The Heritage Insider: Garland's record, right-to-work don't increase inequality, what the birds teach about drone strikes, and more

March 19, 2016

 

What is Merrick Garland’s record? Do right-to-work laws increase economic inequality? The Department of Labor wants to protect investors by taking investment choices away. Do the 1 percent really capture all the growth? What the birds teach us about the risks of drones. Plus over 40 new studies, articles, speeches, videos, and events at the The Insider this week. Visit to see what the conservative movement has been thinking, writing, saying, and doing to win battles for liberty.  

 

What is Merrick Garland’s record? Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court “has demonstrated a remarkable level of hostility toward the Second Amendment, and has a long record of deference to unaccountable government bureaucrats at the Department of Labor, EPA and other agencies whose regulations kill jobs and stifle economic growth.” [SCOTUS Brief]

 

Do right-to-work laws increase economic inequality? No, according to a new study by Jeffrey Jordan, Aparna Mathur, Abdul Manasib, and Devesh Roy. Looking at a “comprehensive set of measures of inequality,” the authors found no impact of RTW laws on economic inequality in Idaho, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas—“the only states that enacted RTW laws over a period of five decades between the 1960s and the 2000s.” [American Enterprise Institute]

 

But who will protect investors from the Department of Labor? The Department of Labor wants to impose new rules to ensure financial fiduciaries act in best interests of their clients. But the department’s so-called “fiduciary rule” defines so “fiduciary” so broadly that virtually anybody in the financial services industry—including broadcast financial commentators—could be deemed liable for advice they give, writes John Berlau. Further, he says, the rule’s definition of “best interest” is so vague that it would lead to restricted investment options for American savers. [Competitive Enterprise Institute]

 

Do the 1 percent really capture all the economic growth, as some commentators—and one presidential candidate—have asserted? The claim, writes Scott Winship, is based on cherry-picked periods that focus on economic expansions. But wealthy households suffer greater losses during downturns. When you take ups and the downs into account, it’s simply not true that only the wealthy gain. “In truth, the top 1 percent is no better off today than before the financial crisis.” [Manhattan Institute]

 

Learn from the birds. The FAA wants to regulate drones, claiming that those weighing as little as 250 grams pose a threat to flying aircraft. Eli Dourado and Samuel Hammond used the FAA’s own database of aircraft-bird strikes to estimate the risk posed by drones weighing less that 2 kilograms. They found: “one damaging incident will occur no more than every 1.87 million years of 2kg UAS flight time” and that “collisions that cause an injury or fatality to passengers on board an aircraft will occur […] once every 187 million years of operation.” [Mercatus Center]

 

 

Have a tip for The Insider? Send us an e-mail at insider@heritage.org with "For Insider" in the subject line.

Looking for an expert? Visit PolicyExperts.org.

 

The Heritage Foundation | 214 Massachusetts Ave NE, Washington, DC 20002 | 202.546.4400

You are subscribed to Heritage Foundation e-mails as johnmhames@comcast.net. If you want to change your e-mail preferences, please click here to update your subscription.

-