Press Releases


Entries in CEI (1226)


CEI Daily - Capital Gains Taxes and Air Travel 

Capital Gains Taxes


In a move that some are criticizing as a play at class warfare, President Obama has drawn national attention to capital gains taxes.

Senior Counsel Hans Bader comments.


"Capital gains taxes are much too high, rather than too low. They are effectively a tax on savings, since when your investments go up solely due to inflation, you have to pay capital gains tax on them when you sell them, even though you didn’t really get any richer. Thanks to capital gains taxes, you get punished just for living during a period of inflation."

Air Travel
Air travel has not evolved much in recent years---though that may soon change, with private companies advancing into space travel.
Policy Analyst Ryan Young comments.

"Flight times from New York to London have barely budged in 50 years.If anything, it’s slower now that the Concorde is out of service. That could change in the next 15-20 years with the dawn of space tourism. A spacecraft has to travel about 17,000 miles per hour to stay in orbit. A partnership between KLM airlines and a wealthy Formula One mogul hopes to make first-generational suborbital crafts that can reach 2,200 miles per hour, with an eventual goal of hitting 13,750 miles per hour. This is good for more than space tourism — a trip from London to Sydney would take an hour and 45 minutes. That’s about the same as a flight today from New York to Chicago."


CEI - Response to Demands from Wall Street Protesters


Occupy Wall Street Protesters Make Demands

by Ryan Young on October 5, 2011 · 1 comment[edit]


Until recently, I haven’t been paying much mind to the Occupy Wall Street protests. They’re a lot like Tea Party protesters. They’re upset with the status quo, and are being quite vocal about it. But — also like the Tea Partiers — they lack a unified voice. What do they want?


That incoherence was partially solved when one activist posted a list of thirteen demands on It doesn’t stand for the whole movement, obviously. Some protesters are focused on different issues than the ones he chose. But it’s reasonable to assume that most of the protesters would agree with most of his demands.


From an economist’s perspective, the demands are both fascinating and disheartening. Fascinating because people who haven’t studied economics believe some really strange things; disheartening because many of the policies would hurt the very people they’re meant to help. Intentions are not results.


Let’s take a quick look at each of the demands. I have left his grammatical errors intact:

Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending “Freetrade” by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.

He’s being far too moderate here. Take as true that importing goods across international borders kills jobs. Well, as a matter of logic, importing goods across state borders is no different. Oregonians should be forbidden from importing goods from Californians. Inter-city free trade has the same harmful effects. Consistency demands banning that, too. Even inter-household trade kills jobs under this line of thought.


If the protesters arbitrarily draw the line at the national level, then there is an inconsistency in their thought. And economists from the left and the right have been openly poking fun at that inconsistency for over 200 years.


And why only a $20 minimum wage? Think big. If Congress can raise living standards simply by mandating higher wages, why not $200 per hour? Why not $2,000 per hour?


Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

Because monopolies work so well.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

This isn’t worded clearly. Does this mean a $20 minimum wage for all workers, as in Demand One? Or does it mean giving unemployment benefits equivalent to a living wage, however defined? If it’s the second case, it’s pretty easy to see that fewer people would choose to work if this demand was met. As any economist will tell you, incentives matter.

Demand four: Free college education.

This should be re-worded as “Demand Four: The poor and uneducated must give money to the rich and educated.” This just sounds like the protesters, many of them students, don’t want to pay their tuition and their student loans (see also Demand Eleven).


This demand is fundamentally unprogressive. Wealth redistribution from rich to poor is one thing. But asking the poor to subsidize the rich strikes this writer as morally wrong.

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

This day will come. I look forward to it. Progress is a beautiful thing to behold. But these kinds of transitions can only happen from the bottom up. He is demanding that it be top-down, which is the same thing as demanding that it never happen at all. Top-down is how Solyndra happened. Top-down is how ethanol happened.


Top-down is also an open invitation to the exact kind of cronyism that the Occupy Wall Street crowd – and this writer – despise. Again, think results, not intentions. The best way to achieve this policy goal is to make entrepreneurship and innovation easier. It’s a bottom-up world. Policies must acknowledge that if they are to succeed.

Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.

He must be unfamiliar with the data. Government infrastructure spending is about 2.5 percent of GDP right now. That’s the highest it’s been since the 1950s, when the interstate highway system was being built. And today’s 2.5 percent is sliced from a pie that’s nearly 7 times larger in real terms. That puts current spending on par with about 17 percent of 1950 GDP. That is hardly austere.

Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America’s nuclear power plants.

More unfamiliarity with the data. The EPA’s budget is currently a little over $10 billion. He demands a century’s worth of EPA spending over what one assumes is a period of years, not decades. That’s a lot of money that we don’t have.


Meanwhile, forest acreage today is roughly what it was a hundred years ago, despite U.S. population growing four-fold. And getting rid of dams and nuclear power plants means using more coal and natural gas. That’s what economists call a tradeoff. And that tradeoff directly contradicts Demand Five.

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

Just such an Amendment passed on July 9, 1868. The Fourteenth Amendment reads, in part, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Emphasis added, though the egalitarian language is clear enough on its own. Perhaps he should press for more consistent enforcement of that language. That certainly has been lacking.

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

Yes. I don’t have a problem with background checks to keep out recidivist criminals or terrorists who, while rare, would hurt other people. And screening people for communicable diseases is a reasonable public health measure. But, like the Occupy Wall Street crowd, I don’t think anyone should presume the moral authority to tell other people where they may live, work, or travel. Right on.

Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.

Mandatory recounts are a bit much; most Congressional elections are 60-40 or 70-30 affairs. But there’s not much to object to here. Though there will come a time when computerized voting machines will be harder to corrupt than paper ballots. He should instead demand honest vote counts, whatever the medium.

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the “Books.” World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the “Books.” And I don’t mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

Do this and no one will ever lend again. This demand has so little understanding of basic human nature, let alone basic economics, that it frankly doesn’t deserve serious scrutiny. It just sounds like he wants all the trappings of a modern first-world lifestyle without paying for them. As the economist Deirdre McCloskey would say: no, dear.

Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

Moody’s and the other ratings agencies played a starring role in inflating the housing bubble. Oh, they deserve plenty of blame. But the solution isn’t to outlaw them. It’s to outlaw Congress from giving them special treatment. Congressional coddling allowed them to lie to their customers and not get punished by market mechanisms. Their legally protected oligopoly is an outsized example of crony capitalism. Don’t confuse it with the real thing.

Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.

Government policy should be neutral towards labor unions. Not hostile, not favorable. Neutral. Part of that neutrality means ensuring secret ballot elections when workers are deciding whether to unionize. If the ballots are open, it’s pretty easy to imagine both management and unions putting pressure on workers to sign with their side. Better to preserve anonymity. Let workers express their true feelings without fear of reprisal from either side.


This demand’s wording is unclear on neutrality, and unclear on secret ballots. Hard to tell what to make of it.


So there you have it.


Like almost any list of demands, there is good and bad here. Two common themes animate the list. One is that the writer clearly hasn’t studied economics. Free trade promotes wealth and peace, and has almost zero net effect on employment in the long-run. High minimum wages price the lowest-skilled employees out of work, and hurt them. There is no free lunch. Nobody will lend money if they aren’t going to be paid back.


None of those statements are controversial inside the profession, only out of it. Regardless of one’s political leanings.


The second theme is entitlement. Other people should pay for my health care. Other people should pay for my college education. I shouldn’t have to pay back my credit card balance. In short, gimme. How millennial.


The tea party movement’s uninformed populism is embarrassing to many on the right. No wonder Brendan O’Neill, seeing the same phenomenon on the left, wrote in The Telegraph that “The teenage moralism of the Occupy Wall Street hipsters almost makes me ashamed to be Left-wing.”


I agree with some of their demands, but it’s hard to see the Occupy Wall Street crowd being taken seriously. For that, they must first be able to be taken seriously. Given the movement’s lack of policy knowledge, its unseemly thirst for other people’s money, and the fact that some of them actually think that standing in the middle of a bridge invalidates their opponents’ arguments (!), they have a ways to go.


Tagged as: occupy wall street, occupy wall street demands, occupy wall street protests


CEI - Congress Should Start Quantifying Federal Regulation 

CEI Expert Outlines Steps For Making Government More Transparent, Less Burdensome

Washington, D.C., October 4, 2011---Lawmakers in the nation’s capital seem to be desperate to secure a big fix for the broken American economy. But as Members of Congress hem and haw about cutting spending---and President Obama pushes for raising taxes---few people are talking about the largest impediment to true economic recovery: the staggering cost of federal regulations.

In a new Issue Analysis released today by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), "The Other National Debt Crisis: How and Why Congress Must Quantify Federal Regulation," CEI Vice President for Policy Wayne Crews explains why Congress should measure the crippling compliance costs of federal regulations. Crews argues that the federal government must start holding itself truly accountable for the costs it is forcing on struggling American businesses if the nation is to pull itself out of its current economic slump.

The Issue Analysis outlines several methods for accurate cost reviews of major legislation and agency rules, such as:

• Reviving and expanding the annual Regulatory Program of the United States Government, which was discontinued in 1993; 

• Issuing an annual Regulatory Report Card on major federal agencies;

• Establishing an Office of Regulatory Analysis similar to the one proposed by Rep. Don Young (R-AK); and

• Establishing a Regulatory Reduction Commission to annually assemble packages of regulations to eliminate via an up-or-down vote.

Crews also examines Congressional reform proposals such as the REINS Act, sponsored by Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), which would require Congress to vote on economically significant regulations before they go into effect.

Crews writes, “Ultimately, voters need the ability to hold Congress directly accountable for regulations by requiring congressional approval of new rules. Thus, legislation that will lead to costly agency rules regulating, say, lamp ballast energy efficiency may or may not make sense to a congressman who may have to vote directly to approve the accompanying costs.

“As Congress becomes more answerable for regulation, it will face greater incentives to ensure that benefits exceed costs as determined by independent analysis, rather than by agencies’ own estimates. Greater ongoing oversight might dampen the tendency to overregulate in the future, thus creating pressure for a 'regulatory ceiling' to parallel the fiscal debt ceiling. Regulation does not control itself, and agencies will not apply the brakes.We have to do it, through our elected representatives.”

>> Read Wayne Crews’ full Issue Analysis: “The Other National Debt Crisis: How and Why Congress Must Quantify Federal Regulation.”

CEI is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public interest group that studies the intersection of regulation, risk, and markets. For more about CEI, visit  


CEI Daily - The Patriot Act and Another Train to Nowhere

Patriot Act


In The Los Angeles Times last week, Jonathan Turley talks about President Obama's record on civil liberties.


Fellow in Regulatory Studies Ryan Young comments on a new roll-back of provisions of the Patriot Act.

"MSNBC reports that the U.S. Circuit Court struck down two PATRIOT Act provisions dealing with probable cause-less searches. The case centered around Brandon Mayfield, an attorney in Portland, was falsely linked to the 2004 Madrid bombings. Mayfield was arrested and fingerprinted. His fingerprint was falsely matched to a print found in Madrid. After that, the FBI put him “under 24-hour surveillance, listened to his phone calls and surreptitiously searched his home and law office.” This, according to Judge Ann Aiken, crossed the line."
Train to Nowhere
Sen. Dan Inouye of Hawaii has pushed forward with his dream of a high-speed Honolulu train, despite complaints from Honolulu residents. 
Policy Analyst Marc Scribner comments.
"Critics of the multi-billion dollar elevated rail project have noted that it would destroy the views of Honolulu’s famous waterfront, ruin some of Oahu’s best farmland, cost far more than service that could be delivered by bus rapid transit, fail to provide access to major population centers, and fail to address congestion issues. According to the recent “2011 Urban Mobility Report” [PDF] from the Texas Transportation Institute, traffic congestion costs the Honolulu area $287 million per year — putting it at number six among medium-sized metro areas with the most costly congestion problems."

CEI Weekly: CEI Introduces Warren Brookes Fellow of 2011-12: Matt Patterson

Friday, September 30, 2011



Feature: The 2011-12 Warren Brookes Journalism Fellowship---named for syndicated columnist Warren T. Brookes, pictured above---has been awarded to Matt Patterson.

FEATURED STORY: CEI Introduces Warren Brookes Fellow of 2011-12: Matt Patterson


Matt Patterson, editor of Capital Research Center's Labor Watch and author of Union of Hearts: The Abraham Lincoln and Ann Rutledge Story, has been named the new Warren T. Brookes Journalism Fellow. Read more about the fellowship here.  





Present Day Prohibition
Michelle Minton's article for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy


How the U.S.'s Climate of Opinion Changed

Myron Ebell's op-ed in Standpoint


Breathless: FDA Bans Asthma Medication

Chris Horner's op-ed on BigGovernment


Shine a Light on Solyndra Dealings

Myron Ebell's citation in The Orange County Register


Freedom to Move

Marc Scribner's interview in DC Velocity


Coble Gets Praise from Competitive Enterprise Institute

CEI's citation in The Salisbury Post 







September 29, 2011: The End of Free Debit Cards


Every time you use your debit card, the merchant has to pay a fee to the company that issued your card, usually about 1 percent of the purchase price. On October 1, that price will be capped by law to 21 cents. John Berlau, Director of CEI’s Center for Investors and Entrepreneurs, explains the unintended consequences that will hurt consumers, merchants, and banks alike. John has written on interchange fees for The Wall Street JournalInvestor’s Business DailyThe American Spectator, and other outlets.