In the News

But Michael Livermore, executive director of the New York University Institute for Policy Integrity, told BNA Nov. 19 that even if sequestration is triggered, Jan. 2 is not likely to have drastic, immediate impacts on agencies, because most of them “have tricks up their sleeves to deal with short-term budget shortfalls,” such as shifting funds from one program area to another.

For that reason, Jan. 2 does not necessarily represent doomsday for most agencies, according to Livermore.

Within a few months of Inauguration Day, the next president will need to decide on how to deal with serious risks to the Internet’s innovation machine. If it goes the wrong way, online startups could be threatened and users could be in for less high-quality content on the Web. Clearly, that would be a downer, but it would also have significant financial implications, as the online sector powers economic growth with investment dollars. By 2016, US e-commerce retail sales will reach $362 billion dollars, and that’s only a fraction of the value of the Web.

The potential of the retrospective review of rules adopted by federal agencies has been hailed by both the right and the left as a way to improve regulation and increase efficiency: by collecting information on what works and what does not, we can make better choices in the future. The Obama Administration has embraced this vision of retrospective review, but unfortunately, by focusing almost exclusively on cutting costs, it is walking back its commitment to use this tool in a balanced fashion.

President Obama has placed streamlining government bureaucracy among his priorities, saying he wants to “hunt down and eliminate misspent tax dollars in every agency and department across the Federal Government.” That could be like shooting fish in a barrel, if his administration takes a few major steps to facilitate better coordination between agencies.

Budgets are about choices and priorities. We promote policies and fund services we believe the government should pursue because we want those things to generate positive outcomes for our society. We weigh the costs of implementing those policies or programs against the worth or value of the outcomes they produce. In other words, “Costs can only be understood in light of the benefits…they would generate,” as Jennifer Rosenberg of the Institute for Policy Integrity has stressed.

At least some trucking industry analysts said they expect the latest version of the hours-of-service rule to land back in federal court because the rule seems to satisfy no one.

“I think the industry’s going to challenge it, and I think there’s a good chance that the public interest groups are going to challenge it,” said Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity in the New York University School of Law.

In the net neutrality debate, Internet Service Providers like AT&T and Verizon, have said they need to charge content providers for prioritization so they can invest in improving infrastructure: faster internet service for all, they say.

But placing a price on prioritizing content creates an inherent disincentive to expand infrastructure. ISPs would profit from a congested Internet in which some content providers will be more than willing to pay an additional fee for faster delivery to users. Content providers like the New York Times and Google would have little choice but to fork it over to get their information to end users. But end users would be unlikely to see the promised upgrades in speed. Those are some of the results of research we conducted on the Internet market.

A study released by the Institute for Policy Integrity in October describes how a weakening of the principle of network neutrality might impact the Web. Based on an analysis of Internet usage, it finds that Internet infrastructure and content work together to generate huge economic benefits for consumers—possibly as much as $5,686 per user, per year.

Eliminating network neutrality, as some have proposed, may reduce incentives to invest in Internet content and infrastructure.

The NYU study represents a smart new way of looking at an old problem; an economic evaluation that strips away some of the emotion (and demagogeury) that surrounds any discussion of crime and justice. It’s easier to be “tough on crime” when you can pay the price, right? But now we can’t. And the collective poverty within our criminal justice systems isn’t going to ease on its own. So bring in the economists! And let the stale, old law-and-order crowd step aside.

There’s an interesting study out from the NYU School of Law which buttresses the argument that America would save a ton of money down the road, and make life easier for many of its citizens, if lawmakers today were able to muster up the moxie to remodel criminal justice systems. It’s a concept that requires political foresight and a patient public, which means most politicians and their constituents will blindly reject it, but I hope serious people everywhere take a long look at this.