By Jon Decker
Many would agree that our political climate is more divided than ever before in our lives. One doesn't need to flip far through the channels to see how polarized Americans are on many different issues, and at times it can feel like we can't reach consensus on anything. Thankfully, for those hoping for Congress to accomplish something in a congenial, bipartisan fashion this year that will make a positive change in people's lives – recent legislation introduced by Representative Steve Scalise (R-LA) and Representative Anna Eshoo (D-CA) has the potential to do exactly that.
The Scalise-Eshoo "Modern Television Act of 2019" would save consumers money and decrease the number of television blackouts Americans face. This legislation repeals onerous cable regulations (dating back almost 30 years ago) that led to all-too-frequent blackouts for consumers attempting to view their desired television programs. Recent analysis shows that 2019 is will be the worst year ever for television blackouts, which serves as a strong call to action in an age of rapidly advancing technology. There has to be a better way to deliver content.
On this issue we find ourselves in unusual right-left agreement with Gigi Sohn, former adviser to Obama FCC chairman Tom Wheeler and our longtime opponent in the net neutrality wars, who said:
“The Modern Television Act of 2019 will ensure that Americans will no longer have to worry about losing access to marquee TV events like the Super Bowl, the Oscars and the Olympics because of retransmission consent battles between broadcasters and subscription TV providers."
It's about time.
Americans across the political spectrum are united by the frustrating experience of being faced with television blackouts.
The unfortunate status quo also inhibits the ability of cable companies to offer more competitive services against online streaming competitors such as Youtube or Roku.
Congress and President Trump should act expeditiously to enact this legislation and unlock lower prices and greater program selection for viewers. Let's hope that politicians will continue to work together in a bipartisan fashion to reduce this small but annoying inconvenience in our lives.
By Phil Kerpen
Recent comments by President Trump have thrown some cold water on hopes that he will soon order the IRS to index the capital gains tax, ending the taxation of phantom, inflationary gains.
"I've studied indexing for a long time and I think it will be perceived - if I do it - as somewhat elitist. I don't want to do that," President Trump recently told a gaggle of reporters at the White House.
Does that mean the president now disagrees with his top economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, who has doggedly pursued capital gains indexing for years? Does it mean advocates of the policy change should move on to something else?
The president's reluctance is directly related to dishonest headlines from the New York Times and elsewhere that frame indexing as a tax cut for the rich. The president is not concerned about the substance of the policy or his legal authority to implement it but rather the perception – the politics of it.
If there was any doubt that the president is still very much considering this big, beautiful tax cut that Nancy Pelosi can't stop, he put that to rest with a new trial balloon tweet just a week after his public comments. Trump asked if capital gains indexing was "An idea liked by many?," with a retweet of Steve Forbes linking to an article endorsing the idea written by Senator Ted Cruz and Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist.
President Trump is conducting a live focus group on the issue. He wants to know whether the media frame about "another tax cut for the rich" prevails among his supporters and the general public.
So we need to engage that argument and defeat it. Fortunately the facts are on our side.
IRS data show 26 million tax returns paid capital gains tax in 2016, 80 percent of whom made less than $200,000 and 56% made less than $100,000. And that understates how widespread the benefits would be because the majority of American households own long-lived assets like homes, mutual funds, and stocks that they will sell someday, representing years and possibly decades of accumulated value. The year they sell they will be "rich" according to income – but only for that one year. Taxing years or decades of inflation because a family looks rich on paper for that one year is wrong.
As Norquist noted in another recent article, the widespread benefits of indexing would be especially beneficial to Trump's base: "The present capital gains tax is particularly brutal to older Americans who bought a home, built a small business or invested in the stock market before the hyperinflation of the late 1970s... Those damaged most? Older voters. Rural voters. Midwest voters. Homeowners. Self-employed small-business men and women. A.k.a.: Trump voters in swing states. Inflation is a larger part of the capital gains taxes they pay."
Democrats are howling at the thought of President Trump...
By Phil Kerpen
Is government-facilitated re-importation of prescription medicines from Canada – a policy now supported by politicians as diverse as President Donald Trump and Senator Bernard Sanders – an issue of free trade, or a backdoor method of imposing price controls? That's the way the question is usually framed in policy debates, but the great Nobel prize-winning economist Milton Friedman took a third view.
"The issue is patents," Friedman explained in a 2004 interview with Jim Glassman that can now only be found in the Internet Archive. "The issue is a government-granted monopoly and whether that, how extensively the rights that are granted for that purpose extend. The real issue is not really re-importation. The real issue in my opinion is the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA in the United States has followed policy, which means that it costs roughly $800 million to bring a single new drug entity to the market."
That figure has only climbed since, and now stands at over $2.6 billion according to a widely cited estimate from Tufts University that itself is now a few years old and therefore likely a lowball.
"And the question is where is that $800 million going to come from?" Friedman continued. "The answer we have given is that it's going to come by giving the producer of the drug a patent, a monopoly privilege to sell that drug, to exclude others from the sale of that drug. And the question is, are you going to enforce that exclusion? The only way in which that $800 million can be raised is by charging very high prices to some people. Now, the question is given that you're charging those high prices to some people, is it okay to charge low prices to some people? This is a standard case of a monopoly which engages in price discrimination as a way of maximizing its income. It charges high prices where the elasticity of demand is low, it charges low prices where the elasticity of demand is relatively high to the citizens of other countries."
In other words, the company that invests the exorbitant cost of developing a new drug is incentivized to do so by the prospects of securing a United States patent that will exclude anyone else from selling the drug in the United States for a period of time. That exclusive right provides the mechanism for the innovator to recover the cost of developing the drug and return a profit to its investors. When foreign countries, including Canada, suppress prices through government price control policies, drug companies may still choose to sell at those lower prices to maximize their income.
While higher prices abroad would incentivize more research and development and more cures – and we should continue to work hard in trade negotiations to loosen price controls abroad – as long as foreign governments set prices above marginal cost, it is in the interest of drug companies to take the additional profit on top of their...
By Jon Decker
This week President Trump took a well-deserved victory lap for all the work his administration has done to promote the development of America's energy resources. As President Trump noted in his speech, "We’re unlocking American energy, and the United States is now a net exporter of clean, affordable, American natural gas. We’re exporting all over the world." But it's not quite all over the world; while natural gas production has reached record highs under President Trump, there is one place where the U.S. isn't exporting LNG that provides Trump with an opportunity to further strengthen America's energy dominance: Puerto Rico.
Strange as it may sound, the United States does not export natural gas to one of its own territories. As my colleague Phil Kerpen explained at CNS News:
Ships are leaving American ports loaded with LNG for countries all over the planet, but they cannot deliver to Puerto Rico, specifically because it is part of the United States. The 1920 Jones Act restricts the transportation of cargo between two American ports to ships that are U.S.-built, U.S.-crewed, U.S.-owned, and U.S. flagged. However, as the government of Puerto Rico noted in its waiver request:“of the 478 LNG carriers that currently exist in the world, none are Jones Act eligible.” Thus, without a waiver, Puerto Rico simply cannot transport American LNG to Puerto Rico.
In a nutshell – a law dating back to prohibition prevents states from selling natural gas to Puerto Rico, and forces the island to buy gas from foreign competitors to our domestic LNG industry.
Thankfully, there is a simple fix to this badly outdated law. President Trump could grant Puerto Rico a waiver from the Jones Act that would allow residents to import cleaner, more affordable energy. It was also provide a meaningful boost to the island's economy as it continues to rebuild from Hurricane Maria.
It is time to put 'America First' by allowing Puerto Rico customers to purchase natural gas from places like Texas, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. President Trump's administration should jump ship on the Jones Act and expand America's energy boom.
Photo Credit: Brad Clinesmith from Wilkes-Barre, PA