Foundations
Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Featured Stories
Workers in North Carolina and California Ask Federal Labor Board to Nix Policy Letting Union Bosses Block Elections
SPRINGFIELD, Virginia, Jan. 6 -- The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation posted the following news release:* * *
Workers in North Carolina and California Ask Federal Labor Board to Nix Policy Letting Union Bosses Block Elections
With new quorum, National Labor Relations Board can eliminate "blocking charge" policy used to stop union removal elections
*
Washington, DC - Workers in North Carolina and California are pushing the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to strike down its "blocking charge" policy, which is preventing them from removing unwanted union officials from their ... Show Full Article SPRINGFIELD, Virginia, Jan. 6 -- The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation posted the following news release: * * * Workers in North Carolina and California Ask Federal Labor Board to Nix Policy Letting Union Bosses Block Elections With new quorum, National Labor Relations Board can eliminate "blocking charge" policy used to stop union removal elections * Washington, DC - Workers in North Carolina and California are pushing the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to strike down its "blocking charge" policy, which is preventing them from removing unwanted union officials from theirworkplaces.
The workers, which include miners employed by The Quartz Corp. in Spruce Pine, NC, and Fresno, CA-based construction materials workers for CalPortland, both backed petitions in late 2025 asking the NLRB to administer votes to remove (or "decertify") unions from their workplaces. Despite both petitions containing enough signatures to trigger union decertification elections, regional NLRB officials blocked both votes pursuant to the NLRB's current blocking charge policy. This Biden-era policy permits union officials to stymie the union decertification process simply by filing unproven or unrelated "unfair labor practice" charges at the NLRB alleging employer misconduct.
Quartz Corp. employee Blake Davis and CalPortland worker Darrell Dunlap have both submitted Requests for Review to the NLRB in Washington, DC. These filings ask the Board to overturn the blocking charge policy and let their coworkers' requested votes to remove the United Mine Workers and Teamsters unions (respectively) go forward. Davis and Dunlap are both receiving free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys. While vacancies on the NLRB have caused a backlog of cases, the U.S. Senate recently approved two new presidential appointees to the NLRB, meaning the Board now has a "quorum" and can hear these and other cases.
"Blocking Charge" Policy Inconsistent With Federal Labor Law
Dunlap's Request for Review argues that the NLRB's blocking charge policy directly conflicts with the text of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal law that the NLRB is responsible for enforcing. "Allowing a self-interested party to unilaterally block elections conflicts with [the NLRA], which requires the Board to hold an election" if employees submit a valid decertification petition, Dunlap's brief says. "The blocking charge policy does not just contravene a clear Congressional command, but also offends the entire structure and purpose of the Act: employee free choice."
Dunlap's brief also maintains that the blocking charge rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it is arbitrary and fails to accomplish even its own stated goals. For example, the Request for Review says, NLRB bureaucrats impose the policy without considering key data showing the blocking charge policy has caused substantial delays in the union election process. Furthermore, the Board has argued that the rule is required to stop "coercive elections" from happening - even though its only mechanism for doing this is giving self-interested union bosses massive power to block elections or let them proceed.
Davis' Request for Review makes many similar arguments, but adds that even if the Board were to uphold the blocking charge policy, regional NLRB officials egregiously misapplied it in his case. As his brief points out, even before he and his colleagues had submitted the union decertification petition, "the union filed a barrage of [unfair labor practice charges]," some of which were just speculation about employer activity aiding the union removal process. Even so, the regional NLRB appears to have blocked Davis and his coworkers' requested election based on the mere quantity of the union's charges, without explaining which allegation justified blocking. "By failing to distinguish between allegations that might warrant blocking and those that plainly would not, the Region reduced the rule to a numbers game," the Request for Review says.
Trump NLRB Can Undo 'Blocking Charge' Policy and Empower Independent-Minded Workers
The National Right to Work Foundation has long advocated for the NLRB to return to the Election Protection Rule, which prevented many aspects of blocking charge-related gamesmanship before the Biden NLRB overturned it in 2022. Under the Election Protection Rule, allegations of misconduct related to a union decertification election could not block employees from exercising their right to vote, and in most cases permitted the immediate release of the vote tally as opposed to ordering ballots to be impounded during litigation over blocking charges.
"The NLRB's 'blocking charge' policy serves only to let union officials stop the workers they claim to 'represent' from making a free choice about whether a union in their workplace is right for them," commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. "Mr. Dunlap and Mr. Davis speak for countless workers across the country who are trapped under union boss dictates and forced-dues payments because of this rule.
"If President Trump's new NLRB appointees are serious about putting American workers back in control of their own livelihoods, reversing this union boss power giveaway is an excellent place to start," Mix added.
* * *
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, assists thousands of employees in about 200 cases nationwide per year.
***
Original text here: https://www.nrtw.org/news/blocking-charge-rfrs-01062026/
The Declaration of Independence Is Still Our Guidepost
DETROIT, Michigan, Jan. 6 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following news:* * *
The Declaration of Independence Is Still Our Guidepost
*
Chief Justice John Roberts reflects on 250 years of American history.
Chief Justice John Roberts is right: The Declaration of Independence, while not law itself, must be the benchmark that guides all three branches of government.
On New Year's Eve, the Chief Justice released his annual year-end report on the state of the judiciary. Of particular note is the brief prefatory letter that Roberts has often used to opine on controversial ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Jan. 6 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following news: * * * The Declaration of Independence Is Still Our Guidepost * Chief Justice John Roberts reflects on 250 years of American history. Chief Justice John Roberts is right: The Declaration of Independence, while not law itself, must be the benchmark that guides all three branches of government. On New Year's Eve, the Chief Justice released his annual year-end report on the state of the judiciary. Of particular note is the brief prefatory letter that Roberts has often used to opine on controversialissues such as judicial independence, artificial intelligence in the legal profession, and security threats against judges. This year's letter focuses on the Declaration of Independence, which celebrates its 250th anniversary in 2026. While many commentators have criticized Roberts for "dodging" the biggest questions of the dayespecially perceived favoritism for the Trump administrationhis words are apt for the times, focusing on the foundational ideals that define the American experiment.
In 1776, the Declaration was a radical idea. It argued that the government, established by the consent of the governed, exists to secure the People's unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Today, these words have become seemingly trite phrases, so often used that they have lost the boldness and fortitude they possessed at the time. Yet it is crucial, as the Chief Justice recognizes, that our government return to these words and measure their efforts against them.
In the report, Roberts presents a reasoned and nuanced view of how the Declaration should inform the law. He first explains that the Declaration, unlike the Constitution or US Code, is not law itself. Moreover, while the Declaration's aspirations shaped our government, it has repeatedly fallen short. Take, for instance, the phrase "all men are created equal." The signers believed this to be a self-evident truth, yet most participated in slavery.
Despite its shortcomings, Roberts argues that the Declaration, even in its aspirational form, has served as a vital guidepost when the government has failed to protect rights. For example, Justice John Marshall Harlan invoked the Declaration in his Plessy v. Ferguson dissent, and civil rights leaders and suffragists turned to the document as the moral authority for their causes.
The Chief Justice's letter serves as a reminder that the Declaration continues to hold practical importance. However, many commentators have mischaracterized the report as anomalous and evasive, claiming that it broke from tradition and sidestepped the public's larger concerns about the judiciary.
These criticisms fail to recognize that Roberts frequently uses the year-end report to honor special events and anniversaries. For instance, in the 2021 edition, the Chief Justice wrote about the history and importance of the Judicial Conference. It would have been unusual for the High Court to ignore our country's major milestone, especially in light of efforts by the other branches. To celebrate the Semiquincentennial, Congress established the America250 Commission to commemorate the signing of the Declaration. Similarly, President Trump created the "Salute to America 250 Task Force" and, on New Year's Eve, lit up the Washington Monument with the "Illumination of America" display. Roberts's latest letter lacks the pomp and circumstance of these other projects, yet it embodies the same spirit of reflection. Moreover, contrary to the critiques, his letter still endeavors to address, albeit subtly, the latest controversies through the lens of America's Founding.
In the letter, Roberts marches through 250 years of history, focusing on principles with modern salience. His starting point is Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" and the key formulation that the government's purpose is not to serve the whims of the few, but of the People. This remains true today.
In a purposeful detour, he turns to the life of Samuel Chase, one of the Declaration's signers, who was impeached by the House but acquitted in the Senate. At the time, many senators believed that it was improper to remove a judge from office based on disapproval of his decisions. A timely historical nod, given the Chief Justice's rare public statement last year. Back in March, President Trump publicly called for Judge James Boasberg to be removed from the bench because he blocked the President's deportation plans. As Roberts wrote, "impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose."
The Declaration belongs at the center of the year-end report. As Roberts rightfully concluded, it is the responsibility of all three branches of government to live up to the promises of the Declaration. These principles guide our legislators, executive officials, and especially our courts, and they are worthy of repetition.
***
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/the-declaration-of-independence-is-still-our-guidepost/
TPPF Submits Comment on Updated Definition of "Waters of the United States"
AUSTIN, Texas, Jan. 6 -- The Texas Public Policy Foundation issued the following news release:* * *
TPPF Submits Comment on Updated Definition of "Waters of the United States"
*
AUSTIN - The Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) submitted a comment on the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Proposed Rule titled Updated Definition of "Waters of the United States," which includes measures that right-size federal jurisdiction over the nation's waters. The Proposed Rule correctly recognizes that federal jurisdiction over waters arises under the Commerce Clause.
However, ... Show Full Article AUSTIN, Texas, Jan. 6 -- The Texas Public Policy Foundation issued the following news release: * * * TPPF Submits Comment on Updated Definition of "Waters of the United States" * AUSTIN - The Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) submitted a comment on the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Proposed Rule titled Updated Definition of "Waters of the United States," which includes measures that right-size federal jurisdiction over the nation's waters. The Proposed Rule correctly recognizes that federal jurisdiction over waters arises under the Commerce Clause. However,TPPF also notes that the Proposed Rule's treatment of seasonal rivers and waters that are not presently navigable - and thus cannot be used as a highway for interstate or foreign commerce - extends jurisdiction beyond the Commerce Clause's limits and invites future administrations to improperly expand federal jurisdiction.
"TPPF applauds EPA's efforts to redefine the term 'waters of the United States' under the Clean Water Act to comply with the jurisdictional limits of the Constitution," said TPPF Senior Attorney Ted Hadzi-Antich, "In so doing, EPA must adjust the proposed definition to cover only those waters that are currently navigable. Claiming jurisdiction over any other waters goes beyond constitutional boundaries established by the Founding Fathers."
TPPF Attorney Eric Heigis added, "This proposal provided a fitting opportunity to remind EPA and the Army Corps that the federal government has limited, enumerated powers. The comment provides a roadmap for the agencies to improve the Proposed Rule in a way that will respect the constitution's limits on federal jurisdiction."
To read the comment, click here.
***
Original text here: https://www.texaspolicy.com/press/tppf-submits-comment-on-updated-definition-of-waters-of-the-united-states
Surface Transportation News: Priced managed lanes come of age
LOS ANGELES, California, Jan. 6 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news:* * *
Surface Transportation News: Priced managed lanes come of age
*
In this issue:
* Priced managed lanes come of age
* Conflicting measures of U.S. traffic congestion
* Serious bipartisan NEPA reform passed in the House
* What now for electric vehicles?
* Feds OK automated railroad track inspection
* L.A. Metro needs a better strategy
* Quotable Quotes
* News Notes
Priced Managed Lanes Come of Age
December was the 30th anniversary of the opening of the world's first priced managed lanes project: ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Jan. 6 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news: * * * Surface Transportation News: Priced managed lanes come of age * In this issue: * Priced managed lanes come of age * Conflicting measures of U.S. traffic congestion * Serious bipartisan NEPA reform passed in the House * What now for electric vehicles? * Feds OK automated railroad track inspection * L.A. Metro needs a better strategy * Quotable Quotes * News Notes Priced Managed Lanes Come of Age December was the 30th anniversary of the opening of the world's first priced managed lanes project:State Route 91 in Orange County, California. As the inventor of the concept, I was present at the groundbreaking (I still have my hard hat) and the ribbon-cutting.
While a number of state departments of transportation (DOTs) subsequently created high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, mostly by converting under-used high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, it took more than a decade more for there to be a second toll-financed public-private partnership (P3) project, the Fluor/Transurban P3 that added express toll lanes to the western half of the I-495 Beltway in northern Virginia (financed in 2007 and opened to traffic in autumn 201217 years after the SR-91 ribbon-cutting).
Today, P3-priced managed lanes projects have proliferated across the country, including in Atlanta, Charlotte, Dallas, Fort Worth, Nashville, Northern Virginia, and Orlando. Nearly all these projects have investment-grade bond ratings. The U.S. Department of Transportation's Build America Bureau is working hard to keep up with the demand for federal Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act loans, which most of these projects have used, in addition to tax-exempt private activity bonds (PABs). The demand for the latter is so high that the $30 billion federal cap on those bonds has nearly been reached.
In the November issue of Public Works Financing, Gordon Feller has an overview article: " The Evolution of U.S. Express Lane P3s and TIFIA." Here are the main points in his case.
* Priced managed lanes are maturing, with revenue often exceeding projections and investment-grade bond ratings.
* Delivery is evolving from projects to programs. What we are seeing is express toll lane networks, exemplified by Atlanta, Dallas/Ft. Worth, and the Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C.
* Risk allocation is becoming more nuanced and collaborative. This is partly due to the experience gained from projects successfully developed and implemented.
* Tolling technology and customer acceptance are now central to success. The large amount of data from the proliferation of successful projects is a key factor.
* Data is transforming forecasting, design, and operations. Today, we have far more data on willingness to pay, with customers valuing reliability in addition to time savings.
* The forecasting model itself is being reimagined. Lenders and rating agencies are getting comfortable with improved forecasting models, based on a lot more data.
* Public support hinges on early messaging and transparency. It used to be that the first priced managed lanes project in a metro area (or even in a new portion of it) was immediately attacked as "Lexus Lanes." That term, while not gone, is much less heard today.
* TIFIA and PABs are still foundational. There are still risks in these projects, and tax-exempt PABs put investor-financed projects on a level playing field with state-run projects.
* Technology uncertainty must be addressed with flexible contracts. Autonomous vehicles and artificial intelligence are on the horizon in transportation, so long-term P3s must be flexible in facing their future.
* Capacity constraints are real, but surmountable. He refers to factors such as the limited number of experienced P3 developers and competition from other global infrastructure projects.
I recommend reading Feller's entire article for details on these insights.
Conflicting Measures of U.S. Traffic Congestion
Which U.S. metro area has the highest annual amount of delay from traffic congestion?
In the November issue of this newsletter, I reported that in 2024, Los Angeles ranked first, followed closely by San Francisco. Those numbers came from the 2025 Urban Mobility Report of the Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI). But a new report just out from data firm Inrix lists the top two congested areas in 2024 as New York and Chicago, which tied for first place in 2024, and with significantly lower numbers than the Texas A&M report.
That's not the only disparity. Again, using reported 2024 numbers from both reports, the total cost of congestion to each metro area is reported as follows:
Inrix Texas A&M
Los Angeles $8.6B $29.5B
New York $9.7B $24.2B
Chicago $7.5B $11.8B
Washington, D.C. $3.2B $6.2B
Denver $1.2B $3.5B
These are both reputable sources, but they clearly measure congestion differently. The figures on the cost to each metro area reflect a different definition of the geographic scope of each. This appears to account for the large disparity in aggregate costs and probably also the rankings based on hours lost per commuter.
Both organizations provide an overview of their methodology, which you can review if you are interested in those details. I suggest that neither of these reports should be considered the definitive account of the extent of congestion in America's largest metro areas. Both show that traffic congestion continues to increase, resuming the upward trend that was readily apparent in pre-COVID-19 pandemic years.
Staying with the new Inrix numbers for 2024 and 2025, by their definition of the metro areas, Chicago, New York, and Philadelphia are the top three metro areas in most hours lost to traffic congestion per auto commuter (compared with Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York in TTI's ranking).
While New York City implemented congestion pricing in Manhattan below 60th Street in Jan. 2025, the Inrix numbers show the same 102 hours lost by the average commuter in both 2024 and 2025. New York City's own data show modest congestion reductions in the Manhattan pricing zone, but that has only led to the metro area having the same 102 hours lost in both 2024 and 2025.
These are both carefully done estimates of traffic congestion in U.S. metro areas. But since both the methodology and the geographic scope differ considerably, neither can be used as "the" basic measurement of metro area traffic congestion in urban America.
Serious Bipartisan NEPA Reform Passes in the House
A bipartisan bill called the SPEED Act was approved by a 221 to 196 vote in the House of Representatives on Dec. 18. The full name of the bill is the Standardized Permitting and Expediting Economic Development Act. Its co-sponsors were Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-ARChairman of the Natural Resources Committee) and Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME). Of the 221 yes votes, 11 were Democrats, and one Republican voted no.
Michael Bennon provided an excellent overview of the bill in the lead article in the November issue of Public Works Financing. Bennon points out that the bill would apply NEPA reform to all forms of infrastructure, rather than limiting it to energy and environment; hence, transportation infrastructure is included. (My view is that this broader scope will be essential to get the final passage of a bipartisan bill by the Senate.)
The primary focus of the SPEED Act is to reform the litigation process, which is what leads to years of delay after an Environmental Impact Statement is released. One key provision is to remove the injunction remedy if a court finds that the EIS is flawed.
As Bennon notes, "Such a change would leave NEPA's administrative process intact but completely change NEPA's conflict resolution in the courts. NEPA litigation would change significantly because the vast majority of plaintiffs in NEPA lawsuits are not suing to challenge an environmental study per se. They are suing because they want to stop the project."
The SPEED Act also would codify in NEPA's statute key Supreme Court findings in the recent "Seven County Infrastructure Coalition" case, regarding hypothetical impacts far from the project's location. And it would clarify that agencies need not consider research that did not exist when a NEPA study began. It would also require lawsuits to be filed within no more than 150 days after a final agency action under NEPA. Also, in the event of a lawsuit, any claims must have also been made in a previous public comment by the claimant.
When I researched and wrote my 2024 Reason Foundation policy paper on NEPA reform, its focus was on environmental litigation, which had never been seriously proposed in NEPA reform efforts. Relatively recent measures that put a page limit on environmental impact statements (EIS) and a timeframe for completing them were toothless. (Agencies learned to put all the excess verbiage in an appendix, and they started the clock after a lot of "preliminary" work had been done). What really needed serious reform was out-of-control litigation, mostly aimed at killing projects rather than genuinely protecting the environment where projects are built.
I have no idea what the SPEED Act's political prospects in the Senate may be. But this is the first serious NEPA reform proposal to address out-of-control anti-project litigation, and I hope it leads to meaningful reform.
What Now for Electric Vehicles?
Fourth-quarter U.S. electric vehicle sales have plunged, following the elimination of the $7,500 federal subsidy effective Oct. 1. And America's two large domestic automakersFord and General Motorskeep announcing cutbacks and write-offs.
Ford's announced changes have been the most dramatic. In December, it announced that it would take a $19.5 billion charge, after having lost $13 billion on its electric vehicle sales since 2023. It will end production of its F-150 Lightning, the electric version of its best-selling pickup truck.
Also in December, Ford cancelled a $6.5 billion battery deal with South Korean company LG Energy Solution. However, it is not giving up on EVs, going forward. In August, it announced plans to invest $5 billion in a new Universal EV Platform, aiming to produce less-expensive EVs, including a new mid-size EV pickup truck. Whether that plan will survive Ford's recent write-offs remains to be seen.
General Motors in October announced plans to lay off 3,300 EV and battery workers starting in January. And in December, GM announced a $1.6 billion charge based on planned EV cutbacks, but it has released fewer details than Ford.
The ramifications of these changes have reached California policymakers. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) in October said it is reconsidering the state's 2035 deadline for ending gasoline-powered vehicle sales, although a separate 2020 executive order from Gov. Gavin Newsom banning gasoline-vehicle sales as of 2035 remains in effect. The Trump administration has done away with California's long-standing ability to mandate tougher fuel-economy rules than federal law required in other states.
Although there has been no sweeping EV policy change in Europe, electric vehicle sales have slowed down, and companies are making cutbacks. Volkswagen in November announced (union-agreed) plans to phase out 35,000 jobs. E.U. industry commissioner Stephane Sejourne said the 2035 target date for cutting vehicle carbon emissions to zero will be reconsidered. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, in October, paused an EV sales mandate that would have gone into effect in 2026, aiming to help a struggling auto industry.
This does not mean the end of electric vehicles, and definitely not hybrids (which are selling better than EVs in the United States). As some commentators have pointed out, urban-area commuters don't need 500-mile range electric vehicles, especially if they have a charger in their garage. And Teslas continue to sell reasonably well. But the now-ended U.S. EV boom, stimulated by the $7,500 new-vehicle tax credit, artificially expanded the U.S. EV market. For the next decade or so, EVs will more likely be a niche market.
Federal Regulators OK Increased Use of Automated Track Inspection
By Marc Scribner
On Dec. 5, after more than seven months, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) granted a waiver sought by the freight rail industry to expand the use of automated track inspection (ATI) technologies. ATI relies on sensors installed on locomotives or railcars in revenue service that can detect track geometry defects more accurately than human visual inspections. Legacy federal regulations mandate rigid visual inspection schedules, and railroads had sought a waiver to replace some visual inspections with ATI. FRA's approved waiver is a welcome step forward, but some of the modified conditions will need to be changed to realize the full benefits of ATI.
For more than a decade, railroads have been developing and deploying ATI technologies. FRA track inspection rules relegated ATI as supplemental for traditional visual inspections, unless railroads received a waiver to reduce visual inspections. Several waivers were granted as part of pilot programs during the first Trump administration. The data collected by those pilots was submitted to FRA and consistently demonstrated improved track geometry defect detectionwith ATI detecting hundreds of times more defects than visual inspections on a given length of track.
Both the agency and rail carriers were enthusiastic about the potential of ATI, which could allow for enhanced safety, better maintenance planning, and reduced delays owing to the track occupied by inspectors. The inspector workforce could be reallocated to more complex trackwork that cannot be inspected by ATI, such as track switches (turnouts), further enhancing safety and efficiency on the rail network.
But labor unions representing inspectors have opposed these moves. After the Biden administration took office in 2021, it began shutting down pilot programs and denying ATI waivers. The Railroad Safety Board, which is FRA's internal body of career technical experts tasked with reviewing waiver programs, was overruled by political appointees. The implication was that a safety regulatory agency had been captured by organized labor seeking to advance its narrow economic interests.
One of the ATI pilot carriers, BNSF Railway, challenged the FRA's decision to deny its waiver in federal court. In March 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that FRA had acted unlawfully in denying BNSF's ATI waiver, given the "unqualified success" of ATI under the prior waiver, and ordered the agency to reconsider its position. In June 2023, FRA again denied BNSF's waiver petition. Continued litigation led to the Fifth Circuit ordering FRA to grant BNSF's five-year ATI waiver in June 2024, an unusually forceful step that reflected the agency's extraordinary intransigence.
Following the change in administrations, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) submitted a new ATI waiver petition to the FRA on April 25. Unlike past waiver requests submitted by individual railroads, this waiver would apply to the entire industry. For ATI-inspected main track and sidings, AAR's petition proposed to reduce visual inspections from twice per week to twice per month. Any defects detected by ATI would generally need to be verified by field inspection, and initial remedial action would be initiated within 72 hours.
Reason Foundation submitted comments in July to FRA supporting AAR's waiver petition, highlighting the safety benefits of expanded ATI use to the rail system but also to inspectors themselves, who would face reduced exposure to hazards in the field. Months went on with no answer from FRA, which was puzzling to many observers.
In November, the Washington Examiner reported that "allies of Vice President J.D. Vance at the Department of Transportation are 'stonewalling' the waiver in hopes of appeasing unions and maintaining Trump's labor coalition for a potential 2028 White House bid of his own." This suggests that union favoritism continues to negatively influence U.S. rail safety policy, despite the hope that the Trump administration would be less inclined to kowtow to organized labor than the Biden administration.
This reporting was soon picked up by the Washington Post, which published a pointed editorial on Dec. 1, "Trump mimics Biden's approach to railroad safety," noting that limiting the use of ATI runs counter to both safety and "the technological aspirations of the administration to beat China in the AI race."
The Washington Post 's critical coverage of the White House's ATI political play may have been enough to dislodge AAR's waiver request at FRA, which issued a decision giving approval days later, on Dec. 5. However, FRA's waiver grant came with modified conditions, including requiring visual inspections once weekly instead of once every other week as requested. FRA will analyze the first year's ATI waiver data to see if inspection frequencies can be further reduced.
The once-weekly inspection frequency was commonly used in initial ATI pilot testing in the previous decade, so it is disappointing that FRA chose not to build on that success immediately. Trade publication Railway Age quoted an anonymous rail safety expert complaining about the overly complex and burdensome modified waiver conditions, "They're appallingly asinine. Someone got to them. Compare them to the waiver BNSF had."
Despite these critiques, the fact that the FRA granted the waiver is a positive step forward. But to realize the full benefits of ATI, Congress and stakeholders should vigorously monitor FRA's performance. Given the recent Trump White House interference in this decision and past actions during the Biden administration, particular attention should be given to the operations of FRA's Railroad Safety Board to ensure they are driven by careful safety data analysis and not being influenced by union clientelism.
L.A. Metro Needs a Better Strategy
By Baruch Feigenbaum
Transit ridership has recovered slowly since the COVID-19 pandemic. But across the country, it's becoming a tale of two different types of transit agencies: ones that are innovating and ones that are not.
Innovative transit agencies are redesigning their bus networks, focusing on buses over rail, using new delivery methods, and aggressively tackling violent crime on transit systems.
Why are these steps important?
Redesigned bus networks offer more frequent service that operates on a grid designed for transit-dependent customers. Reduced focus on rail allows most transit agencies to concentrate on bus riders. Innovative delivery speeds up project timelines, reducing costs. Finally, reduced crime rates and the perception of crime improve rider safety and project an image that the agency cares about riders.
While a few agencies, such as Indy Go and the Regional Transit District of Denver, are prioritizing innovation, other agencies, such as Los Angeles Metro, are not.
In a policy study that I wrote as a joint Independent Institute-Reason Foundation product, I took an in-depth examination of L.A. Metro's problems. Some of the politicians guiding Metro appear to be designing a transit system in Los Angeles to serve New York City. They want Los Angeles to morph into a place with a very high population density downtown and a strong urban core. In reality, Los Angeles already has the highest population density in the country. But L.A.'s density is a uniform medium density, which makes rail transit unworkable.
Manhattan was fully developed before mass-produced automobiles were affordable. Turning auto-inspired Los Angeles into New York City via government mandate simply won't work. Yet this approach is shaping the transit agency's planning.
Los Angeles Metro has long been focused on recruiting more transit choice riders to the system. Transit choice riders are attractive because they pay full fare and increase political support for the system across the region. Choice riders, who use rail, travel by transit less frequently (generally 2-3 times per week) than transit-dependent riders, who use the bus more and take transit daily. Choice riders make trips from home to work, while dependent riders make more types of trips (to work, the grocery store, and doctors' appointments).
This focus on rail riders previously landed Los Angeles Metro in court. In 1994, the Bus Riders Union filed a lawsuit alleging that Metro spent a disproportionate amount of resources on new rail services that benefited wealthier, suburban users. A judge agreed and issued a consent decree that lowered the cost of a weekly pass to $11 and expanded the fleet by 152 buses. However, once the consent decree expired, Metro again prioritized choice riders, which it continues to do today.
Metro's current leadership is not forward-thinking. The previous Metro leader, Phil Washington, was known as an out-of-the-box thinker dating back to his time at the Denver Regional Transit District. In Los Angeles, he pursued innovative solutions such as first-mile last-mile projects, microtransit, pop-up services, and public-private partnerships (P3s). He established an office of Extraordinary Innovation to push for new ideas.
The current L.A. Metro administration says it wants innovation, but the results have been disappointing. Once Phil Washington left Los Angeles to run Denver International Airport, the Office of Extraordinary Innovation was dissolved.
Excessive costs and overruns are routine in the transit industry. Bent Flyvbjerg's research has shown systematic cost overruns of 50% or more, often driven by optimism bias and strategic misrepresentation (lying).
But Metro takes this problem to a new level; it has the highest per rider capital cost for any very large transit agency in the world. Los Angeles' average cost per rider is $25.80. For New York, the cost is $5.89. London, Paris, Seoul, and Tokyo have costs of $2.91, $2.32, $1.09, and $0.88. respectively.
In Los Angeles, the D (Purple) line project's cost ballooned from an estimated $2.8 billion to $3.55 billion, a 27% increase due to four different incidents of cost overruns.
Because it operates services in so many areas of the county, particularly low-density areas, Metro is not providing enough service for core customers in high-population areas.
In the New York City core, most rail services operate on 2-5 minute headways. Yet, Metro rail service has 12-minute headways. Most of the L.A. bus lines only come every 15 minutes, yet buses in New York City come every 5 minutes.
Metro has also failed to invest in intelligent transportation systems, and buses are late 22% of the time. If Metro wants to imitate New York, it's doing a poor job.
Finally, safety has been a major problem. In a single month in 2024, Metro had six violent incidents, including multiple stabbings, a shooting, and a wrench attack. That June and July were not much better, with three incidents each. In response, Metro established its own police force, and there have been some minor improvements, but Metro is still more dangerous than its peer transit agencies.
Innovative transit agencies are redesigning their bus networks, focusing on bus over rail, using innovative delivery methods, and aggressively tackling violent crime. Los Angeles Metro has additional changes it can make, such as cracking down on fare evasion, using value capture more, and expanding bus rapid transit instead of rail. But to start, offering more consistent, reliable, and safer service to its more frequent customers would be the best approach.
News Notes
Virginia 495 NEXT Express Lanes Open
On Nov. 23, the latest addition to the express toll lanes on the Capitol Beltway (I-495) in northern Virginia opened to traffic. The addition extends northward from the Dulles corridor interchange to just south of the American Legion Bridge across the Potomac River, with connections there to the George Washington Memorial Parkway. The project was carried out by Transurban, which also built and operates the express toll lanes on the rest of I-495 and I-95 in northern Virginia. The only missing link in this Virginia network is the planned Southside express lanes between I-95 and the Woodrow Wilson Bridge.
Does Urban Rail Transit Need Two-Member Crews?
The New York Subway has long operated with both an operator and a conductor. With system operator MTA facing budgetary problems, the New York State legislature last year passed a law requiring two operators. That led the NYU Marron Institute to review other rail transit systems' practices. After examining operations of more than 400 subway and commuter rail systems in 36 cities worldwide, the Marron Institute found that fewer than 6.25% used two-person crews. The New York Times highlighted these findings in an article on Nov. 13, 2025. On Dec. 19, Gov. Kathy Hochul vetoed the legislation that mandated two-person crews.
Southern California I-15 Express Toll Lanes to Expand
Lake Elsinore has announced plans for a $700 million project to add express toll lanes to 15.8 miles of I-15 in Riverside County between Lake Elsinore and Corona. The project will be handled by the Riverside County Transportation Commission. Express lanes on I-15 in Riverside County already exist between Corona and SR 60, and on I-15 in San Diego County from SR 163 in San Diego to SR 78 in Escondido.
Pennsylvania DOT Reviewing Four Unsolicited Proposals
On Dec. 4, PennDOT announced that it will evaluate four unsolicited P3 proposals. They are a Pittsburgh bundled bridge replacement project, a South Philadelphia Accelerated Ramp Connections project, an Automated Road Detection and Management System, and an I-76 Schuylkill Expressway Managed Lanes project. The latter was submitted by Cintra, with an estimated project cost of $5 billion; it would add two MLs in each direction to this highly congested expressway. If implemented, these would be the first express toll lanes in Pennsylvania.
Competition for EUR8 Billion Italian Motorway
The long-term concession for the A22 motorway in northern Italy is expiring, and fierce competition is underway. In addition to the existing company, Autostrade per l'Italia (ASPI), Infralogic (Dec. 4) reported that Spanish infrastructure group Sacyr and Ardian-backed ASTM are keenly interested. Infralogic 's Antonio Fabrizio reports that Sacyr and ASTM have battled for most Italian motorway tenders in recent years. The competition is for a 50-year concession requiring an up-front EUR8.4 billion concession fee.
Seeking Solutions for Maryland's Portion of the Beltway
The U.S. DOT last month released a request for information (RFI) regarding a potential public-private partnership (P3) for the I-495 corridor section that includes the bottleneck American Legion Bridge and all of I-495 from I-395 in Virginia to I-95 in Maryland (which includes all of Maryland's portion of the Beltway). Several years ago. Maryland's governor cancelled the previous administration's plans to add express toll lanes to Maryland's portion of the Beltway. The RFI appears to be inviting companies and public officials to take a fresh look at relieving congestion in this vital commuting corridor. Since Maryland's government has few funds to spend on improved highways, revenue-based P3s might be among the few viable options.
Abertis Takes Over Barcelona's Tunnels
Tunels de Barcelona I Cadi began operating these two urban tunnels in 2013, with Abertis holding 50.1% of the concession and Credit Agricole Assurances (CAA) the balance. Infralogic reported (Dec. 12) that Abertis has bought out its partner. The two tunnels provide access to Barcelona from two nearby regions, and these 46 km of tolled tunnels generated EUR69 million in 2024. The concession runs through 2037.
U.K. Implements Mileage-Based User Tax for Electric Vehicles
The Economist reported that the British government's new budget includes a mileage-based user tax for electric vehicles (EVs). The initial rate will be $.04 per mile for fully electric vehicles and half that amount for hybrids. Vehicles powered by petroleum fuels pay an annual tax that raised PS24.4 billion in the 2024-25 fiscal year. But both the new EV user tax and the existing fuels levy are not dedicated to highway capital and operating costs. As is true in most of Europe, they are simply taxes that form part of the national government's revenue. Highways get whatever parliaments decide to give them, which is generally far less than the amount of highway tax revenue.
Six Companies Bid for Indian Highway Concession
The National Highways Authority of India last month invited proposals for a concession covering three stretches of a 248 km motorway. Six major companies have submitted bids for the concession: Adani Group, CPPIB, Cube Highways, IRB Infrastructure Developers, KKR, and Oriental Structural Engineers. This is the 18th concession since 2018 offered by NHAI in its toll-operate-transfer (TOT) program.
Touchscreens Increasingly Viewed as Dangerous in Dashboards
As reported previously in this newsletter, several European research projects have compared the time it takes for drivers to get information via a button versus from a display screen, documenting much longer times for the latter, during which drivers' attention is not on the road. The Economist reported on additional research. Norway's SINTEF did an array of driver time measurements, including something as simple as changing the temperature or changing to a different radio station. And the U.K. Transport Laboratory found that overall, touchscreens impair a driver's reaction time more than driving over the legal blood alcohol limit. Even worse are advertisements popping up on touchscreens at a time when the driver needs to find or do something. The Economist article reported that some European car companies are returning to knobs and buttons for safety-related functions; it's about time.
Sydney Metro Projects Are Exceeding Their Budgets
On Dec. 5, the New South Wales government announced multi-billion-dollar cost overruns on a set of Sydney Metro rail projects. The latest cost estimates are $17.8-19.1 billion (US) for Metro West, about $15 billion for Metro Southwest, and $7.3 billion for Western City Airport Metro, about 10% over its most recent budget. The latter project is also running two years late. The Labor government is adding about $1.6 billion to these Metro rail projects. It blames the previous government for having made over-optimistic cost projections.
Metro Pacific Tollways Considering New Megaprojects
This Philippines-based toll roads company is exploring several new megaprojects. It is looking into the acquisition of a Vietnamese toll road, the identity of which is not specified. The company already has operations in Vietnam and Indonesia. In addition, it is conducting a feasibility study of adding an elevated tollway above the congested North Luzon Expressway in the Philippines, called NLEX Air. It recently raised 20 billion pesos via a bond offering to finance the Lapu-Lapu Expressway and the Cavite-Laguna Expressway.
Miami-Dade Electric Busway Will Underperform
Miami-Dade County has refurbished its 20-mile South Miami-Dade Busway with 14 air-conditioned boarding areas and a small fleet of articulated electric buses. There are no projections of daily ridership or the number of buses that will operate each way, but it's almost certain that a large amount of the roadway's capacity will go unused. Some years ago, I proposed that this nearly unused right of way (parallel to highly congested U.S. 1) be reconfigured as a variably priced express toll facility, using all of its capacity and generating revenue from the variable tolls. The transportation value proposition would be very largebut there was zero interest.
DOT Advisory Board Suggests Federal P3 Office
Bond Buyer reported that the U.S. DOT advisory board has suggested that the agency open a federal P3 office to increase the visibility of potential long-term transportation P3 projects. Back in August, Inframation's Eugene Gilligan reported that the Build America Bureau was working on a project to publish a list of P3 projects that could be ready to move forward. BAB's Morteza Farajian noted at that time that there is a "very healthy pipeline" of U.S. P3-managed lane projects.
Correction re: British Electric Train
Randal O'Toole responded to a December News Note about the British railroad line, which has a new connection to electric current from trackside solar panels. He included a photo showing that the passenger rail line in question is electrically powered by an outside third rail, which the U.K. article had failed to mention.
Your Editor in The Economist on Tolling
Last month, I was interviewed by a reporter for The Economist on the future of U.S. tolling. The interview went well, and the piece appeared late in December. If you subscribe to this excellent weekly, you can find the article here. If you do not subscribe, this link may work for you.
Quotable Quotes
"Managed lanes are coming of age. Some experts think that we may now be at a turning point for managed lanes and toll road P3s in the U.S. These projects are no longer viewed simply as infrastructure; they are mobility platformsand increasingly technology platformsdesigned to provide differentiated, customer-focused travel options."
Gordon Feller, " The Evolution of U.S. Express Lane P3s, and TIFIA," Public Works Financing, Nov. 2025
"Successful [permitting] reform would provide a voice, not a veto, to the public and other stakeholders. It would strengthen the public engagement process, require agencies to seriously consider comments, and then restrict judicial remedies that serve as veto points later in the process. One additional reform that deserves attention... is consolidating NEPA litigation in a single federal court. Centralized review could create precedent, shorten timelines, and end the inconsistent rulings that slow projects."
Elizabeth McCarthy, " The Fall of Permitting Reform," The Ecomodernist, Nov. 18, 2025
***
Original text here: https://reason.org/transportation-news/priced-managed-lanes-come-of-age/
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Gov. Landry should give as much attention to Louisiana's pension crisis as he does to college football
LOS ANGELES, California, Jan. 6 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary:* * *
Gov. Landry should give as much attention to Louisiana's pension crisis as he does to college football
By Steven Gassenberger, Policy Analyst
Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry's Christmas Eve op-ed at RealClearPolicy calling for "common-sense" reform of college football raises valid concerns about runaway spending by public institutions, weak governmental oversight, and the potential for taxpayer exposure.
"College athletics is losing many billions each year, and when the big bill finally comes due, it ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Jan. 6 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary: * * * Gov. Landry should give as much attention to Louisiana's pension crisis as he does to college football By Steven Gassenberger, Policy Analyst Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry's Christmas Eve op-ed at RealClearPolicy calling for "common-sense" reform of college football raises valid concerns about runaway spending by public institutions, weak governmental oversight, and the potential for taxpayer exposure. "College athletics is losing many billions each year, and when the big bill finally comes due, itlands on taxpayers," according to Gov. Landry.
But while the governor trains his fire on what he sees as the excesses of college athletics, Louisiana's most serious and persistent financial risk continues to create runaway spending and fester under weak oversight largely outside the spotlight: Louisiana's public pension debt.
Gov. Landry is right that taxpayers should not be left holding the bag for poorly structured coaching contracts or opaque financial arrangements with university boosters. WDSU reported "that private donors were paying the [buyout of former LSU Head Coach Brian Kelly's] contract, with one donor in particular paying the lion's share of the $54 million buyout."
But holding to Landry's principle of protecting taxpayers, the governor's greatest test of fiscal leadership is not found on the football fieldit is found in the balance sheet of the state's multi-billion dollar public pension systems, including the Louisiana State Employees' Retirement System (LASERS) and the Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana (TRSL), which cover over 365,000 Louisianians.
Unlike Louisiana State University (LSU) athletics, which operates as a self-funded enterprise supported by donors, ticket sales, and media revenue, the Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana and the Louisiana State Employees' Retirement System are taxpayer-backed obligations that have real costs today.
Take TRSL, the state's largest system. According to its latest actuarial valuation, TRSL itself holds roughly $28 billion in assets but faces $8.6 billion more in long-term liabilities. Its unfunded debt alonethe amount taxpayers are ultimately responsible forexceeds the total budgets of many state agencies combined. The obligation already requires over 15% of an educator's salary to service just pension debt. In other words, with TRSL covering $5.37 billion in payroll, over $800 million annually goes from taxpayers to service TRSL pension debt. That liability dwarfs any coaching buyout and poses a far greater long-term risk to the state's budget.
Things would be worse for TRSL had policymakers not instituted some limited pension reforms to the system's design and funding policies over a decade ago. Still, there is a significant risk that things could get worse before they get better. If TRSL investments had a bad year and returned a negative 10% ne xt year, similar to what the system experienced in 2008, it would add over $4 billion in new unfunded liabilities that taxpayers would need to cover.
The governor's concerns about fiscal responsibility are especially timely given that another constitutional amendment will go before voters in April 2026. If approved, the amendment would repurpose nearly $2 billion stored in education trust funds to boost TRSL's assets. Supporters framed the amendment as a safeguard for classrooms and teachers, saying it would free up funds for public school systems to raise teacher pay. But what the public was not told is that pay increases also increase public pension liabilities.
Landry does not control TRSL or LASERS' day-to-day management or investment decisions, nor can he unilaterally rewrite pension benefit statutes for future public employees. But, unlike his lack of influence on the national college football landscape, he is far from powerless when it comes to the state's pension systems and debt. As governor, Landry sets the tone for fiscal policy, proposes the executive budget, appoints key members of the retirement system's board, and shapes the legislative agenda that determines whether meaningful reform is even considered.
So the next logical step for Landry is to elevate pension sustainability to the same level of urgency he's talking about with college sports. That means using the upcoming legislative session to push for more transparent disclosure of investment risks, stronger oversight of fees and performance, and reforms that align pension benefit promises with both the needs of public employees and realistic funding assumptions. It also means acknowledging that Amendment 2, while well-intentioned, makes disciplined pension benefit design and governance even more critical, not less.
If Landry wants to demonstrate seriousness about protecting taxpayers and securing Louisiana's financial future, he should demand accountability in public pension funding.
***
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/gov-landry-should-give-as-much-attention-to-louisianas-pension-crisis-as-he-does-to-college-football/
Health Foundation Response to the Junk Food Advertising Ban
LONDON, England, Jan. 6 -- The Health Foundation issued the following statement on Jan. 4, 2026, by senior fellow Samantha Field:* * *
Health Foundation response to the junk food advertising ban
Junk food ad ban welcome, but loopholes threaten childhood obesity fight
*
Responding to the junk food advertising ban coming into force today, Samantha Field, Senior Fellow (Prevention) at the Health Foundation, said:
'We welcome today's ban on junk food advertising as a necessary step to protect children's health. Unhealthy food marketing is a major driver of obesity. Government estimates suggest ... Show Full Article LONDON, England, Jan. 6 -- The Health Foundation issued the following statement on Jan. 4, 2026, by senior fellow Samantha Field: * * * Health Foundation response to the junk food advertising ban Junk food ad ban welcome, but loopholes threaten childhood obesity fight * Responding to the junk food advertising ban coming into force today, Samantha Field, Senior Fellow (Prevention) at the Health Foundation, said: 'We welcome today's ban on junk food advertising as a necessary step to protect children's health. Unhealthy food marketing is a major driver of obesity. Government estimates suggestthe new rules could cut 7.2 billion calories annually and prevent 20,000 cases of childhood obesity.
'But with childhood obesity at highest-ever levels, and nearly twice as widespread in deprived areas, urgent, more decisive action is needed. Large loopholes on sports sponsorship, outdoor and online advertising means that children will still be reached by other channels. We have already seen industry spend shifting outdoors - McDonald's alone has increased outdoor advertising by 71% since 2021.
'Our work shows the public support bold public health polices and people want to see decisive action that protect children's health and wellbeing.
'If the government is serious about reducing childhood obesity, it must close these gaps and retain focus on the suite of actions needed to keep children healthy. These include empowering local authorities to build healthier food environments, expanding free school meals, strengthening Healthy Start, and improving the wider food environment.'
* * *
Original text here: https://www.health.org.uk/press-office/press-releases/health-foundation-response-to-the-junk-food-advertising-ban
Foundation for Economic Education Posts Commentary: Fed Independence?
DETROIT, Michigan, Jan. 6 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary on Jan. 5, 2026:* * *
Fed Independence?
The Fed is undemocratic and unnecessary.
By Walter Block
Ideally, there should be no such thing as the Federal Reserve System. The Fed should not have been created in 1913, and should be disbanded right now. End the Fed! This organization is nothing more and nothing less than a central planning bureau for interest rates, employment, and inflation (of late, it has expanded its mandate to include climate change and social equity issues as well).
Evidently, ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Jan. 6 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary on Jan. 5, 2026: * * * Fed Independence? The Fed is undemocratic and unnecessary. By Walter Block Ideally, there should be no such thing as the Federal Reserve System. The Fed should not have been created in 1913, and should be disbanded right now. End the Fed! This organization is nothing more and nothing less than a central planning bureau for interest rates, employment, and inflation (of late, it has expanded its mandate to include climate change and social equity issues as well). Evidently,we have not yet fully incorporated the lessons about central planning we should have learned as a society from the examples of East and West Germany, North and South Korea. These came as close to a controlled experiment as we are ever likely to find in all of economics, and yet we still continue our merry way in the direction of central planning.
The Fed is no more needed for a prosperous economy than a government bureau that controls the price of shoes, sugar, or spatulas. Come to think of it, that would be a good idea: let the Fed control those prices, which impact only a small part of the economy, and leave off its interference with the price level and interest rates, which are pervasive.
The Fed was supposed to protect the value of the US dollar. Some 96% of it has atrophied since its birth over a century ago. It was supposed to promote economic stability and fight unemployment. Great Depression, anyone?
Did the governors of the Fed lose a penny of their personal fortunes for committing these egregious mistakes over the years? Not a single cent. Says national treasure Thomas Sowell about situations of this sort: "It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong."
However, all of this is neither here nor there. The Fed will, in all likelihood, like it or not, be with us for the foreseeable future. The question before us, now, is: Should it retain its much-vaunted independence? Or should it fall under the supervision of the executive branch, of which it is a constitutional part? (Please do not tell me it is a private organization, completely separate from all three branches of government; you've heard of the expression "With friends like this, who needs enemies?" I say, in like manner: With "private" entities such as the Fed, who needs government?)
My answer to this question is a big fat clear and unequivocal NO! Its independence must be stopped in its tracks. Why?
Fed independence is blatantly undemocratic. All those who revere this system of government (not I, not I, but that is a separate question) are required by the mandates of pure logic to oppose Fed independence. That is due to the fact that under this system, the people are supposed to be ruled by whom? By themselves! That is, the goal is to give the average person a say in how he is ruled.
Now, of course, in the modern era, it would be impossible to make public policy on the basis of discussions at town meetings. Hence, we resort not to direct but to representative government; we elect politicians to do our bidding. At election time we render on them a thumbs-up or thumbs-down verdict. That is how we control them. That is how we all retain at least a vestige of sovereignty. But under Fed independence, we have no control whatsoever over our rulers pertaining to inflation, interest rates, unemployment, not even indirectly via elected officials. Yes, the President can appoint Fed governors when there is vacancy, but apart from that they do exactly as they please. He cannot fire any of them, at least not for failing to follow his policies, as Mr. Trump's recent experience with Jerome Powell and Lisa Cook has demonstrated.
This is undemocratic. The President of the country and his political party will be judged on the basis of how well the economy functionson which the Fed plays an outsize role. And yet he cannot compel them to follow his lead. It is as if the conductor of the orchestra were to be judged on the basis of how well his musicians performed, but he was not allowed to choose its members, nor to practice with them before the concert. Ditto for the football coach who cannot pick athletes for this team, not run drills for them before the big game.
The big game, though, is our economy: get the Fed off the field.
* * *
Walter Edward Block is an American economist and anarcho-capitalist theorist who holds the Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair in Economics at the J. A. Butt School of Business at Loyola University New Orleans. He is a member of the FEE Faculty Network.
***
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/fed-independence/