Is Jendi Reiter Really Becoming a Liberal?

Thought I have become a fan of Jendi Reiter's insightful commentaries, I have been disappointed by her refusal to recognize the tyranny and waste that results when government tries to regulate our economic affairs.

First there was her approval of the family leave bill--a populist social engineering device which promises to misallocate labor resources by chipping away at our already diminished freedom to contract ("Home Alone," September 28).

Now she defends Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton's proposal to raise the CAFE standards to 40 miles per gallon by 2000 ("Gas Pains for Long-Winded Candidates," October 26)--even going so far as to claim that "fuel efficiency regulations work for the long-term benefit of the auto industry." If this is true, then what do we need them for? Manufacturers would produce more fuel-efficient models on their own. The very fact that coercion is required indicates that the commitment is not in the industry's best interest. Nor is it good for the rest of us.

She attacks Ross Perot's plan to raise gasoline taxes as "unprincipled" and "inefficient." But, in principle, and incentive is always more efficient than a mandate.

If your believe that fuel emissions impose a real cost on the public, a gasoline tax may be justified on economic grounds because it can make the driver bear the full costs of his actions.

In theory, then, the public is compensated for its injury and the individual is free to drive a gas guzzler if he is willing to pay for it. Through this mechanism, the "green tax" serves to "internalize the externality" and maximize social utility, so long as it reflects an accurate measure of the damage caused by the last gallon of emissions.

That said I am not the least bit convinced that we need more gasoline taxes. In my home state of New York, we pay a total of 44 cents a gallon and Mom and Dad agree with me that this is way too much already. There's no way they'll sign on for old Ross's scheme, which brings me to my second point.

Politically, the gasoline tax can help keep enviro-mania at bay. Since a large portion of the population pays for it and since the amount of the tax is visible to anyone who looks at the pump, the public can get an easy handle on the cost of "clean air." Thus, the democratic process gives you a built-in check against environmental excess.

On the other hand, a regulation only serves to centralize the trade off between pollution and bigger cars. Given recent events around the globe, we should be well aware that central planning is inferior to individual choice (on both utilitarian and moral grounds).

Moreover, by supporting the fiction that "big corporations," as opposed to "real people," are picking up the tab, a regulatory approach makes it politically easier for environmental pressure groups to "clean air" us back to the stone age.

Lastly, with regard to Reiter's claim that "competition has not sufficed to spur American manufactures to improve" fuel efficiency, let me suggest that by negotiating a free-trade agreement with Japan, Germany and indeed the rest of the world, we can handily address this "problem" while at the same time enhancing both our standard of living and our freedom. Frank Iacono   Law School Class of'95