COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE

VOL. 32, NO. 1 | WINTER 2019

FEATURED ARTICLES

Unfounded E-Cigarette Panic Puts

Lives at Risk
4 BY MICHELLE MINTON.
BY RYAN YOUNG

E
Lessons from the GM Layoffs: -cigarettes pose a fraction of the risk of cig-
End the Tariffs and Subsidies arette smoking, just 1 percent to 5 percent
according to authorities like the British govern-
ment. That could mean the difference between
life and death for the half million Americans
and 7 million people worldwide who die of
smoking-related illnesses every year.
6 Even if it turns out that e-cigarettes convey
small long-term risks, those products should
BY WAYNE CREWS AND RYAN YOUNG remain an option for smokers who haven’t
How to Rein in Regulatory been able to kick their more deadly habit
Dark Matter and haven’t had luck with prescription drugs,
patches, gums, or lozenges.
Why, then, do government agencies
and certain health activists focus more on
scaring people about the unknown risks of The facts on are not on the side of anti-
e-cigarettes than helping them understand vaping activists. There is no epidemic in teen

9
the relative risks of vaping compared to
smoking? The unfortunate truth is that many
of these groups may be letting their need for
BY JESSICA MELUGIN headlines and fundraising interfere with their
Cities Should Stop Slowing Down genuine goal of improving public health.
America’s 5G Revolution To the general public, there seems to be
a consensus on the dangers of e-cigarettes.
Government agencies like the Food and
ALSO IN THIS ISSUE Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
and activist groups like American Cancer
Tesla Shareholders, Not the Government,
Society and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free
Should Hold the CEO Leash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Kids have all reached the same conclusion:
Science Shows it’s Not Really Green
to Ban Plastic Bags. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 E-cigarette use is “epidemic” among
Latest Bipartisan Carbon Tax Folly . . . . . . . . . 8
teenagers and this is terrible for public health.
But what most people don’t know is that
Walking off the Job at Taxpayer Expense. . .10
these groups have worked together to hype
Will New Congress Seek Reforms to
Highway Funding?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
unfounded fears, promote shared policy
goals, boost each other’s clout, and pad their
CEI Events Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
coffers.
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. . . . . . . . . 14
Media Mentions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
End Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
vaping. The latest CDC survey data only
reveal any e-cigarette use in the last month,
but previous data showed that fewer than 6
percent of teens (including 18 year olds, who
can legally purchase e-cigarettes) vaped
habitually (20-30 days a month). That means
over 94 percent of teens are not regularly
vaping. Furthermore, CDC data do not tell us
how many of these teenage vapers are using
nicotine, but previous research found most
of them were not. It also doesn’t say what
percentage of teen e-cigarette users had
never smoked, a number previous research
puts at less than 1 percent.
More importantly, the latest CDC data
reveal nothing about underage smoking,
which is the single most important data point
in evaluating the harms or benefits of teenage
vaping. Since the introduction of e-cigarettes
to the U.S. market, adolescent use of cigarettes
(continued on page 3)
 Help Us Celebrate 35 Years of CEI
by Kent Lassman
S pring is coming—and a big anniversary with it.
This year, we celebrate 35 years of CEI fight-
ing for liberty. From its humble beginnings at Fred
Smith’s kitchen table to our place of prominence as an
authority on regulatory policy today, this organization
remains steadfast in its commitment to restrain gov-
ernment, and to the value of expanding the scope of
human freedom. With that in mind, I hope you can join
FROM THE PRESIDENT
us on June 20, in Washington, D.C., as we celebrate
these past 35 years—and look forward to the next
three decades—at CEI’s annual dinner and reception.
But first, the reason for celebrating.
This winter, CEI hit the ground running. We
started 2019 with the launch of the new edition
of Free to Prosper: A Pro-Growth Agenda for the
116th Congress. It offers some bold, yet practi-
cal ideas for regulatory reform the new Congress
should consider and pursue. Crucially, in a divided
Washington, it finds some bipartisan avenues where
regulatory reform and restraint are possible.
Such reform is crucial. Today, unaccountable
regulatory agencies dominate how we live, work,
play, build, travel, prepare food, and heal one
another. Typically, regulations do not lead the news
and are not an issue that will garner much attention.
Yet, virtually every aspect of our lives is subject to
regulations from Washington. Did you know it is a
federal crime to sell chewing gum that is more that
0.065 percent beeswax or to sell vegetable spa-
ghetti bigger than 0.11” in diameter? We have all
seen the photos of the Federal Register that look like
mountains of paper. How did we get there?
Article I of the Constitution bestows the power to
make laws to Congress—and Congress alone. Yet,
for decades, Congress has delegated away much
of its lawmaking authority to regulatory agencies.
Congress must reassert its constitutional authority
to better position itself to address issues proactively
rather than standing on the sidelines while the
executive and judicial branches of government take
the initiative.
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
This isn’t just a legal issue. Regulation tends to
crowd out the institutions best positioned to address
the nation’s myriad challenges. Regulatory reform,
done right, can help make room for all the good
that comes from the institutions that are the fabric of
local communities, such as churches, booster clubs,
museums, scholarship funds, and food drives.
The costs of government extend far beyond
what Washington taxes, borrows, and spends. The
low-end estimates of the federal regulatory burden
are $1.9 trillion per year—or nearly $15,000 for
every household. The 116th Congress has a historic
opportunity to bring to light an accounting of how
the government operates and what values we
pursue through Washington’s edicts.
We have made some progress recently.
Congress rediscovered the Congressional Review
Act. Regulatory reform ideas proposed by CEI,
such as a regulatory budget, have gained accep-
tance, if not full adoption, in Washington. We will
keep pushing for stronger reforms, but we still have
a long way to go.
Today we find ourselves in a moment where
good ideas, many with bipartisan pedigree, point
toward creating binding limits on the executive
branch. Some seek to curtail the current administra-
tion. Others would like to see fewer far-reaching
rules from unaccountable agencies that receive far
too much deference from the courts. Taken together,
it is time to move a regulatory reform agenda even
further.
As I noted, we have a lot of work ahead of us.
But we’ll also have opportunities to celebrate and
reflect on our accomplishments. Again, I hope you
can join us on June 20 for our 35th anniversary
celebration.
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
 E-Cigarette Panic, continued
has more than halved, from 15.8
percent in 2011 to 7.6 percent in 2017.
Rather than e-cigarettes acting as a
gateway to smoking, as is assumed by
government and advocacy groups, this
indicates that teenage e-cigarette use is
more likely diverting would-be smokers
toward a less harmful means of nicotine
consumption and potentially away from
nicotine consumption altogether.
Meanwhile, smoking is the leading
cause of preventable death in America,
according to the CDC, responsible for
more than 480,000 deaths per year in
the United States. By the government’s
own estimates, more than 16 million
Americans live with a disease caused
by smoking, like cancer, heart disease,
stroke, lung diseases, diabetes, and
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
(which includes emphysema and
chronic bronchitis).
If e-cigarettes can help smokers
make the switch and save them from
disease and death, as research
increasingly proves, isn’t that
something we ought to celebrate?
Instead, activists are demanding
restrictions or bans on the availability
of e-cigarettes, even though making
e-cigarettes harder to buy or less
palatable (by eliminating flavors) will
result in fewer smokers switching.
While one can understand the
concern over adolescent nicotine use,
the relatively minor risk it poses to the
small percentage of teens vaping does
not warrant sacrificing the many adult
smokers at risk of serious illness and
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
Government bans
and restrictions on
e-cigarettes don’t
help save lives.
death. The math simply doesn’t add up
if the goal is to improve public health.
Anyone concerned about public
health should be looking for effective,
innovative ways to encourage
smoking cessation or at least lower-
risk products. Substituting e-cigarettes
for smoking could prevent up to
7 million premature deaths in the
United States, according to research-
driven estimates. That’s why the
hyped headlines and rhetoric about
e-cigarettes and the recent FDA ban
on e-cigarettes sales in convenience
stores are so problematic.
Government bans and restrictions
on e-cigarettes may help government
agencies and advocacy groups get
millions of dollars in tax money, but
they don’t help save lives.
Michelle Minton (michelle.minton@
cei.org) is a Senior Fellow at CEI and
the author of the recent study, Fear
Profiteers: How E-cigarette Panic
Benefits Health Activists. A version of
this article was originally published at
Inside Sources.
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
 Lessons from the GM Layoffs: End the
Tariffs and Subsidies
add an average of $250 to the cost of
BY RYAN YOUNG making a car. Other tariffs affect more
than 100 car parts, from tires to car

G eneral Motors (GM) announced

on November 26 that it will be
laying off 14,700 workers, closing five
factories, and discontinuing several
car models. This has caused some
soul-searching in the midst of a boom
economy. There are three main lessons
for policy makers and the public.
One, GM is being too shy about
the reasons for the layoffs. President
Trump’s tariffs have already cost the
company a billion dollars. GM is
skirting the topic, possibly to avoid
political blowback—a strategy that is
not working.
Two, President Trump is right to want
to end GM’s government subsidies, but
for the wrong reasons.
Three, contrary to popular belief,
U.S. manufacturing is healthy, despite
GM’s bad news.
GM has publicly cited many
reasons for its layoffs and restructuring.
Autonomous vehicles are the future,
and many of those vehicles likely will
not use gasoline engines. Even a big
company like GM only has so many
resources available. It is putting less
into traditional cars so it can put more
into developing what it thinks people
will want in the future.
The other major cited reason
is shifting consumer tastes. People
are increasingly moving away from
sedans and toward SUVs. So GM
is discontinuing poor-selling sedans
such as the Buick LaCrosse and Chevy
Cruze that aren’t as popular as they
used to be, as well as the Chevy Volt,
an electric plug-in hybrid car that car
buyers mostly ignored.
Tariffs are conspicuous in their
absence from GM’s public statements.
President Trump’s steel tariffs alone
batteries, further increasing costs and
consumer prices. The billion dollars that
tariffs will cost GM annually is enough
to pay the salaries of 24,000 assembly
workers. The layoffs affect about
14,700 workers.
President Trump did not take kindly
to the plant closings, tweeting a threat
to end GM’s government subsidies
as retaliation for the plant closings.
Such a proposal would have to pass
through a skeptical Congress, and
any legislation would be immensely
complicated, with provisions ranging
from green energy subsidies and labor
regulations to trade protectionism that
would, implausibly, target GM, but not
other companies. Still, he is right that
GM shouldn’t be getting government
subsidies—but neither should any other
private business.
Unfortunately, this is not what the
president has in mind. His subsidy
proposal is part of his larger approach
of using government to help or harm
individual businesses as he sees fit.
In this case, the president’s larger
policy goal is to revive American
manufacturing. Fortunately, the patient
is healthy. Real value-added U.S.
manufacturing was $2.125 trillion as
of the most recent report, setting a new
all-time record—which was previously
set in 2007, just before the Great
Recession.
Unfortunately, President Trump’s
efforts to aid a healthy sector will
hurt it instead. His trade policies and
other countries’ retaliation decreased
last quarter’s growth by as much as
1.8 percentage points—meaning that
already-stellar 3.5 percent growth
could have been 5.3 percent instead.
The new manufacturing output record
should have been set even higher.
As the new $200 billion China
tariffs take effect and the other new
tariffs settle in, the damage will only
increase over time. The manufacturing
sector will find a way to remain
competitive, but current trade policies
are making the job harder than it needs
to be. Neither manufacturers, their
workers, nor consumers will benefit.
GM’s layoff announcement will not be
the last bit of bad economic news we’ll
see in the next few years.
It is important to learn the right
lessons now to fix current mistakes
and prevent future ones. Companies
and consumers need to be more
assertive in standing up against harmful
policies. Government needs to dole out
fewer subsidies. And despite popular
perceptions and harmful policies, U.S.
manufacturing is cranking out record
output and doesn’t need Washington’s
hurtful brand of help.
Ryan Young (ryan.young@cei.org)
is a Fellow at CEI. A version of this
article was originally published at Fox
Business.

4 CEI.ORG COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE

 Tesla Shareholders, Not the Government,
Should Hold the CEO Leash
BY JOHN BERLAU
It must be up to
D epending on who you talk to, Tesla
CEO Elon Musk is either the next Tesla’s shareholders,
Henry Ford or the next P.T. Barnum.
Musk’s explosive tweets reverberate not the government,
in financial markets almost as much as
those of tweeter-in-chief @realdon- to decide whether
aldtrump. So what should the govern-
ment do to help shield Tesla investors Musk’s tweets are
from the share-price volatility his tweets
may cause? Absolutely nothing, unless cause for removing
his tweets are found to be fraudulent
and deceptive, not merely outrageous. him from executive
Musk’s emotional tweets—such as
the recent one calling the Securities posts.
and Exchange Commission (SEC) the
“Shortseller Enrichment Commission”— secured” for taking Tesla private at Elon Musk
may at times hurt Tesla sharehold- $420 a share was misleading or even
fraudulent. If so, then it was right for Some CEOs may indeed need
ers by causing share-price volatility.
the SEC to fine him as an individual for a strong leash, but in a free market,
However, it is a risk these shareholders
violating securities laws. shareholders—the real stakeholders in
signed up for, knowing he ran the com-
But the SEC was wrong in its settle- a company—must be the ones holding
pany when they bought the stock. And
ment with Tesla to ban Musk from that leash.
it must be up to Tesla’s shareholders,
not the government, to decide whether serving as the company’s chairman
Musk’s tweets are cause for removing and to mandate that Tesla must hire
him from executive posts. two new directors the SEC deems as John Berlau (john.berlau@cei.org) is a
Based on the charges it alleged, “independent” of the company. Those Senior Fellow at CEI. A version of this
the SEC may have been right in saying are issues for Tesla’s shareholders to article was originally published in USA
Musk’s tweet that he had “funding decide. Today.

Did You Know … • Go to: https://smile.amazon.com/

• Input your email and Amazon password
… that your Amazon purchases • Scroll down to the “Search Charity” box and
type: Competitive Enterprise Institute
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!

COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE C E I . O R G 5

 How to Rein in Regulatory Dark Matter
BY WAYNE CREWS AND RYAN
YOUNG Certain rules and
guidance have not
D ivisive hot-button issues are distract-
ing public attention from policy
reforms that could make everyone better been submitted to
off by expanding the economy. One of
these is regulatory reform. It is a huge Congress for years,
enough task on its own. But it is made
more difficult by a major transparency and are technically
problem. Many regulatory costs are
never accounted for. illegal.
Agencies issue all manner of
regulatory “dark matter” outside
an executive order should strengthen such existing guidance documents to
the required rulemaking process—
disclosure requirements for guidance be invalid unless the GAO and both
guidance documents, bulletins,
documents, which aren’t always made chambers of Congress had properly
circulars, memoranda, administrative
public. They should be made available received them in the past, and strictly
interpretations, and more—that are not
in a single location and a standardized enforce that requirement for future
officially “rules,” but carry regulatory
easily searchable format. After all, guidance documents as well.
weight. Such guidance covers issues
people can’t comply with regulations All federal regulations are publicly
ranging from medical devices to
they don’t know about. And dark matter cataloged and searchable in the Code
college admissions. Guidance is not
is, by nature, very hard to detect. of Federal Regulations. Dark matter
supposed to be legally binding, but
Agencies are already required to needs a similar compendium. Agencies
if your business needs a permit, your
contribute to transparency reporting have issued more than 13,000 guidance
choices may be slim.
via the twice-yearly Unified Agenda of documents since 2007—that we know
The long-term fix to this stealth
Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory of. Of those, just 189, roughly half of 1
lawmaking must come from Congress.
Actions for recent and upcoming percent, were reported to the GAO and
But until then, the president can issue
regulations. The Agenda lists rules that Congress. Given that such submission
an executive order to rein in regulatory
go through the standard rulemaking is required under the CRA, much of the
dark matter until Congress can make
process, but not guidance documents. universe of guidance is unlawful. At
such reform permanent.
An executive order should require the very least, an Executive Order can
There is precedent for such
the Agenda to include guidance and partially solve the basic transparency
executive action. Presidents Reagan,
other agency sub-regulatory directives. and accountability problem.
Clinton, and Obama all issued
Each guidance document should also Federal regulations have costs
Executive Orders to increase
be classified as either “regulatory” or that rival taxation. In the short term, a
transparency and ensure that agencies
“deregulatory” to make their individual well-crafted executive order can do a
followed better rulemaking procedures.
impacts easier to determine. lot of good for public accountability
Early in his term, President Trump
All regulations, and guidance and regulatory relief. If the president
issued an executive order capping net
documents too, are required to wants to continue to brag about a
regulatory costs and instituting a one-
be submitted to Congress and the growing economy, an executive action
in, two-out policy for new significant
Government Accountability Office is something he can easily do, and
regulatory actions. Net regulation has
(GAO) per the Congressional Review Congress should be eager to share
likely not shrunk under Trump, but its
Act (CRA), which gives Congress 60 credit.
growth has noticeably slowed, and
legislative days to pass a resolution
those executive orders deserve some
of disapproval to repeal the rule or
credit for the current strong economic
guidance. Wayne Crews (wayne.crews@cei.
growth. Reining in excessive guidance
Worse, certain rules and guidance org) is Vice President for Policy at CEI.
would be a solid next step.
have not been submitted to Congress Ryan Young (ryan.young@cei.org) is a
An executive order can set a
for years, and are technically illegal. Fellow at CEI. A version of this article
positive precedent that Congress can
The Executive Order should deem all was originally published in The Hill.
later expand upon and codify. Such

6 CEI.ORG COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE

 Science Shows It’s Not Really Green
to Ban Plastic Bags
BY ANGELA LOGOMASINI
A s if grocery shopping weren’t
enough of a hassle, it’s about to
become even more inconvenient in
New York—for no good reason.
State lawmakers may soon cave
to the anti-plastic craze by passing a
statewide plastic bag ban. In its zeal to
jump on the anti-plastic bandwagon,
the legislature would force consumers
to use alternatives that use up more
resources and have been shown to
endanger public health.
What will New Yorkers gain after
being forced to relinquish one of
the most useful inventions of modern
times? Alternatives include potentially
disease-ridden reusable bags or those
hard-to-carry, commuter-unfriendly
paper bags that fall apart in the rain
and use more energy in the production
process than their plastic counterparts.
First, consider the public health
profile of reusable cloth bags.
A study conducted by researchers at
the University of Arizona and California’s
Loma Linda University in 2010 measured
bacteria in a sample of reusable bags,
finding many containing dangerous ones,
such as coliform (found in half the bags)
and E. coli (found in 12 percent of bags).
Pathogens can develop from leaky
meat packages as well as unwashed
produce. And consumers reported that
they rarely wash the bags, according to
the study.
The consequences of such
contamination can be serious. After
San Francisco banned plastic bags in
2007, the number of emergency room
visits for bacterial related diseases
increased, according to a study
conducted five years later by legal
scholars at George Mason University
and the University of Pennsylvania. “ER
visits spiked when the ban went into
effect,” the study explained. “Relative
COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
to other counties, ER admissions
increases by at least one fourth, and
deaths exhibit a similar increase.”
While correlation doesn’t prove
causation, the jump in ER admissions
in San Francisco was high enough to
at least merit further examination by
legislators and public health authorities
in New York before they force reusable
bags on residents.
Reusable bags, moreover, require
far more energy and other resources
to make, and they may produce more
landfill waste. A 2011 study by the UK
government’s Environment Agency
found that cotton bags would have to
be used 131 times before they yield
environmental benefits.
As for paper bags, they do work in
many cases and break down easier if
they become litter, but they have their
tradeoffs, as well.
One study reports that plastic
bags require 71 percent less energy
to produce. Plastic bag production
also uses less than 6 percent of the
water needed to make paper bags. In
addition, paper bags generate nearly
five times the amount of solid waste.
Still, many people are rightly
concerned about plastics becoming
part of the ocean pollution problem.
But the answer to that real problem is
much simpler: Ensure that products are
disposed of properly so they never
enter waterways.
C E I . O R G 7
Although there is always room for
improvement, the U.S. does a pretty
good job at keeping plastics out of the
ocean. A 2017 study published in the
journal Environmental Sciences and
Technology reported that up to 95
percent of plastic waste enters oceans
from just 10 rivers worldwide.
Eight of the rivers are in Asia, and
two are in Africa. None are in the U.S.
A 2015 study in Science magazine
estimated that the U.S. contributes less
than 1 percent of the plastic litter in the
world’s oceans.
The plastic bag crusade is
part of a wider anti-plastics trend
sweeping the green left. But like
the equally misguided anti-straw
campaigners, the plastic-bag scolds
base their claims more on ideological
commitment than on good science.
They also give no consideration to
the needs of people, not least the
physically disabled, who are often
dependent on both products.
Let’s hope the New York legislature
doesn’t bend to unscientific hysteria,
because the resulting policies are bad
for people and the environment.
Angela Logomasini (angela.
logomasini@cei.org) is a Senior Fellow
at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
A version of this article was originally
published in The New York Post.
 Latest Bipartisan Carbon Tax Folly
BY MARLO LEWIS
O n November 27, Reps Ted
Deutch (D-Fla.), Francis Rooney
(R-Fla.), John K. Delaney (D-Md.),
Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Penn.), and Charlie
Crist (D-Fla.) introduced H.R. 7173,
the Energy Innovation and Carbon
Dividend Act. The bill would tax green-
house gas emissions and return the net
revenue in rebates to U.S. households.
The bill aims to reduce U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions by 40
percent in 12 years and 91 percent
by 2050, compared to 2015 levels.
This would be achieved by imposing
a tax of $15 per metric ton of carbon
dioxide-equivalent emissions in 2022
and increasing the tax by $10 every
year.
I am unaware of any technical
economic study at this time that
estimates the Deutch bill’s impacts on
U.S. firms, workers, and economic
growth, but the net economic harm
would be sizable. Few investors want
to park their capital in industries
Congress has targeted for extinction.
Consequently, many carbon-intensive
firms would go bankrupt long before
explicit carbon prices rendered them
unprofitable. The U.S. government
cannot pursue deep de-carbonization
in earnest, as this bill proposes to do,
without aborting the emerging era of
U.S. energy dominance.
Several of the bill’s features are
particularly troublesome. Unlike
other taxes enacted by Congress, the
8 CEI.ORG
carbon “fees” in H.R. 7173 increase on
autopilot from 2022 through 2050.
Instead of using carbon tax
revenues to cut taxes on capital or
labor, H.R. 7173 would distribute
the proceeds in pro-rata shares to
all citizens and legal residents. This
guarantees that the bill will have net
negative impacts on U.S. GDP.
Although the bill would preempt
the Environmental Protection Agency
from regulating greenhouse gas
emissions under several Clean Air
Act (CAA) provisions (sections 202,
211, 213, and 231, which deal with
automobiles, motor fuels, non-road
engines, and aircraft, respectively),
it does not preclude greenhouse gas
regulation under the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards program (CAA
sections 108-110), the stationary
source performance standards
program (CAA section 111), or the
international air pollution program
(section 115).
Notwithstanding the
aforementioned regulatory exemptions
for motor vehicles, non-road engines,
and aircraft, the bill authorizes the EPA
to limit greenhouse gas emissions from
those sources. It would also legalize
California’s purloined power to set
motor vehicle greenhouse gas emission
standards.
Nor is that all. The bill sets emission-
reduction targets for 2022-2050,
and if those goals are not met, H.R.
7173 requires the EPA “to issue such
regulations as the Administrator deems
necessary to bring greenhouse gas
COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
Few investors
want to park
their capital in
industries Congress
has targeted for
extinction.
emissions . . . to levels that are at or
below the emission reduction targets.”
In short, although dubbed a
“carbon fee,” the bill establishes de
facto carbon caps, which means that
any purported price predictability is an
illusion.
Finally, “Nothing in this legislation
shall preempt or supersede, or be
interpreted to preempt or supersede,
any State law or regulation.” That
means states like California and
regional compacts like the Northeast
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
are free to offset any regulatory
relief the bill might achieve in federal
environmental programs.
Marlo Lewis (marlo.lewis@cei.org) is
a Senior Fellow at CEI. A version of
this article was originally published at
OpenMarket.
 Cities Should Stop Slowing Down
America’s 5G Revolution
BY JESSICA MELUGIN
T he Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) recently
approved a proposal to speed up
deployment for the next generation of
wireless service, known as 5G. The plan
puts states and localities on a shot clock
for approving installments and caps fees
at rates that compensate them for their
troubles but don’t allow them to extract
a profit.
Less red tape will ensure that con-
sumers have access to America’s next
era of innovation, with virtual reality,
4K video, self-driving cars, remote
surgeries, and more.
The new wave of 5G devices
and applications will require a major
network upgrade. Increased data
demands a denser network infrastruc-
ture than currently exists. This means
more and smaller radio access nodes
located closer together, known as
small cells. Experts predict that install-
ing the hundreds of thousands of small
cells needed to support the 5G revolu-
tion will cost approximately $200
billion.
That capital investment is enormous
and there are still technical challenges
to overcome—such as eliminating
interference from trees, weather, and
man-made structures. But the FCC’s
plan solves one major roadblock:
excessive fees from local and state
governments looking to use the 5G
rollout as an ATM.
Some local and state officials have
wisely called on the FCC to streamline
the approval process for small cell
deployment. In a letter to the FCC, the
mayor of Sterling Heights, Michigan,
wrote, “there are significant, tangible
benefits to having a nation-wide rule
COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
Less red tape
will ensure
that consumers
have access to
America’s next era
of innovation.
that promotes the deployment of next
generation wireless access without
concern that excessive regulation or
small cell siting fees slows down the
process.”
But there are plenty of examples
of officials trying to game the system
to fill the public coffers. Crown Castle,
America’s largest provider of wireless
infrastructure, recently claimed that
Newport Beach, California, adopted
an annual charge of $10,800 per
small cell site. That price is completely
out of line with the rates of states who
have already acted to limit their fees
for wireless attachments: Florida and
Rhode Island at $150 per attachment
and Ohio at $200. Newport Beach
politicians seem to be acting in the
short-term interest of their city’s bank
account, not in the long-term interests
of their city’s residents.
The political impulse to prioritize
profits over progress is why the FCC
must intervene in order for the United
States to win the 5G race. The Wall
Street Journal quoted former FCC
Commissioner Rob McDowell, who
said that being slow to 5G puts, “the
U.S. at a competitive disadvantage
globally.” The article explains that if,
“the U.S. hadn’t led the way of 4G,
C E I . O R G 9
the country might not dominate mobile
technology, and its platforms, such as
Instagram, Snapchat, and perhaps
even Facebook and Netflix might not
have become global powers.”
FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr
hopes that his agency’s efforts to reduce
state and local obstacles will “reduce
the regulatory costs of small cell deploy-
ment by 80 percent, cut months off
deployment timelines, and incentivize
thousands of new wireless deploy-
ments.” The 5G speeds will be at least
10 times faster than the current 4G stan-
dard, and a report from the American
Consumer Institute found that consumer
benefit from 5G in the hundreds of bil-
lions of dollars. The stakes are too high
to let meddling local and state politi-
cians extract their pound of flesh.
The FCC’s plan will allow compa-
nies to complete deployment of this
new infrastructure quickly and effi-
ciently. The least government can do is
get out of the way.
Jessica Melugin (jessica.melugin@cei.
org) is Associate Director of CEI’s Center
for Technology and Innovation. A version
of this article was originally published at
Inside Sources.
 Walking off the Job at Taxpayer Expense
BY TREY KOVACS
S ome teachers in Oklahoma got
paid by taxpayers to walk off their
jobs in April, newly released informa-
tion reveals.
Thousands of teachers walked out
of Oklahoma classrooms and flooded
the state capitol to demand higher
salaries and increased education
funding. As a result of the two-week
walkout, around 200 school districts
were forced to close, according to The
Oklahoman.
Prior to the teacher strike, lawmak-
ers passed legislation that provided
teachers with an average $6,100
raise, the largest in Oklahoma history.
In addition to pay raises, the teachers’
unions released a list of demands to
end the strike. At the top of the list was
increased education funding. On April
6, the legislature passed measures to
increase education funding by $40
million. Ultimately, union leaders ended
the strike when further legislative action
looked unlikely, instead redirecting
union focus to the upcoming election.
Media reports on the strike noted
sacrifices some teachers made for
the walkout. In the school districts that
remained open, teachers used their
“sick days or personal days to par-
ticipate in the walkout, and others are
paying substitute teachers from their
own pockets.”
Now it turns out taxpayers made
the sacrifice in many instances. There
is a little-known provision in most col-
lective bargaining agreements called
union leave or release time, which
allows public employees to conduct
union business instead of teaching
while still being paid by taxpayers. But
neither the amount of union leave used
nor its costs are usually made known to
the public. None of the activity serves
a public purpose. Instead, it exclusively
benefits government unions.
10 CEI.ORG
Oklahoma collective bargaining
agreements between government
employers and public employee
unions also include union leave
arrangements. The Competitive
Enterprise Institute submitted a public
records request to Oklahoma City
Public Schools asking for union leave
records. Below is the response in its
entirety:
• On the advice of the General
Counsel, under the Open Records
Act you are only entitled to receive
a summary report of the total
amount of leave taken by each
union’s members. Names or sala-
ries will not be provided since those
are considered personnel records.
Below you will find the total number
of hours of union leave reported for
the last school year.
• American Federation of Teachers
(certified)—20,116 hours (attributed
heavily to the teacher walkout in the
spring)
• American Federation of Teachers
(classified)—50 hours
COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
• American Federation of School
Administrators—40 hours
Due to the limited response, it is
impossible to calculate the cost of
union leave taken by Oklahoma City
teachers to go on strike, but likely it
was not cheap.
In the new legislative session,
lawmakers should consider eliminat-
ing union leave altogether. While the
cost of the union subsidy is unknown in
Oklahoma, an inspection of Oklahoma
collective bargaining agreements show
it is a fairly common practice.
Ultimately, public sector unions
should put their money where their
mouth is. If teachers’ unions are
concerned with a lack of education
funding, they should not bargain for
provisions that take teachers out of the
classroom to perform union business
and waste taxpayer funds.
Trey Kovacs (trey.kovacs@cei.org) is
a Policy Analyst at CEI. A version of
this article was originally published at
NewsOK.
 Will New Congress Seek Reforms to
Highway Funding?
Ranking Member Sam Graves (R-Mo.), Senators have been quieter on the
BY MARC SCRIBNER who is currently the outgoing chair- MBUF front, but given the existing sup-
man of its Highways and Transit port among transportation leaders in the

W ith a divided Congress and with

the current surface transportation
law expiring at the end of September
Subcommittee, signaled his support for
MBUFs over gas tax increases in an
op-ed earlier this year.
House, the new Congress appears well
positioned to address the ailing Highway
Trust Fund. This may turn out to be the
2020, shoring up the Highway Trust DeFazio himself, while a vocal bipartisan “infrastructure plan” that has
Fund with user fee alternatives to fuel proponent of increasing the gas tax, been eluding Washington for the past
taxes could be a bipartisan affair. has also shown interest in MBUFs. Last two years. We hope incoming congres-
Could the 116th Congress be the perfect year, he praised Oregon’s road usage sional leadership sees it that way.
storm for mileage-based user fees? charge pilot program. This puts him in
In the House, likely incoming roughly the same boat with the White
Transportation and Infrastructure House. The February 2018 Economic Marc Scribner (marc.scribner@cei.org)
Committee Chairman Peter DeFazio Report of the President touted the bene- is a Senior Fellow at CEI. A version of
(D-Ore.) would be wise to seek fits of MBUFs and highlighted Oregon’s this article was originally published in
broad support for reforming the ailing ongoing experiment. OpenMarket.
Highway Trust Fund. Federal fuel tax
rates were last raised in 1993 and
provide the vast majority of revenue for
the Highway Trust Fund. Unfortunately,
since 2008, Congress has outspent
what it has collected, leading to
approximately $140 billion in general
fund bailouts over the last decade.
Making matters more challenging,
Dinner Is Coming
rising fuel economy and increasing pen-
etration of electric vehicles will make the
already regressive fuel taxes even more
regressive, disproportionately hurting
the poor in rural and exurban communi-
ties. Charging road users directly for
their road use, rather than using a proxy
such as fuel or tire taxes, is the best way
to restore the users-pay/users-benefit
principle to its rightful place at the
center of surface transportation policy.
Rep. DeFazio’s home state is a
pioneer in mileage-based user fees
(MBUFs), having launched the first
statewide pilot in 2015. His Oregon col-
league Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.)
has long been an MBUF champion.
Even better, this concept enjoys bipar-
tisan support. Outgoing Transportation
SAVE THE DATE
and Infrastructure Committee Chairman CEI's 35th Anniversary Dinner and Reception
Bill Shuster (R-Penn.) floated a legisla-
June 20, 2019
tive proposal last summer that would DINNER.CEI.ORG
have studied replacing fuel taxes with
MBUFs. Possible incoming committee

COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE C E I . O R G 11

 CEI EVENTS AND PUBLIC APPEARANCES

Wayne Crews Discusses CEI Experts Present New Agenda for Congress on Capitol Hill
Regulatory Reform at New On February 4, CEI hosted a luncheon briefing on Capitol Hill for congressional
York Luncheon staffers to announce the release of Free to Prosper: A Pro-Growth Agenda for
On December the 116th Congress. Ben Lieberman, Richard Morrison, Iain Murray, Daniel
6, CEI Vice Press, and Marc Scribner discussed the pro-growth impacts of removing tariffs
President for and de-scheduling cannabis and shared key strategies for regulatory reform
Policy Wayne in finance, environmental, and transportation policy. CEI Government Affairs
Crews spoke at a Manager Canyon Brimhall moderated the panel.
policy luncheon
hosted by CEI
at the 21 Club
in New York
City. A longtime
deregulatory
expert, Crews
discussed the status of the Trump
administration’s two-for-one regulatory
rollback program, efforts to tame
“regulatory dark matter,” and prospects
for reform going forward.

Marlo Lewis Debates Carbon
Tax Proposals on AEI Panel
On November
14, CEI Senior
Fellow Marlo
Lewis participated
on the panel
discussion, “How
Strong is the
Conservative
Case for a
Carbon Tax?”
hosted by
the American
Enterprise Institute (AEI). The panelists
debated the question: Would a tax on
greenhouse gas emissions, whether
imposed by the U.S. alone or by
international agreement, advance
both environmental improvement and
economic growth? Joining Lewis on
the panel were AEI Resident Scholar
Benjamin Zycher, Hudson Institute Senior
Fellow Irwin Stelzer, American Action
Forum President Douglas Holtz-Eakin,
and AES Corporation Cofounder and
Chairman Emeritus Roger Sant.
Left to right: Iain Murray, Marc Scribner, Ben Lieberman, Canyon Brimhall,
Daniel Press, and Richard Morrison
Robert J. Smith Discusses Federal Land Management on
Heritage Foundation Panel
Also on November 14, CEI Distinguished Fellow
Robert J. Smith participated in the panel, “How
We Pay for Federal Lands and Innovative Funding
Solutions,” hosted by the Heritage Foundation, as
part of the half-day conference, “Challenges and
Solutions to Improve Federal Lands Management.”
Joining Smith on the panel were Heritage Foundation
Policy Analyst Katie Tubb and Property and
Environment Research Center (PERC) Research
Fellows Holly Fretwell and Tate Watkins. PERC Policy
and Partnerships Coordinator Hannah Downey
moderated the panel.
Michelle Minton Discusses the Future of Beer in America
On February 15 at Atlas Brew Works in Washington,
D.C., the Federalist Society and the Pacific Legal
Foundation hosted a screening of the documentary,
American Craft: What Beer Can Teach Us about
Well-Crafted Laws. The screening was followed by a
discussion on the benefits of well-crafted beer laws
and the future of the beer market. The panel included
the film’s director, Matt Wood; Atlas Brew Works
founder Justin Cox; Matt Kibbe of Free the People;
and CEI’s Michelle Minton.

12 CEI.ORG COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE

 CEI Summit 2019
Savannah, Georgia

F rom February 21 to 24, CEI hosted its third annual summit

at the brand-new Perry Lane Hotel in Savannah’s historic
district. Guests enjoyed thought-provoking presentations and
engaging conversations with CEI experts and other prominent
free-market scholars.
CEI’s Wayne Crews, Sam Kazman, Marlo Lewis, Jessica
Melugin, Michelle Minton, Iain Murray, Daniel Press, Ryan Radia,
and Marc Scribner delivered in-depth seminars on antitrust,
regulatory dark matter, FinTech, technology policy, energy
mandates, the lingering effects of Prohibition, and the road ahead
for transportation policy.
Guest speakers included former risk manager and
Bloomberg contributor Aaron Brown, on cryptocurrency;
Reason Foundation Director of Transportation Policy Robert
Poole, on his new book, Rethinking America’s Highways;
economics columnist John Tamny, on the legacy of Warren
Brookes’s The Economy in Mind; and American Enterprise
Institute Senior Fellow and Arthur F. Burns Fellow in Financial
Policy Studies Peter Wallison, on in his new book, Judicial
Fortitude.
Attendees also got the opportunity to enjoy Savannah’s
many attractions, including the Benedetto Guitars factory,
maker of the famed archtop guitar; the Service Brewing Co.;
local culinary institution the Garibaldi; and the final resting
place of local legends, Bonaventure Cemetery. (Photos by
Amber France)

Google Public Policy Manager Max Left to right: Wayne Crews, Iain Murray (left) and Daniel Press
Pappas (left) and Service Brewing Peter Wallison, and Kent Lassman
Co. CEO and co-founder Kevin Ryan

Sam Kazman Aaron Brown Left to right: Iain Murray, Ryan Radia, Jessica Melugin, and Wayne Crews

Marlo Lewis Michelle Minton Marc Scribner (left) and Robert Poole

COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE C E I . O R G 13

 THE
GOOD
The Good: Supreme Court
Agrees to Hear Challenge
to Auer Deference
On December 10, the U.S. Supreme
Court agreed to consider overturning
a precedent that has given enormous
unilateral power to federal regulators,
in a case called Kisor v. Wilkie. Under
the legal doctrine known as Auer (or
Seminole Rock) deference, courts
are required to defer to regulatory
agencies’ interpretation of the rules the
agencies themselves issue.
“Auer deference encourages
agencies to write vague regulations
so that they can make substantive
decisions as to what the regulations
mean long after the regulations are
issued,” said CEI Attorney Devin
Watkins. “It is wonderful news for the
rule of law that the Supreme Court
is reconsidering the destructive Auer
deference doctrine. Hopefully this
is also the first step to reconsidering
Chevron deference, where agencies
are given deference as to what statutes
mean. Chevron allows agencies to
expand the scope of their own power
by reinterpreting what Congress wrote
as the Court held in City of Arlington v.
FCC (2013).”
14 CEI.ORG
THE
BAD
The Bad: SEC Threatens to
Impose Burdensome Rules
on Cryptocurrency
Cryptocurrency, and its supporting
infrastructure known as the blockchain,
promise transformative innovations
that could revolutionize everything
from payments to property registry.
Unfortunately, the Securities and
Exchange Commission is moving
toward regulating cryptocurrencies as
“securities,” an action that would could
bring said innovation to a screeching
halt.
“Deeming cryptocurrency as a
‘security’ would be disastrous, because
the same red tape—both from SEC
regulations and from Sarbanes-
Oxley and Dodd-Frank—could put
cryptocurrency out of reach of middle-
class investors just as it has stock
in early stage growth companies,”
said CEI Senior Fellow John Berlau.
“For cryptocurrency and other new
technologies to flourish, consumers,
investors and entrepreneurs must be
protected from the overreach of the
SEC.”
COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
THE
UGLY
The Ugly: FDA Tries to
Curb E-Cigarette Sales
On November 15, the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) announced
stringent new limits on the sale of
electronic cigarettes, supposedly to
restrict teenagers’ access to vaping
products, which regulators claim
can lead to smoking tobacco later.
Yet, whatever the FDA’s intentions,
its rules also restrict adults’ access
to e-cigarettes, making it harder
for smokers trying to quit to access
alternatives to combustible cigarettes.
And it won’t discourage teen use
of nicotine, but rather encourage
more dangerous means of nicotine
consumption.
“In addition to making it harder for
adults to switch to e-cigarettes, which
the FDA admits are far safer than
smoking, the restrictions will have other
unintended consequences,” said CEI
Senior Fellow Michelle Minton. “Rather
than keeping adolescents away from
nicotine, the FDA’s new rules will
likely push adolescents to acquire
e-cigarettes through illicit channels or
simply use combustible cigarettes.”
 MediaMENTIONS
Senior Fellow Michelle Minton
pushes back against proposals
for a new federal online
gambling ban.
Michelle Minton, a senior fellow
at the Competitive Enterprise Institute,
said the move would just force
gamblers to go to illegal sites with
fewer scruples.
“Prohibition has never worked,”
Minton said. “It just turns law-abiding
citizens into lawbreakers and reduces
the level of trust in government.”
Minton said the new legal opinion
is likely to create further confusion,
and may dissuade states from
authorizing new internet gambling
operations. It is likely to lead to [a]
spate of legal challenges over online
betting in various state, she added.
“They may choose to not
prosecute, knowing it will never hold
up in a court of law, and as a result
the uncertainty in the law would
persist,” she said. “My bet is that there
won’t be prosecutions.”
–January 19,
Daily Mail
An Investor’s Business Daily
editorial featured Wayne
Crews’s year-end assessment of
President Trump’s deregulatory
progress.
The Competitive Enterprise
Institute has just released its year-end
reckoning of Trump’s deregulatory
moves for this year. As they note, it’s
both good and bad. As they describe
the president’s 2018 record, it was
“Better than Obama, Bush II, and
Clinton in terms of fewer regulations;
but not as good as Trump’s own first
year.”
–December 31,
Investor’s Business Daily
COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
John Stossel, in his nationally
syndicated column, cites Michelle
Minton’s work opposing
government threats against
a product that offers a lower
risk alternative to smokers:
e-cigarettes.
Compared to regular cigarettes,
e-cigarettes are “extraordinarily less
harmful,” says Michelle Minton of
the Competitive Enterprise Institute. In
my new newest video she says, “We
should really be encouraging people
to use vaping.”
–November 28,
Foxnews.com
A Wall Street Journal editorial
trumpeted Chris Horner’s work
exposing private donors’ funding
of climate activism by state
attorneys general.
With the courts and Trump
administration rolling back federal
climate regulation, green activists
have turned to the states. But there’s
a troubling ethical twist: Instead of
merely lobbying, activists are placing
employees in attorneys general
offices in dubious private-public
condominiums.
–November 6
The Wall Street Journal
CEI’s Agenda for the 116th
Congress garnered a write-up
in Jennifer Harper’s Washington
Times column.
The advice from the nonprofit public
policy organization is straightforward.
Reduce the clutter of federal
regulations that stifle American lives
and livelihoods, and prosperity will
follow.
–January 8,
The Washington Times
C E I . O R G 15
As CEI’s Marc
Scribner points
out, self-driving
vehicles could mean
tremendous gains
for personal and
commercial mobility,
but Congress
must act to create a regulatory
framework for allowing the new
technology to flourish.
Lawmakers and American car
manufacturers are mounting a last-ditch
effort to move legislation setting up an
initial regulatory framework for self-
driving vehicles to President Trump before
the end of the year. “If they can’t get it
done under favorable conditions in this
Congress, I suspect you are going to see
a lot of developers looking abroad to
make these critical investments,” Marc
Scribner, senior fellow at the Competitive
Enterprise Institute, said in a recent
interview. “It signals to the industry that
Congress can’t be serious about this.”
–November 17
The Washington Examiner
CEI’s Angela Logomasini highlights
the burden that Hoboken’s ban
on plastic bags will place on
businesses and consumers, for
little environmental gain.
This week, stores across Hoboken
will become BYOB: bring your own
bag. On Tuesday the city’s plastic bag
ban goes into effect, making Hoboken
the largest city in the state to say “no
thanks” to single-use plastic bags
that contribute to a global scourge of
waste. The bans are less popular with
Angela Logomasini, a senior fellow
at libertarian think tank Competitive
Enterprise Institute. Creating reusable
bags comes with its own environmental
costs and, if shoppers don’t wash
them, there are potential health risks,
Logomasini told The Jersey Journal.
–January 21,
NJ.com

1310 L Street NW, 7th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
...END NOTES
Copyright of Laws?
When the nonprofit Public.Resource.org tried to publish the
Peach State’s legal code to make it more accessible to the
public, the state sued its founder, Carl Malamud, for copy-
right infringement. The state’s suit largely rested on the fact
that the official version of the state code is annotated by the
private legal information company LexisNexis, which trans-
fers its copyright on the annotations to the state. In October,
the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Malamud, but
since then, state officials have resorted to blocking his efforts
to purchase a copy of the code—despite the unambiguous
language of the court’s ruling: “The resulting work is intrinsi-
cally public domain material, belonging to the People, and,
as such, must be free for publication by all.”
An Expensive Game of Parking Musical Chairs
Street parking is notoriously difficult to come by in New York,
so it’s no surprise the city enforces parking regulations rather
strictly. However, as NY1 reports, one Queens resident’s car
was recently towed after she parked in a legal space. The
problem? The city changed the parking spot’s status unex-
pectedly and then punished her for it. Nicole LaVeglia says
she parked her car at an intersection in Queens’ Maspeth
neighborhood on January 2, just after 7 AM. About 45
minutes later, a worker from the city’s transportation depart-
ment arrived to drill a hole in the sidewalk to install … a new
“no parking” sign. Then a police tow truck hauled away
LaVeglia’s car. LaVeglia, who was alerted to the incident
by a neighbor, was issued a $185 fine, which she says she
plans to fight.
16 CEI.ORG
Nonprofit Org.
U.S. Postage
PAID
Permit 425
Southern MD
Food Options so Popular They Need to be
Mandated
A Los Angeles city council member is so convinced of the
benefits of a vegan diet that he, quite literally, believes
there ought to be a law mandating its availability—and not
just because of health benefits. In December, Councilman
Paul Koretz introduced a proposal for all concessions, at
both city-operated facilities and privately operated movie
theaters and venues, to offer at least one vegan protein
option. Koretz cited several studies that suggest a link
between the dairy industry and the environment, reported
CBS Los Angeles. “Vegan eating is booming, but good laws
like this do not come soon enough,” said Ben Williamson,
senior international media director for People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals (PETA). There was no word from Koretz
or PETA on what to do about the mountains of food waste
resulting from unsold tofu corn dogs.
Vermont Man Gives New Twist to Art in Public Places.
Obtaining a building permit can cause frustrating delays,
but 10 years? That’s how long one Vermont resident says
he’s been fighting local authorities to build a garage on his
property. Ted Pelkey, of Westford, Vermont, says he got so
fed up that he decided to give the town’s planners a piece of
his mind—in the form of a sculpture of a giant raised middle
finger. Pelkey says the offending gesture is meant only for
local bureaucrats. “It was critical to me to make sure that my
neighbors and the people who live in this town understood
that I didn’t put that up there for them,” Pelkey said. “It is aimed
directly at the people who sit in our town office”—except for
the town clerk, whom Pelkey described as “a great person.”
COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE