Podcasts about r street

Adam Thierer, Senior Fellow for the Technology & Innovation team at R Street, joins Kevin Frazier, the AI Innovation and Law Fellow at the UT Austin School of Law and a Contributing Editor at Lawfare, to review public comments submitted in response to the Office of Science and Technology Policy's Request for Information on the AI Action Plan. The pair summarize their own comments and explore those submitted by major labs and civil society organizations. They also dive into recent developments in the AI regulatory landscape, including a major veto by Governor Youngkin in Virginia.Readings discussed:Kevin on Vance's America First, America Only Approach to AIKeegan and Adam on AI Safety Treatises Kevin on Proposed Firings at NISTDean and Alan on PreemptionTo receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It's the government on your doorstep — the only Executive Branch agency that visits every home in the country on a regular basis. So how does the USPS do it? And what happens when an agency this essential is in trouble? Our guests for this episode are Allison Marsh, history professor at the University of South Carolina and Kevin Kosar, a Vice President at R Street. Want our new "Civics is my cup of tea" mug? CLICK HERE TO DONATE AND GET YOURS!CLICK HERE: Visit our website to see all of our episodes, donate to the podcast, sign up for our newsletter, get free educational materials, and more! To see Civics 101 in book form, check out A User's Guide to Democracy: How America Works by Hannah McCarthy and Nick Capodice, featuring illustrations by Tom Toro.Check out our other weekly NHPR podcast, Outside/In - we think you'll love it!

Like this show? I greatly appreciate your support:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://buymeacoffee.com/josephcotto⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Every penny helps. Thanks!This episode was livestreamed on February 9, 2025.

Adam Thierer, Senior Fellow for the Technology & Innovation team at R Street, joins Kevin Frazier, Senior Research Fellow in the Constitutional Studies Program at the University of Texas at Austin and a Tarbell Fellow at Lawfare, to examine a lengthy, detailed report issued by the Bipartisan House Task Force on AI. Thierer walks through his own analysis of the report and considers some counterarguments to his primary concern that the report did not adequately address the developing patchwork of state AI regulations.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Mike Ferguson in the Morning 12-10-24 Caroline Melear, a fellow for R Street’s Finance, Insurance and Trade team, talks about ending farm subsidies for ultra-processes foods. Caroline states that "Prioritizing the health of Americans is essential for the health of the nation, and now is the time to do it." Caroline's column on this issue is here: https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/end-farm-subsidies-for-ultra-processed-foods/ More articles from Caroline here: https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/end-farm-subsidies-for-ultra-processed-foods/ More on R Street here: https://www.rstreet.org/ NewsTalkSTL website: https://newstalkstl.com/ Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/NewsTalkSTL Twitter/X: https://twitter.com/NewstalkSTL Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NewsTalkSTL Livestream 24/7: bit.ly/NEWSTALKSTLSTREAMSSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Mike Ferguson in the Morning 12-10-24 (7:05am) Caroline Melear, a fellow for the R Street Institute's Finance, Insurance and Trade team, talks about ending farm subsidies for ultra-processes foods. Caroline states that "Prioritizing the health of Americans is essential for the health of the nation, and now is the time to do it." Caroline's column on this issue is here: https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/end-farm-subsidies-for-ultra-processed-foods/ More articles from Caroline here: https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/end-farm-subsidies-for-ultra-processed-foods/ More on R Street here: https://www.rstreet.org/ (7:20am) We follow up the interview with Caroline Melear from the R Street Institute about MAHA and RFK Jr. hoping to change and improve the health culture in America. (7:35am) Bonner Cohen, from the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and the National Center for Public Policy Research, talks about Trump's nominee for the Department of Energy, Chris Wright. He is the CEO of Liberty Energy, a Denver-based oil and natural gas fracking service company. He will lead the fight against climate activists and green energy companies, and has promised to be the climate cartel's worst nightmare. Here is Bonner's op-ed piece from the Washington Times: www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/nov/20/trump-energy-secretary-wright-promises-climate-car/ More columns from Bonner here: https://www.cfact.org/bonner-cohen/ (7:50am) Mike's bananarama!! He ordered 10 bananas with his grocery order. He came home last night and found 10 BUNCHES of bananas with the order. Turns out to be about 50 more bananas than he expected to get. NewsTalkSTL website: https://newstalkstl.com/ Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/NewsTalkSTL Twitter/X: https://twitter.com/NewstalkSTL Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NewsTalkSTL Livestream 24/7: bit.ly/NEWSTALKSTLSTREAMSSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Like this show? I greatly appreciate your support: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://buymeacoffee.com/josephcotto⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Every penny helps. Thanks! This episode was livestreamed on November 24, 2024.

The 2024 election has delivered a resounding mandate for change in Washington, with Republicans solidifying control of the Senate and positioning themselves to advance an ambitious legislative agenda. As the dust settles, a fierce competition has emerged within the GOP ranks to determine who will lead the party's Senate majority in the critical years ahead. With congressional back and forths looming on issues ranging from taxes to government reform, the stage is set for a dramatic debate of visions that will shape the country's trajectory for years to come. James Wallner from R Street joins the show.

Want my exclusive commentary about key current events and cultural issues⁠⁠? Subscribe to my X account: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://x.com/JosephFordCotto⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Thanks! This episode was livestreamed on September 22, 2024.

Want my exclusive commentary about key current events and cultural issues⁠⁠? Subscribe to my X account: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://x.com/JosephFordCotto⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Thanks! This episode was livestreamed on July 7, 2024.

On this episode of Future of Freedom, host Scot Bertram is joined by two guests with different viewpoints about the recent FEC decision to ban noncompete clauses in employment agreements. First on the show is C. Jarrett Dieterle, resident senior fellow at the R Street Institute. Later, we hear from Brian Albrecht, chief economist of the International Center for Law and Economics. You can find R Street on X, formerly Twitter, at @RSI and Brian at @BrianCAlbrecht.

Want my exclusive commentary about key current events and cultural issues⁠⁠? Subscribe to my X account: ⁠https://x.com/JosephFordCotto⁠. Thanks! This episode was livestreamed on June 2, 2024.

While AI doomers proselytize their catastrophic message, many politicians are recognizing that the loss of America's competitive edge poses a much more real threat than the supposed “existential risk” of AI. Today on Faster, Please!—The Podcast, I talk with Adam Thierer about the current state of the AI policy landscape and the accompanying fierce regulatory debate.Thierer is a senior fellow at the R Street Institute, where he promotes greater freedom for innovation and entrepreneurship. Prior to R Street, he worked as a senior fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, president of the Progress and Freedom Foundation, and at the Adam Smith Institute, Heritage Foundation, and Cato Institute.In This Episode* A changing approach (1:09)* The global AI race (7:26)* The political economy of AI (10:24)* Regulatory risk (16:10)* AI policy under Trump (22:29)Below is a lightly edited transcript of our conversationA changing approach (1:09)Pethokoukis: Let's start out with just trying to figure out the state of play when it comes to AI regulation. Now I remember we had people calling for the AI Pause, and then we had a Biden executive order. They're passing some sort of act in Europe on AI, and now recently a senate working group in AI put out a list of guidelines or recommendations on AI. Given where we started, which was “shut it down,” to where we're at now, has that path been what you might've expected, given where we were when we were at full panic?Thierer: No, I think we've moved into a better place, I think. Let's look back just one year ago this week: In the Senate Judiciary Committee, there was a hearing where Sam Altman of OpenAI testified along with Gary Marcus, who's a well-known AI worrywart, and the lawmakers were falling all over themselves to praise Sam and Gary for basically calling for a variety of really extreme forms of AI regulation and controls, including not just national but international regulatory bodies, new general purpose licensing systems for AI, a variety of different types of liability schemes, transparency mandates, disclosure as so-called “AI nutritional labels,” I could go on down the list of all the types of regulations that were being proposed that day. And of course this followed, as you said, Jim, a call for an AI Pause, without any details about exactly how that would work, but it got a lot of signatories, including people like Elon Musk, which is very strange considering he was at the same time deploying one of the biggest AI systems in history. But enough about Elon.The bottom line is that those were dark days, and I think the tenor of the debate and the proposals on the table today, one year after that hearing, have improved significantly. That's the good news. The bad news is that there's still a lot of problematic regulatory proposals percolating throughout the United States. As of this morning, as we're taping the show, we are looking at 738 different AI bills pending in the United States according to multistate.ai, an AI tracking service. One hundred and—I think—eleven of those are federal bills. The vast majority of it is state. But that count does not include all of the municipal regulatory proposals that are pending for AI systems, including some that have already passed in cities like New York City that already has a very important AI regulation governing algorithmic hiring practices. So the bottom line, Jim, is it's the best of times, it's the worst of times. Things have both gotten better and worse.Well—just because the most recent thing that happened—I know with this the senate working group, and they were having all kinds of technologists and economists come in and testify. So that report, is it really calling for anything specific to happen? What's in there other than just kicking it back to all the committees? If you just read that report, what does it want to happen?A crucial thing about this report, and let's be clear what this is, because it was an important report because senator Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer was in charge of this, along with a bipartisan group of other major senators, and this started the idea of, so-called “AI insight forums” last year, and it seemed to be pulling some authority away from committees and taking it to the highest levels of the Senate to say, “Hey, we're going to dictate AI policy and we're really scared.” And so that did not look good. I think in the process, just politically speaking—That, in itself, is a good example. That really represents the level of concern that was going around, that we need to do something different and special to address this existential risk.And this was the leader of the Senate doing it and taking away power, in theory, from his committee members—which did not go over well with said committee members, I should add. And so a whole bunch of hearings took place, but they were not really formal hearings, they were just these AI insight forum working groups where a lot of people sat around and said the same things they always say on a daily basis, and positive and negatives of AI. And the bottom line is, just last week, a report came out from this AI senate bipartisan AI working group that was important because, again, it did not adopt the recommendations that were on the table a year ago when the process got started last June. It did not have overarching general-purpose licensing of artificial intelligence, no new call for a brand new Federal Computer Commission for America, no sweeping calls for liability schemes like some senators want, or other sorts of mandates.Instead, it recommended a variety of more generic policy reforms and then kicked a lot of the authority back to those committee members to say, “You fill out the details, for better for worse.” And it also included a lot of spending. One thing that seemingly everybody agrees on in this debate is that, well, the government should spend a lot more money and so another $30 billion was on the table of sort of high-tech pork for AI-related stuff, but it really did signal a pretty important shift in approach, enough that it agitated the groups on the more pro-regulatory side of this debate who said, “Oh, this isn't enough! We were expecting Schumer to go for broke and swing for the fences with really aggressive regulation, and he's really let us down!” To which I can only say, “Well, thank God he did,” because we're in a better place right now because we're taking a more wait-and-see approach on at least some of these issues.A big, big part of the change in this narrative is an acknowledgement of what I like to call the realpolitik of AI policy and specifically the realpolitik of geopoliticsThe global AI race (7:26)I'm going to ask you in a minute what stuff in those recommendations worries you, but before I do, what happened? How did we get from where we were a year ago to where we've landed today?A big, big part of the change in this narrative is an acknowledgement of what I like to call the realpolitik of AI policy and specifically the realpolitik of geopolitics. We face major adversaries, but specifically China, who has said in documents that the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] has published that they want to be the global leader in algorithmic and computational technologies by 2030, and they're spending a lot of money putting a lot of state resources into it. Now, I don't necessarily believe that means they're going to automatically win, of course, but they're taking it seriously. But it's not just China. We have seen in the past year massive state investments and important innovations take place across the globe.I'm always reminding people that people talk a big game about America's foundational models are large scale systems, including things like Meta's Llama, which was the biggest open source system in the world a year ago, and then two months after Meta launched Llama, their open source platform, the government of the UAE came out with Falcon 180B, an open source AI model that was two-and-a-half times larger than Facebook's model. That meant America's AI supremacy and open source foundational models lasted for two months. And that's not China, that's the government of the UAE, which has piled massive resources into being a global leader in computation. Meanwhile, China's launched their biggest super—I'm sorry, Russia's launched their biggest supercomputer system ever; you've got Europe applying a lot of resources into it, and so on and so forth. A lot of folks in the Senate have come to realize that problem is real: that if we shoot ourselves in the foot as a nation, they could race ahead and gain competitive advantage in geopolitical strategic advantages over the United States if it hobbles our technology base. I think that's the first fundamental thing that's changed.I think the other thing that changed, Jim, is just a little bit of existential-risk exhaustion. The rhetoric in this debate, as you've written about eloquently in your columns, has just been crazy. I mean, I've never really seen anything like it in all the years we've been covering technology and economic policy. You and I have both written, this is really an unprecedented level of hysteria. And I think, at some point, the Chicken-Littleism just got to be too much, and I think some saner minds prevailed and said, “Okay, well wait a minute. We don't really need to pause the entire history of computation to address these hypothetical worst-case scenarios. Maybe there's a better plan than that.” And so we're starting to pull back from the abyss, if you will, a little bit, and the adults are reentering the conversation—a little bit, at least. So I think those are the two things that really changed more, although there were other things, but those were two big ones.The political economy of AI (10:24)To what extent do you think we saw the retreat from the more apocalyptic thinking—how much that was due from what businesses were saying, venture capitalists, maybe other tech . . . ? What do you think were the key voices Congress started listening to a little bit more?That's a great question. The political economy of AI policy and tech policy is something that is terrifically interesting to me. There are so many players and voices involved in AI policy because AI is the most important general-purpose technology of our time, and as a widespread broad base—Do you have any doubt about that? (Let me cut you off.) Do you have any doubt about that?I don't. I think it's unambiguous, and we live in a world of “combinatorial innovation,” as Hal Varian calls it, where technologies build on top of the other, one after another, but the thing is they all lead to greater computational capacity, and therefore, algorithmic and machine learning systems come out of those—if we allow it. And the state of data science in this country has gotten to the point where it's so sophisticated because of our rich base of diverse types of digital technologies and computational technologies that finally we're going to break out of the endless cycle of AI booms and busts, and springs and winters, and we're going to have a summer. I think we're having it right now. And so that is going to come to affect every single segment and sector of our economy, including the government itself. I think industry has been very, very scrambled and sort of atomistic in their approach to AI policy, and some of them have been downright opportunistic, trying to throw each other's competitors under the busNow let me let you go return to the political economy, what I was asking you about, what were the voices, sorry, but I wanted to get that in there.Well, I think there are so many voices, I can't name them all today, obviously, but obviously we're going to start with one that's a quiet voice behind the scenes, but a huge one, which is, I think, the National Security community. I think clearly going back to our point about China and geopolitical security, I think a lot of people behind the scenes who care about these issues, including people in the Pentagon, I think they had conversations with certain members of Congress and said, “You know what? China exists. And if we're shooting ourselves in the foot, we begin this race for geopolitical strategic supremacy in an important new general-purpose technology arena, we're really hurting our underlying security as a nation. I think that that thinking is there. So that's an important voice.Secondly, I think industry has been very, very scrambled and sort of atomistic in their approach to AI policy, and some of them have been downright opportunistic, trying to throw each other's competitors under the bus, unfortunately, and that includes OpenAI trying to screw over other companies and technologies, which is dangerous, but the bottom line is: More and more of them are coming to realize, as they saw the actual details of regulation and thinking through the compliance costs, that “Hell no, we won't go, we're not going to do that. We need a better approach.” And it was always easier in the old days to respond to the existential risk route, like, “Oh yeah, sure, regulation is fine, we'll go along with it!” But then when you see the devilish details, you think twice and you realize, “This will completely undermine our competitive advantage in the space as a company or our investment or whatever else.” All you need to do is look at Exhibit A, which is Europe, and say, if you always run with worst-case scenario thinking and Chicken-Littleism is the basis of your technology policy, guess what? People respond to incentives and they flee.Hatred of big tech is like the one great bipartisan, unifying theme of this Congress, if anything. But at the end of the day, I think everyone is thankful that those companies are headquartered in the United States and not Beijing, Brussels, or anywhere else. It's interesting, the national security aspect, my little amateurish thought experiment would be, what would be our reaction, and what would be the reaction in Washington if, in November, 2022, instead of it being a company, an American company with a big investment from another American company having rolled out ChatGPT, what if it would've been Tencent, or Alibaba, or some other Chinese company that had rolled this out, something that's obviously a leap forward, and they had been ahead, even if they said, “Oh, we're two or three years ahead of America,” it would've been bigger than Sputnik, I think.People are probably tired of hearing about AI—hopefully not, I hope they'll also listen to this podcast—but that would all we would be talking about. We wouldn't be talking about job loss, and we wouldn't be talking about ‘The Terminator,' we'd be talking about the pure geopolitical terms that the US has suffered a massive, massive defeat here and who's to blame? What are we going to do? And anybody at that moment who would've said, “We need to launch cruise missile strikes on our own data centers” for fear. . . I mean! And I think you're right, the national security component, extremely important here.In fact, I stole your little line about “Sputnik moment,” Jim, when I testified in front of the House Oversight Committee last month and I said, “Look, it would've been a true ‘Sputnik moment,' and instead it's those other countries that are left having the Sputnik moment, right? They're wondering, ‘How is it that, once again, the United States has gotten out ahead on digital and computational-based technologies?'” But thank God we did! And as I pointed out in the committee room that day, there's a lot of people who have problems with technology companies in Congress today. Hatred of big tech is like the one great bipartisan, unifying theme of this Congress, if anything. But at the end of the day, I think everyone is thankful that those companies are headquartered in the United States and not Beijing, Brussels, or anywhere else. That's just a unifying theme. Everybody in the committee room that day nodded their head, “Yes, yes, absolutely. We still hate them, but we're thankful that they're here.” And that then extends to AI: Can the next generation of companies that they want to bring to Congress and bash and pull money from for their elections, can they once again exist in the United States?Regulatory risk (16:10)So whether it's that working group report, or what else you see in Congress, what are a couple, three areas where you're concerned, where there still seems to be some sort of regulatory momentum?Let's divide it into a couple of chunks here. First of all, at the federal level, Congress is so damn dysfunctional that I'm not too worried that even if they have bad ideas, they're going to pursue them because they're just such a mess, they can't get any basic things done on things like baseline privacy legislation, or driverless car legislation, or even, hell, the budget and the border! They can't get basics done!I think it's a big positive that one, while they're engaging in dysfunction, the technology is evolving. And I hope, if it's as important as I think you and I think, more money will be invested, we'll see more use cases, it'll be obvious—the downsides of screwing up the regulation I think will be more obvious, and I think that's a tailwind for this technology.We're in violent agreement on that, Jim, and of course this goes by the name of “the pacing problem,” the idea that technology is outpacing law in many ways, and one man's pacing problem is another man's pacing benefit, in my opinion. There's a chance for technology to prove itself a little bit. That being said, we don't live in a legislative or regulatory vacuum. We already have in the United States 439 government agencies and sub-agencies, 2.2 million employees just at the federal level. So many agencies are active right now trying to get their paws on artificial intelligence, and some of them already have it. You look at the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration], NHTSA [National Highway Traffic Safety Administration], I could go all through the alphabet soup of regulatory agencies that are already trying to regulate or overregulating AI right now.Then you have the Biden administration, who's gone out and done a lot of cheerleading in favor of more aggressive unilateral regulation, regardless of what Congress says and basically says, “To hell with all that stuff about Chevron Doctrine and major questions, we're just going to go do it! We're at least going to jawbone a lot and try to threaten regulation, and we're going to do it in the name of ‘algorithmic fairness,'” which is what their 100-plus-page executive order and their AI Bill of Rights says they're all about, as opposed to talking about AI opportunity and benefits—it's all misery. And it's like, “Look at how AI is just a massive tool of discrimination and bias, and we have to do something about it preemptively through a precautionary principle approach.” So if Congress isn't going to act, unfortunately the Biden administration already is and nobody's stopping them.But that's not even the biggest problem. The biggest problem, going back to the point that there are 730-plus bills pending in the US right now, the vast majority of them are state and local. And just last Friday, governor Jared Polis of Colorado signed into law the first major AI regulatory measure in Colorado, and there's a bigger and badder bill pending right now in California, there's 80 different bills pending in New York alone, and any half of them would be a disaster.I could go on down the list of troubling state patchwork problems that are going to develop for AI and ML [Machine Learning] systems, but the bottom line is this: This would be a complete and utter reversal of the winning formula that Congress and the Clinton administration gave us in the 1990s, which was a national—a global framework for global electronic commerce. It was very intentionally saying, “We're going to break with the Analog Era disaster, we're going to have a national framework that's pro-freedom to innovate, and we're going to make sure that these meddlesome barriers do not develop to online speech and commerce.” And yet, here with AI, we are witnessing a reversal of that. States are in the lead, and again, like I said, localities too, and Congress is sitting there and is the dysfunctional soup that it is saying, “Oh, maybe we should do something to spend a little bit more money to promote AI.” Well, we can spend all the money we want, but we can end up like Europe who spends tons of money on techno-industrial policies and gets nothing for it because they can't get their innovation culture right, because they're regulating the living hell out of digital technology.So you want Congress to take this away from the states?I do. I do, but it's really, really hard. I think what we need to do is follow the model that we had in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Internet Tax Freedom Act of 1998. We've also had moratoriums, not only through the Internet Tax Freedom Act, but through the Commercial Space Amendments having to do with space commercial travel and other bills. Congress has handled the question of preemption before and put moratoria in place to say, “Let's have a learning period before we go do stupid things on a new technology sector that is fast moving and hard to understand.” I think that would be a reasonable response, but again, I have to go back to what we just talked about, Jim, which is that there's no chance of us probably getting it. There's no appetite in it. Not any of the 111 bills pending in Congress right now says a damn thing about state and local regulation of technology!Is the thrust of those federal bills, is it the kinds of stuff that you're generally worried about?Mostly, but not entirely. Some of it is narrower. A lot of these bills are like, “Let's take a look at AI and. . . fill in the blank: elections, AI and jobs, AI and whatever.” And some of them, on the merits, not terrible, others, I have concerns, but it's certainly better that we take a targeted sectoral approach to AI policy and regulation than having the broad-based, general-purpose stuff. Now, there are broad-based, general-purpose measures, and here's what they do, Jim: They basically say, “Look, instead of having a whole cloth new regulatory approach, let's build on the existing types of approaches being utilized in the Department of Commerce, namely through our NIST [National Institute of Standards and Technology], and NTIA [National Telecommunications and Information Administration] sub-agencies there. NIST is the National Standards Body, and basically they develop best practices through something called the AI Risk Management Framework for artificial intelligence development—and they're good! It's multi-stakeholder, it's bottom up, it's driven by the same principles that motivated the Clinton administration to do multi-stakeholder processes for the internet. Good model. It is non-regulatory, however. It is a consensus-based, multi-stakeholder, voluntary approach to developing consensus-based standards for best practices regarding various types of algorithmic services. These bills in Congress—and there's at least five of them that I count, that I've written about recently—say, “Let's take that existing infrastructure and give it some enforcement teeth. Let's basically say, ‘This policy infrastructure will be converted into a quasi-regulatory system,'” and there begins the dangerous path towards backdoor regulation of artificial intelligence in this country, and I think that's the most likely model we'll get. Like I said, five models, legislative models in the Senate alone that would do that to varying degrees.AI policy under Trump (22:29)Do you have any feel for what a Trump administration would want to do on this?I do, because a month before the Trump administration left office, they issued a report through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and it basically laid out for agencies a set of principles for how it should evaluate artificial intelligence systems, both that are used by the government or that they regulate in the private sector, and it was an excellent set of principles. It was a restatement of the importance of policy, forbearance and humility. It was a restatement of a belief in cost-benefit analysis and identifying not only existing regulatory capacity to address these problems, but also non-regulatory mechanisms or best practices or standards that could address some of these things. It was a really good memo. I praised it in a piece that I wrote just before the Trump administration left. Now, of course, the Trump administration may change.Yes, and also, the technology has changed. I mean, that was 2020 and a lot has happened, and I don't know where. . . . I'm not sure where all the Republicans are. I think some people get it. . .I think the problem, Jim, is that, for the Republican Party, and Trumpian conservatives, in particular, they face a time of choosing. And what I mean by this is that they have spent the last four to six years—and Trump egged this on—engaging in nonstop quote-unquote “big tech bashing” and making technology companies in the media out to be, as Trumps calls them, “the enemy of the American people.” And so many hearings now are just parading tech executives and others up there to be beaten with a stick in front of the public, and this is the new thing. And then there's just a flood of bills that would regulate traditional digital technologies, repeal things like Section 230, which is liability protection for the tech sector, and so on, child safety regulations.Meanwhile, that same Republican Party and Mr. Trump go around hating on Joe Biden in China. If it's one thing they can't stand more than big tech, it's Joe and China! And so, in a sense, they've got to choose, because their own policy proposals on technology could essentially kneecap America's technology base in a way that would open up the door to whether it's what they fear in the “woke DEI policies” of Biden or the CCP's preferred policy agenda for controlling computation in the world today. Choose two, you don't get all three. And I think this is going to be an interesting thing to watch if Mr. Trump comes back into office, do they pick up where that OMB memo left off, or do they go right back to beating that “We've got to kill big tech by any means necessary in a seek-and-destroy mission, to hell with the consequences.” And I don't know yet.Faster, Please! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

Hi Everyone, We're a little late with this episode and it's all my fault! As I mentioned in my May 1st blog post (sign up here for updates), for the first time in four years, I conducted an amazing interview with Sheila Kohler and forgot to hit record on Zoom. Sheila--the most gracious person on Earth--forgave me for wasting 45 minutes of her time and agreed to re-record the episode. Thank you to Sheila for sitting down with me twice! After I recovered from the shame, I realized this might be a great boon for readers. I loved Cracks—the short story, the novel, and the movie! You will find links to all three below. It was fascinating to talk about Sheila's adaptation from short story to novel and to hear about the making of the movie and the decision to set the movie in England rather than South Africa. I hope you have had time to read the short story and the novel. What did you think of the movie? Let me know if you have any follow-up questions or comments. I would love to hear. Here are the links: Content Warning: Sexual Assault Cracks, the short story, by Sheila Kohler Cracks, The Novel by Sheila Kohler, available at Bookshop and Amazon. Cracks, The Movie In other news... I am taking a sabbatical from the podcast this summer to rest, regroup, and figure out what direction to take this show in in the future. I love doing it, but every now and then, I think it's a good idea to reevaluate and hone in on what has been valuable and what parts need to go. My first guest in the fall is Tim Tomlinson. Although I will be talking to him about one of his short stories, he has a new book coming out this month. It looks terrific! Check out kellyfordon.com for a picture of the cover and publication information from Nirala. Cheers! Kelly Sheila Kohler Bio: Sheila Kohler was born in Johannesburg, South Africa, the younger of two girls. Upon matriculation at 17 from Saint Andrews, with a distinction in history (1958), she left the country for Europe. She lived for 15 years in Paris, where she married, did her undergraduate degree in literature at the Sorbonne, and a graduate degree in psychology at the Institut Catholique. After raising her three girls, she moved to the USA in 1981, and did an MFA in writing at Columbia. In the summer of 1987, her first published story, “The Mountain,” came out in “The Quarterly” and received an O.Henry prize and was published in the O.Henry Prize Stories of 1988. It also became the first chapter in her first novel, “The Perfect Place,” which was published by Knopf the next year. Knopf also published the first volume of her short stories, “Miracles in America,” in 1990. Kohler has won two O.Henry prizes for “The Mountain” 1988 and “The Transitional Object” 2008. She has been short-listed in the O.Henry Prize Stories for three years running: in 1999 for the story, “Africans”; in 2000 for “Casualty,” which had appeared in the Ontario Review; and 2001 for “Death in Rome,” a story which had appeared in The Antioch Review. “Casualty” was also included in the list of distinguished stories in The Best American Short Stories of 2001. In 1994 she published a second novel, “The House on R Street,” also with Knopf, about which Patrick McGrath said, in “The New York Times Book Review: ” “Sheila Kohler has achieved in this short novel a remarkable atmosphere, a fine delicate fusion of period, society and climate.” In 1998 she published a short story, “Africans,” in Story Magazine, which was chosen for the Best American Short Stories of 1999, was read and recorded at Symphony Space and at The American Repertory Theatre in Boston and was translated into Japanese. It was also included in her second collection of stories,” One Girl,” published by Helicon Nine, which won the Willa Cather Prize in 1998 judged by William Gass. In 1999 she published her third novel, “Cracks,” with Zoland, which received a starred review from Kirkus, was nominated for an Impac award in 2001, and was chosen one of the best books of the year by Newsday and by Library Journal.” Cracks” also came out with Bloomsbury in England, was translated into French and Dutch, and will come out in Hebrew. It has been optioned six times by Killer films and Working Track 2. The film premiered at the Toronto Film Festival in September, 2009, and at the London film festival and came out here in the summer of 2010 and is now on Netflix. It is directed by Jordan Scott, with Eva Green in the role of Miss G. In 2000 Kohler received the Smart Family Foundation Prize for “Underworld,” a story published in the October “Yale Review.” In 2001 she published her fourth novel,” The Children of Pithiviers,” with Zoland, a novel about the concentration camps during the Vicky Period in France in Pithiviers and Beaune la Rolande. In 2003 she was awarded a fellowship at the Dorothy and Lewis B. Cullman Institute to work on a historical novel based on the life on the Marquise de la Tour du Pin, a French aristocrat who escaped the Terror by bringing her family to Albany, New York. Also that year she published her third volume of short stories, “Stories from Another World” with the Ontario Review Press. She won the Antioch Review Prize in 2004 for work in that magazine. Both “ The Perfect Place” and “Miracles in America” came out in England with Jonathan Cape and in paperback with Vintage International. “The Perfect Place” was translated into French, German, Japanese, and Portuguese. Her fifth novel, “Crossways,” came out in October, 2004, also, with the Ontario Review Press edited by Raymond Smith and Joyce Carol Oates. It received a starred Kirkus Review and is out in paperback with the Other Press as well as “The Perfect Place.” Kohler has published essays in The Boston Globe, Salmagundi (summer 2004, 2009), The Bellevue Literary magazine, and O Magazine,”The Heart Speaks” ( May 2004), “What Happy Ever After Really Looks Like” (2008) and reviews in The New Leader and Bomb as well as essays in The American Scholar in 2014 and 2015. Kohler began teaching at The Writer's Voice in 1990, going on from there to teach at SUNY Purchase, Sarah Lawrence, Colgate, CCNY , Bennington and Columbia. She has taught creative writing at Princeton since 2008 and now teaches freshman seminars there . Sheila's sixth novel, “Bluebird or the Invention of Happiness” was published in 2007, and the paperback was published with Berkely in 2008. “The Transitional Object” in Boulevard won an O.Henry prize and is included in the 2008 volume. Her tenth book, “Becoming Jane Eyre” came out with Viking Penguin in December, 2009, and was a New York Times editor's pick. Casey Cep wrote in the Boston Globe about this novel: “With an appreciation for their craft and sympathy for their difficult profession, Kohler's “Becoming Jane Eyre'' is a tender telling of the Brontë family's saga and the stories they told.” Her eleventh book “Love Child” was published by Penguin in America and by La Table Ronde in France. In June of 2012, her twelfth book “The Bay of Foxes,” was published by Penguin. “Dreaming for Freud” was published by Penguin in 2014. It will be translated into Turkish In 2013 the story, “Magic Man” was published in Best American Short Stories. Sheila Kohler published her memoir “Once we were sisters” in 2017 with Penguin in America and with Canongate in England and Alba in Spain. Sheila's latest novel is “Open Secrets” published by Penguin in July 2020. Kohler currently lives in New York and Amagansett. ***

Like my work? Show your support: ⁠⁠https://paypal.com/paypalme/josephfordcotto⁠⁠. It is greatly appreciated! This episode was livestreamed on May 9, 2024.

Our nation has been debating about the right action to take regarding climate and environmental policy for a very long time. Different voices have different ideas about the best course of action to take, while we all want to leave the planet in better condition than we found it. But there's an important, crucial voice that is too often missing from these discussions: the American taxpayer. How can we start having a better conversation to produce better outcomes? Devin Hartman from R-Street joins the show.

What happens when the government tries to fix problems caused by their intervention with more intervention? Well, the housing market is a perfect example. And for all the tax credit and cash-assistance, rates of home ownership continue to flat line. Marc Hyden from R-Street joins the show.

Like my work? Show your support: https://paypal.com/paypalme/josephfordcotto…. It is greatly appreciated! This episode was livestreamed on March 31, 2024.

This podcast is an accumulation of interviews I did live at the pelican Institutes Solutions Summit.  The interviews are with people that are very freedom, liberty, fiscally conservative, and less government minded talking about their organizations that are like watchdogs over all of the above when it comes to State and Federal government policies.  There are a couple politicians blended in that are also very freedom oriented that are working on these same principles.  Each interview will be separated by a very brief break and an intro into for the next interview.  Within these interviews are what I think are a lot of really great ideas and details on the organizations that are fighting for personal and economic freedom.

Tommy talks with Chris McIsaac, a Fellow at the R Street institute with a research focus on budget and retirement policy

GUEST 1 OVERVIEW: Daniel Street is an author and attorney with over two decades of experience handling civil litigation in State and Federal Court in Louisiana. Street's three volume book series, Fake News Exposed about Trump, exposes several dozen biased, misleading or outright untrue stories about President Donald J. Trump, his family, his businesses and his Administration. GUEST 2 OVERVIEW: Peace Campaigner and Journalist in Sweden ”Dö för Nato?” (Die for Nato? 2022) and “Vitare kan tvätten inte bli” (Never washed whiter.. 2021)

legal analyst Daniel R. Street joins us to discuss President Trump's SCOTUS emergency appeal. Next, former director of DEA special operations Derek Maltz provides the latest on the crisis at the border. Then, co-author of "Fight the Good Fight" Jay Richards explains how faith and reason can win the culture war. Finally, we take your calls in open phones across America. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Utah remains on the front lines of the battle for social media regulation, specifically regulation for minors. Heaps of evidence have been discovered in the process of trials and legislation that prove social media is detrimental for our youth. What is the state of the trial with NetChoice? What does it mean that Utah lawmakers pushed back the Social Media Act? What will the compromise between social media and traditional media regulation look like? Shoshana Weissmann from R-Street joins the show. 

Now that the long-awaited aid legislation has passed the Senate, the week's big question will come from the House of Representatives. The Republicans have a razor thin margin for their majority, those that want to cut off aid to Ukraine will fight to prevent progress on this bill. Would they go so far as to vacate the Speaker from his position like they did with former Speaker Kevin McCarthy? What power does Speaker Johnson have to stop it? James Wallner, Senior Fellow at R-Street, joins Boyd to break down what can expect to see.

Boyd looks past the senate headlines to understand what this morning's legislation means. James Wallner from R-Street joins the show to parse through the politics to understand what we might see from the Speaker. Hailey Fuchs from POLITICO explains how TikTok has lobbied their way into this election. Matt Welch talks to Boyd about how third party candidates threaten to widen the gap between the Big Two. Why did the DOW drop over 700 points in one day and what does that say about inflation? All this and more today on Inside Sources with Boyd Matheson!

Part three of this year's Summer with Sphere is coming to you live from Sphere Summit. Join us on Tuesday, July 25th from 2–3 pm EDT for a panel discussion on the most important issues in tech policy and regulation. Joining us will be Jennifer Huddleston, Technology Policy Research Fellow at the Cato Institute, Nicol Turner Lee, Senior Fellow in Governance Studies and Director of the Center for Technology Innovation at Brookings Institution, and Adam Thierer, Resident Senior Fellow for Technology and Innovation at R Street. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Tips help keep me on the air. You can send one here: https://paypal.com/paypalme/josephfordcotto…. Your support is greatly appreciated! This episode was livestreamed on January 6, 2023.

Daniel R. Street, is an attorney, legal analyst, and author at Daniel R. Street's Fake News Exposed! on Substack. Are Americans Prepared to Let Lawyers And Judges Decide Their Election Again?

William Gray is the guy behind Floor Charts, the website and Twitter feed that documents all things graphic in the US Congress. During the day, Bill oversees the strategic communications efforts at R Street and manages its growing Communications team, including overseeing the public relations, digital and events units. He joined the organization in 2020. Previously, William was communications director at Issue One, the leading cross partisan political reform group in Washington, where he helped launch and executive produce the first conservative political reform podcast, Swamp Stories. Prior to Issue One, he managed press and negotiated news partnerships as the media relations specialist for the Center for Public Integrity, one of the oldest nonprofit investigative newsrooms in the country; and was a producer at C-SPAN, delivering daily public affairs programming and coverage of Congress and the White House to viewers around the world.Check out more links, notes, transcript, and more at the PolicyViz website.Sponsor: Nom NomNom Nom delivers fresh food made with whole ingredients, backed by veterinary science. And science tells us that dog health starts in the bowl so improving their diet is one of the best ways to help them live a long, happy life. All you have to do is order, pour and serve.Try Nom Nom today, go to Nom Nom and get 50% off your first order plus free shipping with the code policyviz

It was a unique time in American history during the COVID-19 pandemic. This conversation delves into the federal government's response. Sheila Weinberg, founder and CEO, speaks with special guest Jonathan Bydlak, Director of Fiscal and Budget Policy Project at R Street, and Adam Schuster, Budget and Tax Research Director at Illinois Policy Institute https://www.truthinaccounting.org Follow Truth in Accounting here: Facebook: https://facebook.com/truthinaccounting Twitter: https://twitter.com/truthinacct Instagram: https://instagram.com/truthinacct LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/truth-in-accounting

Not many organizations can say they were founded because of a billboard, or that they have a “no ninjas” policy. But there is one organization that can claim both, plus they love South Park. In today's episode, host Kelli Pierce dives into the story of R Street. She interviews our President and Co-Founder, Eli Lehrer and the Executive Director and very first hire, Erica Schoder.  First, Eli and Kelli talk about the controversial billboard that started it all, why working with those who disagree with you is important, and why we should be optimistic about the future. Kelli then speaks with Erica about her love of books, that first R Street job ad, maintaining R Street's quirky culture, and the importance of transparency, credibility, and diversity in safeguarding the independence of think tanks.

What do California and Florida have in common other than beaches and Disney? Natural disasters and insurance markets that are in shambles. Kelli Pierce interviews Caroline Melear, R Street's resident fellow on Insurance and Trade policy. Caroline, a Florida resident, breaks down the state's years long struggle with massive hurricanes, insurance, and why the crisis recently came to a head. The situation in California is no less chaotic. Kelli also speaks to Steve Greenhut, R Street's western region director and a California resident, about California's recent wildfires and floods, the political decisions that have caused major insurance companies to leave the state, and what can be done to prevent California from having the same insurance problems as Florida.

This episode was livestreamed on August 20, 2023.

The internet as we know it exists today thanks to an obscure law called Section 230. On this week's episode, Kelli interviews Red Tape's very own Shoshana Weissmann about Section 230's crucial role in our digital liberty. Shoshana discusses how this legislation empowers individuals to voice their opinions freely online without fear of litigation, a pivotal element in today's social media-driven world. Kelli also speaks with Josh Withrow, R Street's Innovation and Technology Fellow, about how to keep kids safe on the internet. Josh talks about how to create a safe and responsible online environment for their kids, and brings to light the potential pitfalls of laws designed to protect children that might inadvertently lead to greater harm.

The Pope was wearing what?! Get ready to find out as we navigate the murky waters of misinformation. R Street's Resident Elections Fellow, Matt Germer, joins host Kelli Pierce to talk about election misinformation and the strengths and weakness of states' voting infrastructures that have been revealed by the last few elections. Kelli also speaks with Stacey McKenna, R Street's Resident Senior Fellow for Integrated Harm Reduction about the complexities of the current drug crisis. Stacey breaks down how fear-based messaging and anti-drug campaigns riddled with misinformation are doing more harm than good. Stacey also gives insight on effective harm-reduction methods, and shares her personal experience with addiction.

President Biden is coming to Utah to talk about one of his biggest investments in climate, the Inflation Reduction Act. It's a great example of industrial policy in action. But is industrial policy the best way to address climate change? Phil Rossetti from the R Street institute says that using the power of the government to bolster industry never works out as hoped. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week on Everyday Injustice we are joined by Christi Smith of R Street, who argues that clean slate legislation both enhances public safety and helps to stimulate the economy. One of the problems with mass incarceration is that large numbers of people are churned in and out of the criminal legal system, incarcerated, then they are released but their criminal records prevent them from getting access to the things they need to succeed – jobs, services, housing and education. Clean slate legislation allows for people convicted of certain offenses to have their records sealed, so they can qualify for things like jobs, education and housing. As Smith puts it in one of her published reports, “One in three Americans, roughly 70 to 100 million, have a criminal record that limits their earning capacity and options for suitable housing, as well as makes it more challenging to remain law-abiding.” In a lot of cases, we are not talking about serious or violent crime, “but rather due to the ever-widening net of ‘tough-on-crime' legislation that criminalizes poverty, substance use and mental illness.” Listen as Christie Smith talks about the problem and how clean slate legislation helps to solve that problem and the success they have had so far.

What will happen to our jobs when the robots take over? Kelli and Shoshana navigate the world of artificial intelligence and jobs with R Street's Resident Senior Fellow for Technology and Innovation, Adam Thierer. An expert on AI, he explains why you shouldn't worry so much about the robots taking your job.  Kelli also speaks with Dr. Christi Smith who explains why a criminal record shouldn't always prevent you from getting a job. Instead, more states should look at “clean slate” laws that remove barriers to jobs for those with criminal records. Kelli and Christi discuss the importance of giving people second chances and allowing them to become productive members of society.  (0:06:14) The Impact of AI on Jobs (0:08:45) The Evolution of Technology and Professions (0:12:26) AI and Quantum Computers Enhance Creativity (0:16:21) Truckers Union vs. Driverless Trucks (0:20:26) Retraining in Changing Industries (0:26:41) Technology, Burnout, and Job Security (0:36:00) Clean Slate Laws for Convicts (0:39:27) Jobs for Those With Sealed Records (0:42:28) Clean Slate (0:45:31) Clean Slate Reform

What can we learn about the U.S. debt crisis from a classic South Park episode? Turns out, almost everything. In this episode of Red Tape, Kelli and Shoshana dissect the classic Margaritaville episode from Season 13 of South Park in 2009.  Host Kelli Pierce is then joined by Nan Swift, a Resident Fellow for R Street's Governance Program, to examine the complexities of the U.S. budget and why bad ideas persist in government. Also, why is Bill Gates receiving farm bill subsidies?  Kelli also speaks with Jonathan Bydlak, Policy Director for the Governance Policy Program and a Resident Senior Fellow, where they discuss the differences between how the federal government and states handle budgeting, and the implications of people seeking more and better public assistance. Also, what Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul have in common. (0:05:36) Using Cartoons to Understand the World (0:12:46) The Partisan Use of Budget Reconciliation (0:21:52) Congressional Spending and Priorities (0:32:51) South Park and Economic Perceptions (0:38:34) Federal Reserve Versus US Treasury (0:41:31) The Importance of Fiscal Discipline (0:47:31) Public Perception vs. Actual Votes (0:50:26) Budget Discipline and Hard Choices

Don't like or understand something? Just ban it! In this episode of Red Tape from R Street, host Kelli Pierce is joined by Brandon Pugh, R Street's Resident Fellow and Policy Director for the Cybersecurity and Emerging Threats Program. They discuss the potential implications of a Tik Tok ban in the United States and examine the delicate balance between data security and tech policy. Kelli also speaks with Mazen Saleh, R Street's Policy Director for Integrated Harm Reduction, to discuss why tobacco bans are a bad idea and the challenges surrounding nicotine and tobacco-related policies. Mazen also breaks down the controversy surrounding flavored e-cigarettes, discussing their potential benefits as a safer alternative to traditional combustible cigarettes. Plus, they get real about why quitting cold turkey doesn't always work and the essential role of harm reduction strategies in managing nicotine addiction.

Why is the government getting in the way of green energy initiatives? Join hosts Kelli Pierce and Shoshana Weissmann as they navigate some of the red tape that is slowing down clean energy projects. R Street's Josiah Neeley speaks with host Kelli Pierce about the crucial role of our nation's power grid in our pursuit of green energy goals. He talks about how wind and solar have become the cheaper options, why utilities are monopolies, the challenges this creates for our clean energy future, and finally why there aren't more clean energy projects connected to the grid. Next up, R Street's Philip Rossetti shares his thoughts on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and how it can delay clean energy projects by years-even decades. He also talks about the hard choices we have to make as we pursue a greener future.  (0:00:00) - Bureaucracy or BS (0:05:42) - Power Grid and Clean Energy Goals with Josiah Neeley (0:20:22) - NEPA's Impact on Clean Energy with Phil Rossetti

How free are we really? In the first episode of Red Tape from R Street, hosts Kelli Pierce and Shoshana Weissmann pull back the curtain on some of the ways that the government is getting in the way of your day-to-day freedom. Host Kelli Pierce first speaks with Jill Snider, a retired New York City Police Officer and R Street's Policy Director for Criminal Justice and Civil Liberties, who talks about the consequences of cash bail and the punishment it inflicts on those unable to pay. Kelli also speaks with R Street's Courtney Joslin about pharmacist-prescribed birth control as a way to improve access and reduce barriers to care. They discuss the significant ramifications birth control access can have on the lives and freedom of women across the country. (0:00:00) - Show and Host introduction with Kelli Pierce and Shoshana Weissmann (0:04:45) - The Importance of Bail Reform with Jill Snider (0:24:05) - Birth Control and Barriers to Healthcare Access with Courtney Joslin

Did you know that you commit up to three felonies on an average day? Ever wonder why we don't have clean energy yet? Or why you can't just make TikToks and be left alone? One answer: the government!  Red Tape, a new podcast from the R Street Institute, explores the surprising ways the government often gets in the way of solving today's biggest problems. From good-paying jobs to TikTok and electric vehicles, normal Americans often find themselves in need of a real solution that fits the real world. But more often than not, bureaucratic red tape gets in their way.  In every episode, hosts Kelli Pierce and Shoshana Weissmann will explore some of today's most pressing issues and talk with R Street Institute experts about possible solutions. The show will cover everything from birth control to social media to election misinformation. The problems might be more absurd and the answers far simpler than you'd think.

Over the last few years, our nation has dealt with several crises. Of course, there was the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. We're also preparing for the end of a pandemic era emergency, Title 42, at the border.  And whenever there is a crisis, our government tends to spend a lot of money. Jonathan Bydlak from R Street breaks down how we can protect the federal budget without overspending for the next emergency.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There's been a lot of frustration in Congress about how social media companies function. So, Senator Lindsey Graham is proposing that we require licensing for these platforms. But Shoshana Weissmann from R Street says it could put a little too much power in the hands of the government and put free speech in danger. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

For a long time, the Supreme Court was the most trusted institution in government. But recent ethical questions have undermined trust in this vital institution, from opinion leaks to donor gifts to justices not recusing themselves from cases with conflicts of interest. Now Congress is stepping in to fix it. James Wallner from R Street joins to discuss why Congress should be careful wading into this mess.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Despite the total collapse of First Republic Bank, the Federal Reserve increased interest rates today by another quarter percentage point. The failure of First Republic Bank was the third bank failure in the last few months. So, what exactly is the Fed's goal here? Jonathan Bydlak from R Street says the Fed's monetary policy seems incoherent at this point. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Despite frequent calls for de-carbonization and insisting that climate change is an existential threat... the G7 is calling for greater investments in natural gas. It's a rare statement from a political body. Philip Rossetti from R Street says this shows that achieving clean energy goals requires more innovation and more reform. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Guest Host: Marty Carpenter President Joe Biden has proposed the toughest limits on emissions yet... hoping to force more Americans to buy electric vehicles by 2032. But just because you mandate something, doesn't mean consumers will buy into it, especially if auto makers aren't ready and prices are high. Phil Rossetti from R Street breaks down what's being proposed and how it will impact innovation. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The internet as we know it depends on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. But if it's so crucial, why do so many people seem to want to change it or kill it entirely? PPI's Malena Dailey and R Street's Shoshana Weissmann join the show to discuss Section 230. What exactly does Section 230 say? Why is it so important for the internet to function? What would happen if it was changed?  And who specifically is so mad at 230 and why? Recommended Reading: PPI's Crash Course on Section 230 - https://www.progressivepolicy.org/blogs/a-crash-course-on-section-230-what-it-is-and-why-it-matters/ Malena Dailey on 230 - https://www.progressivepolicy.org/blogs/the-internet-as-we-know-it-relies-on-section-230/ Mike Masnick on 230 - https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ To make sure you hear every episode, join our Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/neoliberalpodcast. Patrons get access to exclusive bonus episodes, our sticker-of-the-month club, and our insider Slack.  Become a supporter today! Got questions for the Neoliberal Podcast?  Send them to mailbag@cnliberalism.org Follow us at: https://twitter.com/ne0liberal https://www.twitch.tv/neoliberalproject https://cnliberalism.org/   Join a local chapter at https://cnliberalism.org/become-a-member/