WASHINGTON, June 6 (UPI) -- The United Press International think tank wrap-up is a daily digest covering brief opinion pieces, reactions to recent news events and position statements released by various think tanks.
The National Center for Public Policy Research
(NCPPR is a communications and research foundation dedicated to providing free market solutions to today's public policy problems, based on the principles of a free market, individual liberty and personal responsibility. NCPPR was founded to provide the conservative movement with a versatile and energetic organization capable of responding quickly and decisively to late-breaking issues, based on thorough research.)
CHICAGO -- Ten Second Response: Australia Set to Reject Global Warming Treaty
by Tom Randall
-- Background: Reuters News Service reports that Australian Prime Minister John Howard said today his government will not ratify the Kyoto Treaty because of the economic impact it would have on jobs there. Howard said, "For us to ratify the protocol would cost us jobs and damage our industry." The Kyoto Treaty aims to cut worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases but provides exemptions to developing nations. President Bush has said he will not implement the treaty because of the harm it would do to the economy. The U.S. Senate passed a resolution 95-0 in 1997 that says the Senate will not ratify any treaty that would harm the U.S. economy or fails to require developing nations to reduce emissions.
-- Ten Second Response: Australia should be applauded for standing up to pressure from environmentalists and instead choosing to protect jobs for its people.
-- Thirty Second Response: Like Australia, the United States has wisely chosen not to ratify this treaty because of the enormous burden it would impose on our economy. Bush should be aware there are provisions in the Senate version of the energy bill that mirror the Kyoto Treaty and run contrary to his recently re-affirmed position on global warming policy.
Discussion: The Kyoto Treaty, designed to cut worldwide greenhouse gas emissions, was signed in 1997 but never ratified by the U.S. Senate. For it to go into effect it must be ratified by nations producing at least 55 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. Just this week Japan ratified the treaty but European nations, Russia and Canada still have not ratified it. There is no enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance of the nations that sign the treaty. Howard's government in Australia has said it favors a voluntary emissions reduction plan much like the one the Bush Administration has proposed in the United States.
CHICAGO -- Ten Second Response: Forty-Five Members of Congress Urge President to Resist Efforts to Implement Clinton-Era Roadless Rule
by Tom Randall
-- Background: U.S. House Western Caucus Member John Thune, R-S.D., Caucus Chairman Richard Pombo, R-Calif., and Scott McInnis, R-Colo., chairman of the Forests and Forest Health Subcommittee were joined, on June 5, 2002, by 42 other Representatives in signing a letter to President Bush urging him to resist efforts by environmental extremists to codify by legislation or executive action the Clinton-enacted Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The rule, developed in secret by the Clinton administration and the Heritage Forests Campaign, closed off 58 million acres of public land to road building, denying access to these huge expanses of our national heritage to nearly all Americans. The Federal District Court in Idaho has placed an injunction on implementation of the rule because it was created illegally and the Bush administration has set out to find alternatives to it.
-- Ten Second Response: "This hastily developed and legally flawed Clinton-era roadless area rule doesn't represent sound management decisions for our forests." -- Rep. Richard Pombo
-- Ten Second Response: "The Roadless Area Conservation Rule ... would cut off access to significant portions of our national forests, increase the risk of catastrophic fire, and further disturb the economy of numerous rural communities." -- Rep. George Radanovich, R-Calif.
-- Ten Second Response: "It is ... nothing short of astounding that national environmental groups and certain elected officials in Washington, D.C. continue to push the rule in the face of a federal judge's injunction." -- Rep. Scott McInnes
-- Ten Second Response: "The last thing states like Idaho need is a one-size fits all roadless policy. The best public policy starts locally where every stakeholder has a voice and seat at the table." -- Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho
--Ten Second Response: "Given that the courts have already ruled that the current law on the books is 'grossly inadequate,' it is incumbent on this Congress and Administration to act soon to correct this poorly contrived policy." -- Rep. Dennis Rehberg, R-Mont.
(Tom Randall is a director of the John P. McGovern, M.D. Center for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs at the National Center for Public Policy Research.)
Institute for Public Accuracy
(The IPA is a nationwide consortium of policy researchers that seeks to broaden public discourse by gaining media access for experts whose perspectives are often overshadowed by major think tanks and other influential institutions.)
WASHINGTON -- Corporate Crime: A Major Law Enforcement Role?
-- Russell Mokhiber, editor of Corporate Crime Reporter.
"Henry Paulson, the chairman of Goldman Sachs, is quoted on the front page of The New York Times today: 'I cannot think of a time when business over all has been held in less repute.' Why is that? Because corporate and white-collar crime inflict far more damage on society today than all street crime combined. With a jury about to decide whether Andersen will become the nation's most recent corporate criminal, it's time to take stock." Mokhiber, who produced a list of the Top 100 Corporate Criminals of the 1990s, added: "Health care fraud alone costs the nation more than $100 billion a year in damage, while, according to the FBI, burglary and robbery inflict $4 billion. The FBI estimates that there are 15,000 homicides in the United States every year. Compare that to the more than 40,000 Americans who die every year on the job or from occupational diseases. And yet, the prisons are filled with street criminals. In its March 18, 2002 cover story, Fortune magazine summed it up this way: 'It's time to stop coddling white-collar crooks. Send them to jail.' ... The Band-Aid reforms being put forth by the likes of Paulson and Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Harvey Pitt seek to shore up investor confidence, which is lagging badly, and stave off irreparable damage to the market. But only fundamental structural change in corporate form and regulation will get the job done, and few Democrats or Republicans are serious about fundamental structural change."
-- Marjorie Kelly, editor and publisher of Business Ethics Magazine and author of the recently released book, "The Divine Right of Capital."
"I'm heartened that the head of Goldman Sachs is making these comments in public. Ethics has clearly gotten lost in the rush for profits. But I think fundamental reforms are needed. For example Ralph Estes has proposed that we have a corporate accountability commission, which would audit companies and be funded by a tax on corporations. We need to change the business of auditing in a fundamental way to ensure genuine independence. It's very hard for someone to police your books when you're the one hiring them. Another suggestion, put forward by the Project on Government Oversight, is that companies with a history of law-breaking be prohibited from government contracts."
-- Pamela Bucy, professor of law at the University of Alabama, Bucy is author of the book "White Collar Crime." She has suggested in her writings that the civil False Claims Act, which currently applies to government contracting, be expanded to other areas of law, specifically securities and environmental law.
"If we had something like the False Claims Act applied to securities law, those Enron vice presidents who wanted to blow the whistle would have had a mechanism."
The Center for Strategic and International Studies
WASHINGTON -- Structure of the Homeland Security cabinet agency must be augmented with comprehensive strategy
Analysts at the Center for Strategic and International Studies made the following statements today regarding the creation of a new cabinet agency for Homeland Security:
-- James Lewis, director, CSIS Technology and Public Policy Program.
"Agencies have trouble adjusting to new priorities, so just as the war on drugs led to the creation of the Drug Enforcement Agency, the war on terrorism has led to a new cabinet-level domestic security office. A cabinet agency with operational responsibility would have direct control of money and people and allow Congress the oversight it wants. It could improve management of border and immigration functions, and complement the CIA's foreign intelligence analysis-answering some intelligence failure questions raised since Sept. 11. However, the new agency may face the same bureaucratic conflict that occurred when DEA was established. This is also a major change in how the United States governs itself. For the first time, we have the kind of internal security agency found in Europe. The new department may face serious questions on how to limit its authority to protect civil liberties."
-- Michèle Flournoy, senior adviser, CSIS International Security Program and coauthor of "To Prevail: An American Strategy for the Campaign Against Terrorism," which outlines an 18-point comprehensive strategy for the formulation and execution of a long-term campaign against terrorism.
"Any organizational change that enhances intelligence sharing within the U.S. government is a step in the right direction. However, it is no substitute for a hard-hitting threat assessment, a strategy that sets clear priorities for homeland security, and a rigorous program review to make sure every homeland security dollar is being spent as effectively as possible."
-- Mary DeRosa, senior fellow, CSIS Technology and Public Policy Program.
"Creating a Homeland Security Department will not rid the executive branch of turf and bureaucracy problems. There will still be many agencies involved in homeland security and, maybe more than ever, there will be a need for strong coordination from the White House."
-- David Heyman, senior fellow, CSIS Technology and Public Policy Program.
"We've had new budgets, and now a new organization, but we still have not heard the President lay out his strategy for addressing the full range of threats we face or how he intends to make sure we are prepared and safe. In the end it's results, not organizational charts, that matter."
-- Thomas Sanderson, deputy director, CSIS Transnational Threats Initiative.
"The establishment of the Department of Homeland Security is a positive, timely, though incomplete step that will generate as much rancor as it does cooperation and results. Centralizing security and preparedness efforts is essential for coping with the terrorism threat. However, despite new funding and presidential backing, there are bound to be budgetary and turf battles with other bureaucracies that will slow the new department's efforts. The American people should be encouraged by this development, but should not expect this to be the panacea that many are seeking."
CSIS notes that these are the views of the individuals cited, not of CSIS, which does not take policy positions.
The Completive Enterprise Institute
(CEI is a conservative, free-market think tank that supports principles of free enterprise and limited government, opposes government regulation, and actively engages in public policy debate.)
WASHINGTON -- Please Make Me Pay! Markets and Intellectual Property
by James V. DeLong
After a seminar last year, I met a representative of the search engine company Google (www.google.com) and fell into a conversation reminiscent of Abbot and Csotello's "Who's On First?"
I said Google is a great search engine and it should make me and others pay for using it. He assured me that the company has no intention of charging. I responded that its value to me far exceeds the amount of a modest fee, and if the company charged then it could spend the proceeds doing even more good things, and I would get even more surplus value. He answered that I need not worry because they are making money from ads and other services and will not make users pay. I said I worried that they might not be making enough money.
He edged away, keeping a wary eye on this madman.
But the point is serious. Consumers should want to pay for intellectual property. Only in such a system -- a market -- can they transmit to producers the proper incentives to provide goods and services of the quantity and quality that they (the consumers) desire. So they want to express their preferences directly with money, not force purveyors of useful services to cadge dimes from advertisers or patrons.
We have a market system of intellectual property, and over the years it has worked pretty well. A combination of technological limitations, legal doctrines, and social convention has allowed producers to scotch serious piracy while leaving sufficient play in the joints to keep consumers from being unduly inconvenienced. Principles of fair use have also recognized that producers and consumers are not completely separate categories, that intellectual property is often an input into even more IP, and that there must be allowance for transformative use.
The digital revolution put a spoke in this wheel by removing the technological controls. For example, it was once cheaper to buy a book than photocopy it; now, it can be scanned. To make a copy of a copy of music resulted in considerable degradation; now, digital copies are perfect to infinity. The last technological dike is the slowness of dial-up Internet connections, and that one is eroding fast as broadband deploys.
To meet the problem, hundreds of companies are working to create new technical dikes in the form of encryption, hardware requirements, or other forms of Digital Rights Management, known as DRM. It is not clear how to make these work, or what the best approach will be, or what marketplace compromises need be made between IP protection and consumer convenience, or how to maintain diversity and competition.
These problems are hideously difficult. Three things are clear, however:
1. Consumers have the largest stake in DRM. Some argue that IP can be funded by advertising, the patronage of the rich, T-shirt sales, or taxation, but they are wrong. None of these substitutes for the power of markets.
2. Some "consumer advocates" are actually consumer enemies. Digital Consumer is pushing a Bill of Rights that would have the practical effect of outlawing DRM, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which does good work in some areas, provides a home for demented academics of like mind. The real agenda seems to be to replace a regime based on property and markets with a fuzzy communalism.
3. Government mandates would be premature and destructive.
So let companies work on DRM. Let producers of IP decide how much or how little protection they want, and consumers vote with their money. Let a hundred business models bloom, producing all the riches available through market mechanisms. And to these consumer advocates -- please stop trying to help me.
(James V. deLong is a senior fellow at the Project on Technology and Innovation at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.)
