An Insight on Inequality

From p. 30 of GMU economist Garett Jones’ new book Hive Mind:

[M]ost employers aren’t running charities, so they only pay one worker more than another when they need to.

The Mild, Mild West: Regulation in America

Over at the newly launched US edition of the UK-based CapX wesbite, Wayne Crews and I have a short primer on U.S. regulation:

America has a reputation as the land of Wild West cowboy capitalism. The truth is rather more mundane. The US economy is one of the most heavily regulated in the world, with the total cost of federal regulations standing at nearly $1.9 trillion—equivalent to nearly two thirds of the UK’s entire GDP.

Read the whole piece here. For a more through treatment, see Wayne’s annual Ten Thousand Commandments report.

CEI’s Battered Business Bureau: The Week in Regulation

Wednesday’s Veterans’ Day holiday made it a short work week, but the Federal Register still passed the 70,000-page mark, with new regulations covering everything from Flugzeugbaus to recreational salmon.

On to the data:

  • Last week, 44 new final regulations were published in the Federal Register, after 77 the previous week.
  • That’s the equivalent of a new regulation every three hours and 49 minutes.
  • So far in 2015, 2,958 final regulations have been published in the Federal Register. At that pace, there will be a total of 3,377 new regulations this year, fewer than the usual total of 3,500-plus.
  • Last week, 1,556 new pages were added to the Federal Register, after 1,850 pages the previous week.
  • Currently at 70,933 pages, the 2015 Federal Register is on pace for 80,974 pages.
  • Rules are called “economically significant” if they have costs of $100 million or more in a given year. 31 such rules have been published so far this year, one in the past week.
  • The total estimated compliance cost of 2015’s economically significant regulations ranges from $3.63 billion to $4.88 billion for the current year.
  • 257 final rules meeting the broader definition of “significant” have been published so far this year.
  • So far in 2015, 481 new rules affect small businesses; 70 of them are classified as significant.

Highlights from selected final rules published last week:

For more data, see Ten Thousand Commandments and follow @10KC and@RegoftheDay on Twitter.

Slow News Day

Politico: Playback: Donald Trump cares about potholes

Vote for Me

Politico: Vitter in new ad: ‘I failed my family’

CEI’s Battered Business Bureau: The Week in Regulation

New rules last week covered everything from relaxed grape handling to unclaimed funerary objects.

On to the data:

  • Last week, 77 new final regulations were published in the Federal Register, after 83 the previous week.
  • That’s the equivalent of a new regulation every two hours and 11 minutes.
  • So far in 2015, 2,914 final regulations have been published in the Federal Register. At that pace, there will be a total of 3,388 new regulations this year, far fewer than the usual total of 3,500-plus.
  • Last week, 1,850 new pages were added to the Federal Register, after 2,137 pages the previous week.
  • Currently at 69,377 pages, the 2015 Federal Register is on pace for 80,671 pages.
  • Rules are called “economically significant” if they have costs of $100 million or more in a given year. 30 such rules have been published so far this year, two in the past week.
  • The total estimated compliance cost of 2015’s economically significant regulations ranges from $3.63 billion to $4.88 billion for the current year.
  • 253 final rules meeting the broader definition of “significant” have been published so far this year.
  • So far in 2015, 469 new rules affect small businesses; 67 of them are classified as significant.

Highlights from selected final rules published last week:

For more data, see Ten Thousand Commandments and follow @10KC and@RegoftheDay on Twitter.

CEI’s Battered Business Bureau: The Week in Regulation

The pace of new rules has picked up recently, with 80 or more final regulations and more than 2,000 Federal Register pages for the second straight week. New rules cover everything from bricks to housekeepers.

On to the data:

  • Last week, 83 new final regulations were published in the Federal Register, after 80 the previous week.
  • That’s the equivalent of a new regulation every two hours and one minute.
  • So far in 2015, 2,837 final regulations have been published in the Federal Register. At that pace, there will be a total of 3,378 new regulations this year, far fewer than the usual total of 3,500-plus.
  • Last week, 2,137 new pages were added to the Federal Register, after 2,048 pages the previous week.
  • Currently at 67,526 pages, the 2015 Federal Register is on pace for 80,067 pages.
  • Rules are called “economically significant” if they have costs of $100 million or more in a given year. 28 such rules have been published so far this year, five in the past week, which is a high for the year.
  • The total estimated compliance cost of 2015’s economically significant regulations ranges from $3.15 billion to $4.40 billion for the current year.
  • 242 final rules meeting the broader definition of “significant” have been published so far this year.
  • So far in 2015, 461 new rules affect small businesses; 65 of them are classified as significant.

Highlights from selected final rules published last week:

  • New EPA rules for bricks and clay will have capital costs of $62.3 million, annual costs of $24.6 million, and will close an estimated two to four businesses.
  • New ozone regulations, also courtesy of the EPA. The 178-page rule is economically significant, though the EPA declined to include any cost data with the rule, instead referring the reader to outside documents. This is not good transparency on the EPA’s part. For now, I am scoring it as zero-cost in the running compliance cost tally, but hope to include its figures, if they are in fact publicly available, in the near future.
  • 30-day delay on new labor regulations for domestic workers.
  • Rules for historical research in the Defense Secretary’s files.
  • An economically significant rule for agricultural quarantines. Some fees are being lowered, and others are being adjusted for inflation. But a lengthy section titled “Economic Impacts” never actually says what the total impact will be. This is an unfortunate lack of transparency from the Animal and Plant health Inspection Service, forcing me to score this rule as zero-cost on the running compliance cost tally.
  • Government health care being what it is, the Veterans Affairs Department is wisely expanding options for veterans to pursue non-VA health care. The rule is economically significant, with $10 billion of funding through 2017. Since this is government spending and not compliance costs, I am scoring it as zero-cost on the running compliance cost tally.
  • Airplane passengers and crew may travel with e-cigarettes in their carry-on luggage, but not in their carry-on luggage. This is “to address an immediate safety risk.”
  • $15.4 billion in economically significant education spending over the period 1994-2025. Again, since this is spending, I am scoring it as zero-cost in the compliance cost tally.

For more data, see Ten Thousand Commandments and follow @10KC and @RegoftheDay on Twitter.

Slow News Day

Politico: Presidential Halloween costumes

Virtuous Capitalism vs. Rent-Seeking

Over at the Institute for Energy Research’s Master Resource blog, I have a guest post summarizing Fred Smith’s and my recent paper, “Virtuous Capitalism.” The post is here, and the paper is here.

Ex-Im Revival Passes the House

The House has passed Rep. Stephen Fincher’s Ex-Im revival bill, by the margin of 313-118. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has publicly said the Senate will not act on the bill, so last night’s vote was more of a public statement than anything else. While the statement might be unpleasant, the public now has a much better idea of which Congressmen are pro-business, as opposed to pro-market—an important distinction. So at the very least, voters now have a better idea of who to hold accountable, and who they might support in primary elections.

With no stand-alone vote, Ex-Im reauthorization will instead be folded into an upcoming must-pass transportation bill. A Senate vote on that could happen as soon as next week.

Both parties share blame for Ex-Im’s possible revival. Nearly all Democrats voted in favor of reviving Ex-Im—a curious reversal of decades-long opposition. Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) is the only one to stay consistent. Progressives have been Ex-Im’s traditional opponents, not just on corporate welfare grounds, but on human rights grounds—Ex-Im subsidizes many governments with checkered human rights records, and helps to keep them in power. See for example, this Mother Jones article from 1981, this one from 1992, and another from as recently as 2011, which is based on environmental grounds.

The GOP’s small pro-market wing began actively opposing Ex-Im in 2012, so Mother Jones therefore changed its stance around that time; see here and here. See also a thoughtful piece at Salon on this curious role reversal.

So Democrats deserve criticism for abandoning principle, seemingly for no reason other than to take the opposite stance from Republicans. “If you say X, therefore I saynot X” is hardly a sign of intellectual rigor, but such is the nature of partisan politics.

But the goal here isn’t to pile shame on just one party. Both parties deserve it. The traditional pro-business Rockefeller Republican mindset—recall the famous slogan “what’s good for GM is good for America,” as well as a certain bailout from a few years ago—is the party’s traditional stance, and one for which it is often rightly criticized. Republicans are a major reason why Ex-Im was able to survive for more than 80 years, and Republicans are why it is on the brink of revival.

By the time Ex-Im’s 2012 reauthorization came up, a small GOP minority rejected pro-business thinking in favor of pro-market thinking. Rather than making sure to help GM or Boeing or some other specific business, their priority is to maintain an open competitive process under which any entrepreneur with a good idea and a good product can succeed.

These free-marketers raised a bit of a stink about Ex-Im, catching a sleepy Washington by surprise. Then the alarm went off, leading to a pitched intra-party fight that has been raging ever since, with major Ex-Im beneficiaries and traditional pro-business groups adding to the decibel level.

This culminated in the most recent Ex-Im vote. As mentioned above, Democrats deserve criticism for abandoning long-held principles on corporate welfare, international human rights, and clean government (Ex-Im is a well-known hotbed of corruption), seemingly for no reason other than to oppose the other party.

Republicans deserve criticism for their long-standing milquetoast pro-business mindset. Their pro-market minority deserves praise on the Ex-Im issue, but pro-market thinking sadly remains a minority stance in both parties. Hopefully Boeing’saggressive lobbying push doesn’t have too much to do with it.

In fact, corporate welfare issues like the Export-Import Bank provide a wonderful opportunity for progressives and free-market-oriented conservatives to work together. So why aren’t they?

In politics, the minority party’s job is to deny the majority party any possible political victories, even when they agree. At least that’s my theory for Democrats’ sudden, and nearly uniform Ex-Im reversal.

But if members of both parties could put principle ahead of politics, then progressives and the GOP’s free-market wing, and hopefully some others, could very likely cobble together a majority on several issues on which they agree. They can change the country for the better, even as they continue to disagree on other issues. Ex-Im andOPIC could serve as starter issues. There are many more.

I conclude with a small public service: a list of all 127 Republicans who made a public statement by voting in favor of reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank:

Aderholt
Amodei
Barletta
Barton
Benishek
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Cole
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crenshaw
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Ellmers (NC)
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Frelinghuysen
Gibbs
Gibson
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Hartzler
Herrera
Beutler
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Issa
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Jolly
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
LaHood
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marino
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meehan
Mica
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Nunes
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NJ)
Stefanik
tivers
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walden
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Zeldin
Zinke