On Wednesday, Senators Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) introduced legislation titled the Prove It Act of 2023. This legislation stems from a marriage of protectionism and radical environmentalism, both of which will hurt the economy and Americans’ pocketbooks. While the bill would not outright implement a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), Sen. Coons shared with Politico that he hopes the legislation will “lay the scientific foundation for moving forward with a carbon border adjustment.” The PROVE IT Act “proves” that both parties have bad ideas that need to be stopped before implemented.  The legislation would inch Congress closer to the institution of a CBAM, or carbon tariff, which will increase the costs of goods for the American consumer. As history has shown, tariffs – like any other taxes – increase the seller’s costs, and these increases are inevitably passed onto the customer. Moreover, the CBAM is predicated on an environmentalist desire to minimize the use of fossil fuels using state power. Read our full statement here.
 
The World Health Organization’s Sickening Decision
 
It is becoming increasingly clear that the World Health Organization (WHO) has lost the plot about health and common sense. In a move that most people would find puzzling, at the 76th World Health Assembly held at the end of May, North Korea was elected to the WHO’s Executive Board. It is difficult to fathom why Kim Jong Un’s global pariah has been welcomed with open arms to an executive body which decides approaches to health care and public health policies worldwide. In his acceptance speech, the North Korean representative promptly used his country’s new elevated platform to criticize the United States for having “the worst human rights record” because of sanctions applied to Kim’s dictatorial regime. In another tone-deaf diplomatic move by the WHO, its Director General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus met up with the Russian Deputy Health Minister on May 29 to discuss “Russia’s work to advance maternal and child health.” Considering Russia has been bombing hospitals and maternity units in Ukraine while stealing children from Ukrainian parents, the head of the WHO praising Russia for its child-friendly health policies is beyond parody.  The WHO has not entirely forgotten Ukraine, though. To coincide with World No Tobacco Day on May 31, the WHO released a report praising the Ukrainian government for not letting a war divert it from banning flavored vaping liquids. This is reminiscent of 2016 when the WHO urged officials in Islamic State-ravaged Syria to implement plain packaging of cigarettes "notwithstanding the current crisis in the country.” Dr. Tedros was elected unopposed in May last year for a second five-year term despite a string of astounding errors under his watch. The global health agency attracted widespread ridicule when he installed brutal Zimbabwean Dictator, Robert Mugabe, as a goodwill ambassador, and it has more recently been criticized heavily for slavishly kowtowing to the Chinese government.  
 
It is widely recognized that the WHO failed miserably to deal with the Covid-19 outbreak. Despite reports of the virus escaping the confines of China, it was not until mid-March 2020 that the WHO finally conceded that widespread community transmission was occurring and officially declared a pandemic. Instead, in January 2020, as it was clear that countries outside of China were reporting Covid cases, the WHO spent its time publishing a series of 14 tweets about the dangers of vaping, including claims such as e-cigarette liquid being highly flammable and that secondhand vapor is lethal to bystanders, both of which are entirely false.  It is not even the first time that the WHO has got its priorities all wrong when it comes to deadly diseases. In 2014, previous Director-General, Margaret Chan, ducked a conference to discuss the fast-growing outbreak of Ebola in Africa, and instead flew to Moscow – just months after Russia had shot down flight MH17 over Ukraine - to have tea with Vladimir Putin and make a speech implying that banning e-cigarettes is a more important use of her time. Also under Chan’s charge, Vera Luiza da Costa e Silva, then head of the WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Secretariat, congratulated brutal Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte for his smoke-free policies, conveniently ignoring that he personally encouraged up to 20,000 extra-judicial murders of drug users. 
 
Dr. Tedros is currently engaged with supporting his organization’s crusade against alternative nicotine products which are helping people who smoke to quit in their millions worldwide. A WHO meeting in November this year is being set up to treat vaping and other reduced risk products the same as lethal combustible tobacco, on the basis of junk science and misinformation.  For a global health organization which must necessarily negotiate political realities, it is surprising that the WHO appears to have no political antenna and supports some of the worst governments in the world while peddling policies contrary to public health. The U.S. is the largest contributor to WHO funding, something which should be re-evaluated if the organization continues to act like a banana republic rather than a respectable global institution. 
 
Buckle Up for More Washington Airline Turbulence
 
As the economy sputters, invaders desolate Ukraine, and the ink on a debt ceiling deal dries, President Biden has designated another target worthy of his presidential focus: the inconveniences of airline cancellations. Biden quipped, “Later this year, my administration will propose a historic new rule that will make it mandatory, not voluntary — but mandatory for all U.S. airlines to compensate you with meals, hotels, taxis, ride shares, or [rebooking] fees, and cash, miles, and/or travel vouchers whenever they are the ones to blame for the cancellation or delay.” 
 
Cancellations, delays, and other air-travel shenanigans are unquestionably maddening. Invasive, nanny-statist regulatory regimes will, however, financially burden airlines and consequently increase the price of airfare. Such tradeoffs persist despite consumers’ frustrations and elected officials’ gambits to capitalize. However, attempting to wish away the basic principles of economics does no good. Moreover, Biden’s airline crusade oversteps congressional efforts to the same end. In January, Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.), among others, sponsored the so-called “Airline Passengers’ Bill of Rights.” The legislation largely includes Biden’s proposals. It would further establish a $1,350 compensation threshold for passengers involuntarily denied boarding. It would also direct the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to enforce minimum seat dimensions for aircraft, require airlines to provide to passengers free drinking water, and more. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, has pledged support for policies of this sort as Congress negotiates a renewal of the FAA’s authorization this year.
Sen. Markey noted that, “Air travelers shouldn’t have to foot the bill for basics like a carry-on bag, a seat next to their children, or even for a sip of water, especially as airlines continue to fail passengers at every turn.” While a valid aspirational sentiment, the statement makes little economic sense. Passengers will unavoidably cover these costs. If water bottles cost nothing in flight, airlines will instead include that cost in ticket prices or elsewhere.
 
In the proposed rule, the Department of Transportation (DOT) will define what constitutes a “controllable cancellation or delay” that airlines could be held liable for. Similarly, the legislative proposal would empower the DOT to specify unilaterally under what circumstances a cancellation or delay would be considered “within the control of the air carrier.” How heavily these proposals would burden airlines – and consequently, consumers – depends largely on this forthcoming guidance. The Constitution did not intend for Congress and the executive branch to function as interchangeable legislative bodies. Quite the opposite, in fact. Just as in baseball, where the manager may not help the shortstop field a batted ball, the framers vested in Congress and the president distinct sets of powers. In this case, the executive treads on congressional toes, but Congress will likely do very little to assert its constitutionally prescribed supremacy in legislative matters. Indeed, historically, Congress has aided and abetted – and all too often, masterminded – the executive branch’s efforts to pilfer its prerogatives.
 
To better Americans’ air-travel experience, and bring competition to the airline industry, Congress ought to deregulate rather than regulate further. The financial costs, endless paperwork, and veritable hordes of lawyers needed to comply with complex regulatory schemes benefit entrenched market incumbents. Regulation is, as they say, a subsidy to the rich and powerful. This is true because large corporations possess far more excess resources to navigate byzantine requirements than do their upstart competitors. In the 1970s, deregulation revolutionized consumer air travel, leading to a ticket-price reduction of nearly 40 percent over two decades. A half century on, deregulation is still the best means by which politicians and bureaucrats can improve the industry for airlines and consumers alike.
 
BLOGS:
   
Monday: Postal Regulatory Feud Must End  
 
Tuesday: TPA Sends Letter to House Oversight on FTC Accountability
   
Wednesday: Climate-Crazed Bureaucrats’ ‘Home Of The Future’ Is Secretly A Costly Fixer-Upper
 
Thursday: TPA Slams the PROVE IT Act of 2023
  
Friday: Op-Ed: It’s Time to Bring NASA’s Moon Mission Budget Back to Earth
 

MEDIA:

June 3, 2023:  The Hayride quoted TPA in their story, “Mississippi Residents Need $150 Million in Taxpayer Money for This?”
 
June 4, 2023:  Inside Sources ran TPA’s op-ed, “Postal Regulatory Feud Must End Now.”
 
June 5, 2023: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) interviewed me about upcoming budget hearings for Baltimore City. 
  
June 5, 2023: Filter Magazine TPA’s op-ed, “Mental Health Awareness? Prioritize Safer Alternatives to Smoking.”
 
June 5, 2023: The Federalist ran TPA’s op-ed, “Climate-Crazed Bureaucrats’ ‘Home Of The Future’ Is Secretly A Costly Fixer-Upper.”
 
June 6, 2023: TPA Policy Analyst David McGarry joined ‘Inside Sources with Boyd Matheson’ on KSL Radio (Salt Lake City, UT.) to talk about the Biden admin’s ‘Home of the Future.’
 
June 7, 2023: Townhall ran TPA’s op-ed, “Americans Don’t Need Washington to Drive Up the Price of Air Travel.”
 
June 7, 2023:  The Washington Times (Washington, D.C.) ran TPA’s op-ed, “World Health Organization has gone rogue, should not be taken seriously.”
 
June 7, 2023: The Waco Tribune ran TPA’s op-ed, “Postal regulatory feud must end now.”
 
June 8, 2023: TPA was mentioned in an op-ed in the Reno Gazette Journal (Reno, Nev.) titled, “The IRS as tax preparer and auditor will hurt taxpayers.”
 
June 8, 2023: I appeared on WBOB 600 AM (Jacksonville, Fla.) to talk about the debt ceiling legislation.
 
June 8, 2023: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) quoted TPA in their story, “Multi-year Safe Streets contracts coming to Baltimore; taxpayer watchdog raises oversight concerns.”
 
June 8, 2023:  WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) interviewed me about funding for the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Safety & Engagement.
 


Have a great weekend!