WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 (UPI) -- The UPI think tank wrap-up is a daily digest covering opinion pieces, reactions to recent news events and position statements released by various think tanks.
The Competitive 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 -- CEI:/Spin -- FCC and broadband: Piddle. Twiddle. But no resolve.
"Dear God! For one solid year they have been sitting there, for one year, doing nothing." (John Adams, in Piddle, Twiddle and Resolve, from the musical "1776").
The Federal Communications Commission began 2002 with a flurry of activity on broadband and telecom competition -- initiating five major rulemakings between December and March. These ranged from a review of its rules on forced telecom unbundling to rulemakings on how and whether to regulate cable modem and DSL service.
Hopes were high -- it looked like Michael Powell was going to live up to his high expectations. Like his father, it looked like Powell was bent on regime change -- in this case an end to the misguided regulatory regime that was hobbling broadband growth.
The rulemakings, however, were still largely proposals. With the exception of a decision to classify cable modems as a (presumably less-regulated) information service, the FCC had only come out with options for reform, in some cases rather vague ones.
But the commission made all sorts of noises about moving quickly to finalize the actions. No more interminable delays. No more infinite elasticity of process. The agency had learned the lesson of the digital revolution -- the need to move quickly was recognized. Commissioner Kevin Martin was the clearest: saying the agency should act by the end of the year (not exactly Internet-time, but good for the chronologically-challenged FCC).
It was not to be. The calendar says December, the snows are piling up in Washington, and the FCC has completed a grand total of zero of its reforms. Nada. Nichts.
What happened? Part of the answer may be the lack of support Powell got from the Bush administration. Sure, after much pushing, the president made a statement generally mentioning broadband regulation, and offering generic support for the FCC's efforts. Better than nothing, but still a little less than textbook leadership. Sort of like standing behind a rock and yelling "go get 'em -- I'll be right behind you."
(The administration's reticence to engage on the issue is reportedly based on political considerations -- a reluctance to upset industry opponents of reform. Still, given the fall of WorldCom and decline of the CLECs, that political calculus may already be outdated.)
But the administration's absence doesn't excuse the FCC's failure. It's possible that there simply wasn't a clear enough consensus among members to produce a result. That seems unlikely though, given the public statements of the members. Moreover, a determined leadership could have forged a consensus.
The most depressing prospect is that broadband reform, despite its import, fell victim to other matters and general drift, and lack of a focused effort to get the job done. In other words, FCC disease. Perhaps the FCC hasn't learned the lesson of Internet time after all, or worse, is unable to adapt to it.
So what comes next? Many observers are still expecting FCC action to finally come early next year. One can always hope. And if nothing happens then, expect Capitol Hill to start making rattling sounds. The House leadership is pro-reform, and should start increasing the pressure. In the Senate, returning Commerce Committee Chair John McCain has long been pro-deregulation, and is not apt to sit on the sidelines.
Still, expectations should be capped: only the most Pollyannaish believe that Congress could actually pass a broadband bill. And only the most foolhardy think it could pass a sensible one. In the end, it's still the FCC that matters. The question is: will 2003 bring less twiddle, and more resolve?
The 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 -- After Sean Penn's visit to Iraq: Reflections and possibilities
-- Norman Solomon, executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy, which organized Sean Penn's recent trip to Baghdad.
"After accompanying Mr. Penn during his visit to Baghdad, I'm heartened by the evident value of dialogue in the midst of this extremely ominous crisis. His visit could inspire many Americans from various walks of life to explore how they can impede the momentum toward war, whether in Baghdad or at home in the United States."
-- Paul Rogat Loeb, author of "Soul of a Citizen: Living With Conviction in a Cynical Time."
"It's good that Sean Penn went to Iraq. We all should educate ourselves, we all should speak up. Unfortunately, we're encouraged to dismiss anyone who challenges Bush's march to war ... Ordinary citizens can't speak up because they don't know enough; young people are dismissed as naïve; older people, we're told are trying to re-live the 1960s; academics are just eggheads; religious people are unrealistic; immigrants are suspects; celebrities are airheads and so on. So basically everyone is written off except the people actually running the show."
-- William Christison, former director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis.
"When I was with the CIA, we thought the more you know, the better your decisions are. It's good for all Americans to educate themselves about Iraq at this crucial time. We have an administration that has a lot of people in it who clearly want to go to war ... They have no interest in dialogue, sorting out the facts, giving clear reasons for policy or seeing weapons inspections work."
James Abourezk, a former (Democratic) U.S. senator from South Dakota, Abourezk visited Iraq in September.
"In an effort to silence opponents of Bush's Iraq policy, Americans have had their patriotism called into question by those who want a major war. Rather than encouraging debate on the issue, Bush has used the element of fear to stifle discussion. The Bush administration is on a campaign to leak one story after another looking for a pretext to massively attack Iraq and frighten the American public into going along with an assault on a weakened Third World country -- is that patriotic?"
-- Edward L. Peck, former chief of mission to Iraq and deputy director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism in the Reagan administration.
"Dialogue is something that everyone should be for. It's a shame that Penn could not go with persons from the U.S. government prepared to achieve legitimate objectives without the spilling of blood."
The National Center for Policy Analysis
(The NCPA is a public policy research institute that seeks innovative private sector solutions to public policy problems.)
DALLAS, Texas -- Controlling tax increases
by Bruce Bartlett
It's a mystery to liberals why conservatives are so adamant about cutting taxes. To them, the conservative fervor for tax cuts -- anytime, anywhere -- is irrational; it's almost a religious belief that is accepted on faith without any supporting evidence. In fact, tax cuts make perfect sense even if one does not think they will have any impact on growth whatsoever.
Conservatives believe that spending is the ultimate enemy, and it is fueled by higher taxes. In other words, government will always spend every penny it has, and more if it can. Therefore, what determines the size of government is its ability to take money out of its citizens' pockets.
The United States is a perfect example. Prior to World War I, government spending as a share of the gross national product was less than 3 percent almost every year except during wartime -- but it has risen almost continuously.
By the mid-1960s, federal spending consumed 17 percent of the economy, and this year it is 19.5 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office. When one includes state and local governments, government at all levels now accounts for about 31 percent of national income.
Almost one out of every three dollars in the U.S. economy is spent by government. Liberals would have us believe that they really don't favor tax increases. They just oppose further tax cuts, including the extension of expiring tax cuts.
However, as the CBO points out in a new report, failure to extend these expiring provisions will raise taxes on the American people by almost $1 trillion over the next 10 years. Thus, if Congress does nothing, taxes will automatically rise.
(Bruce Bartlett is a senior fellow at the National Center For Policy Analysis.)
The Cato Institute
WASHINGTON -- A super success
by Michael New
The National Governor's Association recently released a report announcing that the states are facing the worst fiscal crisis since World War II. Soaring medical costs coupled with declining tax revenues are responsible for budget deficits in nearly every state. Indeed, in recent months, sharp tax hikes in many states including New York, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts have received a great deal of attention.
However, largely unreported during this fiscal crisis has been the effectiveness of supermajority tax limits at blocking tax increases. Indeed, during the past 10 years, supermajority tax limits have been increasing in popularity. (A supermajority is 60 votes or more out of 100.)
This is partly because of a shift in strategy by anti-tax activists. During the late 1970s and early 1980s property tax limits were the favored mechanism by those seeking to reduce the growth of government. Indeed, California's Proposition 13 and Massachusetts' Proposition 2 1/2 were among the most successful of these efforts to reduce and limit property taxes.
However, as states and localities became less reliant on property taxes, fiscal conservatives began to promote broader limitations on government, including supermajority requirements. Indeed, since the early 1990s, six states -- Arizona, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Nevada, Louisiana and Oregon -- have enacted laws that require that tax increases must receive supermajority approval in both chambers of the state legislature. Furthermore, Colorado's Taxpayer Bill of Rights, or TABOR, which establishes a low limit for state budgetary growth also requires legislative supermajorities for the enactment of any tax increases.
Still, it has been difficult to determine the effectiveness of these recently enacted supermajority requirements. During the economic expansion that took place throughout the mid- to late-1990s, state coffers were flush with revenue and relatively few states were raising taxes. However, this year's widespread budgetary shortfalls have provided plenty of evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of supermajority tax limits.
For instance, supermajority states Colorado, Arizona, and Oregon have reduced their fiscal 2002 budgets by $554 million, $671 million, and $801 million respectively. More impressively, none of these three states enacted a single tax increase. Similarly, Nevada made modest cuts of $31million, without increasing a single tax.
Another supermajority state, Louisiana was one of only a few states that actually was able to reduce taxes this year. Finally, Oklahoma cut spending by $173 million, and raised taxes by only a modest $60 million. Overall, these six supermajority states enjoyed a spending cut-to-tax-increase ratio of about 36-1. In comparison, the national average was approximately 1-1.
What is even better news for fiscal conservatives is that these fiscal limitations are causing other states to consider tax reductions. In a recent interview on Fox News, New Mexico's incoming governor, Democrat Bill Richardson, listed tax reductions as one of his top priorities. His stated reason is because taxes in New Mexico are higher than taxes in nearby states, including Colorado and Arizona. If Arizona and Colorado did not have such effective fiscal limits in place, a tax reduction in New Mexico would be an unlikely proposition at best.
This year supermajority tax limits have demonstrated their ability to guide states toward more prudent fiscal policies. Tax increases reduce economic growth and, consequently, often generate less revenue than expected. Similarly, history indicates that politicians are often unable to resist the temptation to spend some of these promised revenues on pet projects. Conversely, spending cuts are not economically damaging. They also have the added benefit of limiting the size of government, which reduces the likelihood of deficits in the future.
With the federal government facing a deficit of its own this year, Congress would do well to follow the example of these states and enact a supermajority limit of its own.
(Michael J. New is an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and a post-doctoral fellow at the Harvard-MIT Data Center.)
