FTC Bans Noncompetes

A Tuesday release from the Federal Trade Commission:

Today, the Federal Trade Commission issued a final rule to promote competition by banning noncompetes nationwide, protecting the fundamental freedom of workers to change jobs, increasing innovation, and fostering new business formation.

“Noncompete clauses keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism, including from the more than 8,500 new startups that would be created a year once noncompetes are banned,” said FTC Chair Lina M. Khan. “The FTC’s final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market.”

The FTC estimates that the final rule banning noncompetes will lead to new business formation growing by 2.7% per year, resulting in more than 8,500 additional new businesses created each year. The final rule is expected to result in higher earnings for workers, with estimated earnings increasing for the average worker by an additional $524 per year, and it is expected to lower health care costs by up to $194 billion over the next decade. In addition, the final rule is expected to help drive innovation, leading to an estimated average increase of 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year for the next 10 years under the final rule.

Last year, the Authors Guild supported the proposed rule:

The FTC’s proposed rule would deem clauses that prohibit workers (including independent contractors) from working with others after the conclusion of their current engagements to be a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. Clauses that prevent authors and journalists from publishing similar works with others, or from working with competitors, are common in writing agreements, including book, journalism, and freelance contracts. In most cases, courts have found these clauses to be invalid, but authors often lack the resources or desire to get into a legal battle with their publishers and are unlikely to sue. If the FTC’s rule is enacted, authors could simply reject such clauses as invalid, pointing to the FTC rule.

The Authors Guild has long objected to non-compete clauses and advised their removal in our contract reviews. These clauses, which are purportedly designed to protect publishers’ investments by preventing authors from selling the same or substantially similar work to another publisher, are often too broad. Authors are routinely asked to agree not to publish other works that might “directly compete with” the book under contract or “be likely to injure its sale or the merchandising of other rights.” Even more broadly, they may be asked not to “publish or authorize the publication of any material based on the Work or any material in the Work or any other work of such a nature such that it is likely to compete with the Work.”

House GOP Woes

Axios: Never before has the party in control of the House of Representatives knowingly and willingly castrated its own power so thoroughly as today's Republicans, Axios' Juliegrace Brufke and Justin Green report.

Why it matters: Republicans blew years of potential authority by weak leaders surrendering to keep power. So with a razor-thin GOP majority, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) had to depend on Democrats to muscle through the $60 billion Ukraine bill over the weekend.

Two mistakes haunt House Republicans, both dating back to former Speaker Kevin McCarthy's fight to win the gavel in January 2023:

• Letting any member call a vote on removing the speaker. This gives insurgents like Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) extraordinary power to threaten to oust the party leader any time.
• Surrendering authority of the Rules Committee, which sets the terms for how legislation will be handled during votes. After allowing non-loyalists onto the committee, leaders can't depend on getting their way.

Zoom in: The new Rules Committee — with McCarthy-appointed hardliners, including Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Chip Roy (R-Texas) — has become a roadblock. Seven bills were defeated in the past year during the rules process.This is an unprecedented collapse in control: Former Speakers Nancy Pelosi, Paul Ryan and John Boehner never lost a rules vote.

Brendan Buck, a top staffer to Ryan and Boehner, wrote in a New York Times op-ed: "A party unable to bring its agenda to the floor for a vote is no longer a functional majority."Former Speaker Ryan told Axios that Johnson "found his footing, and his voice. ... [H]e did it as a statesman, risking his own personal political fortune for the greater good that he believes in."

Earth Day and Net Zero

Many posts have discussed energy and the environment.

 On Earth Day, note Ruy Teixeira at The Liberal Patriot:

Is it really possible to hit net zero by 2050? Is it really possible to eliminate fossil fuels that fast? The answer is that, for both technical and political reasons, it is not possible (outside of edge “solutions” like crashing industrial civilization or world authoritarian government to ration energy usage).

The insistence on trying to do so anyway is why “be realistic—demand the impossible!” is, astonishingly, not so far from the guiding philosophy of much of today’s mainstream left, including dominant sectors of the Democratic Party.

Consider the technical feasibility of this program. As the polymath, Vaclav Smil, universally acknowledged to be one the world’s premier energy experts, has observed:

[W]e are a fossil-fueled civilization whose technical and scientific advances, quality of life and prosperity rest on the combustion of huge quantities of fossil carbon, and we cannot simply walk away from this critical determinant of our fortunes in a few decades, never mind years. Complete decarbonization of the global economy by 2050 is now conceivable only at the cost of unthinkable global economic retreat…

And as he tartly observes re the 2050 deadline:

People toss out these deadlines without any reflection on the scale and the complexity of the problem…What’s the point of setting goals which cannot be achieved? People call it aspirational. I call it delusional.

Smil backs his argument with a mountain of empirical evidence in a new and hugely important paper, “Halfway Between Kyoto and 2050: Zero Carbon Is a Highly Unlikely Outcome.” The paper is a gold mine of relevant and highly compelling data. Smil outlines the realities of the net zero 2050 challenge:

The goal of reaching net zero global anthropogenic CO2 emissions is to be achieved by an energy transition whose speed, scale, and modalities (technical, economic, social, and political) would be historically unprecedented…[T]he accomplishment of such a transformation, no matter how desirable it might be, is highly unlikely during the prescribed period….In terms of final energy uses and specific energy converters, the unfolding transition would have to replace more than 4 terawatts (TW) of electricity-generating capacity now installed in large coal- and gas-fired stations by converting to non-carbon sources; to substitute nearly 1.5 billion combustion (gasoline and diesel) engines in road and off-road vehicles; to convert all agricultural and crop processing machinery (including about 50 million tractors and more than 100 million irrigation pumps) to electric drive or to non-fossil fuels; to find new sources of heat, hot air, and hot water used in a wide variety of industrial processes (from iron smelting and cement and glass making to chemical syntheses and food preservation) that now consume close to 30 percent of all final uses of fossil fuels; to replace more than half a billion natural gas furnaces now heating houses and industrial, institutional, and commercial places with heat pumps or other sources of heat; and to find new ways to power nearly 120,000 merchant fleet vessels (bulk carriers of ores, cement, fertilizers, wood and grain, and container ships, the largest one with capacities of some 24,000 units, now running mostly on heavy fuel oil and diesel fuel) and nearly 25,000 active jetliners that form the foundation of global long-distance transportation (fueled by kerosene).

Gallagher Says Goodbye: "Drink More, Tweet Less"

Many posts have discussed civility in Congress.

 The closing words of Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI), just before his resignation took effect:

It’s typical at moments such as these to say ‘‘I have no regrets.’’ This is true legislatively and professionally. I accomplished my mission and got to chair the most significant committee in the 118th congress. Yet I have a lingering personal regret. I wish I had devoted more time to building personal relationships with my colleagues. Our time here is frenetic: filled with overlapping committee hearings and constant fundraising events. It’s hard to carve out time just to get to know your colleagues, to understand their background and motivation, and thereby develop trust. 

Where I was able to do that, with Senator ANGUS KING my co-chair on the Cyberspace Solarium Commission, and with RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI on the China committee, it produced the biggest legislative successes of my 8 years. Put differently, my effectiveness as Congressman wasn’t primarily a function of intellect or op-ed writing prowess and certainly not fundraising, it was a direct result of forging friendships across our caucus and maybe more importantly across the aisle. 

So if there’s a lesson in that for my successor or any of my colleagues it’s after a grueling day of a thousand meetings, still make the effort to get that beer with a member you don’t know that well. Drink more, tweet less. Get to know your colleagues in real life before trashing them on social media. At the end of the day, Republicans and Democrats, we’re all Americans, citizens of the greatest country in the history of the world. Even on our worst day the world is looking to us for leadership. God bless America. 

Tom Cole on Smoking and Politics

 At Politico, Ryan Lizza talks to Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK), new chair of Appropriations and a cigar aficionado:

I’m a big believer in open humidors and open bars because they bring people together. I used to tell this to Boehner. I said, “Quit the cigarette stuff. That’s an addiction.” I mean, you’re sitting *makes sucking noises* for three minutes or something.

With a cigar, you’re going to sit down for 30 to 45 minutes, and if you’re doing it with somebody, you’re going to talk, you’re going to have a relationship. You’re going to find something in common with one another. It’s a lovely way to build a relationship and to socialize with people in a way that the cigarette generally isn’t. You never see a 15-year-old kid standing outside a building with a $20 premium cigar, sucking it up. They don’t do that. This is an adult product that leads to adult conversations and can quite often lead to some really interesting relationships and, frankly, good relationships between people that don’t often get along.

One of the worst things Pelosi ever did, and I know she did it for health reasons… You guys won’t like this, but…

I know where this is going.

… When you quit smoking in the Speaker’s Lobby and when you let in the press, you just destroy one of the places where bipartisan relationships are built. That’s how I got to know Barney Frank. That’s how I got to know Jesse Jackson Jr. when he was up here. Sit down, have a cigar, build a relationship. They were smoking cigarettes and in Frank’s case I don’t think he was ever a big cigar guy, but Jesse was.

There’s got to be some spaces where people can get together. We used to do this in the Rules office — one of the best smoking venues in the Capitol. But you’d get members from different generations there. I mean, Hal Rogers is there all the way to freshmen. There are different committees and most people live their life within their committee. I don’t know what the hell’s going on over in Ways and Means or Energy and Commerce until they produce a product and head it toward the floor. But it’s really interesting when you sit down and hear, “This is what we’re doing in Science, and this is what we’re doing in Ag. This is why we have ag crop insurance or whatever.”

If you’re not in those committees, you don’t know. Over a cigar people talk about their work. Even their questions are interesting. Their observations are interesting. It’s an enjoyable thing, but it’s also a great way to learn information, build relationships and frankly in some ways, educate people because most people learn politics by listening to stories. They’re not reading political science books for God’s sake. They talk to real politicians and they hear real stories and that’s interesting.

Garfield on Congress

A number of posts have discussed congressional capacity, legislative productivity, and deliberation.

In April 1877, Representative (and future President) James A. Garfield wrote at The Atlantic:

And this leads me to say that now, more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand those high qualities to represent them in the national legislature. Congress lives in the blaze of “that fierce light which beats against the throne.” The telegraph and the press will to-morrow morning announce at a million breakfast tables what has been said and done in Congress to-day. Now, as always, Congress represents the prevailing opinions and political aspirations of the people. The wildest delusions of paper money, the crudest theories of taxation, the passions and prejudices that find expression in the senate and house, were first believed and discussed at the firesides of the people, on the corners of the streets, and in the caucuses and conventions of political parties.

The most alarming feature of our situation is the fact that so many citizens of high character and solid judgment pay but little attention to the sources of political power, to the selection of those who shall make their laws. The clergy, the faculties of colleges, and many of the leading business men of the community never attend the township caucus, the city primaries, or the county convention; but they allow the less intelligent and the more selfish and corrupt members of the community to make the slates and “run the machine” of politics. They wait until the machine has done its work, and then, in surprise and horror at the ignorance and corruption in public office, sigh for the return of that mythical period called the “better and purer days of the republic.” It is precisely this neglect of the first steps in our political processes that has made possible the worst evils of our system. Corrupt and incompetent presidents, judges, and legislators can be removed, but when the fountains of political power are corrupted, when voters themselves become venal and elections fraudulent, there is no remedy except by awakening the public conscience and bringing to bear upon the subject the power of public opinion and the penalties of the law. The practice of buying and selling votes at our popular elections has already gained a foot-hold, though it has not gone as far as in England.

Death Threats and Public Service

 Many posts have discussed political violence.

Jane C. Timm and Joe Murphy at NBC:

Threats and harassment against local public officials rose in 2023, according to research tracking political violence and hostility provided to NBC News.

The researchers found that threats and harassment against officials including city council members, school board members, poll workers, mayors and local prosecutors increased significantly in the second half of the year. Elected or appointed government officials and judicial officials are most likely to face such hostility, they found, with death threats and invasions of privacy being the most common methods.

In an effort to monitor hostility facing local officials, Princeton University’s Bridging Divides Initiative combed public reports and social media, drawing more than 750 examples of harassment into a database they plan to update monthly as a way of tracking the evolving threat landscape. The initiative is a research group that tracks political violence in the U.S.

Emily Matesic at WLUK-TV:

With just days until he leaves his seat in Congress, U.S. Rep. Mike Gallagher could be shedding some light on the reasoning behind his early resignation. Gallagher announced in February he wouldn't be seeking re-election. Then, in March, he said he would be resigning his seat, effective April 19.   In one of his last acts in Congress, the Republican -- who represents Wisconsin's 8th District -- chaired a House Select Committee hearing on China's possible connection to fentanyl overdose deaths in the U.S.

 After the hearing, Gallagher spoke with reporters about the hearing and the end of his time in Congress. Rep. Gallagher said, "This is more just me wanting to prioritize being with my family. I signed up for the death threats and the late night swatting, but they did not. And for a young family, I would say this job is really hard." FOX 11 reached out to Gallagher's office about his comments on death threats and late night swatting calls. It's unclear if any specific incident led to his early resignation. However, FOX 11 did confirm through the Brown County Sheriff's Office -- which patrols Allouez, where Gallagher lives -- a case number was assigned late last year to a swatting incident related to Gallagher. The Sheriff's Office said it reached out to U.S. Capitol Police about the incident. In January, the investigation was handed over to federal authorities, including Capitol Police, the FBI and the United States Secret Service.