Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Foundations
Featured Stories
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Louisianians Were Right to Reject Constitutional Amendment to Raise Teacher Pay
LOS ANGELES, California, July 11 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by policy analyst Steven Gassenberger:
* * *
Louisianians were right to reject a constitutional amendment to raise teacher pay. Now, a new state task force should finish the job.
Amendment 3 was sold to voters as a teacher pay raise and a pension fix. It was neither.
-
Louisiana voters soundly rejected all five constitutional amendments on the May 16 ballot, including, for the second time, a scheme to liquidate roughly $2 billion from three education trust funds for lawmakers to put toward the $8.5 billion ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, July 11 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by policy analyst Steven Gassenberger: * * * Louisianians were right to reject a constitutional amendment to raise teacher pay. Now, a new state task force should finish the job. Amendment 3 was sold to voters as a teacher pay raise and a pension fix. It was neither. - Louisiana voters soundly rejected all five constitutional amendments on the May 16 ballot, including, for the second time, a scheme to liquidate roughly $2 billion from three education trust funds for lawmakers to put toward the $8.5 billionin unfunded debt the state owes the Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana (TRSL), the pension fund for the state's public educators.
Amendment 3 was sold as a teacher pay raise and a pension fix. It was neither. As lawmakers reset the table for the next round of potential teacher compensation challenges, they should keep the TRSL system and its burden on employers and educators' pocketbooks in focus rather than lean on accounting moves for fleeting, short-sighted pay bumps.
In their May 26 joint press conference, Gov. Jeff Landry and Republican legislative leaders framed Amendment 3's failure as a loss for teachers, but it wasn't. Amendment 3 was always a financial maneuver dressed up as reform that did nothing to address the structural issues that led to TRSL contribution rates exceeding a third of a teacher's salary just to pay off pension debt. At the same press event, the group announced a new task force to secure permanent teacher pay raises by reviewing the state's Minimum Foundation Program (MFP)--the formula that determines how much state money each school district receives--with the aim of shifting responsibility for teacher pay from the state to local employers.
The previous pitch, now rejected twice by voters, first surfaced in 2022 and comprised three steps. First, the state would liquidate $2 billion from three constitutionally protected education trust funds. Second, the state would give the money to TRSL to reduce the pension fund's $8.5 billion debt to $6.5 billion. Third, the state would allow school districts to use the savings from reductions in TRSL debt payments to fund a permanent $2,250 pay increase for teachers.
Most people can understand the logic between steps one and two and the prudence of using cash to pay down debt. However, step three and turning the $2 billion of paid-off TRSL debt into permanent teacher pay raises was always rooted in speculation and actuarial gimmicks, specifically the manipulation of the actuarially determined employer contribution (or ADEC) rate that actuaries say is needed to keep the pension in line with funding standards.
Actuarial modeling by Reason Foundation's Pension Integrity Project--which has analyzed TRSL's finances for state lawmakers--shows that even with the full $2 billion applied, the TRSL funded ratio would only improve from 77.2% to 82.8%--and the system would remain deeply vulnerable to any market underperformance.
More importantly, the one-time infusion of an extra $2 billion lowers the ADEC rate from around 21% to 17%. That 4% difference is what lawmakers are calling "savings" that local employers can use for teacher pay increases. What they fail to mention is that the same modeling also shows the ADEC rate could still spike to 29% after a recession scenario. The supposed "savings" are not a sure thing. But the raises--which would be baked into employment contracts--would remain. Local school districts would get squeezed from both sides, and taxpayers would be left holding the bag with no structural reform in place to reduce future risk.
The $8 billion TRSL debt is real
TRSL's $8.5 billion debt is not an abstract accounting theory. Defined benefit pensions are constitutionally protected obligations on the state's books. Louisiana accumulates interest at TRSL's 7.55% assumed rate of return, one of the highest rates in the nation, every single year the debt goes unpaid.
To prevent that growth, voters in 1987 committed to funding the system annually at the ADEC rate. At that point, the employer contribution rate jumped from 10.3% of an educator's salary in 1988 to 17.2% in 1989. The rate peaked around 30% in 2015 when TRSL benefits were only half-funded and has gradually declined to near 21% in 2025 as the system's funding has improved.
TRSL administrators expect employer contribution rates to continue to fall over the next few years if investment expectations prove true. However, if the legislature and employers use the difference from the employer contribution rate reduction to TRSL each year as a resource to expand benefits, they would undercut those gains by adding liabilities on the back end. It amounts to adding miles to a marathon the state and its taxpayers have been running since 1988. The results will be more education dollars going to servicing expensive pension debt rather than educator take-home pay or classroom instruction.
What the MFP task force should do about TRSL
The two goals of the MFP task force outlined during the governor's May press conference were addressing growing administrative costs and issuing teacher pay raises in a way that allows local school districts that employ Louisiana educators to provide compensation adjustments directly. The task force has been handed a genuine opportunity, but only if it takes the full picture seriously. Finding permanent teacher pay raises within Louisiana's $13 billion education budget is a legitimate exercise--the dollars exist, and the current MFP formula's poor targeting of classroom compensation is a real problem worth fixing.
But allowing local school districts to increase salaries means school districts will also increase TRSL liabilities underwritten by the state. This is why the task force's mandate should not stop at teacher pay. It should explicitly address TRSL funding as a parallel obligation, not an afterthought.
The task force should recommend that any MFP reform include a mechanism to direct incremental employer savings--as the funded ratio improves and contribution rates decline--back into accelerated pension debt paydown rather than immediately reprogramming every dollar of rate relief into salary increases. This is not a novel idea: It is the logic originally embedded in Amendment 3, minus the gimmick of the one-time trust fund liquidation. Done through the MFP on a sustained, structural basis, it is actually more durable.
The task force should also address the assumed rate of return directly. TRSL's 7.55% assumption is a policy variable that shapes every contribution rate, every pension debt projection, and every discussion about what employers can "afford" to pay teachers. Aligning the assumption with the national median of 7.0% would produce a more honest balance sheet, a larger reported unfunded liability in the short term, but more predictable contribution rates, and a better chance at reaching full funding over time. That transparency is uncomfortable, but it is also necessary to finally address the lingering TRSL debt.
Finally, the task force must recognize that the TRSL benefit, as expensive as it has been for generations, serves only a fraction of the educators. According to TRSL's own assumptions, as few as 15% of new hires stay long enough to earn a full retirement benefit. In other words, the system withholds wages from the vast majority of educators to fund a benefit most of them will never collect. States like Michigan, Florida, Tennessee, and Mississippi let educators choose among retirement plans when first hired--including portable options that teachers can take with them if they leave the classroom after five years instead of 30. A choice allows educators the freedom to pursue their life goals without worrying that their retirement nest egg is being held hostage.
Employer contribution rates have come down significantly because the plan and legislative appropriators have made genuine progress on Louisiana's teacher pension debt--and that progress is exactly what's at risk if the MFP Task Force treats every dollar of ADEC rate relief as a permanent teacher pay raise rather than a financial buffer against the next market downturn.
Louisiana voters rejected Amendment 3 twice, not because they don't care about teachers, but because they have seen enough budget maneuvers dressed as reforms to recognize one on the ballot. The real gift of that rejection is an opportunity to do this right. A sustainable teacher pay raise and a solvent TRSL are not competing goals--they are the same goal, viewed on different time horizons. The MFP Task Force has until December 31. The deadline is not just to raise teacher pay--it is to prove Louisiana's leaders understand why those two goals are one.
* * *
Steven Gassenberger is a policy analyst with Reason Foundation's Pension Integrity Project.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/louisianians-were-right-to-reject-a-constitutional-amendment-to-raise-teacher-pay-now-a-new-state-task-force-should-finish-the-job/
* * *
Louisianians were right to reject a constitutional amendment to raise teacher pay. Now, a new state task force should finish the job.
Amendment 3 was sold to voters as a teacher pay raise and a pension fix. It was neither.
-
Louisiana voters soundly rejected all five constitutional amendments on the May 16 ballot, including, for the second time, a scheme to liquidate roughly $2 billion from three education trust funds for lawmakers to put toward the $8.5 billion ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, July 11 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by policy analyst Steven Gassenberger: * * * Louisianians were right to reject a constitutional amendment to raise teacher pay. Now, a new state task force should finish the job. Amendment 3 was sold to voters as a teacher pay raise and a pension fix. It was neither. - Louisiana voters soundly rejected all five constitutional amendments on the May 16 ballot, including, for the second time, a scheme to liquidate roughly $2 billion from three education trust funds for lawmakers to put toward the $8.5 billionin unfunded debt the state owes the Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana (TRSL), the pension fund for the state's public educators.
Amendment 3 was sold as a teacher pay raise and a pension fix. It was neither. As lawmakers reset the table for the next round of potential teacher compensation challenges, they should keep the TRSL system and its burden on employers and educators' pocketbooks in focus rather than lean on accounting moves for fleeting, short-sighted pay bumps.
In their May 26 joint press conference, Gov. Jeff Landry and Republican legislative leaders framed Amendment 3's failure as a loss for teachers, but it wasn't. Amendment 3 was always a financial maneuver dressed up as reform that did nothing to address the structural issues that led to TRSL contribution rates exceeding a third of a teacher's salary just to pay off pension debt. At the same press event, the group announced a new task force to secure permanent teacher pay raises by reviewing the state's Minimum Foundation Program (MFP)--the formula that determines how much state money each school district receives--with the aim of shifting responsibility for teacher pay from the state to local employers.
The previous pitch, now rejected twice by voters, first surfaced in 2022 and comprised three steps. First, the state would liquidate $2 billion from three constitutionally protected education trust funds. Second, the state would give the money to TRSL to reduce the pension fund's $8.5 billion debt to $6.5 billion. Third, the state would allow school districts to use the savings from reductions in TRSL debt payments to fund a permanent $2,250 pay increase for teachers.
Most people can understand the logic between steps one and two and the prudence of using cash to pay down debt. However, step three and turning the $2 billion of paid-off TRSL debt into permanent teacher pay raises was always rooted in speculation and actuarial gimmicks, specifically the manipulation of the actuarially determined employer contribution (or ADEC) rate that actuaries say is needed to keep the pension in line with funding standards.
Actuarial modeling by Reason Foundation's Pension Integrity Project--which has analyzed TRSL's finances for state lawmakers--shows that even with the full $2 billion applied, the TRSL funded ratio would only improve from 77.2% to 82.8%--and the system would remain deeply vulnerable to any market underperformance.
More importantly, the one-time infusion of an extra $2 billion lowers the ADEC rate from around 21% to 17%. That 4% difference is what lawmakers are calling "savings" that local employers can use for teacher pay increases. What they fail to mention is that the same modeling also shows the ADEC rate could still spike to 29% after a recession scenario. The supposed "savings" are not a sure thing. But the raises--which would be baked into employment contracts--would remain. Local school districts would get squeezed from both sides, and taxpayers would be left holding the bag with no structural reform in place to reduce future risk.
The $8 billion TRSL debt is real
TRSL's $8.5 billion debt is not an abstract accounting theory. Defined benefit pensions are constitutionally protected obligations on the state's books. Louisiana accumulates interest at TRSL's 7.55% assumed rate of return, one of the highest rates in the nation, every single year the debt goes unpaid.
To prevent that growth, voters in 1987 committed to funding the system annually at the ADEC rate. At that point, the employer contribution rate jumped from 10.3% of an educator's salary in 1988 to 17.2% in 1989. The rate peaked around 30% in 2015 when TRSL benefits were only half-funded and has gradually declined to near 21% in 2025 as the system's funding has improved.
TRSL administrators expect employer contribution rates to continue to fall over the next few years if investment expectations prove true. However, if the legislature and employers use the difference from the employer contribution rate reduction to TRSL each year as a resource to expand benefits, they would undercut those gains by adding liabilities on the back end. It amounts to adding miles to a marathon the state and its taxpayers have been running since 1988. The results will be more education dollars going to servicing expensive pension debt rather than educator take-home pay or classroom instruction.
What the MFP task force should do about TRSL
The two goals of the MFP task force outlined during the governor's May press conference were addressing growing administrative costs and issuing teacher pay raises in a way that allows local school districts that employ Louisiana educators to provide compensation adjustments directly. The task force has been handed a genuine opportunity, but only if it takes the full picture seriously. Finding permanent teacher pay raises within Louisiana's $13 billion education budget is a legitimate exercise--the dollars exist, and the current MFP formula's poor targeting of classroom compensation is a real problem worth fixing.
But allowing local school districts to increase salaries means school districts will also increase TRSL liabilities underwritten by the state. This is why the task force's mandate should not stop at teacher pay. It should explicitly address TRSL funding as a parallel obligation, not an afterthought.
The task force should recommend that any MFP reform include a mechanism to direct incremental employer savings--as the funded ratio improves and contribution rates decline--back into accelerated pension debt paydown rather than immediately reprogramming every dollar of rate relief into salary increases. This is not a novel idea: It is the logic originally embedded in Amendment 3, minus the gimmick of the one-time trust fund liquidation. Done through the MFP on a sustained, structural basis, it is actually more durable.
The task force should also address the assumed rate of return directly. TRSL's 7.55% assumption is a policy variable that shapes every contribution rate, every pension debt projection, and every discussion about what employers can "afford" to pay teachers. Aligning the assumption with the national median of 7.0% would produce a more honest balance sheet, a larger reported unfunded liability in the short term, but more predictable contribution rates, and a better chance at reaching full funding over time. That transparency is uncomfortable, but it is also necessary to finally address the lingering TRSL debt.
Finally, the task force must recognize that the TRSL benefit, as expensive as it has been for generations, serves only a fraction of the educators. According to TRSL's own assumptions, as few as 15% of new hires stay long enough to earn a full retirement benefit. In other words, the system withholds wages from the vast majority of educators to fund a benefit most of them will never collect. States like Michigan, Florida, Tennessee, and Mississippi let educators choose among retirement plans when first hired--including portable options that teachers can take with them if they leave the classroom after five years instead of 30. A choice allows educators the freedom to pursue their life goals without worrying that their retirement nest egg is being held hostage.
Employer contribution rates have come down significantly because the plan and legislative appropriators have made genuine progress on Louisiana's teacher pension debt--and that progress is exactly what's at risk if the MFP Task Force treats every dollar of ADEC rate relief as a permanent teacher pay raise rather than a financial buffer against the next market downturn.
Louisiana voters rejected Amendment 3 twice, not because they don't care about teachers, but because they have seen enough budget maneuvers dressed as reforms to recognize one on the ballot. The real gift of that rejection is an opportunity to do this right. A sustainable teacher pay raise and a solvent TRSL are not competing goals--they are the same goal, viewed on different time horizons. The MFP Task Force has until December 31. The deadline is not just to raise teacher pay--it is to prove Louisiana's leaders understand why those two goals are one.
* * *
Steven Gassenberger is a policy analyst with Reason Foundation's Pension Integrity Project.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/louisianians-were-right-to-reject-a-constitutional-amendment-to-raise-teacher-pay-now-a-new-state-task-force-should-finish-the-job/
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Canada Offers Important Lessons for U.S. Air Traffic Control
LOS ANGELES, California, July 11 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary on July 9, 2026, by senior transportation policy analyst Marc Scribner:
* * *
Canada offers important lessons for U.S. air traffic control
Congress would be wise to consider air traffic control governance reform rather than doubling down on the unsustainable status quo.
-
In the early 1990s, Canada's air traffic control system was plagued by chronic underfunding, rapidly depreciating facilities and equipment, persistent staff shortages, growing delays, and costs that were outpacing dedicated airline passenger ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, July 11 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary on July 9, 2026, by senior transportation policy analyst Marc Scribner: * * * Canada offers important lessons for U.S. air traffic control Congress would be wise to consider air traffic control governance reform rather than doubling down on the unsustainable status quo. - In the early 1990s, Canada's air traffic control system was plagued by chronic underfunding, rapidly depreciating facilities and equipment, persistent staff shortages, growing delays, and costs that were outpacing dedicated airline passengerticket tax revenue. That might sound familiar because that is exactly what the United States is experiencing today.
But rather than accept an unsustainable status quo, Canada's political leadership implemented sweeping governance reform to air traffic control. A new Reason Foundation report by John Kefaliotis, an aviation professional with more than 50 years of experience in air traffic management, examines the Canadian air traffic control model and what United States political leadership can learn from it.
Originally a unit of Canada's transport ministry, much like the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is in the United States, air traffic control was spun off into an independent customer cooperative in 1996. The new nonprofit utility, called NAV CANADA, is entirely self-supported by cost-based user fees assessed on aircraft operators. There have been zero taxpayer subsidies since 1998. Nobody owns NAV CANADA because there are no shares. The NAV CANADA board of directors has 15 members whose backgrounds reflect stakeholder balance between commercial airlines, general aviation, employee unions, and the government.
NAV CANADA's reliance on dedicated user fees allows it to issue revenue bonds to pay for large-scale modernization all at once. Instead of slowly upgrading equipment over a decade or longer as taxpayer funding is appropriated, as is the norm at the FAA, new systems and infrastructure can be brought online in a year or two. For instance, NAV CANADA replaced its paper flight progress strips, used by controllers to track individual flights, with electronic versions at its 42 control towers by 2009. By contrast, as of the first half of 2026, the FAA has deployed electronic flight strips at just 17 of its nearly 300 towers, with no plan to equip all of them.
Under NAV CANADA, user costs have been reduced and are consistently lower than the FAA's. Consider the difference between the FAA and NAV CANADA on cost per instrument flight rules (IFR) hour in continental airspace, a common air traffic control cost-efficiency metric. The most recent available data from 2009 and 2023 show that FAA costs averaged 25% higher than NAV CANADA's during that 15-year period. The smallest cost disparity (8%) occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, when air traffic cratered and the large fixed costs of air traffic control were spread over fewer aircraft movements. By 2023, NAV CANADA had recovered its sizeable cost advantage, with the FAA seeing 34% higher costs per IFR hour.
It is important to note that the FAA's higher reported costs significantly understate its inefficiency because these figures do not account for the fact that the FAA's facilities and equipment have not been maintained to modern standards, while NAV CANADA is constantly investing in the latest technology and maintaining its existing infrastructure.
Safety has also improved following the transition to NAV CANADA. A central purpose of air traffic control is ensuring safe separation between aircraft to avoid midair collisions, and air navigation service providers impose minimum horizontal and vertical separation buffers. NAV CANADA's reported five-year average rate of incidents involving a loss of separation between aircraft operating under IFR flight plans fell from 1.0 per 100,000 aircraft movements in 2022 to 0.47 in 2025. The FAA does not publish comprehensive annual or historical data on loss of separation incidents, and the agency was criticized in 2013 by the Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector General for failing to consistently collect, benchmark, and analyze these data.
Attempts have been made to overhaul air traffic control governance in the United States over the last 50 years with no success. The most recent effort came in 2017 with a proposal to convert the FAA's Air Traffic Organization into a NAV CANADA-style air traffic control utility. This move was endorsed by the FAA's controllers' union, all U.S. airlines (with the exception of Delta), and a group representing CEOs of the largest U.S. corporations. It faced strong opposition from general aviation (both private aircraft owners and business jets) and all federal government employee unions save the FAA controllers' union.
The opponents were successful in preventing reform, raising five principal objections to the NAV CANADA model: potential airline dominance of the structure; harm to general aviation and rural access; no specifically promised benefits to modernization from the plan; a giveaway of government assets; and a lack of congressional oversight. Kefaliotis examines each of these objections individually and finds them all unfounded or incoherent. He identifies the real objection to reform: a resistance by general aviation to paying for its use of the airspace.
While the 2017 reform proposal would have exempted all categories of general aviation from paying user fees, shifting the fee burden entirely to commercial airlines, it is worth considering what these users might pay if they were subject to NAV CANADA-style cost-based user fees. Kefaliotis notes that the roughly $150 annual per-aircraft fee charged by NAV CANADA for unlimited use of Canadian airspace is a tiny charge to owners of piston-engine aircraft.
With respect to private jets, it is true they would pay more than under the status quo, where they currently pay a minuscule fuel tax despite consuming a nontrivial share of air traffic control resources. But a NAV CANADA-style weight-distance user fee for private jets would be perhaps twice that of the current fuel tax. Put in context with total costs to operate these aircraft, user fees would likely range from about 3% to 4% of the hourly operating cost. This is hardly a threat to the viability of America's robust business aviation industry.
NAV CANADA is today the world's leading air navigation service provider and owes much of its success to its institutional design. The FAA currently finds itself in a position very similar to that of Transport Canada in the years before air traffic control was spun off into NAV CANADA. Congress would be wise to consider air traffic control governance reform rather than doubling down on the unsustainable status quo.
The full Reason Foundation report, "Changing America's Air Traffic Control Model: Learning from Canada," by John Kefaliotis, has much more detail and is available here (https://reason.org/policy-brief/changing-americas-air-traffic-control-model-learning-from-canada/).
* * *
Marc Scribner is a senior transportation policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/canada-offers-important-lessons-for-u-s-air-traffic-control/
* * *
Canada offers important lessons for U.S. air traffic control
Congress would be wise to consider air traffic control governance reform rather than doubling down on the unsustainable status quo.
-
In the early 1990s, Canada's air traffic control system was plagued by chronic underfunding, rapidly depreciating facilities and equipment, persistent staff shortages, growing delays, and costs that were outpacing dedicated airline passenger ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, July 11 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary on July 9, 2026, by senior transportation policy analyst Marc Scribner: * * * Canada offers important lessons for U.S. air traffic control Congress would be wise to consider air traffic control governance reform rather than doubling down on the unsustainable status quo. - In the early 1990s, Canada's air traffic control system was plagued by chronic underfunding, rapidly depreciating facilities and equipment, persistent staff shortages, growing delays, and costs that were outpacing dedicated airline passengerticket tax revenue. That might sound familiar because that is exactly what the United States is experiencing today.
But rather than accept an unsustainable status quo, Canada's political leadership implemented sweeping governance reform to air traffic control. A new Reason Foundation report by John Kefaliotis, an aviation professional with more than 50 years of experience in air traffic management, examines the Canadian air traffic control model and what United States political leadership can learn from it.
Originally a unit of Canada's transport ministry, much like the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is in the United States, air traffic control was spun off into an independent customer cooperative in 1996. The new nonprofit utility, called NAV CANADA, is entirely self-supported by cost-based user fees assessed on aircraft operators. There have been zero taxpayer subsidies since 1998. Nobody owns NAV CANADA because there are no shares. The NAV CANADA board of directors has 15 members whose backgrounds reflect stakeholder balance between commercial airlines, general aviation, employee unions, and the government.
NAV CANADA's reliance on dedicated user fees allows it to issue revenue bonds to pay for large-scale modernization all at once. Instead of slowly upgrading equipment over a decade or longer as taxpayer funding is appropriated, as is the norm at the FAA, new systems and infrastructure can be brought online in a year or two. For instance, NAV CANADA replaced its paper flight progress strips, used by controllers to track individual flights, with electronic versions at its 42 control towers by 2009. By contrast, as of the first half of 2026, the FAA has deployed electronic flight strips at just 17 of its nearly 300 towers, with no plan to equip all of them.
Under NAV CANADA, user costs have been reduced and are consistently lower than the FAA's. Consider the difference between the FAA and NAV CANADA on cost per instrument flight rules (IFR) hour in continental airspace, a common air traffic control cost-efficiency metric. The most recent available data from 2009 and 2023 show that FAA costs averaged 25% higher than NAV CANADA's during that 15-year period. The smallest cost disparity (8%) occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, when air traffic cratered and the large fixed costs of air traffic control were spread over fewer aircraft movements. By 2023, NAV CANADA had recovered its sizeable cost advantage, with the FAA seeing 34% higher costs per IFR hour.
It is important to note that the FAA's higher reported costs significantly understate its inefficiency because these figures do not account for the fact that the FAA's facilities and equipment have not been maintained to modern standards, while NAV CANADA is constantly investing in the latest technology and maintaining its existing infrastructure.
Safety has also improved following the transition to NAV CANADA. A central purpose of air traffic control is ensuring safe separation between aircraft to avoid midair collisions, and air navigation service providers impose minimum horizontal and vertical separation buffers. NAV CANADA's reported five-year average rate of incidents involving a loss of separation between aircraft operating under IFR flight plans fell from 1.0 per 100,000 aircraft movements in 2022 to 0.47 in 2025. The FAA does not publish comprehensive annual or historical data on loss of separation incidents, and the agency was criticized in 2013 by the Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector General for failing to consistently collect, benchmark, and analyze these data.
Attempts have been made to overhaul air traffic control governance in the United States over the last 50 years with no success. The most recent effort came in 2017 with a proposal to convert the FAA's Air Traffic Organization into a NAV CANADA-style air traffic control utility. This move was endorsed by the FAA's controllers' union, all U.S. airlines (with the exception of Delta), and a group representing CEOs of the largest U.S. corporations. It faced strong opposition from general aviation (both private aircraft owners and business jets) and all federal government employee unions save the FAA controllers' union.
The opponents were successful in preventing reform, raising five principal objections to the NAV CANADA model: potential airline dominance of the structure; harm to general aviation and rural access; no specifically promised benefits to modernization from the plan; a giveaway of government assets; and a lack of congressional oversight. Kefaliotis examines each of these objections individually and finds them all unfounded or incoherent. He identifies the real objection to reform: a resistance by general aviation to paying for its use of the airspace.
While the 2017 reform proposal would have exempted all categories of general aviation from paying user fees, shifting the fee burden entirely to commercial airlines, it is worth considering what these users might pay if they were subject to NAV CANADA-style cost-based user fees. Kefaliotis notes that the roughly $150 annual per-aircraft fee charged by NAV CANADA for unlimited use of Canadian airspace is a tiny charge to owners of piston-engine aircraft.
With respect to private jets, it is true they would pay more than under the status quo, where they currently pay a minuscule fuel tax despite consuming a nontrivial share of air traffic control resources. But a NAV CANADA-style weight-distance user fee for private jets would be perhaps twice that of the current fuel tax. Put in context with total costs to operate these aircraft, user fees would likely range from about 3% to 4% of the hourly operating cost. This is hardly a threat to the viability of America's robust business aviation industry.
NAV CANADA is today the world's leading air navigation service provider and owes much of its success to its institutional design. The FAA currently finds itself in a position very similar to that of Transport Canada in the years before air traffic control was spun off into NAV CANADA. Congress would be wise to consider air traffic control governance reform rather than doubling down on the unsustainable status quo.
The full Reason Foundation report, "Changing America's Air Traffic Control Model: Learning from Canada," by John Kefaliotis, has much more detail and is available here (https://reason.org/policy-brief/changing-americas-air-traffic-control-model-learning-from-canada/).
* * *
Marc Scribner is a senior transportation policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/canada-offers-important-lessons-for-u-s-air-traffic-control/
Lumina Foundation Issues Commentary: Getting Into College Shouldn't Be This Complicated - Building a More Human-Centered Path
INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana, July 11 -- The Lumina Foundation issued the following commentary by Wendy Sedlak, strategy director for research and evaluation:
* * *
Getting into college shouldn't be this complicated: Building a more human-centered path
For many students, the journey to college begins with stress, not excitement. They're left asking fundamental questions: Do I belong in college? Can I afford it? Where do I even begin?
Applications, transcripts, financial aid forms, advising systems, placement requirements, and enrollment deadlines often exist in separate places, requiring students ... Show Full Article INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana, July 11 -- The Lumina Foundation issued the following commentary by Wendy Sedlak, strategy director for research and evaluation: * * * Getting into college shouldn't be this complicated: Building a more human-centered path For many students, the journey to college begins with stress, not excitement. They're left asking fundamental questions: Do I belong in college? Can I afford it? Where do I even begin? Applications, transcripts, financial aid forms, advising systems, placement requirements, and enrollment deadlines often exist in separate places, requiring studentsto navigate a complicated web of processes at one of the most important moments in their lives. For students who are first-generation, from low-income backgrounds, or unsure whether college is for them, that complexity can become more than frustrating. It can become discouraging.
At Lumina Foundation, we believe students deserve better. When admissions systems are designed around students' needs, they're more likely to see college as an option, enroll, and succeed.
The transition from high school into college should feel clear, supportive, and full of possibility. Students should be able to focus on imagining their futures, not deciphering disconnected systems. That belief is what drives the Great Admissions Redesign, Lumina's national initiative to help states, systems, and institutions rethink how students access and navigate postsecondary education.
As this work has expanded across the country, one thing has become increasingly clear: leaders need practical guidance and examples of what effective redesign looks like in practice.
That's why we're excited to share the Postsecondary Admissions Redesign Toolkit, developed by our partners at Research for Action.
The toolkit brings together lessons, implementation insights, and emerging practices from institutions and states participating in the Great Admissions Redesign. But perhaps more importantly, it helps establish a common understanding of a fast-moving field that is still defining itself.
What began several years ago as a relatively small number of direct admissions and admissions simplification efforts has rapidly grown into a broader national movement. As more states and systems explore this work, the toolkit offers an important foundation for understanding both the opportunities and the complexities involved in redesigning admissions systems around students.
The toolkit captures an essential phase of this work: the moment when admissions redesign was beginning to take shape as a field. Many of the first cohort projects focused on proving what was possible, testing new approaches, and clarifying the conditions needed to move from a good idea to implementation.
One of the clearest lessons from that first phase is that redesigning admissions requires more than changing an application form or sending a new message to students. It requires careful attention to policy, data, technology, communications, and the people who help students interpret and act on information. The toolkit helps leaders see the full scope of what sits beneath successful admissions redesign, from building cross-sector partnerships to creating clear student-facing messages to engaging counselors and practitioners as trusted messengers.
At the center of all of this is the student experience, and often, the complexity of the process reinforces their doubts about college.
The toolkit highlights a powerful alternative: admissions systems that are proactive, transparent, and student-centered. Systems that reduce friction rather than adding to it. Systems that help students understand their opportunities earlier and more clearly.
Importantly, this work is not just about efficiency. It is about trust, belonging, and confidence.
When students receive clear information, proactive outreach, and coordinated support from trusted adults, the transition to college feels different. Stress is reduced. Uncertainty gives way to clarity. Students begin to see college as an attainable and exciting next step.
The toolkit also reinforces another critical insight: students should not have to repeatedly provide information that educational systems already possess. Modernizing admissions increasingly requires stronger cross-sector data systems, better coordination between K-12 and higher education, and a commitment to designing systems around the learner experience rather than institutional convenience.
What gives us optimism is that this work is no longer happening in isolated pockets. Institutions, systems, and states are learning from one another, building on each other's ideas, and creating momentum toward a more coordinated and student-centered future.
And ultimately, that future is about more than admissions.
It is about creating systems that affirm students' potential instead of testing their ability to navigate bureaucracy. It is about replacing uncertainty with clarity, confusion with support, and stress with confidence and possibility.
Because when students feel welcomed into college, they're far more likely to enroll, persist, and succeed.
* * *
About the Authors
Wendy Sedlak, Ph.D., is the strategy director for research and evaluation at Lumina Foundation, which works to help all Americans continue to learn and train after high school. Before joining Lumina, Sedlak worked at Equal Measure, where she directed projects to benefit students, including many complex national systems-change evaluations.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.luminafoundation.org/news-and-views/getting-into-college-shouldnt-be-this-complicated-building-a-more-human-centered-path/
* * *
Getting into college shouldn't be this complicated: Building a more human-centered path
For many students, the journey to college begins with stress, not excitement. They're left asking fundamental questions: Do I belong in college? Can I afford it? Where do I even begin?
Applications, transcripts, financial aid forms, advising systems, placement requirements, and enrollment deadlines often exist in separate places, requiring students ... Show Full Article INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana, July 11 -- The Lumina Foundation issued the following commentary by Wendy Sedlak, strategy director for research and evaluation: * * * Getting into college shouldn't be this complicated: Building a more human-centered path For many students, the journey to college begins with stress, not excitement. They're left asking fundamental questions: Do I belong in college? Can I afford it? Where do I even begin? Applications, transcripts, financial aid forms, advising systems, placement requirements, and enrollment deadlines often exist in separate places, requiring studentsto navigate a complicated web of processes at one of the most important moments in their lives. For students who are first-generation, from low-income backgrounds, or unsure whether college is for them, that complexity can become more than frustrating. It can become discouraging.
At Lumina Foundation, we believe students deserve better. When admissions systems are designed around students' needs, they're more likely to see college as an option, enroll, and succeed.
The transition from high school into college should feel clear, supportive, and full of possibility. Students should be able to focus on imagining their futures, not deciphering disconnected systems. That belief is what drives the Great Admissions Redesign, Lumina's national initiative to help states, systems, and institutions rethink how students access and navigate postsecondary education.
As this work has expanded across the country, one thing has become increasingly clear: leaders need practical guidance and examples of what effective redesign looks like in practice.
That's why we're excited to share the Postsecondary Admissions Redesign Toolkit, developed by our partners at Research for Action.
The toolkit brings together lessons, implementation insights, and emerging practices from institutions and states participating in the Great Admissions Redesign. But perhaps more importantly, it helps establish a common understanding of a fast-moving field that is still defining itself.
What began several years ago as a relatively small number of direct admissions and admissions simplification efforts has rapidly grown into a broader national movement. As more states and systems explore this work, the toolkit offers an important foundation for understanding both the opportunities and the complexities involved in redesigning admissions systems around students.
The toolkit captures an essential phase of this work: the moment when admissions redesign was beginning to take shape as a field. Many of the first cohort projects focused on proving what was possible, testing new approaches, and clarifying the conditions needed to move from a good idea to implementation.
One of the clearest lessons from that first phase is that redesigning admissions requires more than changing an application form or sending a new message to students. It requires careful attention to policy, data, technology, communications, and the people who help students interpret and act on information. The toolkit helps leaders see the full scope of what sits beneath successful admissions redesign, from building cross-sector partnerships to creating clear student-facing messages to engaging counselors and practitioners as trusted messengers.
At the center of all of this is the student experience, and often, the complexity of the process reinforces their doubts about college.
The toolkit highlights a powerful alternative: admissions systems that are proactive, transparent, and student-centered. Systems that reduce friction rather than adding to it. Systems that help students understand their opportunities earlier and more clearly.
Importantly, this work is not just about efficiency. It is about trust, belonging, and confidence.
When students receive clear information, proactive outreach, and coordinated support from trusted adults, the transition to college feels different. Stress is reduced. Uncertainty gives way to clarity. Students begin to see college as an attainable and exciting next step.
The toolkit also reinforces another critical insight: students should not have to repeatedly provide information that educational systems already possess. Modernizing admissions increasingly requires stronger cross-sector data systems, better coordination between K-12 and higher education, and a commitment to designing systems around the learner experience rather than institutional convenience.
What gives us optimism is that this work is no longer happening in isolated pockets. Institutions, systems, and states are learning from one another, building on each other's ideas, and creating momentum toward a more coordinated and student-centered future.
And ultimately, that future is about more than admissions.
It is about creating systems that affirm students' potential instead of testing their ability to navigate bureaucracy. It is about replacing uncertainty with clarity, confusion with support, and stress with confidence and possibility.
Because when students feel welcomed into college, they're far more likely to enroll, persist, and succeed.
* * *
About the Authors
Wendy Sedlak, Ph.D., is the strategy director for research and evaluation at Lumina Foundation, which works to help all Americans continue to learn and train after high school. Before joining Lumina, Sedlak worked at Equal Measure, where she directed projects to benefit students, including many complex national systems-change evaluations.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.luminafoundation.org/news-and-views/getting-into-college-shouldnt-be-this-complicated-building-a-more-human-centered-path/
Health Foundation: Latest NHS Performance Statistics Highlight the Challenges Facing Incoming PM
LONDON, England, July 11 -- The Health Foundation issued the following statement by Deputy Director of Policy Tim Gardner:
* * *
Latest NHS performance statistics highlight the challenges facing incoming PM
Commenting on the latest NHS monthly performance statistics, Tim Gardner, Deputy Director of Policy at the Health Foundation, said:
'The latest monthly NHS performance figures show a health service continuing to operate under considerable strain.
'Waiting times for routine hospital treatment improved in May, with 65.6% of waits within 18 weeks, but the waiting list increased again to 7.28 ... Show Full Article LONDON, England, July 11 -- The Health Foundation issued the following statement by Deputy Director of Policy Tim Gardner: * * * Latest NHS performance statistics highlight the challenges facing incoming PM Commenting on the latest NHS monthly performance statistics, Tim Gardner, Deputy Director of Policy at the Health Foundation, said: 'The latest monthly NHS performance figures show a health service continuing to operate under considerable strain. 'Waiting times for routine hospital treatment improved in May, with 65.6% of waits within 18 weeks, but the waiting list increased again to 7.28million. There is still a long way to go to restore the 18-week standard, and our recent productivity analysis highlights the need for system-wide interventions to improve efficiency across all trusts.
'A&E waiting times and ambulance response times got worse in June, reversing the modest gains seen earlier in the year.
'The recent heatwaves have only added to the pressures on services, with the extreme heat leading to surges in demand and operational pressures from overheating wards and equipment failures.
'The NHS has achieved some important progress towards achieving the government's top priority of cutting waiting times for routine hospital treatment. However, turning around a struggling health service within a tight financial settlement means trade-offs are unavoidable, and our polling consistently shows the public are most concerned about general practice and A&E.
'The next prime minister may need to reassess and rebalance the NHS's priorities and focus more on improving primary care access, addressing bottlenecks in urgent and emergency care and delivering overdue reforms to social care.'
* * *
Original text here: https://www.health.org.uk/media-office/press-releases/latest-nhs-performance-statistics-highlight-the-challenges-facing-incoming-pm
* * *
Latest NHS performance statistics highlight the challenges facing incoming PM
Commenting on the latest NHS monthly performance statistics, Tim Gardner, Deputy Director of Policy at the Health Foundation, said:
'The latest monthly NHS performance figures show a health service continuing to operate under considerable strain.
'Waiting times for routine hospital treatment improved in May, with 65.6% of waits within 18 weeks, but the waiting list increased again to 7.28 ... Show Full Article LONDON, England, July 11 -- The Health Foundation issued the following statement by Deputy Director of Policy Tim Gardner: * * * Latest NHS performance statistics highlight the challenges facing incoming PM Commenting on the latest NHS monthly performance statistics, Tim Gardner, Deputy Director of Policy at the Health Foundation, said: 'The latest monthly NHS performance figures show a health service continuing to operate under considerable strain. 'Waiting times for routine hospital treatment improved in May, with 65.6% of waits within 18 weeks, but the waiting list increased again to 7.28million. There is still a long way to go to restore the 18-week standard, and our recent productivity analysis highlights the need for system-wide interventions to improve efficiency across all trusts.
'A&E waiting times and ambulance response times got worse in June, reversing the modest gains seen earlier in the year.
'The recent heatwaves have only added to the pressures on services, with the extreme heat leading to surges in demand and operational pressures from overheating wards and equipment failures.
'The NHS has achieved some important progress towards achieving the government's top priority of cutting waiting times for routine hospital treatment. However, turning around a struggling health service within a tight financial settlement means trade-offs are unavoidable, and our polling consistently shows the public are most concerned about general practice and A&E.
'The next prime minister may need to reassess and rebalance the NHS's priorities and focus more on improving primary care access, addressing bottlenecks in urgent and emergency care and delivering overdue reforms to social care.'
* * *
Original text here: https://www.health.org.uk/media-office/press-releases/latest-nhs-performance-statistics-highlight-the-challenges-facing-incoming-pm
Foundation for Economic Education Posts Commentary: Dutch Players Sue Over Video Game Charges
DETROIT, Michigan, July 11 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by political theorist Jake Scott:
* * *
Steaming Mad
Dutch players sue over video game charges.
-
The average Dutch gamer has lost Euros130 ($148). At least, that is a claim being made in the Hague by a foundation. On June 11, the Stichting Consumenten Competition Claims (SCCC), acting under the banner GameClaim on behalf of every Dutch personal computer (PC) gamer, filed a Euros220 million ($250 million) claim against the Valve Corporation, the business that operates the Steam gaming platform.
The ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, July 11 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by political theorist Jake Scott: * * * Steaming Mad Dutch players sue over video game charges. - The average Dutch gamer has lost Euros130 ($148). At least, that is a claim being made in the Hague by a foundation. On June 11, the Stichting Consumenten Competition Claims (SCCC), acting under the banner GameClaim on behalf of every Dutch personal computer (PC) gamer, filed a Euros220 million ($250 million) claim against the Valve Corporation, the business that operates the Steam gaming platform. TheSCCC claims that roughly 2 million accounts have lost collectively those Euros220 million on the basis that the Valve Corporation commands some 85% of the market, and defends that position through Most-Favored-Nation clauses--terms that forbid developers from undercutting their Steam price on rival storefronts such as Epic Games Store (EGS). With an additional 30% commission, a Steam Wallet that captures in-game payments at the same rate, and rules barring developers from steering players toward alternative storefronts, the SCCC claim is, at base, the idea that Valve has an unacceptable monopoly over PC gaming.
PC gaming is, in many ways, an industry that has outgrown its critics. Condescension and derision were what gamers had come to expect for many, many years when mentioning their hobby in polite society; but that attitude has since died. In 2025, games revenue globally reached $197 billion, a figure that comfortably exceeds the worldwide cinema box office and recorded music combined, and the PC segment alone returned an estimated $43 billion, growing faster than the console and mobile markets behind which it was expected to fall sharply. Nearly half the global population now play something, and the industry that surrounds gaming is absolutely enormous. In fact, since 2020, roughly 20 films have been made inspired by video games, such as Sonic the Hedgehog and its sequels, The Super Mario Bros. Movie, and A Minecraft Movie, while on television The Last of Us, Fallout, The Witcher, and Cyberpunk: Edgerunners have all been major successes.
Steam's place in this industry is one that has grown organically, and it has come to be a cornerstone of the worldwide video games market. Established in 2003 by Valve, also known as Valve Software, an American video game developer, publisher, hardware, and digital distribution company, Steam was envisioned as a platform for Valve to update their own games. The infrastructure was scaled rapidly to meet the demand of a wider market. As of January 2026, more than 42 million players were online playing games through the platform at once, the games catalogue exceeds 120,000 titles (2025 alone saw over 20,000 new releases), and revenue is estimated to have climbed past $16 billion.
The model is one that even Adam Smith would recognize at a glance: the more developers the platform hosts, the more players it draws; and the more players, the more developers it must host. It is a classic network effect in action; and network effects do not share their winnings evenly, but concentrate them. The Prussian-dominated Zollverein in the 1850s bound the German states closer not by decree, but because membership grew more valuable as more members joined. The EU is a union that draws increased numbers because it is better to be in the market than outside of it; and Steam's gravity is the same physics, in a very 21st-century sense.
And this gravity attracts controversy as much as attention. The GameClaim case is not the first one that Steam has faced, with a recognizable argument across all of them--the 30% cut, the parity clauses, the anti-steering rules. In the US in 2021, Wolfire Games and Dark Catt Studios sued Valve, a case that was subsequently dismissed, refiled, then consolidated, eventually winning class-action status in late 2024 and now embraces any developer who has paid Valve a commission for the games sold on their platform since 2017. In Britain, a campaigner brought a collective action for some 14 million users, which has been cleared by the Competition Appeal Tribunal to proceed, with roughly pound sterling656 million ($866 million) at stake. And as for Brussels, precedent has been set already, with the European Commission fining Valve for unlawful geo-blocking practices.
Gabe Newell (GabeN, to his supporters), who founded Valve with Mike Harrington after leaving Microsoft, has rejected all of these claims, pointing to the open video game market as his defense: consoles available at much cheaper rates than mainline gaming PCs; rival stores operating, like EGS; and direct downloads that players can purchase. In other words, no gamer is forced to use Steam; it's just superior to the alternatives. The defense is a rather unfashionable one--but that does not mean it is any less correct.
Valve's dominance is a visible consequence of what consumers actually chose. No Dutch, British, American, or any other gamer with an Internet connection was conscripted to the platform. Many gamers, the author included, migrated to PC gaming because of Steam's superiority in customer support, variety of products, and well-regarded seasonal sales. EGS, by contrast, has spent years and a small fortune on free giveaways to try and tempt players to their stall; some of the most popular games in the world are put up for gamers to "buy," for free, every week, including in June 2026 alone Warhammer 40,000: Speed Freeks, Citizen Sleeper, RollerCoaster Tycoon 3, and many more. For all its trouble, EGS holds an estimated 3% of the global market share.
As for developers, neither are they bound to sell on Steam, or even exclusively; they choose Steam because that is where the buyers have gathered. Why do brands seek to sell their wares in the Wal-Marts, Targets, Aldis, and Tescos of the world? For the same reason: footfall, exposure, and distribution. And the 30% fee (that has itself stayed consistent since the early 2000s) that the claims challenge is nothing more than Steam charging for distribution, refunds, mod hosting, and access to a staggering market, the same as Wal-Mart charging for shelf space--and it's a fee the market has repeatedly proved it cannot undercut.
Revealed preference is an inconvenient truth, but a truth nonetheless. Competition allows dominance to emerge. If, one day, Steam bungles its dominance or is edged out by a disruptor, then so be it. To end this dominance by judicial fiat instead of consumer choice is to prefer the regulator's taste to the customer's.
* * *
Dr Jake Scott is a political theorist specialising in populism and its relationship to political constitutionality. He has taught at multiple British universities and produced research reports for several think tanks.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/steaming-mad/
* * *
Steaming Mad
Dutch players sue over video game charges.
-
The average Dutch gamer has lost Euros130 ($148). At least, that is a claim being made in the Hague by a foundation. On June 11, the Stichting Consumenten Competition Claims (SCCC), acting under the banner GameClaim on behalf of every Dutch personal computer (PC) gamer, filed a Euros220 million ($250 million) claim against the Valve Corporation, the business that operates the Steam gaming platform.
The ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, July 11 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by political theorist Jake Scott: * * * Steaming Mad Dutch players sue over video game charges. - The average Dutch gamer has lost Euros130 ($148). At least, that is a claim being made in the Hague by a foundation. On June 11, the Stichting Consumenten Competition Claims (SCCC), acting under the banner GameClaim on behalf of every Dutch personal computer (PC) gamer, filed a Euros220 million ($250 million) claim against the Valve Corporation, the business that operates the Steam gaming platform. TheSCCC claims that roughly 2 million accounts have lost collectively those Euros220 million on the basis that the Valve Corporation commands some 85% of the market, and defends that position through Most-Favored-Nation clauses--terms that forbid developers from undercutting their Steam price on rival storefronts such as Epic Games Store (EGS). With an additional 30% commission, a Steam Wallet that captures in-game payments at the same rate, and rules barring developers from steering players toward alternative storefronts, the SCCC claim is, at base, the idea that Valve has an unacceptable monopoly over PC gaming.
PC gaming is, in many ways, an industry that has outgrown its critics. Condescension and derision were what gamers had come to expect for many, many years when mentioning their hobby in polite society; but that attitude has since died. In 2025, games revenue globally reached $197 billion, a figure that comfortably exceeds the worldwide cinema box office and recorded music combined, and the PC segment alone returned an estimated $43 billion, growing faster than the console and mobile markets behind which it was expected to fall sharply. Nearly half the global population now play something, and the industry that surrounds gaming is absolutely enormous. In fact, since 2020, roughly 20 films have been made inspired by video games, such as Sonic the Hedgehog and its sequels, The Super Mario Bros. Movie, and A Minecraft Movie, while on television The Last of Us, Fallout, The Witcher, and Cyberpunk: Edgerunners have all been major successes.
Steam's place in this industry is one that has grown organically, and it has come to be a cornerstone of the worldwide video games market. Established in 2003 by Valve, also known as Valve Software, an American video game developer, publisher, hardware, and digital distribution company, Steam was envisioned as a platform for Valve to update their own games. The infrastructure was scaled rapidly to meet the demand of a wider market. As of January 2026, more than 42 million players were online playing games through the platform at once, the games catalogue exceeds 120,000 titles (2025 alone saw over 20,000 new releases), and revenue is estimated to have climbed past $16 billion.
The model is one that even Adam Smith would recognize at a glance: the more developers the platform hosts, the more players it draws; and the more players, the more developers it must host. It is a classic network effect in action; and network effects do not share their winnings evenly, but concentrate them. The Prussian-dominated Zollverein in the 1850s bound the German states closer not by decree, but because membership grew more valuable as more members joined. The EU is a union that draws increased numbers because it is better to be in the market than outside of it; and Steam's gravity is the same physics, in a very 21st-century sense.
And this gravity attracts controversy as much as attention. The GameClaim case is not the first one that Steam has faced, with a recognizable argument across all of them--the 30% cut, the parity clauses, the anti-steering rules. In the US in 2021, Wolfire Games and Dark Catt Studios sued Valve, a case that was subsequently dismissed, refiled, then consolidated, eventually winning class-action status in late 2024 and now embraces any developer who has paid Valve a commission for the games sold on their platform since 2017. In Britain, a campaigner brought a collective action for some 14 million users, which has been cleared by the Competition Appeal Tribunal to proceed, with roughly pound sterling656 million ($866 million) at stake. And as for Brussels, precedent has been set already, with the European Commission fining Valve for unlawful geo-blocking practices.
Gabe Newell (GabeN, to his supporters), who founded Valve with Mike Harrington after leaving Microsoft, has rejected all of these claims, pointing to the open video game market as his defense: consoles available at much cheaper rates than mainline gaming PCs; rival stores operating, like EGS; and direct downloads that players can purchase. In other words, no gamer is forced to use Steam; it's just superior to the alternatives. The defense is a rather unfashionable one--but that does not mean it is any less correct.
Valve's dominance is a visible consequence of what consumers actually chose. No Dutch, British, American, or any other gamer with an Internet connection was conscripted to the platform. Many gamers, the author included, migrated to PC gaming because of Steam's superiority in customer support, variety of products, and well-regarded seasonal sales. EGS, by contrast, has spent years and a small fortune on free giveaways to try and tempt players to their stall; some of the most popular games in the world are put up for gamers to "buy," for free, every week, including in June 2026 alone Warhammer 40,000: Speed Freeks, Citizen Sleeper, RollerCoaster Tycoon 3, and many more. For all its trouble, EGS holds an estimated 3% of the global market share.
As for developers, neither are they bound to sell on Steam, or even exclusively; they choose Steam because that is where the buyers have gathered. Why do brands seek to sell their wares in the Wal-Marts, Targets, Aldis, and Tescos of the world? For the same reason: footfall, exposure, and distribution. And the 30% fee (that has itself stayed consistent since the early 2000s) that the claims challenge is nothing more than Steam charging for distribution, refunds, mod hosting, and access to a staggering market, the same as Wal-Mart charging for shelf space--and it's a fee the market has repeatedly proved it cannot undercut.
Revealed preference is an inconvenient truth, but a truth nonetheless. Competition allows dominance to emerge. If, one day, Steam bungles its dominance or is edged out by a disruptor, then so be it. To end this dominance by judicial fiat instead of consumer choice is to prefer the regulator's taste to the customer's.
* * *
Dr Jake Scott is a political theorist specialising in populism and its relationship to political constitutionality. He has taught at multiple British universities and produced research reports for several think tanks.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/steaming-mad/
Foundation for Economic Education Posts Commentary: Capitalism is Only Economic System That Does Not Force Behavior
DETROIT, Michigan, July 11 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by Ella Dawson, freelance journalist and history writer in Utah:
* * *
Are Economic Systems Amoral?
Capitalism is the only economic system that does not force behavior.
-
A classic argument against free-market principles is that they are not humane. Capitalists supposedly don't care that people can't pay for rent or groceries; that many CEOs receive thousands of times more income than the median worker pay; and that people will die if the government doesn't provide for them. As Zohran Mamdani, ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, July 11 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by Ella Dawson, freelance journalist and history writer in Utah: * * * Are Economic Systems Amoral? Capitalism is the only economic system that does not force behavior. - A classic argument against free-market principles is that they are not humane. Capitalists supposedly don't care that people can't pay for rent or groceries; that many CEOs receive thousands of times more income than the median worker pay; and that people will die if the government doesn't provide for them. As Zohran Mamdani,Democratic Socialist and mayor of New York City, put it, "Cities thrive not on fear but empathy."
The implicit argument here is that capitalism is inhumane and unempathetic while socialism is the moral and humane alternative. But the real question that needs to be asked is: Can economic systems really be moral or immoral?
The end of all economic systems, according to one interpretation of Plato's Republic, is justice. "Plato's starting point is that the organization of society depends ultimately upon knowledge of the end of existence," John Dewey, the father of modern education, writes:
If we do not know its end we shall be at the mercy of accident and caprice. Unless we know the end, the good, we shall have no criterion for rationally deciding what the possibilities are which should be promoted, nor how social arrangements are to be ordered.
Dewey is correct, that without a certain end, we shall be at the mercy of accident and "caprice"--meaning unpredictable and sudden changes. But Dewey is wrong (and potentially Plato as well) both about approaching economics from a collective angle, and implying that social arrangements even need to be artificially ordered.
Moral values are only individual. A society cannot be good unless it is made up of good individuals. While a family is certainly a collective unit, a parent would not say that the family is moral or good unless every individual has chosen to be moral or good. The parent could confiscate drugs, demand curfews, beg them to forsake homosexuality--but they cannot change the desires of their children's hearts or force them to be moral persons.
Likewise, economics does not start with the collective. It starts with the individual. This is an important distinction, because while specific types of governments and economic systems can influence a person's behavior, it is ultimately up to the individual to uphold certain moral values. "Thus the principle of collective right," Frederic Bastiat wrote in The Law, "is based on individual right."
While moral values are only individual, there are wrong and right ways for individuals to deal with others in governments and collectives. In a communist society, many believe that each person gets what he or she needs ("from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," as Marx wrote in The German Ideology). This type of communal living supposedly supports morality in that it satisfies the demands of justice from the poor, and allows everyone to work for each other, and not just for himself. This anti-free market propaganda continues to flow through Zohran Mamdani's tweets.
But communism and socialism are not simply economic systems. They are political systems as well. Political systems--governments--are only successful insofar as they enforce laws. Socialism is not a way to express empathy or charity; it is an entity of force.
In relations with others, it is actually impossible to force a person to be selfless or just. Forcing another person to reach our set of ideals is, in fact, extremely self-interested. The will of an individual will always be his or her own. "Coercion is evil precisely because it thus eliminates an individual as a thinking and valuing person," Friedrich Hayek wrote in The Constitution of Liberty, "and makes him a bare tool in the achievement of the ends of another."
When force is involved, as Dewey picked up on, a level of security is achieved. Socialism sacrifices accident and caprice at the cost of liberty, yet without ever achieving the desired end. Dewey also implies that it's even possible to order social arrangements perfectly--with the production and dissemination of food, resources, and housing organized every day in exactly the perfect way.
A free-market economic system makes no such claims that it cannot keep. While socialism promises many moral "ends" that it never fulfills, capitalism promises no such moral ends. Because communism combines political and economic power and therefore forces an individual to an arbitrary and unachievable end, it is immoral, or "evil," as Hayek put it.
The free market allows people to check individuals through refusal to buy products or work for certain employers, instead of governments forcing whole societies to follow certain arbitrary rules. This does leave us at the mercy of some "accident and caprice," but instead of ensuring through force the adoption of a moral system determined by the State, individuals are allowed to arrive at their own true internal morality.
"Capitalism per se is not humane or inhumane," free-market economist Milton Friedman said in a lecture, "but capitalism tends to give free rein to the more humane values of human beings. It tends to develop a climate that is more favorable to the development on the one hand of a higher moral atmosphere of responsibility and on the other, to greater achievements in every realm of human understanding."
Neither socialism, communism, nor capitalism can guarantee the morality of societies or individuals. This is because when economic systems combine with political systems, they use coercion for evil. Economic systems founded on freedom are amoral, because when free-market principles are at work, people are free to choose for themselves.
* * *
Ella Dawson is a freelance journalist and history writer living in Utah. She previously wrote for Spectator World. Follow her on Substack.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/are-economic-systems-amoral/
* * *
Are Economic Systems Amoral?
Capitalism is the only economic system that does not force behavior.
-
A classic argument against free-market principles is that they are not humane. Capitalists supposedly don't care that people can't pay for rent or groceries; that many CEOs receive thousands of times more income than the median worker pay; and that people will die if the government doesn't provide for them. As Zohran Mamdani, ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, July 11 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by Ella Dawson, freelance journalist and history writer in Utah: * * * Are Economic Systems Amoral? Capitalism is the only economic system that does not force behavior. - A classic argument against free-market principles is that they are not humane. Capitalists supposedly don't care that people can't pay for rent or groceries; that many CEOs receive thousands of times more income than the median worker pay; and that people will die if the government doesn't provide for them. As Zohran Mamdani,Democratic Socialist and mayor of New York City, put it, "Cities thrive not on fear but empathy."
The implicit argument here is that capitalism is inhumane and unempathetic while socialism is the moral and humane alternative. But the real question that needs to be asked is: Can economic systems really be moral or immoral?
The end of all economic systems, according to one interpretation of Plato's Republic, is justice. "Plato's starting point is that the organization of society depends ultimately upon knowledge of the end of existence," John Dewey, the father of modern education, writes:
If we do not know its end we shall be at the mercy of accident and caprice. Unless we know the end, the good, we shall have no criterion for rationally deciding what the possibilities are which should be promoted, nor how social arrangements are to be ordered.
Dewey is correct, that without a certain end, we shall be at the mercy of accident and "caprice"--meaning unpredictable and sudden changes. But Dewey is wrong (and potentially Plato as well) both about approaching economics from a collective angle, and implying that social arrangements even need to be artificially ordered.
Moral values are only individual. A society cannot be good unless it is made up of good individuals. While a family is certainly a collective unit, a parent would not say that the family is moral or good unless every individual has chosen to be moral or good. The parent could confiscate drugs, demand curfews, beg them to forsake homosexuality--but they cannot change the desires of their children's hearts or force them to be moral persons.
Likewise, economics does not start with the collective. It starts with the individual. This is an important distinction, because while specific types of governments and economic systems can influence a person's behavior, it is ultimately up to the individual to uphold certain moral values. "Thus the principle of collective right," Frederic Bastiat wrote in The Law, "is based on individual right."
While moral values are only individual, there are wrong and right ways for individuals to deal with others in governments and collectives. In a communist society, many believe that each person gets what he or she needs ("from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," as Marx wrote in The German Ideology). This type of communal living supposedly supports morality in that it satisfies the demands of justice from the poor, and allows everyone to work for each other, and not just for himself. This anti-free market propaganda continues to flow through Zohran Mamdani's tweets.
But communism and socialism are not simply economic systems. They are political systems as well. Political systems--governments--are only successful insofar as they enforce laws. Socialism is not a way to express empathy or charity; it is an entity of force.
In relations with others, it is actually impossible to force a person to be selfless or just. Forcing another person to reach our set of ideals is, in fact, extremely self-interested. The will of an individual will always be his or her own. "Coercion is evil precisely because it thus eliminates an individual as a thinking and valuing person," Friedrich Hayek wrote in The Constitution of Liberty, "and makes him a bare tool in the achievement of the ends of another."
When force is involved, as Dewey picked up on, a level of security is achieved. Socialism sacrifices accident and caprice at the cost of liberty, yet without ever achieving the desired end. Dewey also implies that it's even possible to order social arrangements perfectly--with the production and dissemination of food, resources, and housing organized every day in exactly the perfect way.
A free-market economic system makes no such claims that it cannot keep. While socialism promises many moral "ends" that it never fulfills, capitalism promises no such moral ends. Because communism combines political and economic power and therefore forces an individual to an arbitrary and unachievable end, it is immoral, or "evil," as Hayek put it.
The free market allows people to check individuals through refusal to buy products or work for certain employers, instead of governments forcing whole societies to follow certain arbitrary rules. This does leave us at the mercy of some "accident and caprice," but instead of ensuring through force the adoption of a moral system determined by the State, individuals are allowed to arrive at their own true internal morality.
"Capitalism per se is not humane or inhumane," free-market economist Milton Friedman said in a lecture, "but capitalism tends to give free rein to the more humane values of human beings. It tends to develop a climate that is more favorable to the development on the one hand of a higher moral atmosphere of responsibility and on the other, to greater achievements in every realm of human understanding."
Neither socialism, communism, nor capitalism can guarantee the morality of societies or individuals. This is because when economic systems combine with political systems, they use coercion for evil. Economic systems founded on freedom are amoral, because when free-market principles are at work, people are free to choose for themselves.
* * *
Ella Dawson is a freelance journalist and history writer living in Utah. She previously wrote for Spectator World. Follow her on Substack.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/are-economic-systems-amoral/
Children's Savings Accounts Are Reaching More Children than Ever, Now Programs Are Focused on Helping Families Use Them
WASHINGTON, July 11 [Category: Economics] (TNSrpt) -- Prosperity Now (formerly the Corporation for Enterprise Development) posted the following news release:
* * *
Children's Savings Accounts Are Reaching More Children than Ever, Now Programs Are Focused on Helping Families Use Them
New Prosperity Now analysis finds Children's Savings Accounts reached nearly 8 million children and youth in 2025, up from 313,000 when Prosperity Now began publishing State of the Field reports in 2016.
-
As Children's Savings Accounts (CSAs) reach historic scale, a new Prosperity Now report finds that the field's ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 11 [Category: Economics] (TNSrpt) -- Prosperity Now (formerly the Corporation for Enterprise Development) posted the following news release: * * * Children's Savings Accounts Are Reaching More Children than Ever, Now Programs Are Focused on Helping Families Use Them New Prosperity Now analysis finds Children's Savings Accounts reached nearly 8 million children and youth in 2025, up from 313,000 when Prosperity Now began publishing State of the Field reports in 2016. - As Children's Savings Accounts (CSAs) reach historic scale, a new Prosperity Now report finds that the field'snext phase is increasingly focused on helping families claim, understand, contribute to, and use accounts over time.
The 2025 Children's Savings Account State of the Field Report captures a major shift in the field since Prosperity Now began publishing State of the Field reports in 2016. What was once a promising strategy reaching 313,000 children and youth has grown into a national field reaching nearly 8 million by the close of 2025. By the end of 2025, 129 active CSA programs were operating across 42 states and the District of Columbia.
Among surveyed programs, 57 percent provide benchmark incentives, 35 percent match participant savings, 19 percent offer deposit bonuses, 11 percent offer prize-linked savings incentives, and 11 percent offer enrollment incentives separate from initial seed deposits. Some programs reported incentives tied to financial education, opening personal savings accounts, school engagement, health behaviors, social engagement, and other activities that support children and families, suggesting that programs are using incentives not only to grow account balances, but also to strengthen family engagement over time.
"Children's Savings Accounts programs have spent years building the infrastructure, partnerships, and trust needed to reach families and reduce barriers to participation," said Marisa Calderon, President and CEO of Prosperity Now. "As the field continues to grow, the next challenge is making sure families can claim, understand, and use these accounts in ways that support education, career training, and long-term financial stability."
Drawing on Prosperity Now's national CSA field-tracking work and survey responses from 39 CSA programs serving more than 6.8 million participants, the report identifies several trends shaping the field:
* Automatic enrollment continues to drive reach. More than 6.75 million children and youth were served through automatic or opt-out enrollment models, representing 98.5 percent of participants in the surveyed programs. National field-tracking data show the same pattern across the broader field, with 85 percent of all CSA participants enrolled through automatic or opt-out models.
* Large-scale statewide programs continue to account for much of the field's growth. California's CalKIDS added more than 660,000 new participants in 2025, while Pennsylvania's Keystone Scholars program added an estimated 143,000 new accounts, according to program responses to Prosperity Now's survey.
* Account structure matters for scale. Programs using entity-owned 529 accounts served more than 6.75 million participants, or 98.5 percent of participants in surveyed programs with account-type data, underscoring the role of 529 infrastructure in helping CSA programs reach scale.
* CSA programs continue to reach children from households with low incomes. Among the 23 programs that provided participant demographic information, over 86 percent reported that at least half of their participants were from households with low incomes.
* Programs are using incentives to support engagement. In addition to seed deposits, programs are using benchmark incentives, savings matches, deposit bonuses, enrollment incentives, and prize-linked savings to encourage participation, account growth, and family engagement.
The report also shows that CSA programs are evolving alongside a broader youth asset-building landscape. While education and career training remain central goals for the field, some programs are exploring allowable uses connected to workforce credentials, professional development, entrepreneurship, and homeownership where permitted by account structure and program rules. As the broader landscape evolves, recent federal changes to 529 rules and emerging implementation questions around Section 530A Accounts will be important to monitor in future analyses of the CSA field.
Prosperity Now has tracked, studied, and supported the expansion of child asset-building strategies since the emergence of the CSA field. Since 2016, Prosperity Now's State of the Field reports have documented the growth and evolution of CSA programs through landscape analysis, practitioner engagement, and field-building efforts.
The 2025 Children's Savings Account State of the Field Report was developed with research support from Brandeis University and financial support from the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation.
* * *
REPORT: https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/64f22f0478cf70a81b4dc7a9/6a4d6a98099f824f4cbe6291_2025%20CSA_State%20of%20the%20Field%20Report.pdf
***
Original text here: https://www.prosperitynow.org/news-and-insights/childrens-savings-accounts-are-reaching-more-children-than-ever-now-programs-are-focused-on-helping-families-use-them
* * *
Children's Savings Accounts Are Reaching More Children than Ever, Now Programs Are Focused on Helping Families Use Them
New Prosperity Now analysis finds Children's Savings Accounts reached nearly 8 million children and youth in 2025, up from 313,000 when Prosperity Now began publishing State of the Field reports in 2016.
-
As Children's Savings Accounts (CSAs) reach historic scale, a new Prosperity Now report finds that the field's ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 11 [Category: Economics] (TNSrpt) -- Prosperity Now (formerly the Corporation for Enterprise Development) posted the following news release: * * * Children's Savings Accounts Are Reaching More Children than Ever, Now Programs Are Focused on Helping Families Use Them New Prosperity Now analysis finds Children's Savings Accounts reached nearly 8 million children and youth in 2025, up from 313,000 when Prosperity Now began publishing State of the Field reports in 2016. - As Children's Savings Accounts (CSAs) reach historic scale, a new Prosperity Now report finds that the field'snext phase is increasingly focused on helping families claim, understand, contribute to, and use accounts over time.
The 2025 Children's Savings Account State of the Field Report captures a major shift in the field since Prosperity Now began publishing State of the Field reports in 2016. What was once a promising strategy reaching 313,000 children and youth has grown into a national field reaching nearly 8 million by the close of 2025. By the end of 2025, 129 active CSA programs were operating across 42 states and the District of Columbia.
Among surveyed programs, 57 percent provide benchmark incentives, 35 percent match participant savings, 19 percent offer deposit bonuses, 11 percent offer prize-linked savings incentives, and 11 percent offer enrollment incentives separate from initial seed deposits. Some programs reported incentives tied to financial education, opening personal savings accounts, school engagement, health behaviors, social engagement, and other activities that support children and families, suggesting that programs are using incentives not only to grow account balances, but also to strengthen family engagement over time.
"Children's Savings Accounts programs have spent years building the infrastructure, partnerships, and trust needed to reach families and reduce barriers to participation," said Marisa Calderon, President and CEO of Prosperity Now. "As the field continues to grow, the next challenge is making sure families can claim, understand, and use these accounts in ways that support education, career training, and long-term financial stability."
Drawing on Prosperity Now's national CSA field-tracking work and survey responses from 39 CSA programs serving more than 6.8 million participants, the report identifies several trends shaping the field:
* Automatic enrollment continues to drive reach. More than 6.75 million children and youth were served through automatic or opt-out enrollment models, representing 98.5 percent of participants in the surveyed programs. National field-tracking data show the same pattern across the broader field, with 85 percent of all CSA participants enrolled through automatic or opt-out models.
* Large-scale statewide programs continue to account for much of the field's growth. California's CalKIDS added more than 660,000 new participants in 2025, while Pennsylvania's Keystone Scholars program added an estimated 143,000 new accounts, according to program responses to Prosperity Now's survey.
* Account structure matters for scale. Programs using entity-owned 529 accounts served more than 6.75 million participants, or 98.5 percent of participants in surveyed programs with account-type data, underscoring the role of 529 infrastructure in helping CSA programs reach scale.
* CSA programs continue to reach children from households with low incomes. Among the 23 programs that provided participant demographic information, over 86 percent reported that at least half of their participants were from households with low incomes.
* Programs are using incentives to support engagement. In addition to seed deposits, programs are using benchmark incentives, savings matches, deposit bonuses, enrollment incentives, and prize-linked savings to encourage participation, account growth, and family engagement.
The report also shows that CSA programs are evolving alongside a broader youth asset-building landscape. While education and career training remain central goals for the field, some programs are exploring allowable uses connected to workforce credentials, professional development, entrepreneurship, and homeownership where permitted by account structure and program rules. As the broader landscape evolves, recent federal changes to 529 rules and emerging implementation questions around Section 530A Accounts will be important to monitor in future analyses of the CSA field.
Prosperity Now has tracked, studied, and supported the expansion of child asset-building strategies since the emergence of the CSA field. Since 2016, Prosperity Now's State of the Field reports have documented the growth and evolution of CSA programs through landscape analysis, practitioner engagement, and field-building efforts.
The 2025 Children's Savings Account State of the Field Report was developed with research support from Brandeis University and financial support from the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation.
* * *
REPORT: https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/64f22f0478cf70a81b4dc7a9/6a4d6a98099f824f4cbe6291_2025%20CSA_State%20of%20the%20Field%20Report.pdf
***
Original text here: https://www.prosperitynow.org/news-and-insights/childrens-savings-accounts-are-reaching-more-children-than-ever-now-programs-are-focused-on-helping-families-use-them