A Stitch in Haste

An interesting comparison and contrast --

ITEM: It sounds so simple — if people are drinking too much then just raise the price of alcohol.

Local councils should be allowed to set minimum prices for alcoholic drinks in a bid to cut anti-social behaviour, say MPs.

The home affairs select committee wants to end the promotion of cheap drinks as it encourages binge-drinking, said to cost the UK about £20bn a year.

However, pub industry groups believe that setting minimum drink prices would be illegal.

MY TAKE: Of course, if the “problem” is certain people drinking too much rather than too much total alcohol consumption, then the “solution” (from the perspective of the central planner) is not a price floor but a quota system. Venues could be forced to swtich from “two-drink minimums” to “four-drink maximums.” A price floor merely creates a surplus of the good in question — pubs want to supply more and patrons want to purchase less.

Even if you assume highly inelastic supply of alcohol (i.e., pubs will sell roughly the same quantity regardless of price), then the price floor is merely a tax on the drinker, including the non-binge-drinker who is not the target of the law anyway! The price increase goes either to the pub owner or the government, depending on the rule’s structure. It doesn’t really matter which — all that matters is that an extraneous third-party pays it.

And speaking of elasticity, what about the elasticity of demand for the binge drinkers who are the target of the proposal? One reason alcohol taxes are so popular is because drinkers will drink regardless of the price of alcohol. So how exactly would a price floor curb consumption, especially by binge drinkers?

Of course, it wouldn’t, but that never stops the Politics of the Warm Fuzzy Feeling. The politicians “did something.” Whether the “something” works or not is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

(SIDEBAR: Maybe the binge drinkers should all move to Green Bay, Wisconsin.)

ITEM: Maryland legislators know what’s best for Wal-Mart employees better than Wal-Mart, or the employees, do —

Maryland lawmakers yesterday approved legislation that would effectively require Wal-Mart to boost spending on health care, a direct legislative thrust against a corporate giant that is already on the defensive on many fronts nationwide.
...
Lawmakers said they did not set out to single out Wal-Mart when they drafted a bill requiring organizations with more than 10,000 employees to spend at least 8 percent of their payroll on health benefits — or put the money directly into the state's health program for the poor.

But as debate raged in the Senate yesterday, it was clear that the giant retailer, which has 15,000 workers in Maryland, was the only company that would be affected.

MY TAKE: Put aside the disgraceful, and possibly unconstitutional, singling out of a single employer to micro-manage (does the 10,000-worker limit satisfy rational basis review?). Let’s focus on the economics of the proposal.

Obviously employee compensation is more complicated that just a firm paying a worker X dollars per hour or Y dollars per year (e.g., benefits, taxes, pension accounting, etc.). But we’ll keep the numbers simple. Assume Wal-Mart is willing to pay its workers $10.00 per hour, either in cash or as a compensation bundle. Now along comes the Maryland legislature and the Politics of the Warm Fuzzy Feeling. They enact their "8% Law" — what is Wal-Mart going to do? Simple — reduce wages by the $0.80 mandate, pay $9.20 in cash and $0.80 in health care benefits. The worker is no better off because no extra compensation is going to her.

(If you think in terms of a compensation bundle, then it’s even easier: the law merely shuffles around the various components of the bundle, while the total $10.00 per hour value remains unchanged.)

So there is no benefit to the employees from such a law, but there is a cost, in the form of reduced choices and reduced utility. Again assume that Wal-Mart was paying $10.00 per hour cash with no benefits whatsoever. The Maryland law is passed and Wal-Mart complies by paying employees not $10.00 in cash, but $9.20 in cash and $0.80 in a “health voucher” redeemable at any health care provider (this framework may sound simplistic but it’s exactly what happens even if Wal-Mart diverts to $0.80 to health insurance coverage or any other non-monetary benefit). But what if a Wal-Mart employee doesn’t want or need a health-care voucher? Perhaps he’s healthy, or covered by a family member’s insurance plan, or whatever. He is clearly worse off by having a portion of his cash wage diverted into a benefit that he does not want.

The greater the number of employees like this, and the greater the extent of the “non-desire” of the non-cash benefit, the worse off the labor force is.

But again, the politicians can rest easy – they did something, and the Politics of the Warm Fuzzy Feeling triumphs once more.

Hat tip to Arnold Kling for the Wal-Mart story.

UPDATE: Cafe Hayek has more.

I recently blogged about how Congress was contemplating changing Daylight Savings Time to "save" what would have been less than 0.01% of our oil consumption.

Apparently some members of Congress now realize that screwing up the clocks won't be enough to achieve -- well, whatever they're trying to achieve ("energy independence," I suppose).

So now they also want to screw up our ceiling fans:

When the House recently began writing a revised package of energy proposals, Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga., wasted no time offering an amendment -- the first out of the block -- that would call for the Energy Department to establish a federal efficiency standard for home ceiling fans.

But Democrats and outside energy efficiency advocates said Deal's measure would pre-empt stronger fan efficiency requirements already approved or being considered in more than half dozen states, calling it a step backward in efforts to curb energy use.

Now Representative Deal is surely a dedicated, objective public servant, no? The Politics of Pull would certainly have nothing to do with his proposal, would it?

Deal's home state is the headquarters of Home Depot, the country's third largest retailer and merchant of half the ceiling fans sold. The company, which has been concerned about states' efforts to impose ceiling fan efficiency standards, lobbied the congressman for federal legislation, pre-empting the states.

Oh. Go figure.

New York hack politician seeks to raise the state's smoking age to 19:

The Senate Health Committee is expected tomorrow to consider the bill, which is sponsored by the same senator, [Republican] Charles Fuschillo...who sponsored the statewide ban on smoking in most indoor public places.
...
Three states -- Alabama, Utah and Alaska -- have raised the tobacco-purchasing age to 19.
...
Fuschillo said the goal of his bill is to make it more difficult for high-school kids to get their hands on cigarettes. Many younger teens, he said, use 18-year-old school friends to buy cigarettes for them. Raising the age by a year will greatly diminish that option, he said.
...
Conservative Party Chairman Michael Long, who quit smoking eight years ago, branded the bill as nothing more than "feel-good, politically correct legislation that really won't do anything."

And here at A Stitch in Haste we have a name for that: The Politics of the Warm Fuzzy Feeling. The politicians "did something." The fact that it was something stupid and useless is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

I see little need to analyze this nonsense any deeper than the standard "an adult who can vote, own a gun and serve in the military should obviously have the right to buy a pack of cigarettes."

On the other hand, as a gay I find the politics of this maneuver strangely familiar. Although no one is 18 forever, 18-year olds, as a group, are a permanent minority, with little if any political power. So it's easy for hack politicians to infringe their rights for some vague, self-proclaimed "majoritarian" purpose. Yup, that definitely sounds familiar.

And I as asked in this post earlier today, is it really somehow less wise to be governed, at least in part, by unelected judges than by elected morons like this?

It's a basic tenet of First Amendment law that speech (particularly pornography) cannot be restricted for no other reason than because children might be exposed to it. See Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968), (the government cannot "reduce the adult population…to reading only what is fit for children"); cf. Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 ("Reno I") (internet access in public libraries cannot be restricted merely because children might use the computer).

Now, the acts of producing, selling, purchasing and smoking cigarettes are not "protected speech" under the First Amendment. Nevertheless, shouldn't the same kind of reasoning apply here?

Congress is considering a bill to prohibit the sale of flavored cigarettes as are New York, Minnesota, West Virginia, Connecticut, Illinois, North Carolina and Texas.

At least one tobacco company, Reynolds American Inc., has already stopped advertising them. Another, Altria, doesn't make candy- or fruit-flavored cigarettes and supports a ban.
...
Winston-Salem, N.C.-based Reynolds American does not target minors in its marketing but decided to stop advertising flavored versions of its Camel brands -- Mandarin Mint and Dark Mint -- after meeting with Sen. Charles Fuschillo, a sponsor of New York's bill, said company spokesman Fred McConnell. The brands will still be sold, however. "We recognize use of certain names on Camel Exotics have resulted in unintended concerns," he said.

McConnell said the company opposes legislation to ban flavored cigarettes because it would also ban conventional cigarettes. "Ingredients like cocoa, sugar, licorice and menthol have been used in cigarettes for 100 years," he said.

First, let me point out that the hack politician mentioned in the story, state senator Charles Fuschillo, is no stranger to A Stitch in Haste – I previously smacked him down in this post regarding his rights-trampling proposal to raise the smoking age in New York State to 19 from 18. (See also this post.)

And, like those anti-rights proposal, here too we have the Politics of the Warm Fuzzy Feeling. An entire category of product is to be banned to all, even adults, for no other reason than because "children might get access to it"? If that's not sound reasoning for pornography, then why should it be sound reasoning for cigarettes, which are already forbidden to children anyway? But of course sound reasoning isn’t necessary -- all that matters is that the politicians "did something." Any collateral damage to businesses or adult customers is incidental.

(Notice also the Politics of Pull: Altria, d/b/a Philip Morris, is already the largest producer of cigarettes in the world, so is it any surprise that they favor a ban of a product they don't make? How charitable and health-conscious of them.)

Yes, tobacco is sui generis. Yes nicotine is highly addictive. Yes cigarette makers have a less than perfect history regarding marketing to children. But that all tiptoes around the real issue regarding flavored cigarettes: Is it fundamentally fair to prevent businesses from selling, and competent adults from buying, an entire category of product for no other reason than because children might get access to it?

If you buy that argument, then you must, by definition, also support the complete prohibition of all tobacco generally. And that would just be the beginning.

That thought leaves a far more bitter taste in my mouth than any tobacco product ever could.

POST SCRIPT: Just a reminder that this hack politician is a Republican. Remind me again why there's a libertarian wing of that party?

I have always thought that this was a good idea:

State Rep. Mark Pettis, a Republican who served in the Navy, is pushing a bill that would drop the drinking age to 19 for Wisconsin soldiers -- but only if the federal government agrees it will not yank an estimated $50 million a year in highway aid.
...
"We're treating these young men and women as adults when they're at war. But we treat them like teenagers when they're here in the states," he said.
...
The Wisconsin chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving has lobbied against the bill. Its executive director, Kari Kinnard, said statistics show there have been fewer highway fatalities, injuries and other problems associated with alcohol since the mandatory minimum went into effect in the 1980s.

She also said research shows the brain has not fully developed until people reach age 21. "It's for their own protection," Kinnard said.

First and foremost, someone please slap that silly MADD spokeswoman. Are we shipping 19- and 20-year olds to Iraq "for their own protection"? If their brains aren't "fully formed," then perhaps they're not mentally competent to enlist in the first place.

Anyway, it seems that we could craft several reasonable exemptions to the under-21 drinking age. My favorite, at least when I was in college, was that full-time college students should be exempted. It also seems bizarre that two 20-year old newlyweds couldn't drink at their own wedding reception. And so on.

But of course reasonableness isn't the motivation behind the drinking age. Neither is, contrary to the MADD shill, protecting those affected by it. As I blogged previously on the related subject of the smoking age, we see a variety of unreasonable factors at work instead. First is the Politics of the Warm Fuzzy Feeling: the politicians "did something." Whether it's something fair, reasonable or cost-effective is irrelevant.

Second is the death of fiscal federalism. The federal government has no business giving states highway money under any circumstances, but it's a convenient way to score political points ("your tax dollars at work...") while bribing states into accommodating federal policy in the process.

Finally, and perhaps most important, we see the disempowerment of an insular minority. While it is of course true that no one is 19 forever, it is also true that, as an age cohort, 19- and 20-year olds are a permanent political minority, with essentially no political power, and are thus subject to the breakdown of the normal political process that is supposed to protect such minorities. This ability of unbridled democracy (a/k/a "mob rule") to trump traditional protection of rights is a phenomenon with which gays are all too familiar.

If you could reduce libertarianism to a single fundamental theorem, it would probably be "A law must unconditonally make sense under all circumstances to be valid." The under-21 drinking age makes sense only under the most myopic perspective and only when countless everyday contexts are dropped.

Exempting active duty military from age prohibition could be a small, entirely reasonable first step toward restoring common sense, not only to alcohol policy, but to the legislative process generally. Hopefully some bold member of Congress will take up this state politician's cause.

Related thoughts from OzarkLad.

The Politics of the Warm Fuzzy Feeling makes a drive-by in New Jersey:

Those cigars, pipes and cigarettes would become no-nos for drivers. Offenders would be stung with a fine of up to US$250, under the measure, whose sponsor said it's designed more to improve highway safety than protect health.
...
Assemblyman John McKeon, a tobacco opponent whose father died of emphysema, sponsored the legislation. He cites a AAA-sponsored study on driver distractions in which the automobile association found that of 32,000 accidents linked to distraction, 1 percent were related to smoking.

The consensus is that the bill has little or no chance of passing. Good.

Crunching some numbers -- 1% of 32,000 "distraction accidents" equals 320 "smoking accidents."

In 2003 there were 6.3 million vehicle crashes in the U.S. So smoking causes or contributes to roughly 0.32% of accidents -- less than one-third of one percent.

But to activist legislators, that's reason enough to ban it. This way their lust for the Politics of the Warm Fuzzy Feeling is satisfied. They "did something." Whether it's something useful or cost-effective does not matter to them.

And of course hack politicians never see the unintended consequences of the laws they pass, only the purported benefits -- the one-third of one percent. Which would you rather see on the road -- a calm driver fumbling for his cigarettes for a few moments (e.g., the father in Six Feet Under), or a nervous driver having a nic-fit for his entire journey? Might the latter create more than one-third of one percent more accidents?

And even if not -- the lost utility to a smoker from being denied access to her tobacco while driving is not costless. If a person is less happy under a new law, then society is worse off because of that law; there is a real emotional cost, even if modest. Might that cost outweigh the supposed benefits of 320 fewer accidents? (Remember, we have no idea whether these are serious accidents or mere fender-benders).

And if this is not anti-smoker animus, then why stop there? People fumble to change radion stations or CDs in the car stereo -- shall we ban that? Most accidents occur (perhaps unsurprisingly) between midnight and 3AM on weekends -- shall we close down the roads during those hours? And of course we all know the old hospital joke "What do you call motorcycle riders?" -- Banning all motorcycles would have prevented five times as many accidents in 2003 than a smoking ban.

If politicians and bureaucrats want to escalate the war on smokers (in which property rights are always the worst collateral damage), then they should at least have the intellectual honesty to admit as much when they propose anti-smoking legislation, rather than trying to cloak their motives behind the red herring of "traffic safety."

The politicians should stop driving us crazy.

...because the alternative explanation is too unbearable to contemplate:

The Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles is taking a timeless approach to customer satisfaction. Literally.

The bureau is hiding from sight all clocks in its 153 license branches statewide.

"Often times customers feel they are in line longer than they are," said bureau Spokesman Greg Cook. "It's the whole 'watched pot never boils' thing."

Cook said the measure is the brainchild of bureau Commissioner Joel Silverman, who was the former chief executive at Galyan's sporting goods store and a longtime executive at Limited Brands before becoming a civil servant.

Are we sure it was "Limited Brands" and not "Limited Brains"?

One word: wristwatches. Or will they be banned in Indiana BMV offices too?

Hat tip to Andymatic.

New Jersey's legislature has passed a general smoking ban in public places that the (acting) governor is expected to sign into law. Nothing new there. It's the Politics of the Warm Fuzzy Feeling.

Atlantic City's casinos are exempt from the ban. Nothing surprising there. It's the Politics of Pull.

New Jersey is also likely to raise the smoking age to 19 (sorta kinda -- 18-year olds apparently would be able to smoke cigarettes, they just wouldn't be able to buy cigarettes). Nothing logical there. But who cares? It's hack politicians expressing "the will of the people" (if not the will of 18-year olds).

I blogged about a similar proposal in New York back in May. My point then, and now, is that the new tolerance for unbridled majoritarianism will increasingly result in anti-liberty travesties such as this. "Eighteen-year olds" are a permanent minority with a permanent lack of political power. It is just such a group that needs and deserves the protection that flows from acknowledging rights that are immune from majority vote. Like the right to be an adult and purchase a legal product, no matter how many people think you shouldn't.

Gays encounter this new-found fetish for elevating the will of the majority over the rights of the individual all the time. Now it's 18-year olds. Tomorrow it will be some other group -- perhaps some permanent minority that includes you.

If so, then what can one say except: good luck with that.

Hat tip to Hammer of Truth.

Time to clean out the aggregator. Here are two stories demonstrating the fallacy that nanny-statism is based on objective criteria rather than the Politics of the Warm Fuzzy Feeling.

---

ITEM: New Jersey Governor Jon "Just Like Bloomberg" Corzine wants to pump plump you up --

As more than 1 million New Jersey residents look to trim their waistlines in health and fitness clubs, the state hopes to fatten its own bottom line by charging patrons sales tax on annual membership fees.
...
But the proposal has gym owners, patrons and health advocates crying foul over what they say is a short-sighted fix to the state's budget problems.

"We're here to improve our health and our lifestyle," said Hamilton resident Stan Jaquinto, a member of the Robert Wood Johnson (RWJ) Health and Wellness Center in Hamilton. "Why should we have to pay for something that helps us live a little longer, stay in good shape and cut down on our insurance costs? There are a lot of other things to tax out there besides people's health programs."

MY TAKE: If you really care about the "health care crisis" and the "War on Obesity," then of course you should be arguing for the tax deductibility of gym memberships rather than subjecting them to a sales tax. But if you care instead about finding more and more ways to extract more and more tax dollars from more and more people, then this makes perfect sense. Go figure. (Hat tip.)

---

ITEM: Across the river, a New York City hack politician wants new conscripts in the War on Tobacco --

Young New Yorkers would have to wait until they are 21 to legally buy their first pack of cigarettes if a controversial City Council bill is signed into law.
...
In fact, all tobacco-related goods, including cigars, chewing tobacco, rolling papers and pipes, would be off-limits to people under 21.
...
"We figured, just like the drinking age is 21, the smoking age will be the same," [the bill's sponsor, Joel Rivera of the Bronx] said.

MY TAKE: I've blogged about above-18 smoking laws previously. Both the United States Constitution and New York State law declare 18 the default age of majority. But as gays well know, the rights of perpetual minorities are always susceptible to infringement by the majority, whether in the name protecting "traditional values" or in the name of protecting the minority itself. You can decide for yourself which is the more obnoxious.

By the way:

Rivera is expected to announce another piece of legislation today, which is World No Tobacco Day. His bill would ban all flavored cigarettes -- except menthol and clove -- in the five boroughs.

A perfectly legal product, no more likely to find its way into the hands of minors than other cigarettes, to be banned anyway because one activist legislator is high on the ultimate addictive stimulant -- power. More on flavored cigarettes at this previous post.

Which is worse: having an occasionally delayed flight or a permanently canceled flight?

Which is worse: having more flight options or fewer flight options?

Which is worse: having cheaper airline tickets or costlier airline tickets?

According to New York Senator Chuck Schumer, the answers are: the former, the former and the former--

At a news conference Sunday, Schumer (D-N.Y.) unveiled a bill that would require airlines to alert passengers immediately about delays and allow travelers to rebook.

"Nothing is more galling than having the airlines know their plane will be late but not tell you," Schumer said. "Passengers should have the option of looking for an earlier flight or cancelling if it will ruin their plans."
...
Alerting passengers of delays could decrease car and foot traffic at busy airports and reduce the stress of travel, Schumer said.

Well, yes, a new regulatory burden "could" decrease car and foot traffic, especially if the airlines cut back on service -- which is likely if not inevitable. Any flight that was only marginally profitable, or break-even, might now be more expensive, or even a money loser, under Schumer's "How Dare They!" proposal.

Is it really less preferable to have an occasionally-delayed flight than no flight at all, ever? Or if the airlines have pricing power (which, generally, they don't), then they will simply raise ticket prices to pay for the added flexibility they would be forced to offer customers. Higher ticket prices are somehow "consumer empowerment"?

No apologist for the airlines am I. But the laws of economics do not yield to the laws passed by hack politicians like Senator Chuck E. Cheese. Force the airlines, or any other business for that matter, to offer something for which the market has not indicated a demand, and customers will simply pay an unwanted premium for it somewhere down the line -- perhaps through higher prices, perhaps through fewer offerings, perhaps through poorer service. Stated differently, all Schumer's bill would do is force all customers to buy a service that not all of them want -- all in the name of "protecting them" from the airlines.

What's the expression I'm looking for? Oh yes: Nothing is more galling.

Just as there is no such thing as a free (in-flight) lunch, so too is there no such thing as a free government regulation.

For Discussion: What would be the economic impact on air travel of a law requiring airlines to offer "free" in-flight meals? (Most no longer do.) Would such a law be any different in principle than Schumer's proposal?