Politics

Suppose we live in a world with no private automobiles. There are still airports, bus stations, and sea ports, and these are places with diverse carriers and services, giving you many options for traveling long distances to other locations. But to get from your home to these travel hubs, your options are limited to between one and three cab companies; most people have access to two, RBOC Cab and Cable Cab. Both cab companies own all of their own cabs, but RBOC Cab has been legally required to allow independent operators to rent their cabs. Those independent operators have been permitted to repaint the cabs, furnish the interiors differently, and offer additional services to customers within the content of the cabs, but the cabs are owned by RBOC Cab and are of the same size, and the radios are standard equipment owned and maintained by RBOC Cab. Cable Cab, by contrast, has never been required to allow independent operators to use its cabs, and has never done so. (UPDATE 11 May 2006: This is because Cable Cab pays 5% of revenue to local governments as part of their franchise agreement, while RBOC Cab, by contrast, has had government monopoly protection until 1996, has free access to rights of way, and receives government funding via “universal service” fees in order to provide service to rural areas. While Cable Cab funded its own purchasing of cabs and infrastructure, RBOC Cab built its infrastructure without risk as a result of the government support.) They initially didn’t come with radios at all, but have recently furnished their cabs with radios. The rules have recently been changed so that RBOC Cab will no longer be required to allow independent operators to rent their cabs. They’ve stopped allowing new independent operators to rent cabs, or existing independent operators to take on new customers, and have announced that they will be ending all of the independent operator contracts. RBOC Cab has also announced that they intend to build larger cabs, in which some of the additional space will be used to provide new services, such as a fully stocked bar, refrigerator, and high-definition television. They will supply all of the contents of the bar and refrigerator, as well as what is shown on the TV, by entering into arrangements with suppliers, whom they intend to charge a fee for the privilege of using the facilities to reach their passengers. Passengers will not be permitted to use the refrigerators to store items that they’ve supplied, though they will still be allowed to bring along their own cooler, snacks, or video equipment, provided that it fits in the remaining space in the cab (which will be more space than in previous cabs). Both cab companies reserve the right to deny transportation for certain kinds of items that they consider harmful or dangerous, or which impact their ability to function–items that stink up the cab, that could catch fire or explode, etc. Cab Neutrality advocates argue that the Department of Transportation needs to create additional regulations which require the cab companies to allow passengers to carry whatever items they want, to use the radios to listen to whatever stations they want (whether the driver likes it or not), to put their own items in the refrigerator, and to allow all snack, beverage, and video providers to make use of the new equipment that RBOC Cabs plans to put into their cabs. They also want to require that the cab companies send cabs at the same speed to every travel hub, regardless of the hub’s size or amount of demand for its services (or what the passengers want), and that all costs should be borne by the cab company, not the hub. RBOC Cabs responds by saying that in order to fund the building of the new cabs, they need to be able to charge the snack, beverage, and video providers to use the new equipment (in addition to the fee charged to the passengers, which is not enough to cover the actual cost), but that passengers are still free to bring their own snacks. Cab Neutrality advocates worry that unless they are allowed to bring whatever items they want, they might be prohibited from bringing their own snacks, beverages, and videos. RBOC Cabs have also claimed that they need to be able to build these larger cabs in order to travel longer distances, and suggested that their ability to carry snacks, beverages, and videos over long distances is part of the costs they need to recoup (when, in fact, the long distance transportation of even their snacks, beverages, and videos is provided in the highly competitive environment of the multiple transportation hubs, where there are no issues of capacity and costs per mile are significantly lower). This is not a precise analogy, but I think it captures the highlights. To make it more precise, I’d need to actually talk about the roads, perhaps making the last mile owned by HOAs that are analogous to RBOCs and cable companies, with the HOAs placing restrictions on the size and type of vehicles that can move on those roads and creating new lanes for their own vehicles, which they want to rent out to third parties or make available for higher priority services that might need them for emergencies. What’s right about “Cab Neutrality” is that passengers want to be able to get to every travel hub and they want to be able to choose what food, beverages, and entertainment they get on the way. But the specific proposals they make are too specific, go beyond these basics, and create limitations in what new services and business arrangements can be developed. As I see it, the biggest problem here is limited competition among cab companies–a situation which was alleviated to a large extent by the requirement that RBOC Cab lease out cabs to independent operators–a requirement that should have applied to Cable Cab as well. (If we had a way to purchase or rent our own vehicles from competitive sources, all of the worries about what the cab companies might do would be eliminated.) A requirement on the cab companies that requires passengers to be able to carry whatever they want would have the unintended consequence that some malicious or unthinking passengers would carry items that the cab companies want to prohibit for good reason–harmful and dangerous materials, materials which disrupt service for other passengers. (E.g., spam, malware, denial of service attacks.) A requirement that all cabs must travel at the same speed means that if I have an emergency where I want to be able to pay more to get to my travel hub faster, I can’t do it. Passengers carrying organs for transplant surgery don’t get to travel any faster than passengers going on vacation. A requirement that all costs must be borne by the cab companies (both for transportation to the hubs and for the new cabs and equipment within them) limits the possibilities of new business arrangements between third parties and the cab companies. There might be a possible business model where a travel hub pays a fee to get more frequent cab services, with a lower cost to the cab passengers, subsidized by the long-haul transportation services. Or where video providers can supply services at different costs, with lower-cost services subsidized by advertising revenue.

Adam Green, responding to Mike McCurry, writes (following Matt Stoller at MyDD) that: Lie #1: McCurry knows the Internet is not “absent regulation” yet he’s willing to deceive the public if it helps his clients. As Matt Stoller points out on MyDD: What McCurry did not tell the public was that during the Clinton years, the FCC actively enforced net neutrality – the Internet’s First Amendment – against his telecom clients. Common carrier statutes have in fact been a bedrock principle of telecommunications law since 1934, and in 1996 Congress ratified that with a commitment to network neutrality. ...

I went by the west lawn of the Capitol yesterday to see the set up for the National Day of Prayer event. There were a series of rotating speakers reading from the Bible to an audience of empty chairs (though I’m sure they filled them for their 5 p.m. event). We then had a scheduled private tour at the Supreme Court, and got to see the Justice House of Prayer/Bound4Life cult members praying in front of the steps–these are the “interns” who pay $500/mo or so (the fee details seem to have disappeared from their website, but it was $1500 for a 3-mo internship when I commented on them in December) for the privilege of praying the same 22-word prayer over and over in hopes that the Supreme Court will reverse Roe v. Wade. (I almost think such strategies should be encouraged. These interns aren’t hurting anything with their “silent sieges,” and it’s keeping them out of other kinds of trouble they could be getting into or causing.) We didn’t make it back to the Capitol until later in the evening, instead choosing to eat an excellent meal in Chinatown with some friends. (Previously.)

I’ve seen several people forward or cite Charlie Savage’s Boston Globe article, which starts: President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution. Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, “whistle-blower” protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research. Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush’s assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to “execute” a law he believes is unconstitutional. Sheldon Richman points out the Savage article and also a Cato Institute publication titled “Power Surge: The Constitutional Record of George W. Bush” which says: Unfortunately, far from defending the Constitution, President Bush has repeatedly sought to strip out the limits the document places on federal power. In its official legal briefs and public actions, the Bush administration has advanced a view of federal power that is astonishingly broad, a view that includes * a federal government empowered to regulate core political speech – and restrict it greatly when it counts the most: in the days before a federal election; * a president who cannot be restrained, through validly enacted statutes, from pursuing any tactic he believes to be effective in the war on terror; * a president who has the inherent constitutional authority to designate American citizens suspected of terrorist activity as “enemy combatants,” strip them of any constitutional protection, and lock them up without charges for the duration of the war on terror – in other words, perhaps forever; and * a federal government with the power to supervise virtually every aspect of American life, from kindergarten, to marriage, to the grave. President Bush’s constitutional vision is, in short, sharply at odds with the text, history, and structure of our Constitution, which authorizes a government of limited powers.Good readings for the week of “Loyalty Day."

This morning, while reading a thread about Stephen Colbert’s wonderful performance at the White House Correspondent’s Dinner, I learned that yesterday (and every May 1 going forward) has been officially proclaimed “Loyalty Day”: Loyalty Day is also a time for us to reflect on our responsibilities to our country as we work to show the world the meaning and promise of liberty. The right to vote is one of our most cherished rights and voting is one of our most fundamental duties. By making a commitment to be good citizens, flying the American flag, or taking the time to learn about our Nation’s history, we show our gratitude for the blessings of freedom. I spent most of my day yesterday at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. I’m happy to proclaim loyalty to principles of liberty, but that shouldn’t be confused with blind loyalty to political leaders or governments. ...

President Vicente Fox says he will sign it. Looks like we’ll get a chance to see how well decriminalization works a bit closer to home than the Netherlands. The laws will still be slightly more strict than the Netherlands in some regards (e.g., drug sales will not be decriminalized), less strict in others (the Netherlands is tougher on cocaine and heroin). The bill says criminal charges will no longer be brought for possession of up to 25 milligrams of heroin, five grams of marijuana — about one-fifth of an ounce, or about four joints — and half a gram of cocaine — about half the standard street-size quantity, which is enough for several lines of the drug. ...

Radley Balko reports on the torture of Lester Eugene Siler, an illiterate man, by five sheriff’s deputies in Campbell County, Tennessee, trying to get him to consent to search warrant without telling him what it said. The deputies denied nearly beating him to death, hooking electrodes to his testicles and shocking him, and threatening to kill him and go after his family, but his wife was present and got it on audio tape, which is available online. After the story was picked up by Andrew Sullivan, who wonders about whether this became possible as a result of the climate created by the Bush administration, which right wing bloggers have mocked by mischaracterizing his position, as described in a followup by Balko.

I received a mailing today from the “Protect 21 Coalition” asking me to contact my legislators to tell them to oppose Senate Bill 1276, which it describes as “alcohol deregulation.” The bill actually legalizes Internet-based sale of wine by Arizona wineries in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Granholm v. Heald (which was combined with two other cases, including the Institute for Justice’s case from NY, Swedenburg v. Kelly), which held that state regulation of Internet-based wine sales must be the same for in-state and out-of-state wineries. A 1982 Arizona law permits only in-state wineries to ship wine to restaurants and retail stores, and so is unconstitutional under that decision. The Protect 21 website argues for a three-tier model of alcohol distribution (manufacturers, distributors, and retail sales) on the grounds that it is somehow better able to protect communities and prevent underage drinking. Actually, this model is an anti-competitive model held in place by regulations which benefit the middleman, whose role would otherwise disappear. Their main argument is that allowing wine sales over the Internet will lead to underage drinking, despite the fact that purchases require credit cards and deliveries require a signature and ID verification, same as a retail store purchase. (For more on this argument and discussion, see this Jacob Sullum post at Reason magazine’s blog.) And who would you guess is behind the Protect 21 Coalition? The two people who testified against Senate Bill 1276 on February 15 were Howard Romm, the president of Republic Beverage Company, and Marcus Osborn, the “Manager of Governmental and Public Affairs” of the Protect 21 Coalition. Actually, Osborn’s title is for his position at the Phoenix office of R&R Partners, a Las Vegas-based advertising and lobbying firm. Osborn is a busy lobbyist, who also testified on behalf of the “PACE Coalition” in favor of H.B. 2383, a bill for a “Program for All-inclusive Care for the Elderly” at taxpayer expense, on the same day. He’s also lobbied the Arizona legislature for Jack-in-the-Box restaurants and YUM brands. You can see Osborn’s lobbyist record with the state of Arizona here. The protect21.org domain was registered by R&R Partners, and the group’s mailing address listed on its website is a commercial postal mailbox at a branch of The UPS Store in downtown Phoenix. And who is a client of R&R Partners (though not listed on their website)? Republic Beverage Company, of course. If you’re in Arizona, contact your legislators and let them know that you’d rather not have your tax money spent to funnel money into the pockets of middlemen through archaic regulations, especially not to middlemen who hire lobbying firms to create fake grassroots efforts to promote their positions to the legislature. In 2004, expenditures by lobbyists had grown by 30% from 2003 to over $3 million, according to a study by the Center for Public Integrity.

Apparently she had some staffers leave because she lied about whether Mitchell Wade (the briber in the Duke Cunningham scandal) had bought her a very expensive ($2,800) dinner at a fancy restaurant. She ended an interview last week when the subject came up, after saying that her campaign had “reimbursed” the restaurant (which makes no sense, since Wade paid the bill). Her spokesman called the reporter and asked that the subject not be published. The following day, her campaign released a statement saying that “I have donated to a local Florida charity $100 which will more than adequately compensate for the cost of my beverage and appetizer." It turns out that the “local Florida charity” is Global Dominion Impact Ministries, a Charismatic Christian group run by Bishop Lewes and Pastor Sandra Jones. The group’s website says: “Pastor Sandra has an inspiring testimony of her deliverance from being sold to devils as an infant. She also shares her miraculous healing from her breast cancer as well as being raised from the dead.”

Today’s Arizona Republic has a story reporting that the large supply of cheap parking downtown may hurt the light rail project, as people would prefer to drive their cars than use mass transit. The real irony here is that it was deception by the City of Phoenix that allowed it to build a massive parking garage across the street from Bank One Ballpark (now Chase Stadium). By falsely claiming that the 3,000-space parking garage was necessary for the Arizona Science Center and the Civic Plaza, the city effectively gave a $40 million gift to Arizona Diamondbacks owner Jerry Colangelo. The ballpark did not have sufficient parking for itself, but because it would require voter approval for any additional spending under Proposition 200, the city hired Kaku Associates to conduct a study to determine the need for spaces for the Arizona Science Center, and jiggered the assumptions of the study until they got the result they wanted for the ballpark. The February 1994 draft report from Kaku stated that “If the baseball stadium is not built, it would be difficult to justify a parking garage of any size within the study area in general.” The City then told Kaku to change its assumptions, by disregarding existing parking spaces outside a two-block radius from the Science Center, assuming that crowds to the Civic Plaza convention center would double, and pretending that the city would also build a downtown aquarium. Adding these assumptions led to the conclusion in June 1995–in the seventh draft of the study–that there would be 1,300-1,600 space parking deficit, and therefore the city could go ahead and build a parking garage without voter approval. Oh, but there was one more catch–the land where they wanted to build the garage was the site of the Greyhound bus terminal, on land owned by the Dial (now Viad) Corporation. The city condemned the Greyhound site and passed a zoning change to prevent Greyhound from relocating to another site downtown. In Greyhound’s legal response, they pointed out the obvious fact that the city was cheating in its argument for the parking garage, stating “The city’s arrogance in proceeding to do whatever it damn well pleases by pretending that the garage is for the Civic Plaza and not the baseball stadium ought to offend the sensibilities of any honest thinking individual.” They further pointed out that the city’s action was a violation of Proposition 200 whether the parking garage was for the ballpark or for the convention center–to which the city responded that the Civic Plaza and Convention Center is not actually a convention center, because only 5.8% of attendance at Civic Plaza events between 1988 and 1995 was related to conventions. In the end, the city offered Greyhound a settlement that it accepted, and got its parking garage on the site, which loses an average of $283,000 a month, paid for by the city (and indirectly by its residents). The city has continued to engage in deals which largely supply private benefits directly to Jerry Colangelo, most recently with a similar deal for the city to spend millions to build a hotel downtown–even though similar projects in other cities have lost money. Phoenix City Manager Frank Fairbanks and former Deputy City Manager Sheryl Scully (now City Manager of San Antonio, Texas) are two of the main people to thank for these boondoggles. (Most of the above is derived from the excellent reporting of John Dougherty of Phoenix’s New Times weekly newspaper. For some reason, the Arizona Republic can almost never be counted on to dig up and provide such information.)