Alabama implements new vaping regulations
Tobacco shops in Alabama are no longer being able to advertise vaping as a healthy alternative to smoking. A wide-ranging law regulating vaping that passed the legislature earlier this year went into effect Thursday. It also prohibits opening vape shops within 1,000 feet of a school, church or childcare facility and limits advertising on billboards to include only three vaping flavors. That includes tobacco, mint and menthol. Critics say fruit-flavored vaping liquids attract younger users. One of the law’s sponsors, Democrat Rep. Barbara Drummond, told WBRC-TV she was shocked to see a 12-year-old in her Sunday school class with a vape, which she initially thought was a flash drive. Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
Martha Roby: Dismantling the regulatory regime
Throughout the eight long years of the Obama Administration, Alabamians suffered under an overly-empowered regulatory state that burdened hardworking men and women and their businesses with countless harmful federal regulations. This type of overreach was seen across the many federal agencies, but perhaps none more blatantly than the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I am very pleased that over the last year and a half, our unified Republican government has worked to dismantle this Obama-era regulatory regime. I am glad to report that important progress has been made recently, as the Trump Administration’s EPA announced it intends to replace the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan with President Donald Trump’s Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule. This is great news that represents an important step towards returning power to the states and further breaking down the regulatory state. When the Obama Administration first rolled out its so-called “Clean Power Plan,” they touted it as the “single most important step America has ever taken in the fight against global climate change.” What they didn’t say was that despite the significant increase it caused in energy bills, the “Clean Power Plan” actually didn’t do much to alter the impact of future climate change. Under this plan, the EPA implemented stringent regulations that limited carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, thus hiking rates and shutting down energy plants – especially in the coal industry. Of course, I think we can all agree that achieving more affordable, reliable, and safe energy is a priority, but adding more regulations and burdensome expenses to Americans are not solutions. That’s why the Trump Administration’s proposed ACE rule is so important. The rule would empower states with the flexibility to determine how best to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while providing modern, reliable, and affordable energy for the American people. This is a far better solution than the Obama Administration’s “one-size-fits-all” approach that treated every state the same. It’s no secret that for eight years, the EPA and other federal agencies went beyond their rightful authority and pushed for unnecessary regulations that negatively impacted our economy, discouraged investment, and stifled job creation here in the United States. These agencies became known for “backdoor legislating” by frequently attempting to circumvent Congress to set policy. I am proud that over the last year and a half, Congress has worked to reverse course by passing several Congressional Review Acts, which is the process of striking rules and regulations left over from previous administrations. These actions, along with the steps taken by the Trump Administration, have already and will continue to unleash our nation’s economy. Among the many challenges we continue to face as a nation, I believe making America energy independent and not reliant on foreign nations must continue to be a priority. While I am pleased that energy exploration methods have improved over the years, we must continue to look for ways to secure America’s energy for future generations. I believe American innovation and our entrepreneurial spirit are the keys to meeting the energy challenges of the 21st Century. President Trump’s proposed ACE plan embraces this outlook and will give Alabama companies certainty to create jobs and prosper as we move forward. ••• Martha Roby represents Alabama’s Second Congressional District. She lives in Montgomery, Alabama, with her husband Riley and their two children.
Daniel Sutter: Technology, sharing and regulation
The ride sharing company Uber has used technology to evade law enforcement in cities where its service was not approved. The case raises several interesting questions, perhaps most importantly involving the future of the sharing economy. Uber has battled entrenched and regulated taxi companies. Hopefully these battles will not distract or stall the unleashing of the enormous potential of sharing to improve our lives. Uber connects people willing to pay for rides with people willing to provide them using their own vehicles via a smart phone app. The company performs background checks on drivers, sets prices, but does not own vehicles. Driving strangers for a fee sounds like taxi service, which is why Uber has run afoul of taxi regulations. Police in cities where Uber is illegal have tried sting operations to catch drivers, but have been frequently “greyballed,” as reported by the New York Times. Uber’s technology does not just suspend the account of a questionable rider. Instead, it lets the rider line up a ride, but then cancels the ride. The same thing happens again if the rider puts in another request. The technology has been adept at identifying law enforcement accounts Greyballing has helped Uber enter new markets without permission and build up loyal riders, who then push for legalization. The company has admitted to and agreed to stop using greyballing to evade law enforcement where its service is not legal. Before condemning the technology, Uber has good reasons to block certain people from hailing rides. Consider a rider banned from the service for abusing drivers. The banned rider can always create a new account, so Uber cannot actually “blackball” a rider. If the new account is canceled, the rider could create yet another account, which might slip through. Letting a banned rider wait for rides which never arrive can better prevent misbehavior. How one evaluates Uber’s evasion likely depends on one’s assessment of taxi regulation. Economists have publicized the costs of taxi regulation for decades. Taxi regulation uses medallions for legal cabs. Cities limit the number of medallions, allowing taxi companies to charge higher fares than under competition. Regulation also sets maximum fares, but rates generally allow taxis to earn significant profits. The price of medallions on the market shows the profitability of regulated taxis. The medallion is just a legal authority and does not help provide rides, and thus differs from the cars, gasoline, tires, maintenance, drivers, insurance, and dispatchers that provide transportation. The value is due to profit, and medallions in New York City sold for $1.2 million prior to Uber’s emergence. Cities have enabled taxi cartels that charge customers more than necessary. If you believe that taxi regulation rips off consumers to enrich cab companies, you might agree with libertarian Jeffrey Tucker’s characterization of greyballing as a “public service.” Indeed, Uber’s app has eliminated the economic rationale for taxi regulation. Before the internet and smart phones, travelers had difficulty accessing information about reliable cab service in unfamiliar cities. The greater potential for passengers to get ripped provided more justification for government regulation. The market no longer needs government assistance. Using technology to bring down taxi cartels that have proved impervious to reform is attractive. But I often emphasize respect for the law, and thus am conflicted about undermining laws which we have been unable to change through the political process. I think that peoples’ obligation to obey the law places a duty on politicians to only enact or maintain laws that serve the public interest. We should expect respect for the law to decay when politicians pass laws enriching some citizens at the expense of others. Reasonable people may disagree about whether Uber is on the side of the angels in battling taxi cartels. But this ultimately is a separate issue from capturing the economic value in cars, homes, jet skis, power tools, and clothes which do not get used frequently. I just hope that Uber’s fight against taxi regulation, which might end badly for the company, does not sidetrack the sharing economy. ••• Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University and host of Econversations on TrojanVision. The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of Troy University.
Martha Roby: Transparency, integrity needed in regulations
One of my top priorities in Congress is reining in so-called “backdoor legislating,” which happens when federal agencies issue sweeping rules and regulations beyond their appropriate authority. To be sure, federal regulations are nothing new. Over the years Congress has seen fit to delegate rule-making responsibilities to various agencies to deal with specific issues and allow for a more responsive government. However, I believe some agencies have taken this authority too far, growing into what many call the “fourth branch” of government. While I realize our country is facing many pressing issues at the moment, I believe more attention should be paid to over-regulation because it fundamentally affects our liberty as Americans. Our laws have legitimacy because they are passed by representatives elected by and accountable to the people. While some rules and regulations can have the same force as law, they were never voted on or ratified by the Congress. During my time in the House of Representatives I have supported several different measures to rein in the regulatory system, and this past week we took action on another: The Regulatory Integrity Act of 2016 (H.R. 5226). This bill aims to bring more accountability to the regulatory process in two parts. First, it would require each federal agency to publish information about any pending rules and regulations in an easily understandable and searchable format on www.regulations.gov. This resource is supposed to provide a one-stop-shop for business owners, consumers, journalists or just interested citizens to look up pending regulatory action and gain a more clear understanding of what it is and how it will impact them. But, right now the site is difficult to navigate and oftentimes agencies fail to publish this information in the same way that they are required to publish it in the Federal Register. It has been said that the most powerful antiseptic to waste, fraud, and abuse in government is transparency. I believe having the public more aware of impending rules or regulations will discourage overreach and abuse. Second, the bill prohibits federal agencies from lobbying or campaigning in support of proposed rules and regulations. Some agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, have attempted to game the public comment process by actively campaigning to generate positive comments in an effort to make regulations appear more popular than they are. That kind of behavior is inappropriate, and it reveals how politically-motivated some of these rules actually are. If regulations cannot stand up to public scrutiny on their own without government-led “astro-turf” campaign, they deserve to be scrapped. The Regulatory Integrity Act passed the House in a bipartisan vote of 250-171. It now goes to the Senate, where I hope it will be given swift consideration. We may not be able to reverse decades of bureaucratic growth overnight, but with measures like this we can make federal agencies more transparent and more accountable to the people. ••• Martha Roby represents Alabama’s 2nd Congressional District. She lives in Montgomery, Alabama with her husband, Riley and their two children.
Auburn University study finds cyberattacks, regulation among concerns for state’s banks
A recent study by Auburn University’s Raymond J. Harbert College of Business, which looked into Alabama’s banking industry, found that state banks consider “regulatory uncertainty” and the chance of cyberattacks among the biggest threats to their business model. According to the study, 88 percent of Alabama banks listed “regulatory burden” among their chief concerns, with 78 percent calling “political and regulatory uncertainty” a “major impediment” to the way they do business. “We had major regulatory action in 2010 with Dodd-Frank and bankers have been bemoaning that ever since,” said John Jahera, Lowder Professor of Finance and one of the study’s authors. “From the bankers’ point of view, it added a lot of cost in terms of regulatory compliance.” Authors of the study say the industry is still reeling from “a triple whammy: the impacts of the financial crisis on credit, the juggernaut of regulatory reforms and competition in a field that reinvents itself at breathtaking speed.” Further, 73 percent of respondents cited competition from “non-bank” financial firms, which enjoy less regulations, as their chief competitive threat, while 70 percent said the threat of cyberattacks was a “serious concern.” Along with examining the apprehension of Alabama banks, the study also looked into the performance of state banks through the third quarter of 2015 and offered suggestions aimed at helping banks better assist customers. The study found that Alabama banks rank 40th in the nation for “aggregate return-on-assets” with $253 billion in assets. Alabama banks generated $169 billion in individual and business loans as of the third quarter of last year and provided $14 billion in small business loans. The study further states that Alabama’s 386,000 small businesses created more than 24,800 new jobs as of 2012 (the most recent numbers available) and, of the 131 banks with headquarters in the state, all but eight are considered “small” or “community” banks with less than $1 billion in assets. Researchers suggested an overall easing of regulations to assist banks in serving “underbanked or non-banked” consumers via short-term loans at lower rates than those offered by payday lenders and their ilk. Further, it was suggested that the “harmful effects” of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act be examined in view of the realization that regulations have increased costs but not revenues.The study also called for the Department of Banking to look into ways of easing regulatory burden, and the costs associated therein, for state-chartered banks.
Daniel Sutter: Economic freedom in Alabama: no advance or retreat
The Fraser Institute this week released the 2015 edition of the Economic Freedom of North America, and Alabama’s economic freedom score remained unchanged. Like the proverbial partially filled glass of water, this could be viewed positively (at least we haven’t lost ground) or negatively. Economic freedom ratings try to measure how closely we approach a pure market economy, where people are free to order their economic lives as they wish. A market economy allows people to use their talents and knowledge to improve their lives, which generates prosperity. Two decades of research demonstrates that economically freer nations have higher levels of income, faster economic growth, lower unemployment, better environmental quality, and longer life expectancy. The differences in freedom due to state policies across the U.S. affect income growth, entrepreneurship, and business starts. The Fraser Institute scores range from 0 to 10 (most freedom), and the new scores are based on data from 2013. The freest state, New Hampshire, has a score of 8.2, while New York is last at 5.6. Alabama’s score remains at 6.9, the national average, and we rank 23rd, right in the middle of the pack. Over the past 15 years, Alabama’s score has closely tracked the national average. Our state’s score might surprise people who think that Alabama is a bastion of small government conservatism. A closer look indicates why this view is incorrect and where we might increase economic freedom. The rankings are based on three components: state and local government spending, taxes and tax rates, and regulation. Alabama’s spending score is average, while above and below average scores on taxes and regulation offset each other. The spending and taxes scores confirm what I call the “Spend but Don’t Tax” approach to state government. Alabama gets enough money from Washington to fund an average level of spending despite our low taxes. While this seems like a good deal, politicians seeking to take credit for government programs are unlikely to aggressively reduce the scope of government. Alabama’s scores on the components of taxes reflect our state finances. We have the highest economic freedom score for property taxes, due to the nation’s lowest state and local property tax burden. Our heavy reliance on sales taxes results in a below average score here, while we score above average on income taxes. Many policy experts, though, consider any state income tax to be a major impediment for economic growth. Regulation offers the most promising path to increased economic freedom. The minimum wage component of regulation, however, illustrates the complicated interplay between Federal policies and state economies. Even though Alabama does not have a state minimum wage, the Federal minimum of $7.25 an hour has a relatively large impact on our labor force because incomes here are below the national average. But the component which drags on our regulation score the most is government employment; Alabama has one of the nation’s largest state and local government workforces. New York and California have the least economic freedom. And yet New York City, Los Angeles, and the Bay Area are all home to industries that contribute mightily to our national prosperity and offer an excellent quality of life (if you like life in the big city). This may suggest to some readers that economists like me overrate the importance of economic freedom. The Fraser Institute scores measure freedom today. Industries like banking and finance, fashion, motion pictures, and computers developed decades ago, and reflect past economic freedom. Furthermore, economic freedom is just one of many things people value; restaurants, theater and the arts, and weather matter in addition to the ease of starting a new business. I suspect that politicians in New York and California have for years exploited these cities’ economic vibrancy and quality of life to hike taxes. We cannot recreate Manhattan or Silicon Valley in Alabama, but state politicians can increase economic freedom. Freedom will then produce new businesses, opportunities, and wealth. In time this will attract new people and improve the quality of life. Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University and host of Econversations on TrojanVision.
Uber in Birmingham does not mean rehashing old regulations, supporters say
Birmingham insists they want Uber, but the road is not yet fully clear for the popular ridesharing service. Despite assurances from the Birmingham City Council that Uber is welcome, demonstrated in the city’s latest video update, requirements the company must first meet all “safety regulations” could become a roadblock to Uber’s expansion in Birmingham. As outlined in a document to the city’s legal department, obtained by ALToday.com, Uber’s primary concerns include outdated insurance requirements, redundant background checks and excessive licensing and permitting in jurisdictions that regulate “Transportation Network Companies.” After last week’s Committee of the Whole meeting, Birmingham’s proposed regulations – required as a condition of operations in the city – are what Uber officials call a simple rehash of existing transportation codes passed in 2014. Those regulations continue to lump Uber in the same category as traditional taxi services. “The regulatory proposals we’ve seen thus far from City Officials neither reflect the ridesharing business model nor appear to be a serious attempt to bring this option to Birmingham,” an Uber representative told Alabama Today. “We’ve shared our position on three issues that we must come to an agreement on before we’re able to offer ridesharing in the Magic City.” At issue are several sections in latest draft, which reference the 2014 codes. For example, as noted on the second page of the draft, “Vehicles operating under the auspices of a Transportation Network Company will be treated as taxicabs for the purpose of determining all licenses and fees required under this Code.” That passage is directly at odds with Uber’s three central priorities, which they say must be addressed before the company (as well as rival Lyft) can provide convenient and affordable transportation to Birmingham residents. Coincidentally, the same three issues – licensing, background checks and insurance – are top concerns laid out by City Council President Jonathan Austin this summer. For other municipalities that passed pro-ridesharing regulations, including Mobile, allows a TNC to apply for a “master license” from the city. This permits drivers to be registered with Uber, not individually and separately with the city. Such rules supports Uber driver/partners, who see flexibility in hours as the most appealing feature of a ridesharing career. According to estimates, 50 percent of all Uber drivers in the United States average less than 10 hours per week on the road. Eighty-seven percent say that “being their own boss” is a significant factor in their decision to work with Uber. Requiring individual licensing would, in effect, have a chilling effect on attracting quality drivers. As for insurance, since most Uber drivers use their vehicles for personal business and not ridesharing, a majority of vehicle use is already covered under the drivers existing personal auto policy. Uber offers a contingent insurance policy – exceeding the state’s personal insurance minimum requirements – which protects drivers while they are active in the system, but not yet picked up a rider. Another obstacle preventing Uber’s full participation in the city of Birmingham is a proposed requirement for background checks, which supporters say is an unnecessary duplication of effort. All driver/partners seeking to be included in the Uber platform are already required to undergo an extensive background checks performed for the company by an accredited third party. Uber screens include Social Security tracing, a seven-year history of addresses associated with the potential driver’s name, and a criminal background check through national, state and local databases. Vendors crosscheck all driver-partners against the National Sex Offender Registry as well as public registries maintained at the state level, to screen for disqualifying offenses. Also, background checks include pulling the applicant’s Motor Vehicle Registration file. Uber and other ride sharing services believe unnecessary layers of city-sponsored bureaucracy only further hinders participation, shrinking the available pool of qualified drivers. Accepting Uber into Birmingham, the spokesperson says, requires more than a rehash of outdated existing regulations. “We hope that Birmingham follows in the footsteps of more than 60 U.S. jurisdictions that have passed pro-innovation ridesharing regulations, and supported the subsequent economic opportunity and safe transportation options that their residents deserve.”
Bradley Byrne: Cutting regulations, lowering power bills
The summer months in southwest Alabama can be especially grueling with temperatures resting in the 90s. If your family is like mine, summer also means higher power bills. Well, those power bills might be getting even more expensive without anything to do with the weather. In the past few years the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released a record number of regulations. They run the gambit from costly regulations on coal power plants to attempts to regulate mud puddles on family farms to policies changing what type of light bulbs Americans can use in their home. The new regulations aren’t cheap, and they will hit the wallets of working Americans. Studies found that the EPA’s attempt to regulate CO2 emissions from existing fossil-fuel power plants would cost more than $366 billion. Even worse, families in more than 40 states, including Alabama, would see their power bills rise by double digits. It doesn’t stop there. The EPA’s attempt to lower the ozone standard would result in the most expensive rule it has ever proposed. If put into effect, the National Association of Manufacturers contends, the regulation could slash family budgets by $830 per year, reduce our gross domestic product by $1.7 trillion, and cost our economy 1.4 million jobs. Being from along the Gulf Coast, we know how important it is have clean air and water, but I don’t think the American people need costly mandates and federal requirements in order to be good stewards of our land. We should always consider the effect such regulations would have on hardworking families and the budgets of small businesses. In Congress, I have made it a priority to focus on solutions that help lower the costs of energy and fight back against the activist EPA. A few weeks ago, the House passed H.R. 2402, the Ratepayer Protection Act. This common-sense legislation would allow states to opt-out of implementing the EPA’s rule on greenhouse gas emissions if they found the rule would have an adverse effect on families in their state. The House is also using the appropriations process to rein in the EPA. Since Republicans took control of the House in 2010, the EPA has been cut by about 15 percent, but I think we can make even more cuts. This year’s funding bill for the EPA, being debated in the House this week, is $1.17 billion less than President Obama requested. The funding bill also includes provisions to prevent the EPA from moving forward with many of its regulations. Analysts say that by halting these new regulations, our legislation will save nearly 300,000 jobs related to the energy sector. Our bill also rejects efforts to place more requirements and red tape on new energy projects. Congress and the legislative branch aren’t the only ones fighting back against the EPA’s overreach. A few weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the EPA in a major court decision. In the ruling, the court said that the EPA has to consider the economic impact when issuing new regulations. It was a major victory for those of us who think regulations are holding back our economy. If we are to accomplish a true “all-of-the-above” approach to energy production, then we must stop senseless regulations and costly red tape. Affordable energy is a key component to turning our economy around and putting people back to work. That should be the ultimate focus of Congress, and that will remain my focus as I serve as your voice in Washington. Bradley Byrne is a member of the U.S. Congress representing Alabama’s 1st Congressional District.
Martha Roby: Blocking Harmful, Nonsense Regulations
Did you know that federal water regulators have been trying to greatly expand their reach into private lands by seeking to make small ponds, puddles and ditches subject to strict federal regulations? If you’re a farmer or a forester, you probably know exactly what I’m talking about. But, many Americans might not be aware of this federal government scheme to erode property rights and encroach private lands. Since its enactment in the 1970s, the Clean Water Act’s scope of authority to regulate waterways has been limited to “navigable waters,” which are labeled “Waters of the United States.” Smaller, non-navigable, more remote waters have always been the jurisdiction of state and local governments. But now, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers have proposed a new rule redefining “Waters of the United States” to include all manner of small areas where water collects, or could collect, such as ditches, puddles and even decorative ponds. Obviously, we all want to ensure rules are followed to keep our waters clean. And, farmers naturally want to maintain a clean environment in order to continue being good stewards of their land. But, this new rule could require many Alabama landowners to obtain a federal permit for everyday farming operations, forcing them to spend thousands to come into compliance with aggressive regulations – all when the waters on or near their land aren’t navigable and the public water supply is not remotely threatened. Not surprisingly, this proposal has been met with strong opposition from Republicans and Democrats alike. This past week, the House passed H.R. 1732, the Regulatory Integrity Protection Act, which blocks the proposed rule from going into effect. The bill instructs the EPA and the Corps to abandon their current proposed rule and start the rule making process over, seeking input from those who would be affected: state and local governments, farmers and private landowners, among others. The Senate is expected to consider similar legislation as well, and the support there is also bi-partisan. This is good news for Alabama farmers, foresters and really property rights in general. I’ve heard from countless individuals in Alabama who are under threat of being aggressively and unnecessarily penalized by federal water regulators under this rule. Trying to expand the definition of navigable waters to include puddles and ditches has never made sense. It reeks of a radical environmental agenda being forced on Americans, and Congress is right to take steps to stop it. ### Martha Roby represents Alabama’s 2nd Congressional District. She is currently serving her third term.
