COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE

VOL. 32, NO. 2 | SPRING 2019

FEATURED ARTICLES

Consumers Stand to Lose as Both

Major Parties Push Antitrust Rules
4 as a 2020 Issue
BY DANIEL PRESS
Payday Loan Regulations Rollback
BY RYAN YOUNG .
Is Win for Business, Consumers

A fter a two-decade lull following the

Microsoft case, big antitrust enforcement
cases are back in vogue. Both major politi-
cal parties are making antitrust regulation

6 a 2020 campaign issue. Regulators, politi-

cians, and voters have reasonable concerns
about concentrated corporate power. But
BY ANGELA LOGOMASINI
few policies are easier for big companies
Banning Plastic Bags Will Hurt
to game than antitrust regulation. Reformers
Businesses and Consumers
should favor having fewer regulations for
special interests to capture. Antitrust regula-
tions are supposed to bolster competition
in the market, but often have the opposite
effect, and are prone to abuse. Their whole-
sale repeal is long overdue.

9 Antitrust regulation is often used

for political purposes. President Trump
has threatened antitrust actions against
BY IAIN MURRAY
Facebook, Google, and Amazon, reportedly
On Trade, Conservatives
due in part to unfavorable media coverage
Need to Stick to the Knitting
appearing in Facebook feeds and Google
searches, as well as the fact that Amazon
founder Jeff Bezos owns The Washington
ALSO IN THIS ISSUE Post, which often features coverage critical
of the president. Trump’s Justice Department
already tried, unsuccessfully, to block the
Why Being Able to Place (Legal) Bets on the
AT&T/Time Warner merger. The company
Big Game Is a Big Deal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
owns CNN, an even bigger Trump nemesis.
It’s Time to Shed Light on “Dark Matter”
Cryptocurrency Regulation at the SEC. . . . . . 7 Meanwhile, Sen. Elizabeth Warren
Green New Deal Will be All Pain and No
(D-Mass.) has put forward a comprehensive
Gain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 antitrust policy as a signature part of
What’s Next for V2X Spectrum? . . . . . . . . . 10 her presidential campaign platform. Her
CEI Events Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 proposal would break up the same tech
companies Trump is targeting. It would
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. . . . . . . . . 14
also undermine the sanctity of contracts by
Media Mentions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
End Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
pledging to “appoint regulators who are
committed to using existing tools to unwind
anti-competitive mergers” that have already
been completed. Other politicians are taking
similar stances, from Bernie Sanders to Beto
O’Rourke, who advocates “stronger antitrust
regulations that break up monopolies.”
Antitrust enthusiasts are right to be
worried about corporate favor-seeking and
government corruption by powerful interests.
The trouble is that antitrust regulation would
make the problem worse. It takes government
to keep competitors from competing. Cartels
and monopolies do not last long without
government’s help, as airlines learned
after the federal government deregulated
their industry in the late 1970s. Airlines that
were not able to adapt to a lower-price
business model, such as Pan-Am, went out
of business, while upstarts such as Southwest
(continued on page 3)
 The Dinner Is Coming
by Kent Lassman
I n the most recent issue of The Planet, I began
with the typical ratio of new regulations issued by
FROM THE PRESIDENT
agencies compared to laws passed by Congress.
We call this the “Unconstitutionality Index” and it is
one of the many useful facts compiled every year
in Wayne Crews’s annual report, Ten Thousand
Commandments, which aims to tally the costs of
federal regulation. For the past decade, that ratio has
averaged 28 to one. That’s nearly 30 regulations
for every law. If there’s any doubt that Congress has
delegated away too much of its power, that figure
should put such doubts to rest.
However, the latest edition Ten Thousand
Commandments demonstrates that our work is paying
off. The Unconstitutionality Index has fallen to 11
to one. The total number of new regulations ticked
slightly upward last year from a record low in 2017,
but we have held the line against big, new, costly
regulatory burdens.
It has been 35 years since Fred Smith founded
CEI at his kitchen table. There have been decades of
successes that have led to CEI’s presence today as a
leading source of new ideas, policy proposals, and
principled arguments to protect liberty and push back
against the progressive impulse to plan every aspect
of our lives from Washington.
On June 20, we’ll celebrate that humble begin-
ning and the tremendous policy successes that
make up CEI’s history at an annual gala dinner.
With Pulitzer Prize-winning author and humorist
Dave Barry as the keynote speaker, we are look-
ing forward to big evening. Upward of 850 people
will gather for the event, where we will present CEI’s
highest honor, the Julian L. Simon Memorial Award,
to Johan Norberg. Katherine Mangu-Ward, editor
in chief of Reason Magazine, will serve as master of
ceremonies. As in year’s past, the evening will have a
theme that we expect will surely engage our guests—
the cultural phenomenon Game of Thrones.
This issue of The Planet provides a sample of poli-
cies where CEI experts have been focused in past few
Publisher
Kent Lassman
Editor
Ivan Osorio
Ph (202) 331-1010
Fax (202) 331-0640 Associate Editor
info@cei.org Richard Morrison
ISSN#: 1086-3036
2 CEI.ORG
months. On the following pages you will find Ryan
Young’s take on why leaders from both major par-
ties have taken up the regulatory cudgel of antitrust
policy. Fortunately, he and Wayne Crews provide an
antidote to this zealotry in the recent CEI study, “The
Case Against Antitrust Law.”
Senior fellow Angela Logomasini gives us the facts
about those annoying bans on plastic bags, while
Myron Ebell provides essential reading on the envi-
ronmental left’s latest grand plan to save the world,
The Green New Deal. I can give you the shorthand:
Nothing in it is new, and it certainly is no deal.
If you have been wondering about all the fuss
about cryptocurrency, we have you covered. John
Berlau has studied the SEC’s regulatory impulse
regarding this new technology and offers a help-
ful overview of the issue. Also on the finance front,
Daniel Press breaks down why payday loans regula-
tions would hurt the consumers they aim to protect.
Iain Murray reminds conservatives of the impor-
tance of free trade. Senior Fellow Marc Scribner
comments on the future of vehicle-to-everything
communications, technologies that could enable
safety-enhancing innovations like hazard warn-
ings to drivers and pedestrians and high-speed
automated road trains. And Senior Fellow Michelle
Minton looks ahead at the future of sports gambling.
CEI was a leading voice in the fight to legalize a
widely accepted and popular activity that millions of
American have engaged in for years.
I hope you can join us on June 20 as we celebrate
CEI’s first 35 years fighting for liberty. If Washington
is anything like Kings Landing in the Game of Thrones’
fictional Westeros, a capital city full of power seek-
ers, the CEI dinner is where you can count on finding
a Night’s Watch against overzealous regulators.
The CEI Planet is produced by the Competitive Enterprise
Institute, a pro-market public interest group dedicated to
free enterprise and limited government.
CEI is a non-partisan, non-profit organization incorporated in
the District of Columbia and is classified by the IRS as a 501
(c)(3) charity. CEI relies upon contributions from foundations,
corporations, and individuals for its support. Articles may be
reprinted provided they are attributed to CEI.
COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
 Antitrust Rules, continued
prospered.
Moreover, absent laws and
regulations that artificially prop up
them up, cartels tend to fall apart, as
the temptation to cheat on agreed-
upon output restrictions or undercut
rivals is too great.
Worse, established firms often
game antitrust regulation to hobble
would-be rivals. In sectors from
newspaper advertising to dentistry,
many antitrust lawsuits are brought
privately, usually by one company
suing a competitor. This is playing the
influence game in Washington rather
than competing in the marketplace.
Big tech companies, even
seemingly dominant firms such as
Amazon and Google, are, in fact,
highly vulnerable to competition—
enough for them to spend more
than $22 billion and $16 billion,
respectively, on research and
development last year. Today’s
Facebook could easily become
tomorrow’s MySpace. It has to adapt
to what consumers want. For now,
consumers hold the cards—unless
Washington grants the company the
government regulatory protection it
seeks.
Too many in Washington fall for
what Duke University economist
Michael Munger termed “the
unicorn fallacy,” which consists
of comparing real-world market
outcomes with hypothetical perfect
scenarios designed and enforced by
government. A better approach is to
AVAILABLE FROM CEI
Traders of the Lost Ark
Rediscovering a Moral and
Economic Case for Free Trade
BY IAIN MURRAY AND RYAN YOUNG
https://cei.org/content/traders-lost-ark
COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
Antitrust regulation
is often used for
political purposes.
compare the functioning of real-world
markets to the results of real-world
government policies. Taking that
approach, the case for aggressive
antitrust policy greatly weakens,
regardless of which party is in charge.
The current Republican
administration’s antitrust threats are
a useful reminder of the danger
of putting too much power in the
executive branch. The Democrats’ push
to revive antitrust policies that have
proven ineffective or counterproductive
is a reminder that good intentions do
not equal good results. Rather than
squabble over which approach to
take to a failed policy, it would be
better to be rid of antitrust regulations
altogether.
Ryan Young (Ryan.Young@cei.org)
is a Senior Fellow at CEI, and co-
author, with CEI Vice President for
Policy Wayne Crews, of the recent CEI
study, “The Case against Antitrust Law:
Ten Areas Where Antitrust Policy Can
Move on from the Smokestack Era.”
A version of this article was originally
published at the Washington Examiner.
C E I . O R G 3
Help the Competitive
Enterprise Institute carry
on its work for generations
by joining the Legacy
of Liberty Society
Thanks to the generous support of our friends,
the Competitive Enterprise Institute has
remained a successful advocate for liberty
for 35 years. The Legacy of Liberty Society
recognizes the faithful support of any donor
who desires to advance the principles of free
enterprise and limited government through
his or her will, trust, life income gift, retirement
plan, life insurance dedication, or another
planned giving instrument.
Contributions to CEI are tax deductible. We
accept gifts via check, credit card, cash, or
Bitcoin—as well as stock or other securities
and assets. CEI also accepts contributions in a
will or trust. Including CEI in your estate plans
is easy, and can be altered as needed.
Consult your tax professional about the limits
and conditions regarding charitable deduc-
tions and your tax situation. For contributions
in a will or trust, consult a tax or estate profes-
sional for language that is appropriate for
your estate and financial situation.
If you would like to join the Legacy
of Liberty Society or learn more
about the impact you can make
through one of CEI’s giving societies,
please contact CEI’s Philanthropy
team at (202) 331-1010 for more
information.
Andy Yuan
Philanthropy Department
andy.yuan@cei.org | (202) 331-1010
 Payday Loan Regulations Rollback Is
Win for Business, Consumers
BY DANIEL PRESS

T he Consumer Financial Protection

Bureau (CFPB) recently announced
a plan to reconsider an Obama-era
regulation that would have made
it harder for working Americans to
access credit. Without reform, the
CFPB’s rule governing payday and
vehicle-title loans would have all but
eliminated the industries, wiping out
around $20 billion worth of credit from
the economy and stripping away loan
options from countless consumers.
Payday loans may not be suitable
for everyone, but they help millions of
people bridge a gap during hard times.
For example, a recent Federal Reserve
survey found that 40 percent of
American adults do not have enough
savings to cover a $400 emergency
expense.
For those on the financial fringe
who lack savings or access to credit,
paying a past-due utility bill or fixing
a broken-down car can be tough.
Small-dollar loans can get those
vulnerable consumers through to their
next paycheck, and they beat having
the electricity shut off or being stranded
without a car.
So what was the CFPB’s justification
for the near-elimination of a valued
industry? The Obama-era CFPB said
that “consumers lack the requisite
level of understanding” of these loans.
That is, consumers are incapable of
grasping the risks of short-term, high-
interest loans.
To support that claim, the CFPB
relied on a study from Columbia Law
School Professor Ronald Mann. The
problem is that Mann’s study showed
a majority of consumers do appreciate
the risks of short-term, small-dollar
loans, and rationally decide to take
them out anyway, concluding that the
majority of borrowers “have a good
understanding of their own use of the
product.”
Professor Mann even went so far
as to criticize the original rule in a
letter to the bureau, stating that it was
“frustrating” that the CFPB’s summary
of his work was “so inaccurate and
misleading,” torturing the analysis to
the extent that it was “unrecognizable.”
Despite the CFPB’s claims, the
fact is that small-dollar loan products
are remarkably simple. So long as a
borrower has an income, a checking
account, and an ID, a short-term loan
can provide between $100 and $500
for a 15 percent fee, with no required
collateral and no hidden fees or terms.
For example, a customer could
take out a loan for $300 and owe
$345 in two weeks time. It’s that
straightforward. No payday lender that
is abiding by long-established law is
doing anything more complicated. This
is perhaps why a mere 1 percent of all
complaints received by the CFPB are
related to payday lending.
The empirical evidence
underpinning the rule was scant,
while the impact on consumers and
businesses would be disastrous. Even
so, leading Democratic opponents
such as Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.)
claim that the bureau is now betraying
its mission to protect consumers. But
that view is mistaken. A crucial part of
improving consumers’ lives is ensuring
that they have access to competitive
credit markets—an express legal
requirement of the CFPB.
You don’t make people better off by
taking away their choices. Rescinding
the payday loan rule is a win for
consumers, allowing individuals, not
Washington bureaucrats, to decide
what is best for themselves.
Daniel Press (Daniel.Press@cei.org) is
a policy analyst at CEI. A version of
this article was originally published at
FoxBusiness.com.

4 CEI.ORG COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE

 Why Being Able to Place (Legal) Bets on
the Big Game Is a Big Deal
BY MICHELLE MINTON
T his year, for the first time since
1992, Americans outside of
Nevada were able to legally wager
on the outcome of the Super Bowl.
This comes thanks to a recent Supreme
Court ruling that the federal law pre-
venting states from legalizing sports
betting violated the Constitution. Since
then, seven states have joined with
Nevada in offering legal sports gam-
bling with another dozen predicted
to follow in 2019. Not only will the
millions of fans who bet on the game
have an opportunity to do so legally,
but states will have a chance to chip
away at the enormous sports betting
black market—unless the Department
of Justice (DOJ) gets in the way.
In previous years, industry experts
estimated that 97 percent of bets
placed on the Super Bowl were made
illegally with just 3 percent, or $139
million, made with licensed bookies
in Nevada. This year, experts proj-
ect that $320 million of Super Bowl
bets will occur in the legal regulated
markets of Nevada, New Jersey,
Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi,
New Mexico, Rhode Island, and West
Virginia. While this represents only 5
percent of the total expected to be
wagered on the game, it is double the
amount legally bet in previous years.
That number will grow as more states
legalize sports betting and as legal
sports betting becomes more competi-
tive with the enormous black market—
again, so long as the DOJ doesn’t get
in the way.
A key challenge for newly legal
sports bookies is their ability to
compete with the offshore bookies
that have profited off the U.S. prohibi-
tion for 25 years. This means licensed
operators must be able to compete
with their illegal counterparts when
COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
Without legal online
sports betting, many
if not most of these
bets will migrate
back to the illegal
offshore market.
it comes to game variety, odds, and
convenience.
Perhaps the most important thing
legal operators need in order to com-
pete with illegal operators is the ability
to take bets online. In November 2018,
less than half a year after launching its
legal betting market, legal bookies in
New Jersey took in nearly $1 billion
dollars in bets. Almost three-quarters
of those bets—72 percent—occurred
online. In Nevada, where players must
register in person before playing online,
mobile sports betting typically accounts
for 62 to 65 percent of the total handle.
Without legal online sports bet-
ting, many if not most of these bets
will migrate back to the illegal off-
shore market. This would be a terrible
development for law enforcement and
consumers, but the Justice Department
may have set up that scenario. On
January 14, the DOJ declared in a
memo that the 1961 Wire Act prohib-
ited all Internet gambling.
This memo departed from the
explicit intent of Congress when it
enacted the law and from the agency’s
previous opinion. Just seven years
earlier, the DOJ had issued a differ-
ent memo stating the Wire Act applied
exclusively to interstate sports gam-
bling. But, thanks to the Supreme Court
decision last year that allowed states
to legalize sports betting and a clause
C E I . O R G 5
in the Wire Act that excludes from pro-
hibition all bets made “from a State or
foreign country where betting on that
sporting event or contest is legal into a
State or foreign country in which such
betting is legal,” a number of states
have legalized both online and online
sports betting.
What this means in the long term
isn’t clear yet. If the DOJ chooses to
enforce its wacky reinterpretation of
the law, protracted lawsuits will almost
certainly follow. More likely, the DOJ
will simply let the confusion it created
cast a chill over the state legislatures
now considering legalizing sports or
online gambling. It will also hamper
the markets in states that have already
legalized online gambling as the
notoriously cautious credit companies
back away from processing poten-
tially illegal transactions. If states back
away from expanding legal online
gambling, it will be a boon to illicit
operators all too happy to take bets
from Americans unable to conveniently
place wagers through licensed, U.S.-
based operators.
Michelle Minton (Michelle.Minton@
cei.org) is a Senior Fellow at CEI. A
version of this article was originally
published at Foxnews.com.
 Banning Plastic Bags Will Hurt
Businesses and Consumers
BY ANGELA LOGOMASINI
to selling paper bags. Paper is much
heavier and takes up four to eight
times the storage space, according to

N ew York Governor Andrew M.

Cuomo hopes to gain some green
points by passing a statewide plastic
shopping bag ban. He seems oblivious
to the serious adverse impacts on small
businesses and their employees, as well
as on consumers and the environment.
There are 30 companies in New
York State that manufacture plastic
bags with 1,500 employees that
will suffer if the ban takes effect, a
representative for the Business Council
of New York State pointed out in the
New York Business Journal. There are
also companies with employees that
distribute these bags, many or all of
which will be out of business thanks to
Cuomo and his political allies.
Consider the impact on Eli Amsel,
who spent nearly 40 years building
a bag distribution company, selling
mostly plastic bags and some paper
bags. Inspired by his grandfather, who
was a Holocaust survivor, Amsel’s
success is an American dream soon to
be destroyed by Cuomo’s proposed
ban.
Unfortunately, Amsel and other
distributors can’t simply switch over
Amsel. It would require vast expansion
of his warehouse space, which is not
cheap. He would also need to hire
more employees to haul this bulkier
and heavier product, and that could
increase employee injuries. And then
there are transportation issues. He
would need more trucks and use more
fuel to distribute the same number of
bags.
Paper isn’t an environmental
panacea either. One study reports
that plastic grocery bags consume 40
percent less energy during production
and generate 80 percent less solid
waste than paper bags.
Ironically, people who remember
to haul around cloth bags may suffer
adverse health effects because
pathogens can develop in these
bags from leaky meat packages and
unwashed produce. In fact, university
researchers have found significant
amounts of potentially deadly coliform
and E. coli living in used cloth grocery
bags. Because they require more
energy and water to make and take
more space in a landfill, studies show
cloth bags must be used more than 100
times before they yield environmental
benefits.
And while plastics in the ocean are
a real concern, bag bans in the United
States won’t solve a thing. Research
shows that the overwhelming majority
of plastics in the ocean come from Asia
and Africa; less than 1 percent is from
the United States. Moreover, proper
disposal—not government bans—is
the key to keeping plastics out of the
ocean.
Lawmakers may turn a blind eye to
these realities, but unfortunately those
who will suffer the consequences won’t
have that luxury.
Angela Logomasini (Angela.
Logomasini@cei.org) is a Senior Fellow
at CEI. A version of this article was
originally published The Buffalo News.

• Go to: https://smile.amazon.com/
Did You Know … • Input your email and Amazon password
• Scroll down to the “Search Charity” box and
… that your Amazon type: Competitive Enterprise Institute
purchases can benefit CEI • Click on “Select”
with the push of a button? • After signing up, every time you want to shop on
Amazon, begin at https://smile.amazon.com
and 0.5 percent of all your eligible Amazon.com
purchases will directly benefit the work of CEI.
It’s an easy way to expand the
boundaries of freedom!

6 CEI.ORG COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE

 It’s Time to Shed Light on “Dark Matter”
Cryptocurrency Regulation at the SEC
BY JOHN BERLAU
O n April 11, the Trump adminis-
tration issued a memorandum
strongly discouraging what CEI’s
Wayne Crews has called “regula-
tory dark matter.” The memo instructs
federal agencies to submit all their
rulemakings to Congress, to be vetted
under the Congressional Review Act,
even if these rules come in the form
of informal “guidance.” In an April
12 blog post, Crews called the Trump
memo “an important affirmation of
Congress’ primacy in lawmaking.”
Right now, no federal agency
should read this more carefully than the
Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC), which for almost two years has
been trying to expand its regulatory turf
into the cryptocurrency and blockchain
technology sectors, including in areas
in which Congress has not granted
it any jurisdiction, through arbitrary
enforcement actions and “dark matter”
guidance documents. As I write in my
new CEI study, “Cryptocurrency and
the SEC’s Limitless Power Grab.”
Without changes in the law, stated
intent of Congress, or even a formal
rule, the SEC has been sending
signals through enforcement actions
and statements from officials that new
issuers of cryptocurrency may need
to go through the same cumbersome
securities registration process as do
issuers of stocks and bonds.
In the study, I argue that the SEC
has been regulating products under its
jurisdiction, such as exchange-traded
funds (ETFs), more stringently if they
involve cryptocurrency. Since 2017, the
commission has rejected proposals for
more than 10 Bitcoin-based exchange
traded funds, sparking a strong
dissent last year from Commissioner
Hester Peirce, who wrote that the
SEC’s rejection “signals an aversion
COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
to innovation that may convince
entrepreneurs that they should take
their ingenuity to other sectors of our
economy, or to foreign markets.”
More troubling is the SEC’s
assertion of jurisdiction over
cryptocurrency products that clearly
do not fit any definition of a “security”
promulgated by either Congress or the
courts. A recent guidance document
form the SEC—which is definitely
“dark matter,” since it was never
submitted to Congress for review
as a rule—states that even in cases
where cryptocurrency can be used
in a functional market for goods and
services, “there may be securities
transactions if … there are limited or
no restrictions on reselling those digital
assets.”
This ultra-broad definition of a
security could set a precedent for the
SEC to regulate not just cryptocurrency,
but everyday consumer goods that
could be traded in a secondary market
as “securities.” In an interview for the
CEI study, prominent FinTech attorney
Georgia Quinn said that after reading
the SEC guidance, “I think airline miles
and retailer points could be considered
securities,” noting that some brands
of these items are transferrable and
tradeable. For example, the website
C E I . O R G 7
Points.com enables users to both
manage and exchange rewards points.
And there are numerous physical
goods, from comic books to baseball
cards, which are often bought in part
as investments and can be sold on
secondary markets.
Finally, in April, there were reports
that the SEC was attempting to censor
the word “blockchain” from the names
of ETFs, even if the funds invested in
companies that utilize blockchain
technology. If true, this would raise
constitutional issues of free speech
and due process. Moreover, it would
constitute a major rule change without
the SEC going through either the formal
notice-and-comment process required
under the Administrative Procedure Act
or submission of the rule to Congress.
The Trump administration and Congress
need to shed light on the “dark matter”
at the SEC before it overreaches any
further.
John Berlau (John.Berlau@cei.org) is a
Senior Fellow at CEI and the author of
the recent CEI study, “Cryptocurrency
and the SEC’s Limitless Power Grab.”
A version of this article was originally
published on OpenMarket.
 Green New Deal Will
Be All Pain and No Gain
BY MYRON EBELL
T he Green New Deal sounds really
good at first sight—but as the details
start to come out, it looks worse and
worse. The costs would be enormous
and the damage done by its policies
would be catastrophic.
First, how much will it cost?
One of the main promoters of the
Green New Deal, freshman Rep.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.),
said recently that paying for it may
require raising the top tax rate on
incomes above $10 million to 70
percent.
The experts developing the Green
New Deal openly admit that it will
cost not billions, but rather trillions of
dollars. Although how many trillions
is open to debate, the fact is that
the money will have to come from
somewhere.
Progressive economists have
argued that the federal government
can print as much money as it needs
and that spending so much will fully
mobilize the economy and thereby
create growth. How has that worked
out in Venezuela?
Second, what are these policies
that will cost so much? According
to Ocasio-Cortez, the plan within
10 years must transition “the U.S.
economy to become greenhouse
gas emissions neutral.” That would
likely require replacing all coal, oil,
and natural gas used for electricity
generation and transportation with
renewable energy, upgrading all
buildings to state-of-the-art energy
efficiency, and a whole lot more.
However, turning our energy
economy upside down in a decade
is only part of the Green New Deal.
Income redistribution and social
justice must be accomplished at
the same time. Thus, the federal
8 CEI.ORG
The experts
developing the
Green New Deal
openly admit that it
will cost not billions,
but rather trillions of
dollars
government would have to create a
“job guarantee program to assure
a living wage job to every person
who wants one.” It must also mitigate
“deeply entrenched racial, regional
and gender-based inequalities in
income and wealth” and “ensure
a ‘just transition’ for all workers,
low-income communities, indigenous
communities.”
The obstacle to achieving these
dubious goals is that moving to 100
percent renewable energy within 10
(or many more) years is impossible.
About 80 percent of America’s
energy comes from coal, oil and
natural gas.
After decades of multi-billion
dollar subsidies, wind and solar
accounted for 9 percent of electricity
produced in 2017. From 9 percent to
100 percent is a long way to go, and
replacing all the gasoline and diesel
cars, trucks and tractors with electric
vehicles will require much more
renewable power.
This not only won’t happen; it
can’t happen. That’s because the
electric grid becomes unstable and
unmanageable as the percentage of
power produced by intermittent and
variable sources increases.
Twenty percent wind and
COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
solar poses problems; 50 percent
threatens blackouts and collapse.
But what about battery storage?
Alas, the technology available for
the foreseeable future can provide
minutes of expensive backup power,
not hours or days.
The Green New Dealers reply
that the climate crisis is so dire that
we must do whatever it takes to stop
it. But even a green leap backwards
will not stop global greenhouse
gas levels from increasing. Chinese
emissions are now higher than the
U.S. and Europe combined and still
growing. And Indian emissions are
increasing rapidly as hundreds of
millions of people start to climb out
of energy poverty.
The good news is that although
global warming may present
long-term challenges, it’s not an
immediate crisis, despite the dire
warnings. The rate of warming over
the past 40 years has been modest,
and the demonstrable impacts have
been mild. The experts predicting
doom ignore the data and rely on
discredited computer models.
What would cause a real,
immediate crisis is for Congress to
enact the back-to-the-Dark-Ages
policies of the Green New Deal.
Myron Ebell (Myron.Ebell@cei.org) is
Director of the Center for Energy and
Environment at CEI. A version of this
article was originally published in the
Los Angeles Times.
 On Trade, Conservatives
Need to Stick to the Knitting
BY IAIN MURRAY
S uccessful companies tend to “stick
to the knitting”—focusing on things
they are good at, note Tom Peters and
Robert Waterman in their seminal book
about successful businesses, In Search
of Excellence. Conservatives could do
with taking that advice right now when
it comes to economic policy.
What has made conservative
economic policy successful is its focus
on getting the dead hand of govern-
ment out of people’s lives and allowing
the invisible hand of the market to take
over. By focusing on the supply side of
economics—cutting taxes, deregulat-
ing, and recognizing property rights
of businesses that supply goods and
services—conservatives allowed the
economy to flourish in the Reagan and
Gingrich years. These moves petered
out under President George W. Bush,
and the result was an economy bur-
dened by an administrative state that
contributed to the 2008 financial crisis.
President Barack Obama doubled
down on the administrative state.
Experts suggested that America would
never see real economic growth again.
The war on coal, Operation Choke
Point, and other Obama administration
initiatives wreaked havoc on busi-
nesses across America, resulting in
significant discontent that contributed
to the surprise election of President
Trump.
Initially, the new president and
Congress focused on traditional con-
servative policy, tax cuts and deregu-
lation, with good results. Growth
quickly picked up to more than 3 per-
cent with the potential for going much
higher. However, as the administra-
tion’s focus has shifted, and with a shift
in party control of Congress, economic
prospects have dimmed.
COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
Part of the shift in focus was a
repudiation of longstanding conserva-
tive support for free trade. The Trump
administration’s “tough” trade policy
is unabashedly protectionist, a policy
former President Ronald Reagan called
“stupid,” adding, “We must resist pro-
tectionism because it can only lead to
fewer jobs for them and fewer jobs for
us.” The thousands of auto workers and
others who have lost jobs as a result of
the tariff wars would agree.
The administration is also toying
with using antitrust law to harm busi-
nesses it has political disagreements
with, undermining the traditional
conservative respect for property
rights. Furthermore, some conservative
commentators are calling for the state
to take on a more explicitly paternalist
role, intervening to prop up communi-
ties that have been the victims of the
administrative state.
Turning away from the free market
has cost us, not only in terms of jobs
but reduced growth. Third quarter 2018
growth would have been more than 5
percent without the trade wars. As my
colleague Wayne Crews suggests, the
administration’s new regulatory actions
could possibly wipe out the economic
gains from its early deregulatory
actions.
In all of this, many conservatives
have lost sight of the fundamental
insights of free market economics—that
people do best when allowed to find
their own way. So rather than trying
to promote exports by making imports
more expensive, or breaking up firms,
or issuing wage subsidies, conserva-
tives should “stick to the knitting” and
focus on the supply side.
If an industry is suffering and
uncompetitive on the world stage,
deregulate it.
If a community is hurting and lacks
dynamism, grant it exemption from
C E I . O R G 9
rules that hurt new businesses by
making it a development zone.
If companies are finding it hard to
raise cash, deregulate the financial
industry.
If startups are selling out to big
companies, change the rules that make
IPOs difficult.
If employers find it difficult to hire
more people, liberalize employment
laws.
If people find it hard to make ends
meet, cut their taxes.
If people find it hard to buy a
home, lift zoning restrictions and finan-
cial rules that make it difficult to origi-
nate mortgages for the less well-off.
These policies are tried and true.
They derive from the knowledge that
wealth grows when property rights are
well-defined, incentives are aligned
in the right direction, and costs are
not artificially raised by bureaucracy.
Blurring property rights, perverting
incentives, and imposing bureau-
cracy are hallmarks of the left-liberal
economic approach that has never
worked.
Conservatives should stick to the
knitting when it comes to economics.
Jettisoning the tried and tested in favor
of whatever new theory comes along is
profoundly unconservative.
Iain Murray (Iain.Murray@cei.org) is
Vice President for Strategy at CEI. A ver-
sion of this article was originally pub-
lished in the Washington Examiner.
 What’s Next for V2X Spectrum?
BY MARC SCRIBNER
A s the partial government shutdown
began in late December, the
Department of Transportation (DOT)
published a request for comments on
how it should approach vehicle-to-
everything (V2X) communications. V2X
refers to a suite of technologies that
could enable everything from hazard
warnings to drivers and pedestrians
to high-speed automated road trains.
That’s significant enough. But DOT’s
second question highlights the current
high-stakes policy debate among auto-
makers, governments, and telecommu-
nications firms over the future of a band
of radio spectrum.
Those frequencies, known as the
intelligent transportation system (ITS)
band, 75 MHz centered around 5.9
10 CEI.ORG
GHz—5.850–5.925 GHz—were allo-
cated by the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) in 1999 for use by
dedicated short-range communications
(DSRC) systems. In DOT’s request for
comments, the second question asks
what should become of the 5.9 GHz
band.
Why the high stakes?
The growth of the Wi-Fi market and
increasing congestion in the existing
unlicensed bands has pitted broad-
band providers and users against
leading automakers such as General
Motors and Toyota over access to the
5.9 GHz band. This battle reached
a fever pitch in the final days of the
Obama administration after the
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) published a
proposal to mandate automakers to
install DSRC in new light-duty vehicles
COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
for the purpose of providing drivers
vehicle-to-vehicle hazard warnings.
Critics of the DSRC mandate,
including this author, have highlighted
its glaring deficiencies in roadside
infrastructure management, cybersecu-
rity, interactions with other safety-crit-
ical vehicle systems, and benefit-cost
estimations. Numerous autonomous
vehicle developers weighed in against
NHTSA’s proposed rule, arguing that
forcing DSRC on the entire light-duty
vehicle fleet threatened the prospec-
tive safety gains from their automation
technologies—which have the potential
to actually intervene in hazardous
situations, rather than merely warning
human drivers of those hazards’ exis-
tence as contemplated by NHTSA.
After the public comment period
closed in early 2017, the Trump DOT
reversed course. The proposed rule
 was relegated to long-term action economic argument for doing so, as DOT to preserve what it views—incor-
status, which means NHTSA planned the RAND study makes clear, protect- rectly—as “its” spectrum band. But it
no future work for at least 12 months. ing the integrity of safety-critical sys- would also comport with the current
DOT’s multiyear strategic plan tems will likely prove more persuasive administration’s pledge of technology
removed previous mentions to vehicle- to policy makers. DOT and the auto- neutrality, to allow the marketplace,
to-vehicle communications. And in motive industry will frame any non-ITS rather than bureaucrats and lobby-
public statements, Department officials use of the band as a threat to human ists from dominant firms, to select the
from Secretary Elaine Chao on down life and property. Preventing deaths on appropriate V2X technology.
began emphasizing the new adminis- the highway will trump better Wi-Fi. Additionally, such a proposal
tration’s position of technology neutral- The second and more likely course would also split the automotive and
ity, which could only be interpreted of action is for the FCC to reallocate telecommunications industries, damp-
as a dig against their predecessors’ the ITS band to allow for both DSRC ening the clout of those seeking DSRC
attempt to promulgate a nationwide and C-V2X. A European proposal from exclusivity or unlicensed wireless.
DSRC mandate. the cellular-supporting 5G Automotive Given our country’s highly polarized
In the time since, this debate has Association sketches out how this political environment, it is somewhat
become even more complicated would work. Of the 75 MHz at issue, surprising that a compromise position
as other automakers, most notably 30 MHz would be split into 10 MHz appears to be poised to carry the day,
Ford, have committed to cellular- for DSRC, 10 MHz for C-V2X, and but that appears to be the case with
vehicle-to-everything (C-V2X), the a 10 MHz channel in between to be the future of 5.9.
leading competitor of DSRC. Yet, the shared by both under a detect-and-
5.9 GHz band remains closed to vacate or similar rule. The remaining
C-V2X as well as unlicensed Wi-Fi 45 MHz would be allocated at a Marc Scribner (Marc.Scribner@
use. Commissioners at the FCC have later date once a clear market winner cei.org) is a Senior Fellow at CEI. A
expressed increasing skepticism of emerges. version of this article was originally
DSRC’s exclusive use of the 5.9 GHz This second approach would allow published at GCN Tech.
band. It is becoming apparent that
the 20-year-old DSRC allocation is
unlikely to hold for much longer.
The reason for this shift is that,
despite the hype, the band has been
little used. A 2018 RAND Corporation
study estimated that current use of the
5.9 GHz ITS band has a market value
DINNER IS COMING
of just $6.2 million. In contrast, if the
ITS band were to be reallocated and
opened to unlicensed Wi-Fi use like
the neighboring U-NII-3 Wi-Fi band at
5.725–5.850 GHz, RAND estimates CEI’s 35th Anniversary
total economic welfare gains of $82.2
billion to $189.9 billion.
Annual Dinner and Reception
The decision over the fate of the
5.9 GHz band ultimately rests with
the FCC, but the fact that DOT is even
June 20, 2019
asking this question suggests it is
prepared to take a position other than When you play the game of Public
keeping the ITS band DSRC-exclusive,
which will carry a great deal of weight Policy, You win or people die
with FCC commissioners. Barring a
highly unlikely incentive auction of
these frequencies, there are two realis-
tic paths forward.
The first, and less likely of the Visit cei.org/dinner for tickets and Information
two, is for the FCC to reallocate the or email Events@cei.org
5.9 GHz band for use by U-NII-4
Wi-Fi devices. While there is a strong

COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE C E I . O R G 11

 CEI EVENTS AND PUBLIC APPEARANCES

Jessica Melugin on FCC CEI Hosts Reception with FCC Chairman Ajit Pai
Broadband Regulation. On May 7, CEI hosted a reception for its 2019 Dinner Host Committee,
On April 4, featuring remarks by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai.
Jessica Melugin, As Chairman, Pai has ushered in a wave of sound regulatory reform at the FCC
Associate encouraging Internet freedom and market competition. The Host Committee
Director of Reception is the exclusive kickoff celebration for CEI’s 35th Anniversary
CEI’s Center for Dinner and Reception, and an opportunity to thank the members of our Host
Technology and Committee whose support and promotion make it possible.
Innovation, spoke
on the panel,
“The Consumer
Connection: The
FCC’s Role in
Speeding Broadband Deployment,”
hosted by Consumer Action for a Strong
Economy (CASE), in Washington, D.C.
The panelists discussed the Federal
Communications Commission’s efforts
to regulate broadband infrastructure
and its impact on consumers and
on broadband deployment. Joining
Melugin on the panel were Cooley, LLP
Partner and former FCC Commissioner
Rob McDowell, Madery Bridge
Associates Senior Advisor Bartlett
Cleland, and CASE Vice President
Gerard Scimeca. The event was hosted CEI President Kent Lassman (right) introduces FCC Chairman Ajit Pai]
by CASE President Matthew Kandrach
and the panel moderated by Institute
for Policy Innovation President Tom
Giovanetti. Wayne Crews Discusses the Administrative State at APEE
Conference
Scooter Schaefer Discusses On April 5, CEI Vice President for Policy Wayne Crews spoke at the 44th
annual conference of the Association for Private Enterprise Education,
Digital Strategy at CPAC
held in Nassau, Bahamas. In his presentation, “Rule of Flaw and the Cost
On March 1, of Coercion: The Neglected Burdens of the Administrative State,” Crews
CEI Director of discussed the hard-to-quantify costs arising from the runaway growth of the
Digital Marketing administrative state, such as loss of freedom and regulatory uncertainty for
Scooter Schaefer businesses and investors. Presenting alongside Crews on the panel were
gave the Bruce Caldwell and Michael C. Munger, both of Duke University; Dwight R.
presentation, Lee of the University of Georgia; and J.R. Clark of the University of Tennessee
“How to Use at Chattanooga, who was also moderator.
Technology to
Advance Policy,”
at the 2019
Conservative
Political Action Conference, in National
Harbor, Maryland. Drawing on his
experience in bolstering CEI’s digital
capabilities, Schaefer focused on tactics
and strategy for grassroots activists and
small organizations to more effectively
maximize their reach and engagement Left to Right: Michael Munger, Dwight Lee, Wayne Crews, Bruce Caldwell,
on social media platforms. and J. R. Clark

12 CEI.ORG COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE

 CEI EVENTS AND PUBLIC APPEARANCES

CEI: Still Busting Trustbusters after 35 Years John Berlau Discusses

On March 27, CEI hosted the Capitol Hill lunch briefing, “Busting Trustbusters Cryptocurrency
Since 1984,” featuring Wayne Crews, Jessica Melugin, and CEI Vice On April 3, CEI
President for Strategy Iain Murray, and moderated by CEI Government Senior Fellow
Affairs Manager Canyon Brimhall. Highlighting CEI’s long record of tackling John Berlau spoke
antitrust issues, the panelists called for encouraging freedom and innovation at a private,
through antitrust reform—which is especially urgent given the increased invitation-only
popularity of antitrust policy among politicians of both major parties. As event, “Fintech,
they explained, there is no such thing as a permanent and assured dominant Tokens, and
market position unless the government guarantees it. Ultimately, the cost of Private Currency:
antitrust regulation is the innovation it prevents. The recently released CEI Why Everything
video, “Antitrust Explained,” was screened during the event. Old is New
Again,” in
Potomac, Maryland, hosted by Rusty
Blues, an organization of retired IBM
employees. Berlau spoke about the rise
of cryptocurrency as the latest in the
long evolution of currency that humans
have long used as a means of exchange,
and its promise for innovation. He also
warned about the threat that government
regulation, especially by the Securities
and Exchange Commission, poses to
such innovation.

Myron Ebell Testifies on Capitol

Left to right: Canyon Brimhall, Jessica Melugin, Wayne Crews, and Iain
Murray
Marc Scribner Testifies Twice on Capitol Hill
In March, CEI Senior Fellow
Marc Scribner testified before
Congress on two occasions.
On March 6, he was invited by
House Committee on Ways and
Means Republicans to provide
testimony on low-cost/high-
value solutions to infrastructure
investment. Scribner was the
lone witness to oppose a more
than doubling of federal fuel
tax rates, arguing that Congress
should eliminate barriers to
investment and wasteful spending. On March 26, Scribner testified before
the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure at the invitation of
Democrats, urging members to eliminate the cap on the airport passenger
facility charge, which would allow airports to increase total investment while
simultaneously reducing federal airport subsidies.
Hill on Green New Deal
On February 27,
Myron Ebell,
Director of CEI’s
Center for Energy
and Environment,
testified on the
Green New
Deal at a House
Western Caucus
and spoke at the
Caucus’s news
conference after the event. He said the
Green New Deal, which seeks to totally
transform the nation’s energy economy
in 10 years, would be colossally
expensive and require a complete
government takeover of the economy.
He said a much more apt comparison
than the 1930s New Deal would be
Mao Zedong’s disastrous Great Leap
Forward, which resulted in death and
misery while failing in its objective of
industrializing China.

COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE C E I . O R G 13

 THE
GOOD
The Good: Labor
Department
Reforms Overtime
Rule
On March 7, the Department of
Labor issued a new overtime rule
that would increase the threshold for
overtime eligibility from $23,660 to
$35,000 for salaried employees.
It replaces an Obama-era rule that
went against the intent of Congress,
imposed a considerable burden on
employers, and threatened jobs and
opportunities for millions of workers.
“The Department of Labor’s proposed
overtime rule is a vast improvement
over the invalidated Obama-era
regulation that increased the salary
threshold far above historical norms,”
said CEI Policy Analyst Trey Kovacs.
“Since the 1940s, the salary threshold’s
purpose has been to merely screen out
obviously non-exempt employees. A
$35,000 salary threshold, which the
DOL now proposes, is in line with past
increases to salary threshold and is far
closer to achieving the modest purpose
of the test than the Obama overtime
rule. Employers will not have to deal
with the administrative nightmare of
multiple salary thresholds based on
regional cost-of-living differences.”
14 CEI.ORG
THE
BAD
The Bad: House Bill
Attempts to Revive
Burdensome Internet
Regulations
On April 10, the House of
Representatives passed the Save
the Internet Act, aimed reinstating
heavy-handed regulation of the
Internet imposed during the Obama
administration. Net neutrality
regulations are based on the premise
that Internet service providers (ISPs)
should treat all the date they transmit
the same. In reality, however, net
neutrality rules harm consumers by
inhibiting innovation, as they prevent
ISPs from experimenting with new
network configurations and pricing
models to improve their offerings.
“The inaccurately named Save
the Internet Act seeks to resurrect
the unnecessary, heavy-handed
government regulation of the Internet
that depressed investment during the
Obama administration,” said Jessica
Melugin, Associate Director of CEI’s
Center for Technology and Innovation.
“The Internet isn’t broken. None of the
cataclysmic predictions of the pro-
regulation advocates came to pass
when these same restrictions were lifted
more than a year ago. Ironically, the
real threat to the Internet is precisely
the type of government hamstringing
that the Save the Internet legislation
prescribes.”
COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
THE
UGLY
The Ugly: Senate
Legislation Would
Restrict Access to
Tobacco Alternatives
On April 18, Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced
legislation to raise the nationwide
minimum age to buy tobacco products
from 18 to 21. The proposal will have
adverse consequences for young
adults who already smoke. The
proposal treats all tobacco products
the same, and therefore would
discourage safer alternatives. “We
share Sen. McConnell’s concerns
about youth initiation of nicotine use,
but fear the unintended consequences
of regulating all nicotine-containing
products as if they have the same
risks,” said CEI Senior Fellow Michelle
Minton. “Millions of young adults
between the ages of 18 and 21
are already addicted to smoking.
Discouraging or preventing these
young adults from switching to safer
alternatives, like e-cigarettes, will only
make it more likely that they continue
to smoke, potentially for the rest of their
lives. There are other ways to address
youth vaping without deterring adult
smokers from switching to less harmful
products.”
 MediaMENTIONS
Myron Ebell discusses his hopes
for World Bank President David
Malpass’s term.
Conservatives have criticized the
World Bank’s emphasis on climate
change as a departure from its mis-
sion of reducing poverty, and cheered
Mr. Malpass’s nomination. Myron
Ebell, the director of the energy and
environment center at the Competitive
Enterprise Institute, a free-market think
tank, said he expected Mr. Malpass to
“challenge many conventional pieties
that have become institutionalized at
the bank” like climate change.
“I hope that one of the first policies
he will take on is the bank’s ban on
financing coal-fired power plants,” Mr.
Ebell said.
–March 13,
New York Times
Marc Scribner challenges the
idea that new federal revenue
is needed to meet the nation’s
infrastructure challenges.
Not all speakers at the hearing
demanded major action by
Washington.
“There are very real infrastructure
needs in the U.S., but they are not
uniform across infrastructure asset
classes and are not primarily the
result of a lack of federal funding. A
more targeted approach is needed
to best address these challenges,”
said Marc Scribner, a senior fellow
at the Competitive Enterprise Institute,
a libertarian think tank. “Contrary to
common narrative, infrastructure does
not face a broad, immediate crisis in
the U.S.”
–March 6,
MarketWatch
COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
Jessica Melugin criticizes Senator
Elizabeth Warren’s plan to use
antitrust laws to break up large
technology companies.
Warren’s plan was quickly met
with criticism. “The next wave of
technological innovations will likely
require enormous economies of scale
to serve consumers. In the meantime,
there are no barriers to entry for the
next killer app or sector-disrupting
entrepreneur,” said Jessica Melugin,
associate director of the center for
technology and innovation at the
Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-
market advocacy group.
–March 8,
USA Today
Sam Kazman applauds the Trump
administration’s decision to
end negotiations with the State
of California over corporate
average fuel economy (CAFE)
standards.
Meanwhile, the Competitive
Enterprise Institute, an advocacy group
that has received funding in the past
from the fossil fuel industry, cheered
reports that the Trump administration
was ceasing talks with California.
“When it comes to CAFE,
California has been illegally calling
the shots for too long, and usually
at the expense of the public,” CEI’s
general counsel, Sam Kazman, said
in a statement Wednesday. “If reports
are correct, we’re glad to see that the
administration now views California as
a state, rather than a key negotiating
partner.”
–February 21,
Washington Post
C E I . O R G 15
Michelle Minton
says the resignation
of former FDA
Commissioner Scott
Gottlieb could end
the regulatory
agency’s campaign
against e-cigarettes,
which help adult smokers quit.
Gottlieb’s resignation “may
alter the course of his unfounded
crusade against e-cigarettes, said
Michelle Minton, a senior fellow with
Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-
market advocacy group.
“We hope his successor sees non-
combustible tobacco products as a
public health opportunity, rather than
a threat, and bases agency policy
on science instead of interest group
pressure.”
–March 10,
Winston-Salem Journal
Angela Logomasini makes the
case that the EPA’s IRIS program,
which assesses toxic chemicals,
should be eliminated.
EPA’s program for toxic chemical
risk assessments should be dissolved
and its responsibilities split among other
offices in the agency, the Competitive
Enterprise Institute argued in a report
released today.
The report, by Angela Logomasini,
a senior fellow at the conservative
business group, said the Integrated
Risk Information System has problems
with its methodology, relies on sloppy
research and lacks transparency.
“Far from being the ‘gold
standard’ for risk assessment, EPA’s
IRIS has a long history of flawed risk
assessments based on faulty research
that have led the agency to release
counterproductive regulations,”
Logomasini said in a statement.
–February 12,
E&E News

1310 L Street NW, 7th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
...END NOTES
New Frontier in Fight against Tobacco
Anti-smoking advocates often call for raising the minimum
legal age for buying tobacco products, with 21 as the usual
goal . Now a Hawaii state legislator is trying to raise the
bar way, way higher . Hawaii raised its smoking age to
21 in 2017, but State Rep . Richard Creagan (D) is far from
satisfied . In February, Creagan, a former emergency room
physician, introduced a bill aimed at raising the Aloha
State’s legal smoking age up to 30 in 2020, 40 in 2021, 60
in 2023, and, finally, 100 in 2024 . “If we don’t ban ciga-
rettes, we are killing people,” said Creagan . Rep . Cynthia
Thielen (R), another sponsor of the bill, said “but you have to
take that first, strong step—and that’s what we’re doing .”
Shocking Discovery about Fuel Taxes
Gasoline prices in California are the highest in the nation, and
the Golden State’s politicians want to do something about it .
Only one problem: They helped raise them in the first place .
On April 23, Governor Gavin Newsom (D) sent a letter to
the California Energy Commission asking it to investigate the
state’s inordinately high fuel prices, citing “inappropriate
industry practices .” Yet, in 2017, as lieutenant governor,
Newsom supported an increase in the state’s gasoline tax,
and opposed its repeal when campaigning for governor . And
in January, 19 state legislators, 17 of whom supported the gas
tax increase, wrote to State Attorney General Xavier Becerra
asking his office to investigate an “unexplained gasoline
surcharge” estimated to cost California drivers around $1,700
a year . Of course, supply and demand play a role, notes
Reason’s Christian Britschgi, but “the fact remains that state
government policies are a huge component of the final price
everyone is paying at the pump .”
16 CEI.ORG
Nonprofit Org.
U.S. Postage
PAID
Permit 425
Southern MD
Potholes So Bad Motorists Bill City …
Potholes are a common challenge of city living, often met
with a shrug and forbearance. But how bad do they have to
get before residents start asking local authorities for compen-
sation—or take matters into their own hands? So far in 2019,
the City of Milwaukee has gotten at least 45 requests from
drivers to pay for damage to their cars, reports Milwaukee’s
WTMJ TV. “If it had been one tire, I would’ve bit the bullet.
No big deal,” said Alex Terry, who filed a claim in 2017
after spending $700 to replace two flat tires from potholes.
Terry said it took him a year to hear back from the city and
another year for the city to deny his claim. Alderman Mark
Borkowski, who chairs the city committee that makes deci-
sions on the payments, explained, “Very simple, we don’t
have the money.”
… Or Take Matters into Their Own Hands
Meanwhile, in Oakland, California, potholes have gotten so
bad that a group called the “Pothole Vigilantes” has taken
to repairing potholes on their own, rather than wait for the
city to act. Repairs are documented on the group’s Instagram
page, which bears the motto, “Making Oakland stronger one
pothole at a time.” One caption from April 21 reads: “Filled
by your friendly neighborhood pothole vigilantes #1ofmany
#potfull #pothole.” Fixing potholes costs money, of course, so
the Vigilantes accept donations via GoFundMe and Venmo.
Photos of the repairs feature messages from grateful motorists.
Said one appreciative driver: “You guys are like Batman and
Robin.”
COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE