[Grover's instincts on regulation seem, in my experience, to be generally good (for a conservative). But telecom is a complex area and it is easy to get confused about which outcome is preferable and least intrusive. So Grover's apparent lapse could be an honest one born of complexity, or, alternatively, he could be siding with Karl Rove for political reasons. I haven't spoken to Grover on this issue and don't know either way. --Declan] -----Original Message----- From: David Fish [mailto:DFish@private] Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 8:19 AM Subject: Telecom Dereg/ Broadband: Experts, Think Tank Heads Question Norquist We've had many requests for the letter mentioned in today's Washington Post business section about broadband/telecom. Signed by 12 policy experts and think tank presidents associated with The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Pacific Research Institute, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Institute for Policy Innovation, the Manhattan Institute, Hoover Institution, Competitive Enterprise Institute and Discovery Institute, the letter questions fellow conservative Grover Norquist's (an unofficial Bush administration advisor and head of Americans for Tax Reform) "pro-regulation position" on telecommunications deregulation. Norquist had sent a previous public letter to President Bush in which he attacked an earlier letter from senators (including Sen. Hillary Clinton) to the President for urging what the senators called a "national broadband policy." The letter below, signed by 12 leading conservative or market-oriented policy experts, includes a list of many studies that promote a national policy --- of deregulation. Following the letter is a page of links to studies supporting deregulation of broadband. They include a piece by CATO's Adam Thierer, questioning Norquist's position. Separately, a February 11 editorial in the Wall Street Journal, "Broadband Fiasco", articulated the market-oriented deregulatory approach to broadband taken by most market-oriented conservatives, including the 12 signers. * See Feb. 25 letter below (part of this email, below my contact information) * Link to related CATO piece, "An Open Letter to a Pro-Regulation Conservative": http://www.cato.org/tech/tk/040217-tk.html <http://cato-subscriptions.org/c.html?rtr=on&s=77z,594l,94v,9dyb,f5cv,jbf3,i pqz Hope this information helps, David Fish David M. Fish VP for Communications & External Affairs The Progress & Freedom Foundation 1401 H Street, NW, Suite 1075 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: 202-289-8928 Fax: 202-289-6079 E-mail: dfish@private Web site: www. pff.org February 25, 2004 Mr. Grover Norquist President Americans for Tax Reform 1920 L Street, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036 Dear Grover: We are writing to ask you to reconsider your pro-regulatory views on telecommunications issues - views you expressed most recently in your January 26 letter to President Bush. Your position on telecommunications deregulation is contrary to the views of the vast majority of free-market economists and policy analysts. Your continuing advocacy of the pro-regulation position is destructive to the cause of limited government. To the extent your efforts are successful, the effect will be to reduce capital formation, slow job creation, impede productivity growth and stifle individual liberty and economic freedom. Telecommunications regulation is complex, which is why a number of us who have studied the issue have sought to brief you on the results of our research. As you know, studies by virtually every major free-market think tank (a partial listing of which is attached) have demonstrated the need for deregulation. As the attached articles from the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal editorial page suggest, this view is widely shared in the free-market community. We are particularly concerned that you have allowed your usual good judgment on matters such as this to be swayed by superficial concerns about politics. Certainly that would seem to be a reasonable interpretation of your January 26 letter, which focuses on one of the phrases that has been used to describe telecom deregulation ("national broadband policy"), and on the fact that deregulation has support from some labor unions and Democratic politicians. On these issues, you should consider three points. First, the sort of "industrial policy" you attack in your letter is precisely what is in place now, left over from the prior administration. By contrast, as the Journal editorial makes clear, the goal of "a clear national broadband policy" is "to deregulate the market." Second, deregulation, by any name, is a desirable goal. Third, political support for doing the right thing - whether it is cutting taxes or reducing regulation - should not be rejected simply because it comes from outside the traditional "free market" base. By the same token, and as you have often said, there is nothing so destructive as when a leader of the free market movement "joins the other team." On this issue, we very much hope we can persuade you to come back to the side of limited government, where we all know you belong. Sincerely, Sonia Arrison Director, Technology Studies* Pacific Research Institute Jeffrey A. Eisenach Board Member and Past President The Progress & Freedom Foundation Raymond L. Gifford President The Progress & Freedom Foundation Tom Giovanetti President Institute for Policy Innovation Thomas W. Hazlett Senior Fellow The Manhattan Institute James C. Miller III Senior Fellow Hoover Institution Sally C. Pipes President and Chief Executive Officer Pacific Research Institute Solveig Singleton Senior Policy Analyst Competitive Enterprise Institute Fred L. Smith, Jr. President Competitive Enterprise Institute John C. Wohlstetter Senior Fellow Discovery Institute * Affiliations listed for identification purposes only. Enclosures cc: The Honorable George W. Bush MAJOR THINK TANK STUDIES ON TELECOM DEREGULATION * Barry M. Aarons, "Don't Call, Just Send Me an Email: The New Competition for Traditional Telecom", Institute for Policy Innovation, January 27, 2003. <http://www.ipi.org/ipi/IPIPublications.nsf/3CC2D910CE3D7F38862567D9005A288F /1AF69786CF30FD9D86256D720016A5D2?OpenDocument * Sonia Arrison, "Telescam: How Telecom Regulations Harm California Consumers," Pacific Research Institute, Aug. 27, 2003. <http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/ecp/2003/epolicy08-27.html * Theodore R. Bolema, Diane Katz, "Crossed Lines: Regulatory Missteps in Telecom Policy," Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Dec. 2003. <http://www.mackinac.org/archives/2003/s2003-04.pdf * Wayne T. Brough, Ph.D., "State Economies Can Benefit from Broadband Deployment," Citizens For a Sound Economy, Dec. 1, 2003. <http://www.cse.org/reports/Broadband_Study.pdf * Robert W. Crandall, J. Gregory Sidak, Hal J. Singer, "The Empirical Case Against Asymmetric Regulation of Broadband Internet Access," Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 2002. <http://www.criterioneconomics.com/articles/singer_broadbandarticle.pdf * Clyde Wayne Crews Jr. and Adam Thierer "What's Yours Is Mine: Open Access and the Rise of Infrastructure Socialism," CATO, (2003). <http://www.catostore.org/index.asp?fa=ProductDetails&method=cats&scid=30&pi d=1441099 * Jeffrey A. Eisenach and Thomas M. Lenard, "Telecom Deregulation and the Economy: The Impact of "UNE-P" on Jobs, Investment and Growth," The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Jan. 2003. <http://www.pff.org/publications/communications/pop10.3unepimpact.pdf * Anne Layne-Farrar, NERA Economic Consulting; Robert W. Hahn, AEI-Brookings Joint Center; Peter Passell, Milken Institute, "Federalism and Regulation," <http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040203_v26n47.pdf * James L. Gattuso and Edwin Meese III, "Votes May Be Hiding in Heap of Regulations," Heritage Foundation, Feb. 3, 2004. <http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed020304a.cfm * James L. Gattuso, "Local Telephone Competition: Unbundling the FCC's Rules," Heritage Foundation, Feb. 10, 2003. <http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/bg1621.cfm * James L. Gattuso, "The Tauzin-Dingell Telecom Bill: Untangling the Confusion," Heritage Foundation, Feb. 25, 2002. <http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternetandTechnology/EM802.cfm * James L. Gattuso, "Bundles of Trouble: The FCC's Telephone Competition Rules," WebMemo #432, Jan. 21, 2004. <http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/wm432.cfm * Raymond L. Gifford and Adam Peters, "Principles for Texas Communications Law," The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Dec. 2003. <http://www.pff.org/publications/communications/pop10.25texas.pdf * Diane Katz, "FCC Order Will Fail to Open the Telecom Market," Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Sep. 8, 2003. <http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=5736 * Joseph S. Kraemer, Richard O. Levine, and Randolph J. May, "Trends in the Competitiveness of Telecommunications Markets: Implications for Deregulation of Retail Local Services," The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Dec. 2003. <http://www.pff.org/publications/communications/121103specialreportcontestab ility.pdf * Randolph J. May, "A Free-Market Scorecard," Regulation Magazine, Oct. 2002. <http://www.pff.org/publications/communications/102202scorecard.pdf * Solveig Singleton, "Federalism Heresies for the Internet Age," Competitive Enterprise Institute, Jan. 30, 2004. <http://www.cei.org/gencon/016,03838.cfm * Solveig Singleton, "Getting Through the Terrible TELRICs," Competitive Enterprise Institute, Dec. 31, 2003. <http://www.cei.org/gencon/016,03793.cfm * Solveig Singleton, "Review of the Commission's Rules Regarding the Pricing of Unbundled Network Elements and the Resale of Service by Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (WC Docket No. 03-173)," Competitive Enterprise Institute, Dec. 17, 2003. <http://www.cei.org/pdf/3778.pdf * Solveig Singleton, "Written Submission Of the Competitive Enterprise Institute Regarding the Telecom & High Tech Manufacturing Sector," Competitive Enterprise Institute, July 18, 2003. <http://www.cei.org/pdf/3634.pdf * Solveig Singleton <http://www.cei.org/dyn/view_expert.cfm?expert=163 and Fred L. Smith, Jr. <http://www.cei.org/dyn/view_expert.cfm?expert=32, "An Open Letter To The Bush Administration On Its Plan To Unbundle Local Phone Networks," Competitive Enterprise Institute, Mar. 10, 2003. <http://www.cei.org/gencon/027,03388.cfm * Adam Thierer, " An Open Letter to Pro-Regulation Conservatives," TechKnowledge No. 58, CATO, Feb. 18, 2004. http://www.cato.org/tech/tk/040217-tk.html <http://cato-subscriptions.org/c.html?rtr=on&s=77z,594l,94v,9dyb,f5cv,jbf3,i pqz * Adam Thierer, "Was the UNE Triennial Review Worth the Wait? Part II: The Substance," TechKnowledge No. 58, CATO, Sept. 15, 2003. <http://www.cato.org/tech/tk/030915-tk.html * Adam Thierer, "Was the UNE Triennial Review Worth the Wait? Part 1: The Process," TechKnowledge No. 57, CATO Aug. 29, 2003. <http://www.cato.org/tech/tk/030829-tk.html * "Broadband Fiasco," Wall Street Journal, Feb. 11, 2004. ----- End forwarded message ----- _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Feb 26 2004 - 13:26:46 PST