Category: too much government

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies too much government

Free Markets: Poison or Cure?

Most foes of Obamacare support reform, but reform that liberalizes, rather than further burdening, the health care industry. Individuals have a right to liberty, and free markets prove inherently better than rule-bound bureaucracies at providing goods and services. Yes, even medicine.

At least one health-care commissar admits this superiority . . . but then promptly suppresses that knowledge.

Donald Berwick, President Obama’s Medicare czar, opines in the Wall Street Journal that the “right way” to bring down health care costs is by improving health care.

“Computers, cars, TVs and telephones today do more than they ever have, and the cost of these products has consistently dropped,” says Berwick. “The companies that make computers and microwaves didn’t get there by cutting what they offer: They achieved success by making their products better and more efficient.”

They did, eh? And did profit incentives, competition, and the coordinating functions of prices that are characteristic of market processes have anything to do with it? Are the firms that sell these improved products mere departments of the government — or profit-seeking companies obliged to satisfy consumers or go out of business?

Berwick points to one of the least subsidized and regulated sectors of modern life, and yet the idea of a freer market for health-care products and services doesn’t occur to him. The key to emulating freer, more successful industries, he burbles, is to further hamper an already hobbled medical market.

It’s like saying we’ll cure a guy with pneumonia by also giving him emphysema.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
nannyism too much government

Bloated Government Makes Us Fat?

Since the 1980s, America has undergone an epidemic: We’re fatter than ever. And a lot of people look to the government to solve it.

But what if the government itself jump-started the epidemic?

According to a growing number of researchers, doctors and successful dieters, the usual cause of obesity has long been known, but government-supported science, backed by Congressional committees and official dogma, inverted that wisdom. What government sparked was the “low-fat revolution,” which basically said that eating fats made you fat. Government propaganda and funding set industry off to replace fats in foods with . . . sugars.

And thus began a movement that ran right up against our endocrine systems, making us hungrier the more carbohydrates we ate, fatter the faster those carbs were turned to blood sugars, and diabetic in increasing numbers.

This is the point science Gary Taubes has been making for a decade, famously starting with a New York Times essay, “What If It Has All Been a Big Fat Lie?” He defends the approach of Dr. Atkins, famous for his high meat-and-fat/low-carb diet.

Since that essay, similar diets and research have pointed in that general direction. An economist has even touted a “cave man” diet.

You don’t have to turn to government to lose weight — though, interestingly, the USDA’s current advice isn’t as crazy as it once was, and the First Lady’s Let’s Move campaign appears reasonable.

Ignore, instead, the government’s past bad advice.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
too much government

Moolah for Media

Has Congress rescinded the Obamacare yet? No?

Bad news if you favor free-market medicine. Nifty news if you’re a doddering corporate dinosaur of old media — like the Washington Post and CBS New and NBC News — with millions, or billions, in the kitty. And zero compunction about holding out a tin cup for funds extracted from taxpayers.

The Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon alerts us to the emergency resuscitation these institutions are receiving from Obamacare’s “Early Retiree Reinsurance Program.” The Post got $570,000 in extracted-from-taxpayers payoffs (some critics call ERRP a “slush fund”); CBS got $720,000; and General Electric, one of the owners of NBC Universal, got $37 million. Verizon, AT&T and sundry labor unions are also snatching up the subsidies.

There’s $5 billion allotted to this Obamacare slush fund for early retirees, which is not supposed to run out until 2014. But almost $2 billion have been distributed to corporations already. (To be fair, everybody knows that early projections of the long-run costs of wondrous new government programs tend to be conservative, understated, modest, even bashful.)

Cannon and others argue that when reporting on Obamacare, journalists at such outfits should disclose that their employers have received the massive subsidies. Let viewers know about the bribes so that they can better evaluate the pro-interventionist spin typical in these venues.

Fine. But I have an even better suggestion for the wealthy corporate mendicants: Don’t take the cash to begin with.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies responsibility too much government

The Trademark of Irresponsible Politicians

Who doesn’t agree with President Obama? “We simply cannot continue to spend as if deficits don’t have consequences,” he said when introducing his budget in February.

But who believes he’s serious? He went on to say that we must not treat “the hard-earned tax money of the American people . . . like Monopoly money.” Yet, by spending at hyper-deficit levels and offering no reasonable plan to balance the budget, he demonstrates a preference to play Monopoly™, not Responsibility®.

Now, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan has a plan. He spelled it out Tuesday, giving it a hopeful moniker, “The Path to Prosperity.”

“Prosperity’s Around the Corner” was already taken in the noösphere.

The most salient feature of the plan, though, is that it designed to take its own sweet time. The budget wouldn’t balance next year. Or the year after. Or even in five, like Sen. Rand Paul’s much better plan.

Besides, today’s Congress can’t control itself must less control future Congresses. That’s the trouble with all these procrastinating plans.

Remember, even Rand Paul thinks his plan takes too long and doesn’t go far enough.

Of course, Obama dislikes Ryan’s plan. The new White House press secretary offers, “The President believes there is a more balanced way to put America on a path to prosperity.”

But he won’t share it with us. Obama and congressional Democrats are playing the oldest game in the book: All talk but no responsibility.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies too much government

America’s Dirty Nuclear Secret

Before Cherynobl, we could sort of dismiss nuclear power’s danger. Afterwards, we could still say “Well, that’s the Soviets, for you.”

Now, with the ongoing Fukushima Dai-ichi disaster, the extent of what can go wrong is becoming horrifically clear, especially now that it looks like merely gaining control of the worst-off reactor could take months, not days.

It rightly makes us worry about the whole industry.

It’s a pity, too, because nuclear power concentrates its costs (spent fuel in containers) while providing enormous marketable benefits. Burning coal, on the other hand, disperses its “costs” in the form of pollution. Nuclear power would seem to be a perfect market solution.

But a “meltdown” — or just losing control of a fission process — concentrates harms in a manner hard to ignore or justify.

We hear that new nuclear tech is in development, and might become quite safe. But the promised extra-safe variety is not yet online anywhere, yet.

Why?

Could it be because government protects the currently unsafe technology? America’s nuclear power is protected from the rigors of risk as assessed by the cold, calculating insurance industry under 1957’s Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, which shifts risk from investors to taxpayers in case of catastrophe.

Perhaps if that were repealed, better nuclear tech would emerge faster.

As it is, our old nuclear tech awaits a rare convergence of disastrous factors, like a major earthquake plus human error, or terrorism plus x.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights too much government

Ohio’s Stomp-Speech Commission

The Ohio Elections Commission takes sides in campaign debates and can penalize those they disagree with.

The Commission issues rulings not about obvious libel or slander, but differing interpretations. Disagreements. Their authority derives from a decades-old election law outlawing “false statements” in election campaigns. A new court fight challenging the law may finally end this speech-squelching travesty.

Attorney James Bopp is fighting a defamation suit by a defeated candidate. This losing candidate snagged a favorable ruling from the Commission, preventing billboards critical of him from going up, but still wants a pound of flesh. Bopp observes that Ohio’s law against “false statements” is merely an unconstitutional weapon “that can be deployed during any election to try to stifle speech.”

Chris Finney, another lawyer who has represented clients suffering the OEC’s censorious attention, says what the Commission typically deals with “has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the statement in question [but with] trying to embarrass your opponent as Election Day approaches. You get a headline that says this person is a liar.”

Opposing conclusions can both be “right” . . . given contradictory interpretations of the same facts. The First Amendment is supposed to safeguard open debate about such disagreements — not extinguish it.

Would defenders of Ohio’s law cheer if editorial writers were routinely hauled before speech boards to defend the accuracy of their political assessments?

It’s a disgrace that Ohio’s false-statement law has been in effect for even one day, let alone decades.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
folly free trade & free markets national politics & policies Tenth Amendment federalism too much government

Derailing Washington’s Train Fixation

The great age of trains — the 19th century — spawned a few amazing political careers, not excluding the railway lawyer, Abraham Lincoln. Many major railroads depended on moving politicians first, earth and iron second.

More than ever, today’s passenger rail lines are creatures of the state. Amtrak loses money, and could only be successful as a private operation were politicians able to let its unprofitable lines go.

Congress insists, instead, on putting up more money-losing railways in as many places as possible. President Obama even tried to get a bullet train put through between Tampa and Orlando, despite the fact that the two Florida cities were too close to each other for a super-fast train to make any sense.

Worse for the bullet was the politics.

In 2000, Floridians had voted in high-speed monorail; in 2004, they voted in greater numbers to kill their own project. Voters realized that, with politicians in charge, railroad projects tended to go runaway.

Perhaps that helped convince Rick Scott, the new governor, to reject the federal government’s offer to pay $2.4 billion of a $2.6 billion bullet train. The billions of “free money” that the Obama Administration promised began to seem, well, costly.

So, of course, the federal government sued. In early March, a Florida court ruled that the governor did indeed have the power to tell the feds to play with trains elsewhere.

A minor victory for railway sanity. A major victory for federalism.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

National Public Railroadeo

The controversy about all the elitist condescension galloping through the halls and programming policies of National Public Radio are both on point and beside the point. Even if NPR’s appeal were universal, it is not the proper function of government to be funding and controlling media.

Just the same, NPR’s appeal is far from universal. It serves not “the public,” but a slice of it — about 11 percent, according to Sue Schardt, member of an NPR distribution committee. She concedes that those who built NPR “unwittingly cultivated a core audience that is predominantly white, liberal, highly educated, elite” but stipulates that it was “never anyone’s intention to exclude anyone.”

True, but not meaningful. Coca Cola would love to get all the Pepsi people, Mother Jones would love to get all the National Review people, plus Esquire and New Yorker people, plus CBS and NBC and ABC people. But every successful enterprise must target its product.

Schardt believes that the way to answer political challenges to NPR’s funding is to expand the base with a broader appeal. The 30-year incubation period is over, now let’s be all we can be! Prove the nay-sayers wrong!

Fine with me if NPR tries this — or any other audience-building strategy. Just not on my dime. NPR would probably do best preaching to the liberal choir as they’ve always done. But, again, in the marketplace. Don’t make the rest of us pay for it.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies too much government

Life, the Universe, and Everything

The answer is 42.

The question? Not Douglas Adams’s Ultimate Question concerning “life, the universe, and everything.” Instead, it’s the answer to the question, “How many mandates does the State of Oregon place on the medical insurance packages Oregonians are allowed to buy?”

Forty-two.

The number is far too large — and yet the number will likely increase this year, courtesy of the state legislature, despite the fact that the current mandates raise the cost of medical insurance for Oregonians.

Steve Buckstein, speaking before the state’s House Committee on Health Care, for-instanced Iowa, which sports 16 fewer mandates. The state has lower percentages of uninsured folks and lower premiums than in states with higher numbers of required services.

Buckstein, a policy analyst for Cascade Policy Institute, was arguing for HB 2977, which would allow Oregonians to purchase medical insurance from other states. This would add competition to the current highly over-regulated market.

Buckstein shouldn’t have to do this. The purpose of the federal union was to create a vast free trade zone. Misguided state mandates such as the ones he’s fighting rest upon prohibiting state citizens from buying outside the state, which runs up against the grain of the Constitution. For too long Congress has exempted the medical insurance industry from the correct application of the Commerce Clause, leading to a crippled industry and opening the way for disastrously unworkable ideas like, well, “Obamacare.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies too much government

Stop the Mortgage Madness

The New York Times wonders how “home buying [might] change if the federal government shuts down the housing finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” Despite vague agreement that misguided government policy somehow encouraged short-sighted, irresponsible conduct, many want government to keep it up.

It’s supposedly “well understood” that Fanny and Freddie “misused” government’s support to back “millions of shoddy loans.” Shoddy how? Shoddy because awarded to high-risk debtors on terms impossible without the government’s easy credit, subsidies, regulations, exhortations and bailout net. Many of the loans would not have been made by creditors obliged to consider not only potential profits but also all the actual and potential costs, without government interference.

In the article’s very next paragraph, however, we learn that although the consequences of “misused” government support for untenable loans are now “well understood,” there’s a “much more divisive question” now in play: “whether the government should preserve the benefits that the companies provide to middle-class borrowers, including lower interest rates, lenient terms and the ability to get a mortgage even when banks are not making other kinds of loans.”

Huh? You mean, many politicians and beneficiaries of government largesse are “divided” over whether a policy of destructively encouraging irresponsible conduct should be clung to with only cosmetic, if any, changes — even though this policy sank the economy?

Scavengers picking carcasses may not care about the long run. But the rest of us should.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.