in other states and at the federal level. It pairs well with CEI’s new 2020 edition of Ten Thousand Commandments.

The podcast is here. The Carolina Rebound Plan is hereTen Thousand Commandments 2020 is here. And CEI’s #NeverNeeded site is here.

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Steel Tariff Case: Time for Congress to Act

President Trump’s steel tariffs were intended to boost U.S. manufacturing. They backfired to the point where a group of steel-using industries sued to stop the tariffs. The case wound its way up to the Supreme Court, which this week announced it would not hear it. The tariffs will remain in place.

Although the Court will not act, Congress has the power to rescind the tariffs at any time. However, as the Cato Institute’s Dan Ikenson told Politico’s Morning Trade newsletter, “Congress is quite content with its abdication of trade authority, frankly.” President Trump is getting all of the blame for the trade war’s failures. This is fine with much of Congress—even many Republicans, who mostly did not favor Trump-style trade protectionism until changing their minds around January of 2017.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has proposed reclaiming some of Congress’ abdicated tariff authority, but his proposal’s political prospects are dim.

The Supreme Court case on the steel tariffs would have hinged in part on the separation of powers. Only Congress has the power to tax. Tariffs are taxes. That means only Congress, not the president, can enact tariffs. But there is a wrinkle. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, Congress delegated away some of its tariff-making power to the president. The steel tariffs were enacted under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which empowers the president to impose tariffs without congressional consent, provided they are imposed on national security grounds.

It is hard to tell which way the Court would have decided that question, since separation of powers arguments cut both ways. While the president does not have taxing power, Congress did delegate Section 232 powers to him. But how far does that delegation authority extend? How far do the powers reach? These questions will remain unanswered for now.

While frustrating, this may be for the better. The Supreme Court, whose members are presidentially appointed and Senate-approved, in part for that reason, tends to be permissive of executive power, and deferential to Congress.

The merits of the case are less ambiguous, though that is often of less importance in legal matters. The Section 232 steel tariffs, which originally targeted allies such as Canada and Mexico, do not pass any reasonable national security test. In a phone call with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, for example, President Trump claimed that the tariffs were justified because Canada burned down the White House during the War of 1812.

This claim, while weak, is also inaccurate. The White House was burned by British soldiers. Those soldiers were stationed in Canada, but since Canada’s government did not gain independence until 1867, it can hardly be blamed. This also leaves aside Canada being one of America’s strongest allies through multiple wars and other national security threats, as well its largest trading partner.

#NeverNeeded steel tariffs are harming not just the steel industry, but steel-using industries such as construction and automobiles. In all, just the tariffs that President Trump alone has enacted are costing the economy roughly a half percentage point of economic growth, according to the Congressional Budget Office. While the country might have been able to afford such ideological luxury goods during a boom, it simply cannot during the COVID-19 recovery.

In CEI’s most recent Agenda for Congress, we argued that Congress should repeal not just Section 232 tariff authority, but also Sections 201 and 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allow presidential tariff-making to address foreign competition and treaty violations. Iain Murray and I also outlined a larger positive agenda for trade policy in our paper “Traders of the Lost Ark.”

The Trump tariffs have to go. Since the Court will not step up, Congress must act.

#NeverNeeded Reg Reform Event on YouTube

This morning’s CEI Zoom event is now on YouTube. Following remarks by OIRA head Paul Ray, Kent Lassman, Wayne Crews, and I discuss regulatory reforms and Wayne’s new Ten Thousand Commandments report. Excerpts from the event are viewable here.

Speaking at #NeverNeeded Event on June 22 with OIRA Administrator Paul Ray, CEI’s Kent Lassman, Wayne Crews

On Monday, June 22 at 11:00 ET, CEI is holding a Zoom event on regulatory reform with Paul Ray, who heads the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs inside the Office of Management and Budget. That’s the agency most directly involved in monitoring the federal regulatory state.

Also speaking at the event are CEI president Kent Lassman, vice president for policy Wayne Crews, and me.

Registration is here. Afterwards, the event will be posted to YouTube. I’ll post a link when it’s up.

Unintended Consequences of Price Gouging

Price gouging legislation, though popular, routinely backfires. Price controls make shortages worse. In a crisis, this is especially harmful. And even if price gouging legislation were to tamp down money prices, it worsens increases in non-money prices such as greater scarcity, more difficult searches, longer queues and waiting lines, longer shipping times, and, sometimes, increases in black market activity.

There are private responses to price gouging, though. Amazon, for example, uses artificial intelligence to find price gouging among its third-party sellers. But even this non-legislative effort has had unintended consequences. Bloomberg’s Spencer Soper reports:

But consultants who help merchants avoid suspensions say they were inundated with calls from clients during the price-gouging crackdown. One of them, a former Amazonian named Chris McCabe, says he heard from hundreds of merchants and advised dozens of them to stop selling products because the rules were unclear.

“Amazon just did a giant sweep and they really scared a lot of people away from selling wipes and toilet paper,” he says.

Many sellers believe Amazon’s algorithm is prone to false positives, and its penalties are too harsh. The resulting chilling effect helps no one at a time when just about everyone needs help.

Fortunately, unlike legislation, Amazon is able to react in real-time and improve its price gouging policies. This process will almost certainly take less time than it would for Congress or a state legislature to pass a new law. Part of trial is error. And good institutional design makes it easy to learn from errors and fix them as they happen. These things should not have to wait until the political winds are just right.

There is also a rent-seeking component to price gouging legislation. Economists Steve Horwitz and Michael Munger, in separate interviews with The Counter’s Jessica MacKenzie, make some underappreciated points about price gouging.

Steven Horwitz, an economist from Ball State University, says the cases in California are unusual in that they target large chains, when it is more common to see cases against smaller brick-and-mortar stores. This is in part because smaller stores have fewer resources and are more likely to settle than to fight a lawsuit.

A national seller can react to regional disaster by simply redirecting supply. They can also afford expensive counsel. Smaller companies have neither of these advantages, so legislation makes them more vulnerable. Price gouging legislation can actually be a rent-seeking weapon big companies can use to gain unfair advantage over smaller companies.

Of course, COVID 19 is global, so even the biggest sellers cannot redirect supplies. Hence the recent California lawsuit against Whole Foods, Walmart, Trader Joe’s and Costco, and other large sellers over egg prices.

Duke University’s Michael Munger argues that some price gouging laws lack clear thresholds, which creates uncertainty. Some states have set thresholds, such as a maximum profit margin of 20 percent. But other laws operate essentially by feel:

Munger points out that the law in North Carolina bans price increases that are “unreasonably excessive under the circumstances.”

Price gouging laws are meant to protect consumers from being taken advantage of during crises.

“If I’m a store owner, how do I know if I’m violating the law in North Carolina?” Munger says. “In practice, what this means is, ‘If someone complains….’ That’s not a very good law. If I can’t tell what the law means, it’s too vague.”

I will have more to say on price gouging in an upcoming paper. But these points are good to keep in mind.

Even private price gouging responses have unintended consequences, such as sellers deciding not sell at all right when people need their wares the most.

Price gouging legislation can unfairly favor larger businesses, and they know this.

And many of the laws are vague enough to have the same chilling effect Amazon’s algorithm has had—but will be much more difficult to fix.

Price gouging laws are #NeverNeeded.

#NeverNeed Regulations and the Coronavirus

COVID-19 changed life almost overnight. Health care workers and medical supply networks were stressed in ways not seen in at least 50 years. Lockdowns have changed work, school, grocery shopping, and family and social life for billions of people worldwide in ways perhaps never seen before. Here in the U.S., unemployment is suddenly the highest it has been since the Great Depression. The economy is officially now in a recession. More to the point, more than 100,000 people have died.

What is the appropriate public policy response to this crisis? In a short video, Kent Lassman makes the case for lifting barriers that government has built that block people’s ingenuity and ability to fight the coronavirus. For lifting restrictions on access to health care providers and treatments. And for removing regulations that block access to capital for businesses struggling to stay afloat, or that stop them from hiring people.

That means freezing new rules, suspending harmful ones, and adding sunsets to rules so they automatically expire if they don’t work as intended. The wisest policy response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the tough recovery ahead is to get rid of regulations that were #NeverNeeded in the first place.

Watch the video here.