The Jones Act: It ' s Worse than You Think

Ike Brannon ’s recent post on the Jones Act is excellent, and those who have not done so already shouldgive it a read. He notes some of the many economic hardships imposed by the law, which are shielded from proper scrutiny because its large costs are spread across the population and benefits concentrated among a relatively limited number of entities such as shipbuilders.  Brannon ’s concluding sentences, however, may be too kind to the political process:[P]laces like Puerto Rico, Hawaii and Alaska would benefit most of all [from getting rid of the Jones Act], since they are overly dependent upon shipping prices.However, as those are only two low population states and a territory with no voting representation, their inconveniences won ’t resonate much with Congress.Such language implies that the elected representatives of Alaska and Hawaii are fully cognizant of the burdens imposed by the Jones Act, but are prevented from making headway toward its removal due to insufficient political sway. The truth is far worse. As I notedyesterday at  USAToday.com, all four members of Hawaii ’s congressional delegation—Sen. Brian Schatz,Sen. Mazie Hirono,Rep. Colleen Hanabusa, andRep. Tulsi Gabbard—stand foursquare in support of the law. Among the three members of Alaska’s delegation, both Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Rep. Don Younghave touted their  backing of the Jones Act (I have been unable to determine the position of Sen. Dan Sullivan, who has only held his current positi...
Source: Cato-at-liberty - Category: American Health Authors: Source Type: blogs