CFIF often highlights how the Biden Administration's bizarre decision to resurrect failed Title II "…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Image of the Day: U.S. Internet Speeds Skyrocketed After Ending Failed Title II "Net Neutrality" Experiment

CFIF often highlights how the Biden Administration's bizarre decision to resurrect failed Title II "Net Neutrality" internet regulation, which caused private broadband investment to decline for the first time ever outside of a recession during its brief experiment at the end of the Obama Administration, is a terrible idea that will only punish consumers if allowed to take effect.

Here's what happened after that brief experiment was repealed under the Trump Administration and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai - internet speeds skyrocketed despite late-night comedians' and left-wing activists' warnings that the internet was doomed:

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="515"] Internet Speeds Post-"Net Neutrality"[/caption]

 …[more]

April 19, 2024 • 09:51 AM

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Kauffman Foundation’s “Rules for Growth” Is Roadmap Out of Recession Print
By Ashton Ellis
Thursday, February 10 2011
In this era of runaway deficits, out-of-control spending and crushing entitlements, the conservative majority in the House of Representatives has a historic opportunity. Like Thatcher, Speaker Boehner can crystallize his party’s opposition to statism with a document that points to what’s right about free enterprise.

The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation’s new book, Rules for Growth: Promoting Innovation and Growth Through Legal Reform, should be required reading for every federal policymaker trying to get America’s economy growing again.  That includes you, Mr. President. 

The product of three years of intense study by experts in several disciplines, Rules for Growth announces a heady aim in its preface: “to help redirect and expand the ‘law and economics’ field to refocus on the connections between the law and growth.”  That alone would be a great service.  Typical insights from law and economics focus on what government does wrong when it comes to regulations.  Rules for Growth promises something more. 

The book’s central premise – simple but all-too-often forgotten – is that economic growth is good.  It raises living standards and increases life spans.  Thus, government policymakers should not just get rid of rules that stifle productive activity; they should be replaced with a regulatory system that promotes growth.

This change in focus amounts to a paradigm shift.  Rather than have policymakers constrain themselves to removing disincentives from the law, the essayists in Rules for Growth want judges, politicians and bureaucrats to reorient themselves and their work in favor of innovation.  In this respect, their effort recalls Britain’s industrial era approach to regulation: When conflicts arose between British economic dominance and the legal system, the legal system was changed. 

Every branch of the law that touches innovation and entrepreneurship comes under review.  Immigration quotas should be reconfigured to increase the amount of visas granted to entrepreneurs.  University faculty should be free to license their patents and retain all ownership rights over their discoveries.  Taxes should be consumption based.  Independent regulatory agencies should be required to conduct cost-benefit analyses before making new rules.  Perhaps most interesting is the recommendation that the legal services market should be opened up by replacing state licensing requirements with a federal standard.  (If auto insurance companies can compete across state lines, why not lawyers?) 
 
Since his January 18th Wall Street Journal column promising reductions in business regulations, President Barack Obama has made overtures to the free market in his State of the Union Address and, most recently, in a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  Of course, fiscal conservatives should submit the president’s newfound interest to free enterprise to Ronald Reagan’s formula of “trust, but verify.” 

One way to verify is to hand President Obama a copy of Rules for Growth and demand he implement its recommendations.  At the very least, House Republicans could introduce legislation based on the book’s findings, and hold televised hearings debating their substance.  It’s time for the free market to receive a full-blown defense in the halls of Congress.  For inspiration, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) need look no farther than former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. 

In 1975, newly elected Prime Minister Thatcher served notice on a “pragmatic” Conservative Party colleague counseling a moderate course on economic policy.  Reaching into her briefcase, the Iron Lady held up a copy of F.A. Hayek’s The Constitution of Liberty for all to see.  “This is what we believe,” declared Thatcher as she banged the book down on the table. 

In this era of runaway deficits, out-of-control spending and crushing entitlements, the conservative majority in the House of Representatives has a historic opportunity.  Like Thatcher, Speaker Boehner can crystallize his party’s opposition to statism with a document that points to what’s right about free enterprise.   For fiscal conservatives looking for a roadmap out of the recession, Rules for Growth is it.  

Download a free copy of Rules for Growth from The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation’s website here.

Notable Quote   
 
"Remember when progressives said the Trump Administration's rollback of net neutrality would break the internet? Federal Communications Commission Chair Jessica Rosenworcel now concedes this was wrong, yet she plans to reclaim political control over the internet anyway to stop a parade of new and highly doubtful horribles.The FCC on Thursday is expected to vote to reclassify broadband providers as…[more]
 
 
— Wall Street Journal Editorial Board
 
Liberty Poll   

If TikTok's data collection or manipulation under Chinese ownership is the grave danger to the American people that our government says it is (and it may well be), then wouldn't the prudent action be to ban it immediately rather than some time down the ro