The Pelican Post

Many members of Congress use Twitter to directly communicate with constituents, activists, and media sources. For example, Governor Bobby Jindal “tweets” on his activities to folks “following” him on Twitter. More and more legislators at the federal and state level are beginning to utilize this important new media tool as well. That’s why the Pelican Institute for Public Policy has created TweetLouisiana.org. At its core, TweetLouisiana.org is a two-way portal to connect and directly communicate with legislators via Twitter. Visitors to TweetLouisiana.org are able to:

• Follow the “tweets” (updates) of elected officials using Twitter
• Get the latest news and commentary on Louisiana politics from other Twitter users
• Comment on what is happening in the legislature
• Send legislators a message
• See the feed of “tweets” from all elected officials

Elected officials are already using Twitter to get their message out. They include:

Name                                                         Twitter ID

Governor Bobby Jindal                                  @bobbyjindal
U.S. Senator David Vitter                              @davidvitter
U.S. Representative Joseph Cao                     @anhjosephcao
U.S. Representative William Cassidy               @drcassidy
U.S. Representative John Fleming                  @repfleming
U.S. Representative Charlie Melancon             @melancon2010
Representative Neil Abramson                        @neilabramson
Representative Austin Badon Jr                      @austinbadon
Representative Cedric Richmond                    @cedricrichmond
Representative Walker Hines                         @walkerhines
Representative John LaBruzzo                       @johnlabruzzo
State Senator Sharon Broome                       @westonbroome

It seems that many government officials believe that their responsibilities include determining how people should live their lives. They try to influence people’s preferences and behavior by determining what foods people should eat, what activities they should engage in, and what should be allowed to transpire in privately owned restaurants and bars. Is it any surprise that the federal government now will attempt to force individuals to purchase health insurance?

The city of San Francisco – always a leader in bad public policy – has found a new opportunity to extend its reach into peoples’ lives. A nonbinding resolution encouraging restaurants not to serve meat on Mondays in order to foster “general civic health” was recently passed by the city’s Board of Supervisors. San Francisco’s resolution is nonbinding, but it is nonetheless inappropriate and unnecessary. Considering the critical financial situation of California, the Board of Supervisors would be better advised on focusing on fiscal matters rather than nagging citizens and businesses.

Some would argue that government should act as a paternal figure in order to protect and improve society. They believe that a select group on Capitol Hill knows what’s best for the other 300,000,000 Americans. But individual liberty has been an essential component of the culture of the United States of America since its founding. Actions of the government, both large and small, can undermine this important quality. Let vegetarians and carnivores advocate freely for their respective causes, while government sticks to its knitting.

A new bill introduced into the Louisiana State Legislature by Senator Robert Adley (R-Benton) and backed by the Louisiana Chemical Association seeks to prevent law clinics that receive state money from “suing government agencies, suing individuals and businesses for financial damages or raising most constitutional challenges.”

The introduction of this bill arises mainly in response to previous litigation filed by the Tulane Environmental Law Clinic against the energy sector. However, the bill also addresses concerns about law clinics and the hijacking of their original purpose. Initially intended to give law students practical experience and engineer pro bono work, law clinics are now a vehicle for professors with leftist sociopolitical agendas.  The result is a steady stream of litigation which typically goes against public sentiment.

In his blog “Between the Lines,” Professor Jeffrey Sadow illustrates the economic benefits which will accompany this bill, such as preventing the diversion of taxpayers’ money, curbing wasteful and fraudulent spending, and redirecting money towards practical legal training.

For some historical perspective on this issue, a  superb article by Heather MacDonald in the Winter 2006 edition of City Journal recounts the transformation of law clinics into vehicles for political agendas. MacDonald notes that the “philanthrophic justification for the early law school clinics- that they provided legal help to people who couldn’t afford it- is unimpeachable.” But law clinics are now being diverted to further the liberal agendas of the professoriate.

Much of the criticism of this new bill has come from environmental organizations and lobbying groups who claim the bill is designed to protect the interests of energy corporations. However, these criticisms overlook the principles behind the bill. Law clinics such as those at LSU and Tulane receive state funding to train students in acquiring practical legal skills and to provide pro bono work. Instead, these clinics are essentially biting the hand that feeds them by taking government money and in turn attacking the state and private business.  The result is the impediment of economic progress in the name of the putative public interest.

There is no shortage of opportunity for interest groups to implement policy change that does not entail redirecting money intended for the education of law students. Law clinics should be restored to their original purpose and taxpayer dollars should not fund litigation designed to cripple economic development.

The Institute for Justice’s lawsuit against the Louisiana Horticultural Committee has begun to pick up steam in the media. New Orleans CityBusiness ran a cover story (subscription required) regarding the support of, and opposition to, IJ’s lawsuit.

As evident in David Muller’s article, the arguments justifying this blatantly anti-competitive law are weak.  In defense of the status quo, Louisiana State Florists Association Vice President Mike Rome states, “It gives you an assurance that the flower caring techniques are the best in the industry.” Isn’t this something for the consumers to decide?

Unlike the automotive industry where consumer safety entails strict measures of regulation, here we are talking about decorative floral arrangements. Their aesthetic quality or lack thereof should be self-evident and has no implications regarding personal health or safety.

Another argument posits that the lawsuit comes in response to a small minority who were unable to pass the test (assumedly to incompetence). There might be something to this, but in years past a higher percentage of people passed the Louisiana Bar Exam than passed the Floral Licensing Test. According to the Institute of Justice’s data, the average pass rate on the practical component of the retail florist exam between April 1995 and May 2004 was 36.2%. In contrast, the pass rate for the July 2004 Louisiana Bar Exam was 65 percent, and the pass rate for 2003 was 61.5 percent. If there are failed exam takers with an axe to grind, maybe they have a point.

The U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement was proposed in June of 2007 and awaits congressional approval. The agreement would eliminate existing tariffs on many industrial and agricultural exports, consequently stimulating the US economy. As the Office of the United States Trade Representative reports:

“The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates that the reduction of Korean tariffs and tariff-rate quotas on goods alone would add $10 billion to $12 billion to annual U.S. Gross Domestic Product and around $10 billion to annual merchandise exports to Korea.”

The agreement would greatly increase Louisiana’s trade with Korea since the state is a large producer of agricultural and chemical products, goods that Korea needs to import. As the Foreign Agricultural Service outlines, Louisiana will benefit by exporting goods such as cotton, beef, soybeans, feed grains, poultry, and egg products. These exports would provide a substantial contribution to the state’s revenues.

It is crucial to eliminate trade barriers in order for a country’s economy to grow. As explained by the Cato Institute, tariffs and barriers distort market signals, undermine investment possibilities in new industries, and cause workers to forgo new and higher-paying opportunities.

Looking at the likely increases in US and Louisiana exports, the Congress should ratify the proposed trade agreement and expand investment opportunities in Korea.