After all the talk of abortion rights, protecting democracy, and how "fun" Vice President Kamala Harris apparently is, the first night of the Democratic National Convention culminated with a celebration of President Joe Biden's four years in office.

Biden "recovered all those millions of jobs that [Donald] Trump watched slip away," Sen. Dick Durbin (D–Ill.) declared. Biden "rebuilt the economy" after the pandemic put it "flat on its back," intoned Sen. Chris Coons (D–Conn.), a longtime Biden stan. 

Biden himself put the cherry on top. "We've had one of the most extraordinary four years of progress ever," the president said. "We gone from economic crisis to the strongest economy in the entire world," he claimed, pointing to job creation figures, economic growth, higher wages, and "inflation down, way down, and continuing to go down."

If so, someone should probably tell Vice President Kamala Harris about all that.

Just four days ago, Harris outlined plans for gigantic government interventions in the economy, including price controls. In what was billed as the first major policy speech of her hastily assembled campaign, Harris promised to implement the "first-ever federal ban on price gouging on food and groceries" and to take other actions to empower the federal government to "bring down costs." (There's been some debate in the days since her speech about whether it is fair to say Harris has called for price controls, but economist Brian Albretch has laid out clearly why she in fact did, writing that "any policy that gives the government the power to decide what price increases are 'fair' or 'unfair' is effectively a price control system. It doesn't matter if you call it 'anti-gouging,' 'fair pricing,' or 'consumer protection'—the effect is the same. When bureaucrats, not markets, determine acceptable prices, we're dealing with price controls.")

There has been a lot written already about why price controls are a terrible idea, and more will be written in the days ahead. For now, let's take a moment to appreciate the head-spinning logic that Biden and Harris are asking voters to accept: that America's economy is stronger than ever—but is also in need of radical government action to substitute the wisdom of bureaucrats for the market's power to determine prices.

Price controls are not a policy people reach for when things are going great. Governors don't go around threatening businesses with prosecution for price gouging when there's not a hurricane or other natural disaster happening. The Soviet Union didn't implement price controls because everyone was wealthy and well-fed. Neither did Venezuela.

But that's what Harris doing. On Friday, she promised "harsh penalties" on businesses that engage in whatever she (or her administration) determines to be "price gouging" or the collection of "excessive" profits—even though her campaign has yet to explain how she would determine those things.

Harris' promise to combat high grocery prices was made just hours after the White House Chief Economic Advisor Jared Bernstein was standing in front of reporters and touting how low grocery price inflation has been: "This morning, it was about 1 percent year over year," he said at a press briefing on Wednesday. "And there are a number of items within there where we actually have deflation, falling prices of some groceries."

Did someone tell Harris?

In part, this confusion probably stems from the unusual situation that Harris' campaign finds itself. She is, for all intents and purposes, the incumbent candidate in the race, despite not being the sitting president. And she's running against another quasi-incumbent in former President Donald Trump. Typically, incumbents try to push the message that everything is going well, or at least getting better, while challengers say everything sucks and promise to make it better.

With voters discontented with the state of the economy, both Trump and Harris are trying to distance themselves from the mess they each had a hand in creating. But Democrats can't go all-in on "everything sucks" for the obvious reason that Biden, the actual incumbent, is a Democrat.

The actual economic signals are a mixed bag right now. Unemployment has ticked up, raising fears of a possible recession on the horizon. High interest rates have replaced high inflation, which means many Americans are still feeling a squeeze on their personal finances. Biden doesn't deserve the applause he's getting, but there's also not a crisis that would demand the sort of radical actions Harris is proposing, even if the actions she's proposing really worked.

And of course, those high prices are largely the fault of government overspending (backed by heavy borrowing) during and after the pandemic. If Harris wants to put controls on something that would actually provide relief to Americans, she should aim to restrict government borrowing rather than grocery store prices.

Instead, it looks like Democrats have settled on the idea that Biden saved the economy and now Harris is here to clean up the mess—and they're just hoping no one thinks too hard about it.

By the way, you don't have to break your brain trying to make sense of this. It's far easier simply to remember that presidents don't run the economy and shouldn't get credit and/or blame for every single economic indicator. (Though they can certainly influence events, as we'll see if Harris gets her way and implements some form of federal price controls.)

But if nothing else, this Democratic cognitive dissonance creates a fun game for the next three nights of the convention: Will the speakers keep telling us that America's economy is stronger than ever, or that the country is in a crisis and Harris needs to be our price-setter-in-chief?

The post If Joe Biden Saved the Economy, Why Do We Need Kamala Harris' Price Controls? appeared first on Reason.com.

A bummer of a jobs report released Friday morning triggered a sharp drop in the stock market and stoked fear of a coming recession—thanks to something known as the "Sahm Rule."

So what is that?

It is named after economist Claudia Sahm, who served as a top economic advisor during the Obama administration and identified a historical indicator of coming recessions in 2019: every time since 1970 that the three-month moving average of the U.S. unemployment rate is more than half a percentage point above the lowest three-month moving average from the previous year, a recession has soon followed.

That's a bit complicated, admittedly. If you want to know what it looks like in practice, check out today's jobs report. Unemployment in July ticked upwards to 4.3 percent. Over the past three months, the average unemployment rate has been 4.13 percent. That's quite a bit higher than the lowest three-month average from the past year—which was 3.63 percent, between June and August 2023.

Thus, the Sahm Rule has been triggered.

But the "rule" is also a set of guidelines. In the 2019 paper where Sahm identified this historical early warning system for a coming recession, she called for governments to begin distributing stimulus payments as soon as this alert was triggered. Doing so, she argued, would allow for a speedier response to a recession by eliminating the lag that occurs while politicians and other observers debate whether a recession is coming and what to do about it. Essentially, it is meant to be a technocratic solution to a recurring problem.

The political system has not adopted that approach—and thank goodness, because the federal government is $35 trillion in debt and already on pace to run a $2 trillion deficit this year. There's literally no money for stimulus checks right now.

The markets, however, seem to be taking the Sahm Rule seriously. There was a huge sell-off on the stock market Friday morning and bond yields fell as well—an indication that investors are essentially "pricing in" the cost of a coming downturn.

But there's one more complicating factor. Sahm herself says this might be a false alarm.

The Wall Street Journal reports that "Sahm doesn't think the economy is on the immediate cusp of a recession. She reckons that changes in the supply of labor since the pandemic, including the recent jump in immigration, have led the Sahm rule to overstate how weak the job market is."

"We are still in a good place, but until we see signs of stabilizing, of leveling out, I'm worried," Sahm, who also worked at the Federal Reserve and is now the chief economist at New Century Advisors, an investment firm, told the Journal.

It's good to be cautious about the predictive power of historical trends. Indeed, in that 2019 paper, Sahm warned that "the Sahm rule is an empirical regularity. It's not a proposition; it's not a law of nature."

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell echoed that sentiment this week. He called the Sahm Rule "a statistical regularity" on Wednesday, adding that "it's not like an economic rule, where it's telling you something must happen." At a meeting earlier this week, the Federal Reserve decided to hold interest rates steady, though it indicated that a rate cut could be coming in September.

So are we heading for a recession or not? As always, it's impossible to know until we're already in one. The commonly used definition of a recession is back-to-back quarters of negative economic growth—but the economy grew by 2.8 percent during the second quarter of 2024. By that metric, it would take until the end of the year for the country to be in a recession.

The official arbiter of recessions is the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), a private entity whose definition of a recession takes into account monthly indicators like employment, personal income, and industrial production along with quarterly gross domestic product (GDP) growth (by their terms, two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth often, but not always, correspond with an official recession).

Still, the outlook is certainly darker after Friday's jobs report. If a recession is coming, the federal government's and Federal Reserve's ability to respond will be severely limited by the poor fiscal and monetary decisions that have left the Treasury deeply in debt and the central bank's balance sheets overstretched.

The Sahm Rule has correctly predicted every recession in the past half-century. Let's hope it got this one wrong.

The post What's the Sahm Rule? Alarming Jobs Report Raises Recession Risk. appeared first on Reason.com.

A few minutes before 10 a.m. on Wednesday, former President Donald Trump dropped a plan to completely overhaul the relationship between millions of older Americans and the federal government.

"SENIORS SHOULD NOT PAY TAX ON SOCIAL SECURITY," Trump shouted from his Truth Social account.

If implemented, that would be a hugely expensive policy change. According to one quick estimate by a former White House chief economist, it would reduce federal revenue by $1.5 trillion over 10 years and would add $1.8 trillion to the national debt. (The extra cost is the result of interest on the new debt that would be racked up in the absence of that revenue.) It would also accelerate Social Security's slide into insolvency. And, obviously, it would be a big tax break for Americans who collect Social Security checks—but not a tax break that would be particularly good at fostering economic growth.

Despite all that, the most notable thing about Trump's announcement was what it didn't include. There was no attempt to reckon with those figures, for example. No surrogates were dispatched to explain why this change is necessary or good for the economy or country. No press releases went out. There was, of course, no attempt to explain what government programs would be cut to offset the drop in revenue. For that matter, there had been no discussion of this idea at the Republican National Convention. It was not mentioned in Trump's (long) acceptance speech and was not included in the party's platform.

Like so much else in the Trump era, this looks like an idea that went from the former president's head to his social media account with very few stops in between.

There is something to be said for that degree of—let's say—transparency. If nothing else, it is quintessentially Trumpian: hastily conceived and not deeply considered, more of a marketing slogan than substance. Let's just call this what it is: a nakedly political play to win the votes of Social Security–collecting Americans.

Coming as it did on Wednesday morning, the "no taxes on Social Security" plan stood in stark contrast to the news the Trump campaign had made just one day earlier. On Tuesday, Trump's campaign had officially (and gleefully) sunk the Heritage Foundation's "Project 2025"—a 900-page document in which the conservative think tank had outlined an extensive policy plan for Trump's prospective second term. The project had been headed by Paul Dans, who had served in the Trump administration, and was central to the institutional-wide pivot toward populism that Kevin Roberts, Heritage's president, had executed in recent years.

In a statement, two of Trump's top campaign officials didn't merely bury Project 2025 but also issued a threat.

"Reports of Project 2025's demise would be greatly welcomed and should serve as notice to anyone or any group trying to misrepresent their influence with President Trump and his campaign—it will not end well for you," said Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita.

Translation: How dare anyone try to substitute actual policy substance for whatever random thought might fall out of the former president's head on a Wednesday morning?

Roberts' mistake "was thinking that Mr. Trump cares about anyone's ideas other than his own. He governs on feral instinct, tactical opportunism, and what seems popular at a given moment," wrote the Wall Street Journal's editorial board in a scathing response to the news of Project 2025 being scuttled and that Dans had resigned from Heritage. "The lesson for Heritage, and other think tanks, is that it's better to stick to your principles rather than court the political flavor of the day."

Amen to that.

Meanwhile, Vice President Kamala Harris has launched her campaign by veering hard into an almost Trump-like policy nihilism of her own. Having already tried to memory-hole her track record as the Biden administration's so-called "border czar"—read Reason's Liz Wolfe if you need to catch up on that controversy—Harris is now seemingly rewriting her positions on a bunch of other things too.

For example, Harris was a co-sponsor of the Green New Deal when she was a member of the U.S. Senate in 2019. She voiced her support for the progressive environmental package while campaigning for president that same year.

Now, she's backing away from it. This week, a spokesperson for the Harris campaign told the Washington Examiner that Harris no longer supports the federal job guarantee—a promise that the federal government would provide jobs with "family-sustaining wages" to anyone who wanted one—that was a key feature of the Green New Deal.

As the Examiner notes, Harris has also "backed away from her endorsement of eliminating private healthcare plans as part of a Medicare for All proposal. Her campaign also told The Hill that she will not seek to ban fracking if she is elected. That was after previously telling CNN while running for president 'There's no question I'm in favor of banning fracking.'"

Maybe this is Harris embracing her philosophy of being "unburdened by what has been." Maybe she's simply taking a page from Trump's book—after all, the former president has never paid much of a price for making it up as he goes along.

For both Trump and Harris, simply telling voters what you think they want to hear is possibly the most direct route to winning an election. But such a cynical approach to campaigning sidelines any discussion of policy—and means the election is likely to be decided on far stupider grounds.

The post Trump and Harris Are Just Making It Up as They Go appeared first on Reason.com.

The new plan to keep kids from drinking alcohol: Ban kids (and some adults) from buying drinks containing zero alcohol.

No, it doesn't make much sense.

But that's the argument being made by Molly A. Bowdring, a clinical psychologist at Stanford, who wrote this week in STAT that nonalcoholic drinks meant to resemble beer or cocktails are "a potential public health crisis."

The zero-proof beverage market includes brands like Athletic Brewing, by far the largest nonalcoholic beer brand, as well as a growing number of wine and spirits varieties. While nonalcoholic drinks still account for a tiny sliver of the overall beverage market, the rate of growth in recent years has been impressive—driven by consumers who are looking to enjoy a drink without getting drunk.

But won't someone think of the children, frets Bowdring. "While it's great that more people are taking to heart public health messages that reducing alcohol consumption can improve well-being and extend life, an important lesson from vaping as a replacement for cigarettes is being overlooked: What may be good for adults may be harmful to kids."

After contacting alcohol regulators in every U.S. state, she writes that she was shocked to find drinks that contain no alcohol are generally not subjected to limitations placed on drinks that do contain alcohol. Imagine that.

"Children and teens are, by and large, legally permitted to purchase non-alcoholic beverages. This is a huge liability," warns Bowdring. "The path from non-alcoholic beverage consumption to alcohol use among youths appears to be fairly direct….Among minors, consuming non-alcoholic beverages can socialize them to the drinking culture, with the beverages being perceived as cool, adult, and modern."

Goodness gracious, not that.

The logic here is seriously flawed in several ways. Most importantly, banning the sale of nonalcoholic drinks to individuals under 21—which includes a lot of adults, by the way—isn't going to make "drinking culture" seem much different. And even if it did, it is absolutely not the government's job to police what subcultures seem cool or interesting.

If there's a compelling reason for the state to prohibit the sale of alcohol to some individuals, it's on the grounds that consuming alcohol can increase the risk that they harm themselves or others. But kids are already prevented from legally purchasing or consuming alcohol—and someone who is purchasing or consuming a nonalcoholic drink is, by definition, not consuming alcohol in the first place!

Finally, Bowdring isn't arguing that kids who buy nonalcoholic drinks go on to become raging alcoholics or drunk drivers or anything dangerous like that. She's panicked over the possibility that they'll have an increased interest in drinking, period. But learning to drink socially and responsibly—which might include the consumption of nonalcoholic drinks at times—is a key part of being an adult.

This isn't an argument for banning video games because some kids who play video games will someday commit a school shooting. This is arguing for banning video games because some kids who play video games might someday drive a few miles per hour over the posted speed limit.

The post Will Banning Nonalcoholic Beer Save the Children? appeared first on Reason.com.

An upset that reverberated around the cricket-watching world was made possible by America's most potent superpower: immigration.

In case you haven't heard by now, the United States upset Pakistan at the T20 Cricket World Cup this past Thursday. The history of the two countries' national cricket teams suggests that the win deserves a place in the annals of incredible American upsets on the international stage, alongside those pulled off by the 2018 Olympic curling team, the 1980 Olympic hockey team, and the 1950 World Cup soccer team. Pakistan finished second in this tournament when it was last held (in 2022), and it currently ranks 6th in the world. Meanwhile, the United States was making its first ever appearance in the competition—and qualified only because it was a co-host.

After beating Canada in the tournament's first match, the U.S. team is now in a good position to advance to the second round by finishing in one of the top two spots in its group—though a difficult match with India comes next, on June 12.

The New York Times called Thursday's win "a humiliation in Pakistan, where cricket is the most popular sport and part of the national identity"; it added that "many Americans were oblivious" to the result.

But we shouldn't be oblivious about why the result was possible. It's because of immigration. As The Indian Express points out, at least six players on the American team are of Indian descent, including several who are in the U.S. on work visas and who play on the national team essentially as a hobby.

That includes Saurabh Netravalkar, who bowled (the equivalent of pitching) the final over (inning) for the American team. He moved from Mumbia to San Francisco when he was a student. Now he's an engineer at Oracle. Monank Patel, who scored 50 runs in the game, moved to New Jersey from India in 2016 to start a restaurant. Nosthush Kenjige, who recorded three wickets (the equivalent of strikeouts), had been born in Alabama before moving to India and then returning to the U.S. to work as a biologist. Other players on the team were born in Canada, while some others (such as Kenjige) were native-born American children of Indian immigrants.

The rest of the Express article is worth your time to read, if only to appreciate the depth of the cross-cultural story behind the Americans' incredible upset. Saurabh, for example, had not even brought his cricket cleats to America when he moved here from India, believing that his cricket-playing days were behind him. Now he's the star and cricket is growing in U.S. popularity—particularly, and not surprisingly, in places with large numbers of South Asian immigrants.

There may not be a deep well of historical cricketing talent in the United States. But one of the greatest things about America is that if we don't have something, we can import it. And one of the lessons of the upset win over Pakistan is that greater immigration can have positive knock-on effects that go well beyond the initial reasons why someone might choose to move to the United States. After all, we're not handing out cricket visas. Saurabh didn't move to the United States to play the sport at all. He came for an opportunity to study, stayed because he got a job, and ended up helping author an all-time American sporting moment.

Immigration is America's superpower. Being one of the world's freest and most prosperous places means talented people from all over the world want to live and work here. When they do, it's not just their workplaces and immediate families that benefit. The country does too.

But what about all the immigrants who aren't world-class cricketers or scientists, some might ask. No problem! Can you cook or clean or code or care for someone? Can you do road work or construction? There are 8.1 million unfilled jobs in this country right now—and there will only be more economic opportunities as the country grows—so we should welcome all the help we can get. And when the kids of those immigrants grow up to be world-class scientists or athletes or entrepreneurs, America wins some more!

Some folks on social media seem grumpy about the victory because it was a bunch of immigrants and children of immigrants who made it happen. Those people should just say what they mean: that they'd prefer to see America be less successful—and not just at silly things like cricket matches, but at stuff that matters too. Be honest about it: You want America to lose more.

Personally, I prefer winning. And I don't care whether your parents were born in India or Indiana. Come here or stay here. Be an American. Go kick some ass.

The post Immigration Fueled America's Stunning Cricket Upset Over Pakistan appeared first on Reason.com.

America's most insane occupational licensing law is about to get a whole lot better.

Louisiana is the only state in the country that requires florists to be licensed by the government. A bill that is now on the way to Gov. Jeff Landry's desk sadly won't change that fact, but it will eliminate the mandatory test that prospective florists in Louisiana must pass before being allowed to earn a living by placing different types of flowers together in an arrangement. Going forward, obtaining a florist license will require only the payment of a fee to the state.

The bill cleared its final legislative hurdle with a unanimous vote in the state House on Wednesday. Landry, a Republican who has supported other licensing reforms, is expected to sign it.

Requiring any sort of government permission slip before someone can work as a florist is obviously ridiculous, and Louisiana's florist-testing regime was a uniquely perverse and protectionist scheme. This week's passage of state Rep. Mike Bayham's (R–Chalmette) reform bill is the culmination of a two-decade battle to eliminate it.

That effort began in the early 2000s, when the Institute for Justice filed a lawsuit challenging the florist licensing law. One of the plaintiffs in that case, a woman named Sandy Meadows, had been fired from her job at a Baton Rogue grocery store when state inspectors discovered she had been arranging flowers without the proper license. She tragically died, unemployed and in poverty, before the case could be heard.

Several subsequent lawsuits and legislative efforts have failed to kill the florist licensing law, although Louisiana lawmakers did adopt changes in 2012 that put an end to the practical portion of the licensing exam. Yes, before that, would-be florists were not only quizzed on their knowledge of the profession but also on their subjective skills at arranging flowers. The judges for the exam, naturally, were already-licensed florists.

Even after the exam was pared back to being only a written test, the requirements were still quite onerous, Sarah Harbison, general counsel for the Pelican Institute, a free market think tank that supported the reform bill, told Reason this week. The test would be offered only a few times a year, and would-be licensees had to travel to Baton Rouge to take it in person.

The arguments for maintaining the florist license strain credibility. During a Louisiana Senate hearing on the reform bill earlier this month, Agriculture Commissioner Mike Strain fretted about the risk of "pest and disease problems" if the licensing requirement was removed. Louisiana does not require a license to sell cut flowers—which would presumably carry the same, truly terrifying risks—but does require a license if you want to arrange different types of flowers into a bouquet. And if Louisiana is protecting the public from the danger of unlicensed floristry, why isn't there mass chaos in the 49 other states where florists can work without first passing a government-issued test?

"This will lead to greater sales of flowers. This will help people get jobs. This will expand opportunities for people to sell flowers, and this will get rid of a needless regulation," Bayham said last month when the House first approved his bill.

Good riddance to Louisiana's absurd florist licensing exams. But this week's reforms do leave one dilemma: What will be America's worst licensing law now?

The post Louisiana Finally Fixes America's Dumbest Licensing Requirement appeared first on Reason.com.

Donald Trump's presidential campaign famously promises to "Make America Great Again." As a rule, no one should think too hard about the meaning of bumper sticker political slogans. But ever since Trump rolled it out nine years ago, his slogan has quietly asked some seemingly unanswerable questions: When was America great before? And when did that greatness vanish, thus necessitating its recovery?

The answer, it turns out, isn't a year. It's an age.

And that age is roughly when you were between 11 and 16 years old—regardless of when you were born. Across generations, Americans seem to believe that the best music, the best television, the top sporting events, and the strongest communities are the ones they experienced in their adolescence and early teen years. That's the conclusion drawn by the data crunchers at The Washington Post, who distilled some fascinating recent polling data from YouGov's survey of Americans' views about different decades.

"The good old days when America was 'great' aren't the 1950s," writes the Post's Andrew Van Dan. "They're whatever decade you were 11, your parents knew the correct answer to any question, and you'd never heard of war crimes tribunals, microplastics, or improvised explosive devices. Or when you were 15 and athletes and musicians still played hard and hadn't sold out."

The charts in the Post's analysis are striking: Across music, movies, fashion, and other social measures, Americans seem to believe that culture peaked roughly one to two decades after they were born and has declined since. The Post and YouGov polling data fits with what other researchers have found: that humans have the strongest sense of nostalgia for the culture we experienced between the ages of 17 and 23.

It's not difficult to deduce why. Those are our formative years, rich with new experiences and potential, in which most of us had few serious responsibilities and got to enjoy the safety of having others provide for our basic needs.

On its own, there is nothing wrong with having golden-tinged memories of those years. Do I still love a lot of music from the late 90s and early 2000s simply because I was born in 1987, even though I can admit that some of it is objectively pretty terrible? Damn right, I do.

But letting nostalgia get mixed up in politics is not a great idea, in part because it's obviously a false promise. Sorry, but no matter how hard you vote, you're never going to be 15 again.

Unfortunately, personal disillusionment is not the most serious problem created by nostalgia politics. As former Reason editor in chief Virginia Postrel explained in The Future and Its Enemies, many of the clashes that erupt in modern politics and culture are the result of a conflict between the forces of "stasis" and "dynamism." Her book remains a powerful argument in favor of letting messy markets work and embracing the improvements that will come from an unknown future—and I'm not just saying that because it came out in 1998.

It seems like nostalgia-influenced politics plays into the hands of the former group, which would prefer a world more strictly controlled, with less creativity and change. That shows up most obviously in Trump's slogan, of course, but also in many other policies pushed by both major parties these days: limiting immigration, restricting development, protecting domestic industries from foreign competition, and so on. It is unfortunately a quick jump from "I wish the world would be more like how I remember it when I was younger" to giving the state more power over your freedom and the freedom of others.

By all means, re-watch those old television shows for the hundredth time. Buy tickets to go see those washed-up rock stars on tour this summer. Just keep your sense of nostalgia out of the voting booth and the public square.

You'll never be 15 again, but please don't ruin the future for the people who aren't 15 yet.

The post Americans Aren't Nostalgic for the Past. They Are Nostalgic for Being 15. appeared first on Reason.com.

At a Republican presidential primary debate in January 2016, Sen. Marco Rubio (R–Fla.) succinctly explained why using tariffs as a foreign policy tool would backfire against Americans.

"We are all frustrated with what China is doing, but I think we need to be very careful with tariffs and here's why," Rubio said, directly challenging Donald Trump over his call for placing tariffs on goods imported from China.

"China doesn't pay the tariff. The buyer pays the tariff," Rubio explained. "If you send a tie or a shirt made in China into the United States, and an American goes to buy it in the store, and there is a tariff on it, [the tariff] gets passed on in the price to the consumer."

In an essay published this week at The American Conservative, Rubio argued for exactly the opposite. Trump's plan to place even more tariffs on China if elected to another term in the White House would be "good for the economy insofar as they counteract market inefficiencies created by adversarial trade practices," Rubio writes, adding that it will "prevent or reverse offshoring, preserving America's economic might and promoting domestic investment."

The economics of tariffs have not changed in the past eight years. Rubio has.

The once-independent-minded senator from Florida has recently gone all-in on nationalist economics—presumably in an attempt to flatter Trump, a man Rubio once called a "dangerous con man." The senator has authored other essays recently advocating for industrial policy (he supports the "right" kind of industrial policy, which would of course be very different from the wrong kind of industrial policy President Joe Biden is pursuing, even though it's unclear how they would actually differ) and has publicly pushed back at critics who have called out his economic fallacies.

But the current version of Rubio is bound to lose this debate with his 2016 alter ego, who has the facts firmly on his side.

Indeed, just as Rubio predicted in 2016, the tariffs imposed by former President Donald Trump have been overwhelmingly paid by American businesses and consumers. Those groups "bore nearly the full cost of these tariffs because import prices increased at the same rate as the tariffs," the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) found in its five-year review of Trump's tariff policies. While Trump's tariffs on steel and aluminum spurred a small increase in domestic production of those metals, the ITC found, the downstream costs of the tariffs swamped the modest benefits.

Other studies found similar results. Here's one authored by economists at the Federal Reserve, Princeton University, and Columbia University that found Trump's tariffs cost U.S. consumers $3 billion per month. Here's a study by economists at the University of Chicago that found Trump's tariffs on washing machines hiked consumer costs by more than $1.5 billion. A study from Moody's Investor Service that found American consumers paid roughly 93 percent of the tariff costs. Other studies have come to similar conclusions.

In his American Conservative essay, Rubio tellingly doesn't attempt to offer evidence to contradict these well-established facts. Instead, he flippantly declares that the "'experts' got it wrong" and adds that "economists simplistically declare 'The policy is very bad. Tariffs make consumers poorer. They shrink the economy.'"

Perhaps the economists say those things because they are true and because the past six years have confirmed as much. It's fine to be skeptical of experts, but Rubio is the one making simplistic declarations here.

And if tariffs were the solution to anything, wouldn't there be evidence to support that claim by now? Rubio is engaging in a rhetorical trick more commonly used by progressives by suggesting that the lack of evidence in favor of a government policy isn't indicative of failure but only means that it hasn't been tried hard enough. Conservatives used to roll their eyes at that tactic.

Perhaps Rubio will parlay all these mental gymnastics and pro-Trump sycophancy into a vice presidential nomination or some other plum gig. For now, however, he's provided a perfectly pathetic illustration of the current state of the Republican Party, which has abandoned principle and reality to swoon for Trump's silly notions about what makes countries prosperous.

"The best thing we can do to protect ourselves against China economically is to make our economy stronger," Rubio said during that same GOP primary debate in 2016, adding that the best way to boost economic growth would be to cut taxes on American businesses and consumers.

Eight years later, Rubio is advocating for raising taxes on Americans in order to combat China. It makes no sense and we know that Rubio knows better, even if he no longer has the cojones to say so.

The post Marco Rubio Used To Know How Tariffs Work. What Happened? appeared first on Reason.com.

Better not read this post out loud to anyone—federal labor regulators might not like it.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) stretched its speech-policing powers to new highs last week when an in-house administrative judge ruled that Amazon CEO Andy Jassy had violated federal labor law by expressing anti-unionization views during several televised interviews in recent years. Specifically, Judge Brian Gee dinged Jassy for suggesting that Amazon employees might be "better off" without a union and the layers of bureaucracy that come with it.

Jassy made those comments during an appearance on CNBC in 2022—during a segment in which he was discussing Amazon's response to ongoing unionization efforts at some warehouses. In the ruling, Gee highlighted similar comments that Jassy made during public forums hosted by The New York Times and Bloomberg.

The First Amendment protects Jassy's right to talk about those things and federal labor law allows employers to discuss unionization as long as they are not harassing or intimidating employees by doing so.

None of that seems to matter to the NLRB. In the ruling, Gee said Jassy had engaged in unlawful "coercive predictions about the effects of unionization" and ordered Amazon to post notices at its facilities reminding workers of their rights.

The punishment isn't really the point, however. Going after Jassy for remarks made in obviously public forums—comments that certainly were not meant to harass or intimidate current or would-be union members—is a signal that the NLRB sees virtually no limit to its powers to police executives' speech.

"Reasonable people may disagree about the line between permissible and impermissible speech" within the bounds of federal labor laws, said Edwin Egee, a vice president at the National Retail Federation, in a statement. "However, if Judge Gee's decision is left to stand, the effect would be to erase this line entirely. Employers would rightly wonder whether they can speak about unionization at all, despite their legally protected right to do so."

Gee's ruling in the Amazon case sits awkwardly alongside other recent rulings by the NLRB that gave wide leeway to employees' speech about similar topics. As the Washington Examiner noted, the NLRB in January forced Amazon to rehire an employee who had been sacked after directing an expletive-laden tirade at a fellow worker.

Meanwhile, some Google employees who were fired after protesting the company's contractual relationship with the state of Israel have filed a complaint with the NLRB asking to be reinstated. The former workers say they were unfairly terminated for engaging in speech that was "directly and explicitly connected to their terms and conditions of work," The Washington Post reported.

It's too soon to know how the NLRB will handle that case, but something has to give. It simply cannot be true that federal labor law permits employees to engage in any and all conduct without consequence, while simultaneously preventing CEOs and employers from speaking freely during media appearances and other public forums.

Federal bureaucrats don't have the authority to decide that all speech is either mandatory or forbidden—and whether they like it or not, the First Amendment applies even to the CEOs of successful businesses.

The post Labor Board Goes After Amazon CEO for Suggesting Workers Might Be 'Better Off' Without Unions appeared first on Reason.com.

When Sister Simone (Betty Gilpin) loses her convent, she vows revenge against the entity responsible: a powerful AI known as Mrs. Davis, which guides most people's daily lives by doling out rewards for those who make good choices via a smartphone app. This delightfully weird premise animates the Peacock series Mrs. Davis, co-created by Damon Lindelof, best known for his work on Lost, the puzzle-box drama from the 2000s.

When confronted, Mrs. Davis offers Simone a deal. If the nun can complete a quest to find the Holy Grail—algorithms love clichés, after all—Mrs. Davis promises to shut herself down. The show unspools into a madcap adventure involving a Vatican conspiracy, a guy named Arthur Schrödinger (yes, he has a cat), a Super Bowl ad for sneakers, and a metaphysical falafel shop run by Simone's husband. Mrs. Davis manages to be unique despite having a plot constructed almost entirely of storytelling tropes that are, in some cases, thousands of years old.

And in some cases, just a couple of decades old. Mrs. Davis winks at Lindelof's Lost past—in just the first episode, someone is rescued from a deserted island, a secret hatch is discovered, and two characters debate whether they should push a button that may or may not cause dire consequences. As in Lost, Lindelof piles on layers of symbolism, then forces his characters (and audience) to figure out the difference between a sincere religious experience, a red herring, and a trap. Mrs. Davis tests the limits of science and faith, while once again intertwining coincidence and fate.

If any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, the show asks, then is any sufficiently advanced algorithm inevitably going to mirror humanity's conception of God?

The post Review: <i>Mrs. Davis</i> Tests the Limits of Science and Faith appeared first on Reason.com.

There may not be a more apt visual metaphor for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis' past few years than his opposition to a proposed marijuana legalization ballot initiative—which he announced Tuesday while literally standing behind a sign celebrating "Freedom Month."

"I don't want this state to be reeking of marijuana," DeSantis said, defaulting to one of the laziest arguments against pot freedom, but one that DeSantis has been using for years. "We're doing fine. We don't need to do that."

How's that for Freedom Month?

In fairness to DeSantis, the jarringly dissonant signage was celebrating the state's sales tax holiday during May. Even so, the gap between DeSantis' pro-freedom messaging and his actions as governor has become a recurring theme for the one-time presidential hopeful.

After all, this is the same guy who wrote a book titled The Courage To Be Free, but has made a name for himself in conservative politics by wielding state power against drag queens, student groups, and others who have had the courage to freely express their opinions. On the presidential campaign trail, DeSantis would talk up the importance of school choice and parental rights, then moments later promise stricter state control over school curriculums. He's championed Florida's status as a refuge for Americans fleeing poor government policies in other states, even as he's tried to boot out migrants who are voting with their feet by coming to America for the same reason.

Freedom, for DeSantis, seems to mean that you can do whatever you'd please—but only if he approves.

It's disappointing, but hardly surprising, that DeSantis is applying that same logic to marijuana legalization. Florida residents might get a chance to vote on legalizing recreational weed in November, but DeSantis promised Tuesday that he would be "getting involved in different ways" to combat that ballot initiative. It's unclear exactly what DeSantis means, but State Attorney General Ashley Moody and some anti-legalization groups have already sued in state court to block the initiative from getting on the ballot.

The ballot initiative, Florida Amendment 3, would change the state's constitution to allow adults aged 21 and older to possess up to three ounces of marijuana. Existing licensed medical marijuana distribution centers—Florida voters approved medical marijuana in 2016—would be the only places allowed to distribute recreational weed, although state lawmakers could pass new laws to allow for commercial distribution and home growing.

As Marijuana Moment notes, economic analyses of the ballot initiative show that legalization would be a boon for Florida and could generate between $195.6 million and $431.3 million in new sales tax revenue annually.

Greater freedom for Floridians and higher tax revenue seem to matter less to DeSantis than the possibility that some of the state's residents might dislike the smell of reefer. "You want to walk down the street here and smell it," he asked, rhetorically, on Tuesday. "Do you want to not be able to take your family out to dinner because you're worried about it?"

If that's the best argument that the opponents of legalization in Florida can muster, there might be little cause for concern. Even so, having the (admittedly quite popular) governor campaigning against legalization figures to be a factor in the election.

Voters seem to be split on the legalization issue: A poll taken last month by USA Today and Ipsos showed 49 percent of Floridians support the ballot initiative—including 38 percent of registered Republicans. That's well short of the 60 percent threshold required for the amendment to pass.

What DeSantis does as Florida's governor will continue to carry national implications, not solely because he remains one of the most well-known Republican politicians in the country. He's reportedly seeking to patch up his relationship with former President Donald Trump—the two had dinner this week, according to The Washington Post—and may have a role to play in a future Trump administration, or as a Republican presidential candidate in 2028.

By then, maybe he'll have gotten over his fear of the smell of weed.

The post DeSantis Frets About Florida 'Reeking of Marijuana,' Says He'll Oppose Legalization appeared first on Reason.com.

Tech companies and First Amendment groups are calling attention to a provision in a domestic spying bill that they say would significantly expand the federal government's power to snoop on Americans' digital communications—potentially by forcing employees of private businesses to become informants.

The Information Technology Industry Council (ITI), a global trade group that represents major tech companies including Google and Microsoft, is calling for last-minute changes to the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act (RISAA), which could get a final vote in the Senate on Friday. The bill's primary purpose is to extend Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which allows U.S. intelligence agencies to scoop up communications between Americans and individuals abroad.

But the bill also includes a provision that "vastly expands the U.S. government's warrantless surveillance capabilities, damaging the competitiveness of U.S. technology companies large and small, and arguably imperiling the continued global free flow of data between the U.S. and its allies," the ITI said in a statement this week.

As Reason reported in December, that provision means that nearly any business or entity with access to telecom or internet equipment could be forced to participate in the federal government's digital spying regime. The big target, as Wired noted this week, is likely to be the owners and operators of data centers.

Under the current FISA law, Section 702 only applies to telecommunications companies and internet service providers. But the amendment included in the RISAA would expand that definition to cover "any service provider" with "access to equipment that is being or may be used to transmit or store" electronic communications.

"The practical impact of the revised definition is significant and means any company, vendor, or any of their employees who touch the physical infrastructure of the internet could now be swept under FISA's scope and compelled to assist with FISA surveillance," the ITI warns. "If this amendment were to become law, any electronic communications service equipment provider or others with access to that equipment, including their employees or the employees of their service providers, would be subject to compelled FISA disclosure or assistance."

In short, even someone like a custodian could be legally compelled to assist in the federal government's spying efforts.

Marc Zwillinger, an attorney who has experience arguing before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), wrote this week on his personal blog that the RISAA would "permit the government to compel the assistance of a wide range of additional entities and persons in conducting surveillance under FISA 702."

The newest version is less broad than what was initially proposed in December—for example, gathering places like hotels and coffee shops have been specifically excluded from the law. But, as Zwillinger writes, the revised definition would cover "the owners and operators of facilities that house equipment used to store or carry data, such as data centers and buildings owned by commercial landlords, who merely have access to communications equipment in their physical space," as well as "other persons with access to such facilities and equipment, including delivery personnel, cleaning contractors, and utility providers."

Because newsrooms and other places where journalists work are not specifically exempted, some First Amendment groups are also worried about how the expansion of digital spying authority could affect journalism.

"This bill would basically allow the government to institute a spy draft," Seth Stern, director of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF), said in a statement on Thursday. "If this bill becomes law, sources will rightly suspect that American newsrooms are bugged by the government. And journalists won't be able to reassure them that they're not, because, for all they know, the building maintenance worker is an involuntary government spy."

The reactions from tech companies, legal experts, and free press advocates come on the heels of objections raised by various civil libertarian groups. As Reason's J.D. Tuccille covered earlier this week, some opponents of the FISA reauthorization bill have taken to calling it "the 'Everyone Is a Spy' provision, since potentially anybody with access to a laptop or WiFi router could be compelled to help the government conduct surveillance."

If the RISAA is approved by the Senate on Friday, as expected, and signed by President Joe Biden, Americans will have little recourse except to hope that the Justice Department is telling the truth when it says it won't use the broad authority contained in the bill. In a letter to senators on Thursday, Attorney General Merrick Garland wrote that his department "commits to applying" the new definition of electronic communications service providers in a narrow fashion. "The number of technology companies" covered by the new provision, he wrote, "is extremely small."

Of course, anyone with a working knowledge of the history of federal surveillance programs—or any government initiative, for that matter—is probably right to be skeptical of that assurance.

"Even if the bill is intended to target data centers, it doesn't say that," Stern said in a statement. "And, even if one trusts the Biden administration to honor its pinky swears, they're not binding on any future administrations."

The post How the FISA Reauthorization Bill Could Force Maintenance Workers and Custodians To Become Government Spies appeared first on Reason.com.

It's a fairly well-established principle that the state can intervene when an individual harms another person: Your right to swing your fist ends when it hits my face. But what about when someone's actions harm only themselves?

For some, that's another opportunity for the government to get involved. They're the "fun police," constantly using public policy to nudge, cajole, or outright force you to accept their idea of a healthy, moral lifestyle. In a new limited-run podcast series produced by the Consumer Choice Center, a group that opposes paternalism in various forms, co-hosts Bill Wirtz and Yaël Ossowski turn a skeptical eye toward the do-gooders and nanny-staters who campaign against drinking, smoking, gambling, and more.

Wirtz, Ossowski, and their guests trace the roots of modern neo-prohibitionist movements to the Anti-Saloon League, which laid out the blueprint followed by public scolds today. Bankrolled by the Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford families, the League helped turn the "once-fringe moral movement" of alcohol prohibition into a "social force that dominated political life" and culminated in the 18th Amendment (and disaster). The same model is still deployed today, with wealthy funders such as former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg backing efforts to ban products from vape pens to Big Gulps.

Fun Police veers between practical examples of nanny statism and deeper discussions about the role of the state. It makes a compelling case for letting people live freely, even if that comes with a little risk.

The post Review: <i>Fun Police</i> Podcast Exposes the Nanny State appeared first on Reason.com.

President Joe Biden did not dwell long on the question of how to solve the serious entitlement crisis facing America during Thursday's State of the Union address before pivoting to discuss obviously more serious problems like the size of snack food packages.

Still, one point he made is worthy of deeper analysis.

In trying to draw a contrast between his own plans and what he claimed Republicans are aiming to do, Biden claimed that "working people who built this country pay more into Social Security than millionaires and billionaires do. It's not fair."

Moments later, he promised to "protect and strengthen Social Security and make the wealthy pay their fair share."

Though he did not spell it all out in Thursday night's speech, those two comments seem to be pointed toward the same aspect of how Social Security is funded. Under current law, the payroll tax that funds Social Security is capped so that, for this year, only the first $168,600 in earnings are subject to it.

Raising that cap—or eliminating it—is frequently discussed as one possible solution to Social Security's approaching insolvency. That seems to be the idea that Biden was gesturing towards in his speech.

On its face, this isn't necessarily the worst idea. The cap is completely arbitrary, so there's no principled reason why all earnings shouldn't be treated equally. And there's no doubt that raising the cap would generate more revenue to help keep Social Security afloat. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that applying payroll taxes to higher income levels could raise $1 trillion in revenues over a 10-year period (though the amount of revenue would depend on how the cap was altered, and whether benefits increased as well).

But there are also serious trade-offs. For one, this would be a tax increase on working Americans to fund a transfer of wealth to retirees. That's not great. A significant portion of that tax increase would fall on people making less than $400,000 annually—remember, the cap is currently set around $168,000—a cohort that Biden promised again in Thursday's speech would not face tax increases.

Perhaps most importantly, raising or eliminating the payroll tax gap doesn't come close to solving the long-term Social Security shortfall. It might generate $1 trillion over 10 years, which is a lot of money, but it doesn't come close to the $2.8 trillion deficit the program is expected to run over the next decade.

"Eliminating the tax cap would either raise benefits as well (reducing the proposals' savings), or—if the accompanying benefits are canceled—turn Social Security into a true welfare program by delinking contributions and benefits," writes Brian Riedl, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and former Senate budget staffer, in a recent piece debunking some common myths about Social Security reform. "Moreover, eliminating the cap would not bring permanent solvency or avert the need for benefit changes….The system would return to deficits by 2029. Lawmakers would still need to reform benefit levels and the eligibility age."

Ah, but Biden also used Thursday's speech to kneecap any discussion of making those other changes.

"If anyone here tries to cut Social Security or Medicare or raise the retirement age," he vowed, "I will stop them."

It's nice to see the president at least acknowledge one of the difficult choices that lie ahead for policymakers grappling with the coming insolvency of America's entitlement programs. On that count, he's at least marginally ahead of his prospective electoral opponent, former President Donald Trump, who maintains that Social Security needs no reforms.

Still, Biden's a long, long way from anything that sounds like a workable proposal—and the lack of details in Thursday's speech suggests the White House would prefer to stay away from this topic during an election year.

The post Biden Says He'll Make the Wealthy Pay More To Fix Social Security. Here's Why That Won't Work. appeared first on Reason.com.

President Joe Biden will reportedly use tonight's State of the Union address to once more rail against what the White House has taken to calling "shrinkflation"—the annoying corporate practice of shrinking the size of products rather than raising prices.

Politico reported this week that "recent drafts of Biden's State of the Union address have included a reference to shrinkflation as part of a broader segment on administration efforts to pressure companies to lower costs across the board." A White House spokesperson told the outlet that Biden "will continue to call out rip-offs such as shrinkflation, greedflation, and price gouging."

You'll note that, up there in the first sentence, I acknowledged that shrinkflation is annoying. It is, and polls show that consumers are indeed put off by the practice. Even Cookie Monster is upset about it. There are reasons to believe this is, on some level, a politically savvy move by the White House that reflects whatever data it's gleaned from polling.

But Biden's economically illiterate attempts to pin shrinkflation on greedy corporations aren't telling even half of the story. Here are three things to keep in mind when Biden starts spouting off tonight.

First, shrinkflation is just inflation.

It's not a side effect of inflation or a consequence of inflation. It is inflation. So when Biden, or anyone else, is complaining about this, what they are really saying is, "Wow, it sure sucks that your money doesn't buy as much stuff as it used to." Maybe that can score Biden some points for looking like he shares the concerns of regular Americans—even though he hasn't had to worry about a household grocery budget in decades—but this is nothing more than an attempt at rhetorical misdirection.

Second, shrinkflation is not a new phenomenon (because it is no different from inflation, which has also been around for as long as people have been using money).

Corporations didn't suddenly get more greedy and they didn't discover the tradeoff between sizes and prices in the wake of surging inflation during 2022. In fact, shrinkflation has been around since before there were corporations.

"Whenever grain was in short supply in feudal Europe, bakers had two choices: They could either raise prices or sell smaller loaves. They chose the latter," wrote Keith Plocek in Slate in 2022. "To do otherwise would violate the widely-held principle of a "just price"—formulated by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century—and invite a bread riot."

That famous business school story about American Airlines saving a ton of money by removing a single olive from the salads it served to passengers in the 1980s? That's shrinkflation! What about Chock full o'Nuts deciding to sell 13-ounce packages of coffee instead of one-pound containers, thus ushering in an industrywide change? Shrinkflation! This is neither a novel idea nor a particularly sinister one, and it is certainly not something that needs to be regulated by the federal government.

Finally, Biden's proposed solution to shrinkflation would automatically cause prices to rise.

We don't yet know exactly what Biden is going to suggest at tonight's speech, but it seems likely that he'll tout a new task force launched this week meant to combat "unfair and illegal" pricing. On Tuesday, Biden announced the joint project of the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice with the goal of "making sure corporations are held accountable when they try to rip off Americans."

It's worth asking: What would happen if this task force succeeds? Assume every company in America decides to immediately undo any reductions in the size or quantity of products. What would happen to prices?

"In an inflationary environment, firms must decide whether to raise their headline prices or trim product sizes," wrote Ryan Bourne, an economist at the libertarian Cato Institute. "Banning 'shrinkflation' is effectively a mandate to raise package prices, rather than pursuing a size‐​price bundle that some (particularly low‐​income) consumers might prefer."

To put it in terms even Cookie Monster might understand: If the cost of making a single cookie has increased—because the flour and sugar are more expensive, and the workers making the cookies are making higher wages—then the cost of a package of 20 cookies will increase accordingly. If you want to avoid raising prices, you might only sell 15 cookies per package.

But if the government mandates 20 cookies per package—such an incredibly silly thing to have the federal government regulate, it's worth noting—then the price of that bag of cookies is certainly going up. The inflation that's occurred over the past few years can't be wiped away with a White House edict or canceled by a new task force.

As Dean Baker, a senior economist at the progressive Center for Economic and Policy Research, told Politico this week: "Costs have gone up—wages are 20 percent higher than they were in 2019….We're not going to have a world where people get to keep their 20 percent pay increases and pay what they did four years ago for food."

Bizarrely, Biden's attempt to change the conversation away from inflation involves a set of policies that would make Americans even more aware of how inflation is affecting them. The White House should be careful what it wishes for.

The post Not Again With the 'Shrinkflation,' Please appeared first on Reason.com.

Voters in California went to the polls this week for a primary election that's the first step towards picking a permanent replacement for the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who died nearly six months ago.

In Washington, meanwhile, Feinstein is still wielding influence from beyond the grave. Her name is attached to 256 different earmarks included in the budget bill working its way through Congress this week. Those pork projects will cost taxpayers about $1.1 billion if the bill passes in its current form, the Washington Examiner reported Tuesday.

And that only scratches the surface. The partial budget deal—which contains six of the 12 appropriations bills that make up the discretionary portion of the annual federal budget—is overflowing with earmarks to fund lawmakers' pet projects. All told, there are more than 6,000 earmarks in the bill, costing taxpayers more than $12.7 billion, according to Sen. Mike Lee (R–Utah), who has urged Republicans to vote against the package.

Many of the earmarks in the package seem like things that would be better funded by local or state taxpayers, who at least might stand to benefit from projects like new sewer systems, new runways and other upgrades for tiny rural airports, and a plethora of highway projects. Some are truly head-scratching, like Sen. Tammy Baldwin's (D–Wis.) $1.4 million earmark for a solar energy project in Wisconsin, one of the places in America least well suited for a solar farm.

Plenty of others make no sense for the public to be funding at all. Like a $3.5 million earmark secured by Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D–Mich.) for The Parade Company, which runs Detroit's annual Thanksgiving Day parade. Or the $2.5 million earmark that will help build a new kayaking facility in Franklin, New Hampshire, curtsey of Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D–N.H.), as well as $2.7 million line item to help build a bike park in White Sulfur Springs, West Virginia, a town with a population of less than 2,300 people.

For that amount of money, "you could buy EVERY resident a $1,200+ bike" Sen. Rick Scott (R–Fla.), who has become a vocal critic of the earmarks in the bill, posted on X (formerly Twitter). "There's no way they need this much of YOUR money for this."

The same could be said for several Republican-based earmarks too. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.) has inserted at least eight earmarks into the bill, forcing federal taxpayers to put up more than $33 million for things most will never use, like a new trail at Coastal Carolina University and an ROTC facility at the University of South Carolina. Among the dozens of earmarks inserted by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R–Alaska), perhaps the strangest is the $4 million grant for the "Alaska King Crab Enhancement Project."

Wait, you might be thinking, didn't Congress ban the use of earmarks when tea party-era Republicans controlled the government? Yep, they did. But like fiscal responsibility and concern about America's ballooning entitlement costs, those efforts to limit pork barrel spending are now distant memories. Democrats voted to reinstate earmarks in 2021, and Republicans soon followed suit.

To Congress' credit, earmarks are now handled more transparently than they used to be—which is why you can view the full list of earmarks included in the budget bills here.

Still, some things never change. Earmarks remain expensive, wasteful exercises in cronyism—and with the country $34 trillion in debt, Congress should not be putting taxpayers on the hook for frivolous handouts to politically connected friends.

The post The Budget Deal Is Overflowing With $12 Billion of Earmarks appeared first on Reason.com.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom is pushing back against claims that he sought to include a special exemption in a new minimum wage law to help a longtime friend and donor—but the governor's objections only underline how the entire law was a giveaway to his political allies.

Starting next month, fast-food chains operating in California will have to pay workers at least $20 per hour, even though the minimum wage for other jobs in the state will remain at $16 per hour. Newsom signed the bill to create that higher wage mandate, but the law includes a special carve-out seemingly tailored to exempt Panera Bread (and other chains that sell bread as a standalone menu item). Newsom had pushed for that exemption, Bloomberg reported earlier this week, as a favor to Greg Flynn, owner and CEO of the Flynn Restaurant Group, which operates 24 Panera locations in the Golden State.

After the story took off in the media, a spokesman for the governor's office claimed the allegation of favoritism was false. Newsom "never met with Flynn about this bill and this story is absurd," wrote Alex Stack in a statement to Reason and other media outlets that covered the story. "Our legal team has reviewed and it appears Panera is not exempt from the law."

The first claim might be true in only the narrowest sense. The Associated Press has confirmed that Flynn met with the governor's staff regarding the minimum wage bill and that he suggested exempting "restaurants like bakeries, bagel shops and delis" from the higher minimum wage law. Flynn denied speaking to Newsom directly, but it certainly appears that he attempted to exercise some influence over the lawmaking process.

Meanwhile, the governor's office's claim that the exemption doesn't apply to Panera only raises other questions—like, why is that exemption there at all?

That's a question that reporters in Sacramento have seemingly been trying to answer for months. Asked directly about the bakery exemption at a press conference last year, Newsom said it was "part of the sausage making" of the legislative process. In the wake of the Bloomberg story, Newsom's office has not offered a better explanation for the carve-out. Until that changes, the questions will persist.

"If [Newsom] is unable to provide a better justification for this carve-out, it raises serious questions about the integrity of his administration," a group of Republican lawmakers wrote in a letter requesting that state Attorney General Rob Bonta investigate the matter.

Newsom's explanations about the carve-out seem to be "falling apart in real time, particularly because Californians are accustomed to watching this administration hand out favors to its friends," Will Swaim, president of the California Policy Center, tells Reason. 

Swaim drew a parallel to the aftermath of the passage of California's Assembly Bill (AB) 5 in 2019, which effectively banned freelancing in many industries. After newspapers complained that the law would make it more difficult for them to use freelance labor, Newsom backed a short-term and then a longer-term exemption for the industry.

Of course, the debate over the narrow bakery exemption to the minimum wage law seems to miss the larger point: the entire law is a bizarre exemption from the state's existing minimum wage statute. Maybe a special interest and personal friend influenced that one section of the new law, but there is no doubt that other special interests—labor unions that give huge campaign contributions—are the reason why the rest of the law singles out fast food restaurants while effectively exempting other employers.

In short: Newsom's claims that special interests didn't influence one part of the bill would be more believable if special interests hadn't obviously influenced the entire bill.

"This was a bad bill to begin with—imposing an unsupportable minimum wage on businesses that operate on razor-thin margins has already raised menu prices and accelerated layoffs in the industry," says Swaim. "Its victims will be small franchisees who don't have Panera's pull and workers who are now facing mass layoffs."

The post Of Course Special Interests Shaped California's New Minimum Wage Law appeared first on Reason.com.

Former President Donald Trump's decision to impose huge new tariffs on imported steel came with an explicit promise about resurrecting the American steel industry.

"We're bringing it all back," Trump told reporters in May 2018 as he ordered the placement of 25 percent tariffs on nearly all steel imported into the United States. In exchange for making steel prices "a little bit more expensive," Trump believed the tariffs would boost domestic production "like it used to be in the old days when we actually had steel," he said in August of that same year. And when campaigning for reelection a year later, he was eager to claim credit for taking the steel industry from "dead" to "thriving."

But nearly six years after those tariffs were announced, government data show that America's annual steel output has fallen below the level recorded in 2017—the last full year before Trump's tariffs were imposed.

America produced 80 million metric tons of raw steel in 2023, according to new data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), which tracks the annual output of iron, steel, and other industrial commodities. That's down from 80.5 million metric tons of steel produced in 2022.

Both figures ring in below the 81.6 million metric tons that were poured out of American steel mills in 2017.

The USGS data show that Trump's tariffs may have helped goose domestic steel production in the first few years after they were implemented. Production rose to 86.6 million metric tons in 2018 and 87.8 million metric tons in 2019, before cratering in 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Production bounced back in 2021, as American steel mills produced 85.8 million metric tons of raw steel that year.

Those modest gains in the immediate aftermath of the tariffs seem to have faded away over the past two years—despite President Joe Biden's unwillingness to remove the Trump tariffs, which have hammered steel-consuming industries and have added to inflation.

That pattern—a short-term boost in production followed by a decline later—is exactly what economists would expect to happen after tariffs are imposed, wrote Ed Gresser, a former assistant U.S. trade representative and vice president and director for trade and global markets at the Progressive Policy Institute.

Gresser noted that large new tariffs typically create a four-stage chain of events: First, an increase in prices; then, a shift toward domestic production as buyers try to avoid paying the new tax; next, a decline in consumption by domestic industries that consume the tariffed product as they fall behind competitors elsewhere in the world; and finally, that decline in domestic demand rebounds onto the protected producers who see fewer orders for their products—in this case, steel.

When the Commerce Department formally announced Trump's tariffs in 2018, it waved away concerns about the last step in that process.

"If a reduction in imports can be combined with an increase in domestic steel demand" that would result from military and infrastructure spending, then the Trump tariffs "will enable U.S. steel mills to increase operations significantly in the short-term and improve the financial viability of the industry over the long-term," the department predicted.

That plainly hasn't happened. The short-term boost provided by the tariffs has faded and the artificially higher price of steel that American industries (and consumers) now must pay appears to be sapping demand for steel.

The two-year decline in steel output (during a period of robust economic growth, too) makes it easy to assess the Trump steel tariffs as their sixth birthday approaches. There is no need to weigh the benefits of the tariffs against their costs—even though the costs overwhelm the benefits—and no need to be distracted by the theoretical debates about how tariffs supposedly improve American national security.

Tariffs were supposed to resurrect the steel industry. Instead, America now produces less steel than it did before the tariffs were imposed. The debate is over. Trump's steel tariffs have failed.

The post American Steel Production Has Fallen to Pre-Tariff Levels appeared first on Reason.com.

During the height of the pandemic summer of 2020, the proprietors of the Burning Bridge Tavern worked with local officials in Wrightsville, Pennsylvania, to host a series of outdoor gatherings for the community.

For their trouble, the bar's owners got slapped with a series of citations by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PLCB), the government agency that oversees and manages the sale of alcohol in the state. The citations were ticky-tack offenses, according to Burning Bridge's chief financial officer, Mike Butler. Twice, the bar was cited for noise violations because they'd allowed a band playing at the gathering to plug into the tavern's electricity supply. Another offense occurred when the owners and some family members were drinking inside the tavern, which was closed to the public, during a period when indoor dining was prohibited.

A frustrating situation, but not the end of the world. Burning Bridge's owners paid the fines associated with the citations and assumed that was that. But then the bar had to renew its liquor license.

"They denied it. They said, 'Oh, you're the guys that got all those citations,'" Butler says. "It was a real gut punch."

Turns out, over the past two years the PLCB has pushed dozens of Pennsylvania establishments that racked up pandemic-​related citations to sign "conditional licensing agreements" to renew their liquor permits. In some cases, those agreements have forced the sale of licenses—but in most cases, as with Burning Bridge, they've added additional conditions to the license that could prevent a future renewal from being approved.

While the PLCB cannot revoke existing licenses, the board is empowered to object to the renewal of a license or to demand the license can only be renewed conditionally. "In extreme cases," PLCB Press Secretary Shawn Kelly says, the PLCB can force the sale of a liquor license, though the board only pursues that option when "there is an operational and citation history that calls for such an agreement."

Even though Burning Bridge's owners weren't forced to sell their license, Butler says signing the conditional licensing agreement has come with real costs: The bar's insurance premium tripled as a result of being viewed as a greater risk.

Typically, those agreements have been used to curb nuisance bars or force establishments with a history of legal problems, like serving underage patrons, to clean up their acts. Recently, however, the PLCB has taken a hardline stance against establishments that violated pandemic-era rules.

"The people who violated the governor's mandates and orders should face some consequences," argued Mary Isenhour, one of the PLCB's three board members, at a January 2022 meeting where the first several of the COVID-related conditional licensing agreements were approved.

Isenhour was responding to an objection raised by a fellow board member, Michael Negra, who argued that the PLCB should take the view that businesses had "paid their dues" during the pandemic and should not face additional sanction now. Negra left the PLCB in June 2022 and now works for a ​Pittsburgh-based lobbying firm. He did not return requests for comment.

After Negra's departure, the PLCB has unanimously approved dozens of conditional licensing agreements for COVID-​related violations, including at least 10 that have required the sale of a license, based on a review of PLCB meeting minutes.

Kelly, the PLCB spokesman, maintains that licensees are "under no obligation" to sign conditional licensing agreements.

But any licensee that refuses would face a set of unattractive alternatives: not having the license renewed, or being drawn into a legal battle against the PLCB in state court.

"Do you risk your entire business, your license, the loans, all of that to fight" in a real court, asks Butler. "Or do you just kind of hold your nose and take your medicine? Tactically, for us, we weren't in a position to say, 'Yeah, we'll run that risk.'"

Chuck Moran, executive director of the Pennsylvania Licensed Beverage and Tavern Association, acknowledges that pandemic-era public health orders left many establishments with a difficult choice between following the law and surviving financially. Fairly or unfairly, "those who broke the rules went the wrong way and now they're paying the price," he says.

The whole matter raises some complicated questions about how our political institutions ought to handle, with the benefit of hindsight, the unprecedented circumstances created by the pandemic and policy makers' response to it.

"The feeling was that our government really isn't working to try and help us," says Butler. "At this point, it feels like they're coming after us."

The post Liquor Regulators Are Seeking Revenge on Bars That Broke Pandemic Rules appeared first on Reason.com.

In this week's The Reason Roundtable, Katherine Mangu-Ward is in the driver's seat, alongside Nick Gillespie and special guests Zach Weissmueller and Eric Boehm. The editors react to the latest plot twists in Donald Trump's various legal proceedings and the death of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny.

00:41—The trials of Donald Trump in Georgia and New York

25:04—Weekly Listener Question

33:23—Sora, a new AI video tool

43:55—The death of Alexei Navalny

49:58—This week's cultural recommendations

Mentioned in this podcast:

"How a New York Judge Arrived at a Staggering 'Disgorgement' Order Against Trump," by Jacob Sullum

"Prosecutor Fani Willis Touts the Value of Cash, but What About the Rest of Us?" by J.D. Tuccille

"Trump Ordered To Pay $364 Million for Inflating His Assets in Civil Fraud Trial," by Joe Lancaster

"Alvin Bragg Is Trying To Punish Trump for Something That Is Not a Crime," by Jacob Sullum

"Alexei Navalny's Death Is a Timely Reminder of How Much Russia Sucks," by Eric Boehm

"Why Is Nike Stomping on Independent Creators?" by Kevin P. Alexander

"Bury My Sneakers at Wounded Knee," by Nick Gillespie

"Creation Myth: Does innovation require intellectual property rights?" by Douglas Clement

"A Private Libertarian City in Honduras," by Zach Weissmueller

"The Real Reasons Africa Is Poor—and Why It Matters," by Nick Gillespie

Bono's Ukraine Speech

"Justice or persecution? The Trump dilemma"

Send your questions to roundtable@reason.com. Be sure to include your social media handle and the correct pronunciation of your name.

Today's sponsor:

• ZBiotics. Pre-Alcohol Probiotic Drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was invented by Ph.D. scientists to tackle rough mornings after drinking. Here's how it works: When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut. It's this byproduct, not dehydration, that's to blame for your rough next day. ZBiotics produces an enzyme to break this byproduct down. Just remember to make ZBiotics your first drink of the night and to drink responsibly, and you'll feel your best tomorrow. Go to zbiotics.com/roundtable to get 15 percent off your first order when you use code ROUNDTABLE at checkout. ZBiotics is backed with a 100 percent money-back guarantee, so if you're unsatisfied for any reason, they'll refund your money, no questions asked.

Audio production by Ian Keyser; assistant production by Hunt Beaty.

Music: "Angeline," by The Brothers Steve

• Producer: Hunt Beaty

The post Goodbye, Navalny appeared first on Reason.com.