Joshua Hampson for the Niskanen Center: The U.S.-led intelligence network evolved during, and after, World War II. This network is now buzzing with concerns that the Trump administration, with its unique approach to Russia, may no longer be as reliable a partner with longtime allies as previous American administrations.
With Trump questioning America’s own intelligence agencies after they reported that Russia had intervened in the election, foreign agencies likely will be wondering whether information they pass on to their American counterparts would be impartially received. Also, allied intelligence agencies are concerned that their reporting may be passed to Russia — and from there to Russian allies. …
In today’s world of global terrorism, information sharing between intelligence and law enforcement agencies is a must. According to the 9/11 Commission, lack of information sharing was one of the contributing factors in the intelligence community missing opportunities to prevent the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The Boston Marathon bombing in 2013 also stemmed, in part, from a lack of information sharing. Russia had warned the FBI about one of the attackers, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, but did not pass on the information that the FBI needed to conduct a more in-depth investigation. If they had, the FBI may have been able to prevent the attack. …
In an effort to compensate for the lack of a global intelligence network, ramped up domestic counterterrorism efforts may further impinge on civil liberties or target mistrusted groups. This could both increase radicalization at home — by alienating targeted groups, for example — and fail to replace the international intelligence that comes from our existing networks. The United States would then wind up with a more expansive, but less effective, surveillance state.
Millions can’t win you the Big 10
Ross Eisenbrey for the Economic Policy Institute: The University of Michigan and most of its alumni long for a national champion football team, or at least a team that can beat Ohio State. What the school and its publicly elected regents are willing to pay to get such a team is alarming, especially when compared with its willingness to pay for scholars and researchers.
Michigan is committed to paying coach Jim Harbaugh’s top three assistants $1 million each per year. Harbaugh got an eye-popping $7 million contract to leave the NFL and restore glory to Michigan’s Wolverines. But these are millionaire assistant coaches.
The Associated Press and the Detroit Free Press report that the defensive coordinator, Don Brown, and the offensive coordinator, Tim Drevno, have been retained with contracts worth more than $10 million combined over the next five years. The passing coordinator, Pep Hamilton, was lured from the Cleveland Browns with a four-year, $4.25 million deal.
Michigan is a state whose biggest city’s infrastructure is nightmarishly bad, whose school buildings are crumbling and which only recently emerged from bankruptcy. Another large city, Flint, is in receivership and saved money by cutting corners on the safety of its water supply, leading to the poisoning of thousands of children and other residents.
But the state can afford to make its top school’s assistant coaches millionaires.
Europe’s train system is inefficient
Randal O’Toole for the Cato Institute: America has the most efficient rail system in the world. It is European trains that function badly. …
According to a Pew study, freight shipped by truck uses about 10 times as much energy and emits far more greenhouse gases per ton-mile than freight shipped by rail. Because rail cars weigh more per passenger than automobiles, rail’s comparative advantages for passengers are much smaller, and unlike trucks it will be very easy for cars to close the gap: a Prius with an average of 1.67 occupants, for example, is more energy efficient than almost any Amtrak train.
Thus, to save energy, it is better to dedicate rail lines to freight rather than to passengers.
This is what the United States has done, but it is exactly the opposite of what Europe has done. According to a report from the European Union, 46 percent of EU freight goes by highway while only 10 percent goes by rail, while in the U.S. 43 percent goes by rail and only 30 percent by road. Thus, we’re using our rail system far more effectively than Europe.
In reality, it is the nearly useless passenger trains that are the obstacle to an efficient freight system. Europe manages to carry 5 percent of passenger travel on intercity rail lines, at the cost of pushing a huge share of freight shipments onto highways. By yielding most of that 5 percent of passenger travel to highways and airlines, the U.S. manages to free up the railroads for a huge amount of freight.
To avoid the freight conflict, some European countries are building rail lines exclusively for passengers. For the most part, the cost is high and the benefits low. To some degree, subsidies to those rail lines attract people from lower-cost forms of transportation. But overall, rail is losing market share to cars and, especially, low-cost airlines, so Europe is fighting a losing battle. …
American railroads are private and based on the profit motive that they operate as efficiently as possible. European railroads are public and based on the political motive that they operate as visibly as possible. Passenger trains are more visible to the public than freight trains … so European politicians give their constituents subsidized trains rather than an efficient rail system.
Compiled by Joseph Lawler from reports published by the various think tanks.
