Reason Magazine - Staff

Magazine Mounties

info@reason.com (Jason Brooks) — Mon, 01 Mar 1999 00:00:00 EST

Freeze! Drop that Sports Illustrated and put your hands in the air." Canada is in the process of passing a law that will protect Canadians from the terrifying menace of American-based magazines. Such publications, says the government, threaten "Canadian culture," an expansive notion that's nonetheless incapable of including People, News-week, or U.S. News & World Report. The government wants to make it a criminal offense for foreign publications directed at the Canadian market to sell advertising space to Canadians. The fine will be CDN$250,000.The goal is to avoid "split-runs"--Canadian editions of American magazines with little Canadian editorial content but lots of Canadian ads. Since Canadians already read so many American magazines, Canadian advertisers, if given the choice to advertise in split-runs, would leap at the chance. That would crush the Canadian magazine industry and, by extension, Canadian culture, government officials say. Until last year, when the World Trade Organization ruled such protectionist practices unfair, Canada prevented split-runs with huge excise taxes on American periodicals.

The proposed criminal statute is an attempt to get around the WTO ruling. Although Canada is quicker to censor than the United States, the statute may well run afoul of Canada's Constitution, as it violates freedom of speech. Certainly, it will restrict magazine choices for Canadians by making it less profitable for foreign publishers to compete in the Canadian market. Such protectionism may not even benefit Canadian culture overall: An independent study commissioned by the government reported that protectionism has seriously stunted Cana-da's advertising business and has cost jobs by restricting the magazine advertising space available to Canadian companies.

The U.S. government will challenge the law as an unfair trading practice.

Baby Food Fight

info@reason.com (Jason Brooks) — Tue, 01 Dec 1998 00:00:00 EST

Canadian bureaucrats must have pablum for brains. The federal government has granted a de facto monopoly for jarred baby food, handing all the business to Heinz. As a consequence, prices have skyrocketed.

The strange story began last year, when Heinz (which makes its baby food in Canada) complained to the feds that Gerber was "dumping" baby food, importing it from the United States and selling it for less in Canada than it does in the United States. Gerber sold for as little as 33 cents a jar in Canada, about 10 cents less than Heinz.

In May of this year, a federal tribunal sided with Heinz and ordered Gerber to raise its prices 60 percent. Gerber says it can't compete at the new prices and--after 49 years of selling baby food north of the border--has abandoned the Canadian market.

Now that consumer groups are outraged, the tribunal has said, in effect, "Oops." It didn't mean to throw Gerber out entirely. The tribunal held hearings in September to reconsider its decision and will report its findings later this fall.

But in a bizarre twist, another branch of the federal government, the Competition Bureau, has requested a North American Free Trade Agreement panel to review the anti-dumping decision. It will be Canada vs. Canada when this panel convenes in January, the first time since the establishment of NAFTA in 1994 that one country has gone to war against itself.

Meanwhile, stoic Canadian shoppers--who have been forced to pay millions of additional dollars for bicycles, sugar, fresh garlic, and even tombstones after recent anti-dumping decisions--will have to collectively fork over millions more if they want to feed their toddlers yummy strained peas and carrots.

Watch Your Backpack

info@reason.com (Jason Brooks) — Sun, 01 Nov 1998 00:00:00 EST

If you've ever thought about fleeing into the wilderness to avoid the long reach of the tax man, you might want to buy your hiking gear soon.

A coalition of environmental groups is trying to get Congress to pass a 5 percent tax on outdoor recreation products--everything from sport-utility vehicles to backpacks. The money would be used for such purposes as protecting endangered species and building wildlife trails. The groups pushing the proposal--some 2,900 of them, including environmental organizations, state fish and wildlife agencies, and municipalities--are organized under an umbrella called "Teaming with Wildlife."

"Outdoor tax" proponents call their levy a user fee. But a quick look at the items that would be covered suggests a rather tenuous relationship between the user and his impact on the wilderness. For example, only 10 percent of sport-utility vehicles ever drive off-road. And more than two-thirds of the backpacks sold are used by students to lug books to and from school. Other items that could be covered by the outdoor tax are hiking boots, tents, even cameras and film.

For now, the proposal doesn't have congressional support or a legislative sponsor. "The problem is, we have a very conservative Congress right now," says Naomi Edelson, one of the group's organizers. Still, Edelson says, the tax idea, which has been pushed for the last five years, "isn't dead." Teaming with Wildlife is biding its time, lobbying members of Congress, and hoping for a "different mood" to emerge on Capitol Hill.

Toasting Tobacco

info@reason.com (Jason Brooks) — Sun, 01 Nov 1998 00:00:00 EST

"It's time to get the country looking at the alcohol industry in exactly the same way we're looking at tobacco," says Sandy Golden, president of the Tampa, Florida-based Campaign for Alcohol-Free Kids. "We're 10 to 15 years behind the tobacco people, and we want to close that gap in the next year or two."

Golden, who was the first executive director of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, says, "The alcohol industry is far worse than the tobacco industry, if you look at the number of years of life lost." Golden's group plans a multifront war on booze:

n In hopes of encouraging states to sue alcohol companies, Golden is "teaching" groups such as the Women's Christian Temperance Movement to write letters to state attorneys general. "The goal of the letters is to determine whether it is possible to sue big alcohol the same way as big tobacco," he says. "If one attorney general launches a lawsuit, there will be a domino effect. They will all do it."

n Golden is pushing for a presidential commission to "address the issue of underage drinking." He says a commission to study and propose new regulations on alcohol advertising is "just a matter of time."

n Golden has filed a formal petition with the Federal Communications Commission, calling for a rule that would let parents screen out alcohol ads from their television sets with V-chip technology.

Ageless Hostilities

info@reason.com (Jason Brooks) — Sun, 01 Nov 1998 00:00:00 EST

A July rally in Washington intended to rejuvenate supporters of Social Security got nasty when a group of seniors encountered a cohort of libertarian-leaning youth. The National Council for Senior Citizens, an advocacy group that opposes any changes in Social Security, held a rally at the Capitol to "bridge the generations" on the issue of old-age entitlements. Seniors carried signs bearing such messages as, "Don't pit the young against the old."

But many of the 2,000-strong protesters--who consisted primarily of retired union workers--seemed to be more interested in preserving the welfare state than in intergenerational harmony. When one young person asked what will happen when the Social Security trust fund runs out in 2029, a senior remarked with a shrug and a smile, "I won't be here."

Things turned ugly when a group of about 50 young people, many of them 20-something Washington interns, arrived with signs that read, "Dialogue, not Demagogue." Shouts of "Get a job!" filled the air. "You've never had a job! You've been a professional bum all your life!" yelled one of the seniors at the organizer of the youth protest.

Another man threatened a young female: "We'll deal with you the way we did in the good old days--with a baseball bat," he said, swinging his arms in mock attack. So much for bridging the generations.

Dead Air

info@reason.com (Jason Brooks) — Thu, 01 Oct 1998 00:00:00 EDT

Washington's policy makers are again debating whether to force broadcasters to give free air time to political candidates. But before issuing any new mandates, federal regulators could learn plenty of lessons from the Golden State.

California's June primaries featured deep-pocketed Democratic gubernatorial candidates Al Checchi and Jane Harman and some fiercely fought initiative campaigns. Even so, some candidates literally couldn't buy their way onto radio or television. One reason may well be existing federal regulations that force stations to sell political ads at rock-bottom prices.

The Federal Communications Commission forces broadcasters to charge candidates the same low rates they charge to their highest-volume advertisers. When a station sells time to one candidate, it is legally obligated to offer equal time to every other candidate in that race.

"In San Francisco, all the major television and radio stations made a decision not to sell time to most state and local candidates," says Mike Marshall, campaign manager for Delaine Eastin, the state's superintendent of public instruction. The Eastin campaign was unable to purchase air time in San Francisco. Marshall says Eastin was prepared to pay higher prices for air time, but was prohibited from doing so by the same FCC regulations.

The obvious answer seems to be lifting the price controls. The shortage should then disappear in much the same way Jimmy Carter's gas lines vanished during the Reagan years. But many in Washington prefer to impose new controls. President Clinton and FCC Chairman William Kennard want to force stations to give candidates free air time. A commission spearheaded by Vice President Al Gore is examining the issue, and the FCC is scheduled to launch its own inquiry sometime this year. (See "The Broadcast Giveaway," April.)

And no one seems more eager to give away free broadcast time than the print media. The Hill, a Capitol Hill newspaper, recently condemned broadcasters for "rationing" air time, and called on legislators to make advertising free. "The First Amendment means nothing if a candidate cannot deliver his messages," said a June 17 editorial.

But why should broadcasters be the only media outlets forced to give away advertising? If this "First Amendment" principle is so important, perhaps The Hill and its brethren in the print media should be forced to donate space to candidates.

Pediatric Politics

info@reason.com (Jason Brooks) — Thu, 01 Oct 1998 00:00:00 EDT

A program Congress sold as a way to provide flexible private insurance to children is quickly becoming a way to hook more middle- class families on government health care.

In 1997, Congress passed the State Children's Health Insurance Program, popularly known as KidCare.

The program gives states $48 billion over 10 years to provide health insurance to children of the working poor. KidCare's promoters claimed that flexible block grants would allow states to experiment with market-driven health care systems, such as insurance vouchers or tax credits. One year after the program's adoption, however, there's little innovation and a lot more government.

So far, 21 state KidCare plans have been approved, and all would expand Medi-caid or a similar, state-run program. This isn't surprising, since states qualify for more federal money if they expand Medicaid, while they may lose subsidies if they establish new programs.

While Medicaid traditionally serves the poor, the new rules say children younger than 19 who live in families with incomes that exceed 200 percent of the poverty line--$32,900 for a family of four--may qualify for Medicaid. As a result, the families in this income range who currently purchase private insurance will face strong incentives to obtain tax-subsidized health coverage.

A study in the journal Health Affairs that examines recent Medicaid expansions suggests that for every two persons added to the Medi-caid rolls, one person will drop private health insurance. KidCare could push millions of children out of the private health market.

John Hood, president of the North Carolina-based John Locke Foundation, reports that pro-KidCare lobbyist Adam Searing of the Health Access Coalition conceded that the program will prompt families to drop private insurance. "The long-term effect" of the program, says Hood, "may very well be to eliminate private coverage for children [from families with incomes less than] 200 percent above the poverty line."