I want to welcome back Director of Policy Dan Savickas to the Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA). If you have ever worked with Dan, you would know how much of an intellectual asset he is for the organization. He doesn’t tweet much, and he doesn’t seek the spotlight. What he does is he keeps the policy shop moving forward at TPA. We are glad to have Dan back for what will undoubtedly be a very busy 2024.

Artificial Intelligence Hysteria

TPA just released a new Issue Brief, “Getting Smart About AI: A Conceptual Framework for Innovation and Better Governance ([link removed]) .” And, just in time, because typifying the unseriousness with which many in Washington treat AI, President Joe Biden’s inspirations to regulate the technology reportedly includes a viewing of “Mission: Impossible — Dead Reckoning Part One” (you know, the famous documentary). Let’s hope a re-watch of “Ghostbusters” doesn’t persuade him to prevent urban rampage by nationalizing the marshmallow industry. Unfortunately, many in government, the media, and private industry share Biden’s naïve fears. Technologists such as Elon Musk often speak of AI primarily as a mortal threat, which is ironic considering the use of AI in social media. Softer variations include theories that AI, if not micromanaged by regulators, inevitably will cause mass unemployment or widespread discrimination. One commen
tator on X (formerly Twitter) recently voiced the maximalist version of this perspective, advocating that “we kill the demon robots before they kill us.” The catastrophist perspective has manifested itself in legislative proposals such as Sens. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Richard Blumenthal’s (D-Conn.) bill to strip generative AI products of Section 230 protections. In it, the senators aim to create legal carveouts and special liabilities that categorically disadvantage AI products — not just the nascent supercomputer-overlords. Section 230 protects online content-hosting platforms from civil liability for third-party speech. Without it, those who host websites that allow third-party posts — from micro-bloggers to the largest social-media companies — would face potentially crippling liability for third-party user-generated posts. Removing its protections from AI-generated content would disincentivize investment and innovation in AI without regard for any specific product’s potential benefits or
risks. This effort smacks of culture-war-driven technophobia, not clear-eyed policymaking. These irrational fears would retard American economic growth and technological innovation. According to a recent Goldman Sachs report, generative AI “could drive a 7% (or almost $7 trillion) increase in global GDP and lift productivity growth by 1.5 percentage points over a 10-year period.” Enacting laws to discourage American innovation in the sector would hamstring U.S. firms that compete with foreign firms (e.g., Chinese firms). This not only would make American consumers poorer, but it likely would end decades of America’s global technological dominance, which Washington has thus far promoted through light-touch regulation.

By framing AI policy in apocalyptic terms, policy makers ignore the fact that most AI-enabled products have more to do with mundane activities such as shipping logistics, data analysis, and spellcheck than with supercomputers trying to take over the world. These common tools, which never star in movies, help individuals complete ordinary daily tasks or businesses increase operational efficiencies. For example, the aforementioned Hawley-Blumenthal bill would impact many common tools including Grammerly, Vimeo, and smartphone cameras, as the R Street Institute’s Shoshana Weissmann explains. “Because it’s impossible to know if content will be used in illegal ways, it’s unclear how these companies could comply with the law without removing all AI features from their products,” Weissmann writes. “The resulting deluge of lawsuits could bring AI development in the United States to a grinding halt.”

Government certainly should monitor advanced systems that could (if abused) threaten national security. Regulatory regimes must grow from realistic assessments of risk rather than Hollywood plotlines. Moreover, they must promote permissionless innovation and, in turn, economic and technological dynamism. Prosperity occurs where government opts against erecting barriers to private citizens innovating, collaborating, trading, and pursuing their own. This dynamic has asserted itself throughout history, from Ancient Egypt to post-Communist Europe and China. It has caused America’s relatively free tech sector to dominate, and Europe’s heavily regulated tech sector to stagnate. Today, American policy makers must choose with respect to AI: freedom or technocracy, prosperity or economic insignificance.


A Taste of Garlic Protectionism

The U.S. faces rapidly changing and increasingly precarious geopolitical conditions. Americans worry that communist China could become the new global polestar, that a revanchist Russia’s ambitions could stretch Ukraine into NATO, and that unrest in the Middle East could once again entangle U.S. forces. Now, policymakers have identified a new looming threat: imported garlic. Florida Republican Sen. Rick Scott has asked the Commerce Department to investigate the national security risks posed by “Communist Chinese garlic.” Scott demands thoroughness; he wants an inquiry into “all grades of garlic, whole or separated into constituent cloves, whether or not peeled, chilled, fresh, frozen, provisionally preserved or packed in water or other neutral substance.” Should the department rule against China, the agency would likely impose new tariffs to protect “national security.” Scott’s profoundly goofy request serves as a reminder that too many politicians, keen to serve some constituent industry,
happily will invoke the specter of foreign threats to justify their preferred domestic economic interventions. Convincing bureaucrats to institute tariffs unilaterally avoids the procedural and political difficulties of passing legislation or otherwise operating the ordinary machinery of democratic policymaking. Scott’s argument is that China has reportedly grown garlic in dangerously unsanitary conditions; garlic is a popular food among Americans, including members of the military; ergo, Chinese garlic threatens U.S. national security and ought likely to be subjected to new tariffs.

Tellingly, the senator identifies no instance where CHICOM cloves have compromised a single service member or national security per se. His reasoning justifies increased tariffs which history has shown inflates American consumer prices, kills American jobs, and lowers GDP. If tortured logic can fit garlic into the definition of “national security threat,” nothing can be excluded from the category. To address the discrete public-health risks insufficiently sanitary agricultural imports present, regulators should update safety guidelines or tighten enforcement — not initiate new tariffs. To end an insect infestation, one sets bug traps; one doesn’t burn down the house. The dangers of bogus protectionism extend far beyond garlic. Scott’s letter appealed to the Commerce Department’s so-called Section 232 authority, under which the president has special authority to impose tariffs to preserve national security. Section 232 garnered national attention in 2017 when President Donald Trump employed
it to levy duties on steel and aluminum.

Like Scott’s letter, Trump’s Section 232 metal tariffs had more to do with economic protectionism than national security — as evidenced by the administration’s own words and policies. Then-Defense Secretary James Mattis said they were an inapt means to advance national security, and the Trump administration imposed them on friendly (e.g., Canada) and unfriendly (e.g., China) nations alike. Moreover, Trump offered exemptions from these tariffs to countries that entered ancillary trade agreements with the U.S. When he needed negotiatory leverage, the invented national security threats vanished. For example, his administration conditioned exemptions for Canada and Mexico on a “fair” renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement. As the Cato Institute’s Scott Lincicome and Inu Manak write, “the ‘fairness’ of NAFTA has nothing to do with protecting domestic steel and aluminum producers from imports (and thus, per the administration, national security).” James Madison warned in Fed
eralist No. 48 that “parchment barriers[’s]” often prove too frail to thwart tyranny. Concepts of good governance — such as the notion that “national security” means “national security,” not whatever senators find momentarily convenient — can survive only when voters and politicians defend them robustly. Fear not; Red Chinese garlic will not topple this fair nation. But bad economic policy (justified by disingenuous invocations of national security) can certainly prevent Americans from prospering.

BLOGS:

Monday: Justice Department Must Heed Senator’s Call to See if TVA is Limiting Broadband Buildout ([link removed])

Tuesday: There’s Something Wrong with Enlarging the Universal Service Fund ([link removed])

Wednesday: TPA Releases Policy Brief Regarding Artificial Intelligence Regulation ([link removed])

Thursday: TPA Submits Comments to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Regarding Proposed Rule on Digital Payment Applications ([link removed])

Friday: TPA’s Good COP To Be Held in Panama City, Panama February 5-10 ([link removed])

Media:

January 8, 2024: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) interviewed me about the start of the new legislative session in Maryland.

January 9, 2024: Issues & Insights ran TPA’s op-ed, “Senator Floats Garlic As Newest National Security Threat.”

January 9, 2024: The Daily Caller ran TPA’s op-ed, “Actually, Voters Do Want Washington To Reform Social Security And Medicare.”

January 9, 2024: The National Desk quoted TPA in their story, “Deep blue states facing 'crushing deficits' entering 2024,” which was aggregated by nearly 50 local news outlets, including in San Antonio, TX; Albany, NY; Savannah, GA; Columbus, OH; Asheville, NC; Rochester, NY; Harrisburg, PA; Lynchburg, VA; Washington, D.C.; Florence, SC; Springfield, IL; Cincinnati, OH; Cedar Rapids, IA; Salt Lake City, UT; Seattle, WA; Flint, MI; El Paso, TX; Portland, ME; and Pensacola, FL.

January 9, 2024: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) quoted TPA in their story, “Governor Moore's new crime strategy raises questions

January 9, 2024: KATU ABC2 (Portland, Ore.) quoted TPA in their story, “Deep blue states facing 'crushing deficits' entering 2024.”

January 9, 2024: The Center Square quoted TPA in their story, “California state controller targets Shohei Ohtani’s $700 million Dodgers contract.”

January 10, 2024: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) interviewed me about what to expect in the new legislative session in Maryland.

January 10, 2024: The Black Chronicle quoted TPA in their story, “California state controller targets Shohei Ohtani’s $700 million Dodgers contract.”

January 11, 2024: Filter.com ([link removed]) ran TPA’s op-ed, “WHO Renews Tobacco Harm Reduction Attacks in Runup to COP10.”

January 11, 2024: National Review ran TPA’s op-ed, “The Tech Doomers Are Wrong about Artificial Intelligence.”

January 11, 2024: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) interviewed me about Gov. Moore’s nee violence reduction plan.

January 11, 2024: I appeared on WBOB 600 AM (Jacksonville, Fla.) to talk about tariffs and the potential for a government shutdown.

January 12, 2024: Patrick Hedger appeared on NewsTalk STL radio to talk about TPA’s new artificial intelligence policy brief.

January 12, 2024: Newsmax ran TPA’s op-ed, “New Year's Resolution for Congress: Bipartisan Tax Deal.”

January 12, 2024: The Washington Examiner (Washington, D.C.) ran TPA’s op-ed, “Mass tort litigations create massive costs for society.”

Have a great weekend!

Best,
David Williams
President
Taxpayers Protection Alliance
1101 14th Street, NW
Suite 1120
Washington, D.C. xxxxxx
www.protectingtaxpayers.org ([link removed])


============================================================
** ([link removed])
** Like Us On Facebook ([link removed])
** ([link removed])
** Follow Us On Twitter ([link removed])
Our mailing address is:
1101 14th Street NW
Suite 1120
Washington, DC xxxxxx

Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can ** update your preferences ([link removed])
or ** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])