Reason.tv - Topics

Arizona's Immigration Law Heads to the Supreme Court

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:00:00 EDT

"As long as there is not a direct conflict, which the federal government did not do a very good job of pointing to today, the Arizona law gets to stand under the Preemption Doctrine," says Reason's Damon Root, who was at the Supreme Court during Wenesday's oral arguments surrounding Arizona's controversial immigration law. "The federal government is saying that 'we have the power to stomp out all of the state experiments in immigration law enforcement.'"

Much like the Health Care arguments before the Court in March, Root does not see this as a good day for the Obama administration, in part due to their Solicitor General Donald Verrilli's poor performance. "At one point," Root explains "Justice Sotomayor interrupted [Verrilli] and said "look I am terribly confused by what you are saying."

Runs about 3.50 minutes.

Produced by Meredith Bragg.

For more of Reason.tv's coverage of immigration, go here: http://reason.com/topics/immigration

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel to receive automatic updates when new material goes live.

LYNCHING CHARLIE LYNCH Director Rick Ray Discusses His New Film

Fri, 20 Apr 2012 09:00:00 EDT

In 2006, Charlie Lynch opened a medical marijuana dispensary in Morro Bay, California. He was such a stickler about following California state law that he called all the legal authorities he could. The ribbon-cutting for his shop was attended by local pols and chamber of commerce types and his shop flourished due to his outgoing personality, dedication to customer service, and strict enforcement of all laws related to medical marijuana.

In 2007, his dispensary was raided by the Drug Enforcement Administration and local sheriffs. Thus began a legal nightmare from which Lynch - and the country - has yet to awake. Placed under house arrest, threatened with an effective life sentence, and stripped of his income, Lynch became one more casuality in the war against medical marijuana.

Eventually, Lynch was tried in federal court, where the Kafkaesque proceedings meant his defense was not allowed to tell jurors that medical marijuana was legal under California law. Eventually, Lynch was sentenced to a year and a day, and was allowed to be free pending an appeal that seems unlikely to ever be fully resolved.

Lynch's ordeal - and the country's - is the subject of Lynching Charlie Lynch, a new documentary made by Rick Ray, who helped produce Reason.tv's original coverage of the Lynch case as it unfolded.

Alex Manning and Zach Weissmueller talked to Ray about his movie, which opens today at iTunes, Amazon, and other online and on-demand venues via Brainstorm Media .

About 7 minutes long.

Scroll down for downloadable versions of our videos and subscribe to this channel for automatic notifications when new material goes live.

Watch ReasonTV's coverage of Charlie Lynch here .

What We Saw at the San Francisco Marijuana Rally

Thu, 05 Apr 2012 09:00:00 EDT

On April 2, federal agents raided Oaksterdam University as well as the home of Richard Lee, Oaksterdam founder and the main supporter of Prop 19, California's 2010 initiative to legalize marijuana that received 46% of the vote.

On April 3, several hundred people gathered at a rally at the San Francisco City Hall to protest the federal government's crackdown on medical marijuana dispensaries.

On the City Hall steps, six of the eleven San Francisco Supervisors spoke out against the federal crackdown, as did representatives of the city council, the city attorney's office and the California State Legislature.

Later in the day, protestors marched to the Federal Building a few blocks away and chanted "DEA go away" to a line of federal officers guarding the entrance.

Approximately 2 minutes.

Produced by Paul Feine and Alex Manning.

Scroll down for downloadable versions of this video and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Federal Education Policy with Former Assistant Secretary of Education Bill Evers

Mon, 08 Aug 2011 00:00:00 EDT

Does the Obama Administration want to create a national education policy akin to France's Ministry of Education? According to Bill Evers, Former US Assistant Secretary of Education and current Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, that is exactly what they are attempting to do.

Evers sat down with Reason Senior Editor Katherine Mangu-Ward to discuss current federal education policy, the role of the Department of Education, and synonyms for “school vouchers.”

Approx. 7:20 minutes.

Edited by Meredith Bragg. Camera by Meredith Bragg and Josh Swain.

Scroll down for downloadable versions of this and all our videos, and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel to receive automatic notification when new content is posted.

Peter Suderman Dicusses the Differences Between State and Federal Budgets on Freedom Watch

Wed, 20 Jul 2011 00:00:00 EDT

Reason Associate Editor Peter Suderman appeared on Freedom Watch to discuss differences between the state' and federal budget requirements and government employee retention rates. Air date: 7/19/2011.

Run time approximately 6.01 minutes.

Scroll down for HD, iPod and audio versions of this video and subscribe to Reason.tv's Youtube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Matt Welch Discusses the Healthcare Mandate Burden on States and Tim Giethner with Judge Napolitano

Thu, 07 Jul 2011 00:00:00 EDT

Reason Editor in Chief Matt Welch appeared on Freedom Watch to discuss how some states are having trouble meeting the federal government's new healthcare laws and whether Tim Giethner will leave after a budget agreement in Congress. Air Date: July 6, 2011.

Approximately 7 minutes.

Scroll down for HD, iPod and audio versions of this video and subscribe to Reason.tv's Youtube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Tim Cavanaugh Discusses Unions and the Federal Reserve with Judge Napolitano

Mon, 27 Jun 2011 00:00:00 EDT

Reason columnist and Hit & Run contributor Tim Cavanaugh appeared on Freedom Watch to discusses why union membership is in decline and whether the Federal Reserve will continue to recieve skepticism. Air Date: June 24, 2011.

Approximately 7.16 minutes.

Scroll down for HD, iPod and audio versions of this video and subscribe to Reason.tv's Youtube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Veronique de Rugy Tells the Truth About Taxes and the Rich

Fri, 29 Apr 2011 00:00:00 EDT

Editor’s Note: Reason columnist and Mercatus Center economist Veronique de Rugy appears weekly on Bloomberg TV to separate economic fact from economic myth.

Myth 1: Wealthy people pack up and move when their taxes increase.

Fact 1: High taxes generally do not cause the wealthy to move.

As governors and state legislatures consider tax increases to fix state fiscal issues, concern over the potential flight of wealthy residents has surfaced again. For a given state, wealthy residents provide both a greater proportion of that state’s income tax revenue and a disproportionate share of the charitable donations made within that state. According to the Survey of Consumer Finances, sponsored by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, on a national basis households with a net worth of at least $1 million, headed by a person age 60 or older, comprised 4 percent of all households but donated approximately 25 percent of all household charitable contributions made in 2007 (the most recent year for which data is available). It is obviously in each state’s interest to keep these wealthy residents around.

A number of studies in the economic literature explore the impact of taxes on the migration behavior of households in the United States. What these papers have generally shown is that taxes have little impact on cross-state migration. Instead, the migration impacts of unemployment are much greater. Overall, the results suggest that taxes do not cause out-migration, but they do influence the choice of destination for some migrating households, such as retirees.

The above chart uses data from a study by the Boston College Center on Wealth and Philanthropy to illustrate the effect of a tax increase on New Jersey residents making greater than $500,000 per year. Following the tax increase, the authors conservatively estimate that net out‐migration in this income bracket rose by about 350 out of 44,000 people, or by about 0.8 percent of New Jersey’s taxpayers making more than half a million dollars a year. This is a small, but noticeable effect. However, the study also claims that the rate of out-migration by higher income earners was in line with the out-migration rate of people who weren’t subject to the tax. In other words, the behavior of the rich is consistent with the behavior of the rest of the population.

According to a regional household survey conducted by the Metropolitan Philadelphia Indicators Project at Temple University in 2004, just 27 percent of respondents in Philadelphia cited tax concerns as a reason they moved to their current location. Compare this to the 59 percent of survey respondents who said their residential choice was motivated by housing costs, the 47 percent who were motivated by good schools, and the 44 percent who wanted to be closer to family and friends. On the list of reasons for moving, tax concerns ranked ninth.

When respondents were asked whether they had ever considered moving in order to pay lower taxes, 73 percent of Philadelphia residents said no. Within the subsection of respondents living in affluent suburbs, the number climbed to 83 percent. (Interestingly, those who had considered moving because of tax concerns were more likely to move within the next two years than others in the group surveyed.) Similarly, a 2003 study in the Journal of Gerontology found that while tax burdens are the most important fiscal characteristic affecting the location choice of retirement-age individuals, factors such as climate, general economic conditions, and housing costs are still much more important.

Why? Because while location matters, taxes are one of the factors that define how desirable a location is. Among the factors that keep people in high-tax places are jobs, family, friends, and city amenities (few New Yorkers would agree to pack up and move to North Dakota no matter how low the taxes there might be).

In addition, there is the fact that moving is usually a costly hassle, and most people’s social lives are grounded in their community and their workplace. Relocating often results in a longer commute for those still employed, causes disruption to the children who are still in school, and often means giving up on your social network and friends.
Presumably there is a level of taxation that will prompt more high-income individuals to move or change their behavior radically. However, it is also likely that the wealthy already have fairly well-developed tax sheltering strategies in place.

The general conclusion is that moderate tax increases on the rich, even if no neighboring jurisdictions follow suit, is unlikely to lead to much in the way of emigration.

That being said there are other reasons not increase taxes on the very rich. Higher taxes do slow down the rate of business development and job growth. In turn, high taxes reduce the number of wealthy people a given state may attract.

Myth 2: Blue states are big government states and red states are small government states.

Fact 2: Blue states are net payers, meaning residents pay more in income tax than they get back from the federal government, while red states are net recipients. Only one red state pays more into the system than it gets.

Only 10 blue states are net recipients of federal subsidies, as opposed to 22 red states. Only one red state is a net payer of federal taxes, as opposed to 16 blue states. Another blue state pays in as much as it gets.

This chart uses data from the Tax Foundation documenting the amount of federal spending in each state per dollar of federal taxes paid with states classified as red or blue according to their respective voting results in the 2008 presidential election. As you can see, red states receive more in benefits from the federal government than they put in; the opposite tends to be true for blue states. Only one red state receives less from the federal government than it pays in; compare this to the 17 blue states that receive less in benefits than they pay in federal taxes. Conversely, 21 red states are net recipients of federal funding, while only 11 blue states are.

The top 10 recipients of federal money are New Mexico, Mississippi, Alaska, Louisiana, West Virginia, North Dakota, Alabama, South Dakota, Kentucky, and Virginia. The top 10 payers are New Jersey, Nevada, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Illinois, Delaware, California, New York, and Colorado. Rhode Island breaks even.

With a few notable exceptions, the Northeast, the Upper Midwest, and the West Coast bankroll the South and Great Plains. That pattern also looks like a red and blue state map from any recent presidential election. While the differences between the red and blue states are often exaggerated, it remains an interesting proxy to some heartfelt differences between rural and urban states.

There is a very strong correlation, then, between a state voting for Republicans and receiving more in federal spending than its residents pay to the federal government in taxes (the rust belt and Texas being notable exceptions). In essence, blue state residents are subsidizing those in red states. Both red and blue states appear to be acting politically in opposition to their economic interests. Blue states are voting for candidates who are likely to continue the policies of red state subsidization while red states are voting for candidates who profess a desire to reduce federal spending (and presumably red state subsidization).

Myth 3: The federal income tax may be progressive but the rest of the tax system is not, particularly the payroll tax.

Fact 3: The entire tax system is progressive.

We hear this argument all the time: While the federal income tax may be progressive, the rest of the tax system isn’t, particularly the payroll tax, since Social Security taxes are capped. However, the thing to keep in mind is that Social Security taxes, at least for now, are funding Social Security benefits. As Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute explains:

Analysts of this system consider them together in order to determine whether the program is or isn’t progressive. One way they do it is by calculating what’s called the “net tax rate”—that is, the statutory 12.4 percent Social Security tax paid by workers minus the benefits they receive from the program. If you receive benefits equal to your taxes, then your net tax rate is zero. If you pay more in taxes than you receive in benefits, your net tax rate is positive; likewise, if you receive more benefits than taxes your net tax rate is negative.

Based on Biggs’ data I made the following chart:

As Biggs explains:

This is for the 1940 birth cohort; I take the PV of lifetime taxes, benefits and earnings for the earnings quintiles as a whole and then calculate the net tax rate (taxes-benefits)/earnings. If you do it a the individual level you get a lot of people with zeros in either the numerator or the denominator and so it screws things up. These are pretty similar to the earlier numbers but lack the odd path. These were calculated with the Policy Simulation Group models and they should match up well with what SSA or CBO puts out. These are Social Security only; Medicare would be more progressive than this, since it’s basically a flat benefit for everyone.

As we can see, while Social Security taxes are much less progressive than the income tax, they too are progressive.
However, here is something to consider: Based on income distribution data, we know that the fourth quintile is made up of households whose income is above $55,000 per year. What that means is that households making more than $55,000 are likely to pay more into Social Security than they get back. Now, $55,000 is more than the median income (which is roughly $49,000), yet I suspect most people making that amount wouldn’t think of themselves as wealthy. They also probably do not realize they are paying into a system only to get the illusion they are getting something in return for their old age.

Contributing Editor Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

Creating a Free State: Filmmaker Christina Heller on Building a Libertopia in New Hampshire

Tue, 22 Feb 2011 09:00:00 EST

Tired of waiting for a libertarian United States of America? Maybe the answer is to start small.

Enter Libertopia, a documentary by director Christina Heller and producer Craig Goodale that follows three guys' attempt to make one state free. Heller sat down with Reason.tv's Ted Balaker to discuss the Free State Project, why she admires libertarians, and how a persuasive band of Free Staters just might have transformed her from a liberal into a libertarian.

The Free State Project was proposed by a Yale PhD student in 2001, and the goal was to convince 20,000 pro-liberty activists to commit to moving to New Hampshire in hopes of returning the state to its "Live Free or Die" roots. So far, the project reports that there are more than 10,000 participants, and almost 900 "early movers" have already settled in the Granite State.

The documentary follows one man who is walking across the country to raise awareness about the Free State Project, another who already moved to New Hampshire and works as an advocate for medical marijuana patients, and a Ron Paul-inspired teenager who decides to leave his friends and family in California to live in New Hampshire.

Interview by Ted Balaker. Shot by Zach Weissmueller, Hawk Jensen, and Alex Manning. Edited by Weissmueller.

Approximately 9 minutes.

Scroll down for HD, iPod and audio versions of this video and subscribe to Reason.tv's Youtube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Prop 19: Should Californians legalize marijuana?

Wed, 20 Oct 2010 09:00:00 EDT

On November 2, 2010, California voters will decide whether or not to legalize marijuana.

If passed, Proposition 19 would control marijuana like alcohol, allowing adults 21 years of age and over to possess up to an ounce of pot for personal consumption and grow marijuana at a private residence in a space of up to 25 square feet. The initiative would also allow local governments to tax and regulate the commercial cultivation, transport, and sale of marijuana.

In order to get a handle on the debate surrounding. Prop 19, we spoke to both supporters and opponents of the initiative.

So what do you think? Should Californians legalize marijuana?

Approximately 6 minutes. Produced by Paul Feine and Alex Manning.

Scroll down for HD, iPod and audio versions of this video and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Judge Rules ObamaCare Unconstitutional, Cites Reason.tv

Wed, 25 Aug 2010 10:00:00 EDT

*Update: U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled that because the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's individual mandate to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional, the entire law "must be declared void." Judge Vinson cites this Reason.tv video on page 47 of his decision.

More from Peter Suderman here: http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/31/judge-individual-mandate-uncon

Wheat, Weed, and ObamaCare: How the Commerce Clause Made Congress All-Powerful

The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to "regulate commerce . . . among the several States," and for more than 100 years federal lawmakers invoked it for a very narrow purpose—to prevent states from imposing trade barriers on each other. But today members of Congress act as if it gives them the authority to do just about anything—including forcing you to eat your vegetables.

During her Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Elena Kagan seemed to accept that the Commerce Clause could, in theory, give Congress the power to dictate what Americans eat. And what about ObamaCare's "individual mandate," which forces Americans to purchase health insurance? ObamaCare opponents are lining up to challenge its constitutionality, but supporters say it's justified—you guessed it—under the Commerce Clause.

How did a clause intended as a restriction on states wind up giving Congress a green light to regulate noncommercial, local, and purely private behavior? How will ObamaCare stand up against the legal challenges brought by the states? Legal titans John Eastman (Chapman University Law Professor) and Erwin Chemerinsky (Founding Dean, University of California, Irvine School of Law) slug it out to to determine whether or not Congress has been abusing the commerce clause.

Produced by Austin Bragg. Approximately 10 minutes.

Scroll down for HD, iPod, and audio versions of all our videos and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Never Enough: William Voegeli on America's Limitless Welfare State

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:00:00 EDT

"The denial of the possibility that there is an endpoint [to the welfare state] is crucial to the liberal enterprise," says Dr. William Voegeli, author of the new book, Never Enough: America's Limitless Welfare State and a visiting scholar at Claremont McKenna College's Henry Salvatori Center for the Study of Individual Freedom in the Modern World.

In this Reason.tv interview, Voegeli traces recent federal government expansions to President Franklin Roosevelt's introduction of a "second Bill of Rights" that included the right to housing, education, and medical care.

Approximately 8.30.

Interview by Sam Corcos; shot by Hawk Jensen; edited by Paul Detrick.

Scroll down for HD, iPod, and audio versions of this and all our videos and subscribe to Reason.tv' s YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

21: Is It Time to Lower the Drinking Age?

Wed, 07 Apr 2010 07:00:00 EDT

The drinking age in the US has been 21 for more than 20 years.

Today, we all take the drinking age for granted, but should we? In fact, the US is one of only four countries in the world with a drinking age as high as 21—the other three are Indonesia, Mongolia and Palau.

Is the policy working to reduce health and safety issues related to youthful alchohol abuse? Is enforcing the drinking age the best use of scarce public resources? What are the unintended consequences of alcohol prohibition for 18-20 year olds?

Organizations such as Mother Against Drunk Driving (MADD) argue that the drinking age is an effective policy and that the answer to ongoing alcohol related problems for 18-20 year olds is more education and better enforcement.

John McCardell, president of Choose Responsibility, and 135 university presidents and chancellors across the country believe it's time to take a fresh look at the drinking age. The former president of Middlebury College and the new head of Sewanee/University of the South, McCardell says our current system encourages unsupervised binge drinking.

Reason.tv went to the University of Wisconsin-Stout in Menomonie, Wisconsin to get a first-hand look at the war on underage drinking.

Produced and hosted by Paul Feine; shot and edited by Alex Manning. Approximately 10 minutes long. Scroll down for downloadable iPod, HD and audio versions of this and all our videos. Subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube page and receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Anthony Randazzo on RT's The Alyona Show Discusses States' Rights

Tue, 23 Mar 2010 12:00:00 EDT

On March 18, 2010, The Reason Foundation's Director of Economic Research Anthony Randazzo joins a panel to discuss healthcare reform and the latest conflict between the Federal government and States rights, on Russia Today's "The Alyona Show".

Approx. 10 minutes.

Subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel and receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.

Former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper on the High Costs of the Drug War

Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:00:00 EDT

Norm Stamper is a cop who saw it all during his 34 years on active duty. As police of Seattle from 1994 through 2000, he was in charge during violent World Trade Organization protests in the Emerald City.

Stamper, who holds a Ph.D. in leadership and human behavior from United States International University, has emerged as one of the most thoughtful and outspoken critics of the war on drugs, which he believes causes untold misery, undermines effective law enforcement, and doesn't begin to pass any sort of cost-benefit analysis. As important, the libertarian Stamper believes that the drug war—and other wars on the behaviors on consenting adults—does great violence to the idea that we own our bodies.

Stamper is the author of the Breaking Rank: A Top Cop's Exposé of the Dark Side of American Policing (2005) and now works with Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), a nonprofit created by former cops to "reduce the multitude of unintended harmful consequences resulting from fighting the war on drugs and to lessen the incidence of death, disease, crime, and addiction by ultimately ending drug prohibition."

For an audio podcast version, go here.