Conservative State Senator Proposes CRAP Act, a Transgender Bathroom Ban

In a move that is sure to spark controversy, the Arkansas State Senate just introduced new legislation to outlaw transgender bathrooms in all publicly-owned and privately-owned buildings.*

The Arkansas bill  entitled “The Conserving Real Arkansas Purity Act” or CRAP, and it goes far beyond the infamous HB2 bill in North Carolina that drew a firestorm of criticism in 2016. The North Carolina law had the effect of overturning local city ordinances that required transgender bathroom policies in public buildings and private businesses. However, it did not require private businesses to adopt any particular policy on bathrooms. Under the North Carolina law, private businesses were free to allow people to use bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity or implement rules based on biological sex.

By contrast, the CRAP bill takes it one step further. It not only prevents localities from mandating a transgender bathroom policy, it actually creates its own mandate that all establishments provide “biologically-defined restroom facilities”.

GOP State Senator Chris Tomlinson introduced CRAP to “conserve traditional values”. Senator Tomlinson said he was inspired to take action after discovering, much to his shock, that the single bathroom in his townhouse was effectively a transgender-friendly bathroom. Of course, this would be true of most bathrooms in private residences–since usually these bathrooms are unisex instead of being segregated by sex as they often are at buildings open to the public.

“I was horrified,” Senator Tomlinson told the The Daily Face Palm. “I had been defecating in sin all these years and never even realized it. Something had to be done.”

The “something” ended up being the ambitious new CRAP proposal, which would have the result of outlawing unisex bathrooms and forcing private property owners to provide “adequate facilities” in the words of the bill.

Not everyone is happy about the new proposal. In addition to individual property owners who will bear additional cost, many conservatives and libertarians have charged that Senator Tomlinson is straying from the limited government principles he claims to defend.

Senator Tomlinson forcefully rejected this criticism. “Obviously, any limited constitutional government should have the ability to assess your genitalia and make policy around it. That is a given. Haven’t you been through an airport recently? The same principle is at work in the security checkpoint.”

Another criticism of the CRAP bill comes from those who suggest that transgender individuals might be in a better position to assess their gender identity than random bureaucrats who have never met them. However, Senator Tomlinson had an answer for this as well, noting “there is zero scientific evidence for the claim that there are more than two genders.”

As part of our questioning, The Daily Face Palm politely pointed out to the senator that he has steadfastly rejected current scientific evidence on other policy areas, such as the relative potency and danger of marijuana compared to alcohol and prescription drugs.

In response, Senator Tomlinson clarified that he only cites scientific research when it supports his preconceived position. He also noted this rhetorical strategy has “widespread bipartisan support”.

*The CRAP bill, Senator Tomlinson, and all quotes presented above are fictional in nature. Any similarities between the arguments presented above and the positions expounded by actual politicians or trolls on your social media feed, are entirely coincidental.

Why Almost Everything Matters More Than the Russia Allegations

We are nearly two months into the Trump Administration, and allegations about Russia are still dominating the headlines. Unless you happen to be a fan of Trump’s agenda, this is a problem.

In fact, nearly everything about the Trump Administration warrants more concern and attention than the Russia scandal. There are a couple key reasons for this. Let’s go through them.

Still Unproven

First off, it’s not actually proven that the Russian government was responsible for leaking the DNC or Podesta emails. The US government has asserted that Russia was behind these breaches, but the publicly released evidence has failed to substantiate this. This reality was even acknowledged, if quietly, by The New York Times in its own coverage of the recent 25-page assessment released in early January 2017, saying “the declassified report contained no information about how the agencies had collected their data or had come to their conclusions.”

This doesn’t necessarily mean that Russia wasn’t involved. It simply means it hasn’t been proven, and there is still plenty of room for reasonable doubt.

The same thing can be said for the claims about the Trump Administration’s ties to Russia. There have been many assertions, but little in the way of substantive evidence.

For the present discussion, it doesn’t matter whether one believes these various allegations are true or not. But, politically, it matters immensely that they have not been proven.

This is because the main political end to be achieved by promoting the Russia allegations is the eventual impeachment of President Trump.

It should be easy to see why Trump’s opponents would desire this outcome. But it should be equally clear that the Russia story cannot possibly provide the ammunition needed as long as the underlying accusations remain unproven. Republicans hold a substantial majority in the House. They are going to need something concrete to cross a president who remains popular with many of their voters.

Unless and until that proof is offered, each new Russia headline accomplishes very little for Trump’s opponents.

Motive Matters Less Than You Think

The allegation that Russia hacked the Democrats is obviously a major issue on its own terms. If true, it would mark a further deterioration in the US-Russia relationship and the US response would likely bring the two nations to the brink of war, or worse.

But recently, most of the Russian stories have shifted focus from hacking to the alleged ties between Trump Administration officials and Russia. The purpose of these stories is to suggest that the Trump Administration has been secretly in league with the Russians all along, and show that Trump really is “Putin’s puppet,” just like Secretary Clinton said.

In other words, these stories are ultimately about motive. They are implying that Trump will put Russia’s interest ahead of America’s.

For the sake of argument, let’s suppose that President Trump really is trying to implement policies to fulfill Russia’s interests. Even if we assume this to be true, we still have to judge the policies on their own merits.

Imagine that Trump’s Russia affinity will lead him to negotiate further reductions of the US and Russian nuclear weapons arsenals. This is in Russia’s interest because they lack the ability and desire to engage in an arms race with a much wealthier adversary in the US. However, it also happens to be in America’s (and humanity’s) interest. Even if Trump embarked on such a policy solely to please Vladimir Putin, it would still be worth supporting.

Conversely, suppose that Trump wants to outright ally with Russia to conduct a joint invasion and occupation of Iraq and Syria and crush the remaining insurgencies. Russia might consider this to be in their interest since they have already been heavily involved fighting the radical-dominated insurgency in Syria. However, it would clearly not be in the US’s interest. Occupation has been part of our strategy for much of the 15-year-long War on Terror. It ends a lot of lives, but it doesn’t end terrorism. Such a policy should be opposed. And importantly, it should be opposed regardless of the motive behind it–whether it’s serving Putin or fighting evil or raising domestic approval ratings by escalating a war.

In both of the above cases, the motive is irrelevant. You might have a different opinion on each of the policies described. You might also want to hear more pros and cons about why each is a good or bad idea. But you don’t need to know the underlying motive in order to take a position.

It’s actually a relief that motive does not matter. Because in the real world, it’s very difficult to know what a politician’s motivation actually is. You’ll know what their stated motivation is, but of course, politicians are not well-known for honesty. Moreover, sometimes politicians might have genuinely good intentions and support harmful legislation out of ignorance. All these reasons make motive useless for judging individual policies.

Motive is only helpful for predicting a politician’s future decisions. In the present, it tells us virtually nothing at all about the policies being proposed and implemented.

In this light, Trump’s alleged loyalty to Russia is irrelevant. When Trump does propose policies relevant to Russia, they will have to be judged on their own merits. The motivation behind them will not matter. Similarly, if Trump has his attention focused on other issues besides Russia, his alleged loyalties still do not matter.

Squandering Outrage

All of which brings us to the real problem. There is a finite amount of attention and outrage that Americans have to spend on political controversies. Time and concern allocated to Russia is time not allocated to the other troubling things on Trump’s agenda.

The result is that the Russia stories, in many respects, actually serve as a useful distraction for the Trump Administration.

Take the recent controversy over Attorney General Jeff Sessions as an example. The main allegation against Sessions is that he met with a Russian Ambassador (in his capacity as a Senator) but failed to inform the Senate about it during his confirmation hearings. The controversy largely comes down to a matter of semantics–Sessions was asked a narrow question and gave a narrow response. It could be argued that he should have volunteered more information, but it is definitely not a slam dunk case.

So that’s the Russia angle on Sessions. But meanwhile, Sessions also has many more unsavory features, such as his hard-line position against marijuana. Recently, the White House announced that it may start enforcing marijuana prohibition even in states that have legalized it. This would be a very harmful policy–and one that is ripe for opposition from many different groups.

But instead of focusing on this real and terrible policy suggestion of the Trump Administration, the focus goes to Russia. As journalist Michael Tracey correctly observes, the result is that a “Trump official’s least egregious quality ends up being portrayed as his most egregious quality.” (Emphasis in original.)

So far, this pattern has played out for Michael Flynn and Jeff Sessions. In a broader sense, it’s also mostly true about the Trump Administration. Many legitimately worrying policy ideas from escalating drone strikes to sending more troops to Syria, all get downplayed because Russia takes priority.

This works out reasonably well for Trump. He can easily anticipate most of the criticism he’ll receive, and he has a mostly free hand to do what he wants so long as it doesn’t relate to Russia.

But for the rest of us, who would prefer to see much of Trump’s agenda stopped dead in its tracks, this is a bad outcome.

Conclusion 

There are many compelling reasons to be concerned about President Trump. We need to prioritize.

Currently, Russia allegations are still dominating the news. But focusing on unproven accusations of Russian involvement serves no useful purpose. It’s not going to convince a Republican Congress to impeach their own president. And it’s not even relevant to assessing the policies Trump proposes.

It just serves as a distraction.

Instead of concentrating on what harm Trump might cause in the future as “Putin’s puppet,” let’s focus on the harm he’s already causing as America’s president.

GOP Proposes Legislation to Repeal and Replace the Name of ObamaCare

Republicans are keeping their promise on healthcare. This week, leading GOP legislators proudly announced a new bill that will completely repeal and replace the name of ObamaCare.*

Why Education Is Not a Public Good

Today, government provides many goods and services that used to be addressed by private means. Public education is one of the most salient examples.

Government stepped into education with the best of intentions. Yet it goes without saying that many people remain dissatisfied with the current outcome. Polls have shown a steady decline of confidence in public schools over time, and it is frequently one of the key issues in US politics. Because the government has been involved for so long, people naturally look to government for the solution.

If you suggest that the private sector could offer a better remedy, you will quickly encounter all sorts of conventional reasons why the market is ill-suited to the task. You might hear that the market is only good at producing a commodity and cannot provide the customization needed in education. Or perhaps you will hear that the market is incapable of providing the level of quality required. Moreover, since there’s no profit to be made in serving the poor, the market won’t work for them. And so on.

These types of objections have two important characteristics in common. First, they all sound like plausible economic arguments for government to intervene. And second, they have nothing to do with economics.

In economics, the question of government intervention is much more narrow. It does not matter whether the product involved is a good or a service, whether it is standardized or customized, or whether it is essential or frivolous. The main thing that matters is whether the good or service involved is a “public good”. If it is a public good, government intervention of some form may be necessary. If it’s not a public good, we would expect the private market to work just fine.

So the question then becomes, what is a public good?

Public goods are defined by two characteristics: they are nonrival and nonexcludable.

Nonrival means that my enjoyment of something does not interfere with your enjoyment of that thing. For example, clean air would be nonrival in consumption. You and I could both live in a city with clean air and enjoy the benefits of breathing clean air at the same time. By contrast, almond milk would be rival in consumption. If you drink a glass of almond milk, I cannot drink that same glass of almond milk.

Nonexcludable means it is difficult or impossible to exclude people from enjoying a given benefit. For most things, it is easy to exclude people. If you don’t pay for an orange at the grocery store, you don’t get to eat the orange. But if it were, say, a fireworks show, it would be hard to exclude people from enjoying it. If they looked up at the sky without paying, then we’d have what’s referred to as “the free-rider problem”.

These criteria explain why national defense is considered a public good. To see why, it’s helpful to set any foreign policy objections aside and keep things theoretical here.

If the military exists and makes us safe from external aggression, we would all benefit from this security. One person benefiting from security doesn’t reduce the security enjoyed by others; thus, it is nonrival. And since everyone in the borders would get the benefit by default, it’s also nonexcludable with respect to everyone that lives here. Thus, national defense is a classic public good. Provided they aren’t anarchists, most economists would say government has some role to play in providing a military and national defense. The nonrival and nonexcludable nature of national defense would make it more difficult for a private market solution to work.

However, when we try to apply these same public goods criteria to education, we arrive at a different answer. Education is rival in consumption–because one can only have so many students in a classroom before the learning experience deteriorates. Education is also excludable; people that don’t pay could be blocked from attending class, getting their transcripts, etc. until they do pay.

From the above, we would not consider education to be a public good. And thus, we would generally assume the market would be able to provide this service effectively.

The way people get around this conclusion is by claiming that we all benefit from living in an educated society. And since this benefit is both nonrival and nonexcludable, suddenly, education becomes a public good. Government should do it after all!

This kind of argument may sound plausible at first. But we should be skeptical because it can be applied to almost anything. For example:

“We all benefit from living in a society with fast computers.”
“We all benefit from living in a society that has diverse, quality music.”

Both of the above may be true, but it does not follow that I want the government engaged in producing laptops or EDM.

So it is with education. Education is ultimately a private good, and the private sector, for-profit and not-, is likely to excel at providing it.

Man Fears ‘Unsustainable’ Trade Deficit with Local Supermarket

While checking his finances this month, Wade Thomas was shocked to discover he has a $250 monthly trade deficit with his local supermarket. "I have no idea how it got that big," Mr. Thomas explained.*

A Bad Argument Against Food Stamps

There are good reasons to criticize the US food stamps program. The fact that some poor people might use food stamps to buy “junk food” is not one of them.

I make this point in response to a new article by Chris Edwards at the Cato Institute. In the article, Edwards cites a recent study by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) which analyzed the purchasing habits of some food stamp recipients. Among other things, the study showed that 22.6% of the food stamp purchases were of junk food. Edwards then extrapolates this figure to the broader food stamps program and estimates that some $15 billion a year in taxpayer money is spent on junk food through the food stamps program.

On a technical level, there appears to be nothing wrong with Edwards’s estimate here. The categories he used in his definition of junk food appear reasonable, and he was also careful to note that the USDA study’s may not be representative of the whole program since it didn’t rely on a random sample.

The issue lies in the solution this observation suggests–namely, narrowing the types of foods that can be purchased with food stamps.

There are several drawbacks to this proposal. Let’s go through them.

Reducing Choice Reduces Value to Recipients

The first problem is that it would reduce the value of the benefits received. One of the most important insights from economics is that value is subjective–that is, the value I place on oranges and almond milk might be different than the value you place on each of those things. From this, it follows that individuals are in the best position to decide for themselves what they want and need at any given time.

If health isn’t the top priority for them, they might not make healthy decisions. But they will make decisions that they believe will make them content.

If we place restrictions on an individual’s choices, they will likely be worse off than before. We might have restricted the very thing they wanted most, which means they will then be left with a second-best alternative.

This is why many economists believe giving money confers a greater benefit to the recipient than giving in-kind benefits (for example, giving someone food or clothing). If a person has money, they can acquire the thing they want most. That might be clothing, but it might also be something else.

This analysis gets slightly more complicated with food stamps because it’s not regular money, but it’s also not particular foods. It’s somewhere in between. It’s effectively a gift card that can only be used for food, and only at stores that accept it. Food stamp beneficiaries cannot use food stamps to buy alcohol, pet food, or certain other items, but they have considerable flexibility otherwise. From an economics perspective, this makes food stamps less valuable than money (because they’re still confined to food) but more valuable than if the government was just delivering a box of pre-determined food each month.

If government came in and decided to further restrict the types of foods that can be purchased, this would reduce the economic value that food stamps provide to recipients. This would make the recipients worse off because they would have to substitute foods they like less for foods they preferred.

Creeping Paternalism

Another downside of more food stamp restrictions is that it requires an unsettling expansion in paternalism by the federal government. Yes, we can all probably agree that eating more fruits and vegetables is better for us than eating a steady diet of soda and Oreos. But do we really want the government setting policy to nudge or force people to eat healthy food?

In this case, of course, it would only apply to a subset of the population (low-income folks), and it would only apply to a subset of their food choices (those paid with food stamps). But it also gets the government more involved in making these determinations. If conservatives go along with a junk food ban on food stamps, it will make it harder for them to take a stand against other related legislation on nutrition, be it a nationwide soda tax or something else. Needless to say, this would not be a positive development.

Confusing the Issue

From a libertarian perspective, the essential problem with the food stamps program is that it requires the redistribution of wealth through taxation. The harm involved here is caused by taxation. How the government happens to spend or give away the money after it takes it might be more or less appalling, but it’s not the key issue.

In the case at hand, there is not a compelling, self-interested reason for a taxpayer to care if the $67B food stamp program was used for soda or fruit; they’re not getting the money back either way.

Edwards suggests that eliminating the ability to purchase junk food on food stamps might reduce demand for food stamps and thereby reduce taxpayer expenditures. While this argument is plausible, it seems unlikely. Implicitly, it assumes that some people are using food stamps to supplement a sweet tooth and would simply not use all of their benefits if junk food was eliminated. That is, poor people would be offered free food and turn it down because it didn’t fit their preferences.

Given that the food stamps program is not terribly lucrative to begin with and is only available to low-income people, this response would be strange. Substituting other foods to still fully utilize their benefit would be a more rational and likely behavior.

Summing Up

Ultimately, eliminating food stamps isn’t a top priority for libertarians, and that’s as it should be. At $67B per year, it amounts to just over 1/10 of what the US spends on the military and war. And unlike spending on war, the worst thing the food stamps program can do is waste money.

But if we’re going to criticize food stamps, our approach should be informed by economics and a healthy skepticism of government paternalism. We should continue to promote the virtues of individuals making choices for themselves, even if those individuals happen to be on welfare and the choices are about how to spend it. Reducing the value of food stamps to recipients without reducing the cost to taxpayers is not in anyone’s interest.

Sierra Club Confirms Only Oil Shipped by Pipeline Impacts Climate

In a groundbreaking new study, researchers at the Sierra Club found that only fossil fuels that are burned after being transported by pipeline have an impact on climate change. Fossil fuels used after being transported by other ground-based means, such as trains, do not have any noticeable effect on climate change, the study said.*