Category: too much government

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

A Doc Drops Out

Doctor Alan Dappen wasn’t going to take it any more. So he got out.

Eight years ago, he decided that his office would no longer accept Medicare payments. Why? As he tells his patients, “We can’t afford to.” Medicare won’t pay for consultations by phone or email, won’t cover the full cost of a house call, and “barely pays for an office visit.”

Then there’s the regulatory burden. Dappen can’t understand a lot of the regulations. Further, as far as he can tell the folks enforcing them don’t understand many of them either. Yet the bureaucrats can audit a doctor’s paperwork and impose huge fines based on these unclear regs.

Medicare-mired physicians would be more effective if only they didn’t have to worry about complying with arbitrary regulatory dictates all the time. These rules make it harder for doctors to do their jobs. So Dr. Dappen took the risky but more satisfying path of operating in an unhampered market. And, of course, he invited his patients to join him.

Today, in the name of mandatory universal health coverage, the Obama administration wants even more restrictions on medical freedom. Shouldn’t we consider the consequences on the decision-making ability of doctors and patients of current coercive micromanagement when assessing the viability of yet newer coercive schemes?

Dr. Dappen figures he is better off with freedom. You and I are too.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets initiative, referendum, and recall too much government

Thou Shalt Not Mess Up Health Care

Last year, in Arizona, a narrow defeat for Proposition 101, the Freedom of Choice in Health Care Initiative, didn’t leave its core ideas dead, or even zombie-like.

The measure’s defeat by a mere 8,111 votes didn’t seem insurmountable. After all, opponents of the measure had made hysterical claims against it, and the thinking among supporters quickly became: A little more education.

A few weeks ago, the Arizona legislature repackaged the measure’s basic ideas as the Arizona Health Insurance Reform Amendment and set it for a vote of the people next November.

The new measure accommodates some worries and criticism of the previous measure. But the core message remains. The first plank states that “a law or rule shall not compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer or health care provider to participate in any health care system.”

The second plank says that no one shall be fined for paying — or accepting payments — for otherwise lawful health care services.

There are a lot of politicians out there, right now, who insist that “fixing health care” means “increasing government,” including pushing and shoving people into plans, or regulating the manner of payments so to encourage the use of government plans.

If this Arizona measure passes, or similar measures in other states do, a new idea will enter the national health care debate: Freedom.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

He Should Have Pleaded the Fifth

Economists tell tales.

The best are those that make it easier for us to understand very complicated ideas. Paul Krugman, a Nobel Laureate, wrote one such tale years ago, an essay called “Ricardo’s Difficult Idea.” It explains something economist David Ricardo discovered nearly 200 years ago: When nations trade they both become better off even when some people seem to suffer.

Since that essay Krugman has been telling tales for the New York Times. Not all have been as wholesome.

Krugman appears to be one of those court wizard economists who believe they — that is, the government — can fine-tune the economy. In his August 2, 2002 column he says that “[t]o fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that . . . Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.”

Yes, back in 2002 Krugman supported the Fed’s super-low interest rates, and predicted the outcome: A housing bubble.

Which has burst.

Since then, Krugman’s readers have looked for someone to blame. Well, Krugman’s own words give us all we need to incriminate his own very self . . . and his fellow court wizards.

Familiar story: Self-aggrandizing experts aim to fix things, and put us all in a fix. The case against government management of the economy just got even stronger.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Accountability too much government

So Let It Be Read

It’s a laugh a minute on Capitol Hill, where folks who supposedly represent us fritter away our freedom with giddy abandon. And without a glance at the fine print.

Well, it’s all fine print when you’ve got a cap-and-trade bill 900-plus pages long. This bill would tax businesses that need to produce more “greenhouse gases” than the new law would allow according to a formula so congested that, well, it takes 932 pages to spell it out. If the bill passes, it’s another punch to the gut of the American economy.

For a while, it seemed that Republicans on the energy committee might obstruct things, might insist that the bill be read. Aloud!

So the Democrats hired a speed reader. No reading was ever demanded. But since the guy had been hired, he was asked to zip through just a bit of the bill. His incredible machine-gun delivery cracked everybody up.

Well, DownsizeDC.org isn’t laughing. The activist group notes that the cap-capitalism bill was rushed through committee so fast that it could not possibly have been read, publicly or privately.

The group supports a Read the Bills Act to require every bill to be read in full before the House and Senate . . . and require all lawmakers to sign an affidavit affirming that they have read any bill they vote on. A sensible rule, long overdue. Seriously.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
property rights too much government

Let This Woman Be Tree-Free

If the government isn’t trying to take something from you, it’s trying to push something on you. Or both.

Marion Smith is a 79-year-old widow living in Brooklyn. Ecologically pious bureaucrats are trying to stick her with a tree she doesn’t want. A friend, Nancy Cardozo, reports that they were even threatened with arrest for daring to object to the project.

Marion is disabled, and cannot rake leaves. Six years ago, a tree that had been in the same spot died, not long after her husband died. Years later, the city removed the stump, and a city worker assured Marion that no new tree would be planted there. So she paved the area.

The city worker who now came to plant a new tree proved inert to any appeals. “Sorry, I have the contract and I have a big payroll,” he told Marion and a neighbor trying to help her out. He had to put the tree there.

The city insists that it has a right to put the tree anywhere it wants on the sidewalk, since it owns the sidewalk. The city also says that if anybody slips on the leaves in front of Marion’s home, she as homeowner will be liable.

Maybe somebody could plant an idea about common sense and common decency in the minds of all concerned?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall too much government

The Color of Contempt

The good sense that California voters exhibited at the polls in May has been rewarded with continual attack and derision.

Meg Whitman, former eBay CEO and Republican candidate for governor, recently said, “In many ways, the proposition process has worn out its usefulness.”

She’s criticizing the initiative, and she’s not alone.

Wrong target. California’s initiative process account for what little political sanity exists in the state.

The problem is spendaholic politicians.

But politicians and pundits continue bashing California’s ballot initiative process. Anything to deflect attention away from the inability of politicians to prioritize.

Even The Economist has taken up the bludgeon. A recent story, headlined “The ungovernable state,” said of the voter initiative process:

At first, it made sense . . . . The state in 1910 had only 2.4 million residents, and 95 percent of them were white. (Today it has about 37 million residents, and less than half are white.) A small, homogenous and informed electorate was to make sparing and disciplined use of the ballot to keep the legislature honest, rather as in Switzerland.

Is The Economist actually suggesting that a multi-ethnic electorate is incapable of democratic decision-making? I think we are witnessing the insider class move from condescending disdain for the people to a full-blown case of dementia.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
property rights too much government

Slumdog Eminent Domain Victims

Does cinematic celebrity protect a person against arbitrary governmental stomping, or bulldozing, of one’s human rights to property?

Maybe it does if you live in Beverly Hills. But the answer’s a big No if you dwell in a Mumbai slum targeted by a government touting a sanctimonious “cleanup” agenda. Why? Because callously uprooting lives is part of the allegedly “acceptable” cost of that “cleanup.”

Mumbai officials have destroyed yet another shanty home of a child who starred in the popular and multiple-Oscar-winning movie “Slumdog Millionaire.” The victims are the family of Rubina Ali, who played Latika in the film. Rubina says, “I’m feeling bad. I’m thinking about where to sleep.”

Her family had not even been given any notice when cops swooped in to supervise the demolition. The week before, the home of Azhar Mohammed Ismail, who played Jamal as a child in the movie, had also been flattened. Rubina and Azhar lived in the same part of Mumbai.

One would think that fame might have helped these kids catch a break from functionaries eager to forcibly reorder the world no matter what damage is done to innocent victims in the process; perhaps they might be sensitive to the bad publicity. No such luck.

Not that whether your rights are respected should have anything to do with whether you’re a movie star. Being a human being should be enough.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights too much government

No Bible Studies Allowed

In San Diego, in May, a pastor and his wife found out how tyrannical a simple thing like a zoning law can be.

They hold Bible studies in their home. Being Americans, they expected the freedom to associate and practice their religion.

But a county employee grilled Pastor David Jones and his wife about what they were up to with their Bible studies — did they pray? did they say “amen”? Then they were told that the study group, averaging 15 people per meeting, violated county regulations.

“Unlawful use of land,” you see. It had nothing to do with suppressing religion, everything to do with how many cars appeared Tuesday nights. County officials said the ominous grilling about religion was done simply to find out which land-use regulation to use in filing the complaint.

And there was a complaint. Too often, these days, instead of neighbor taking up the matter with neighbor, the government gets called in. So, before these students of the Bible could even consider carpooling, to respect the Joneses’ neighbors’ parking concerns, government employees told them to cease and desist — or else apply for a major use permit. Which could take a lot more money than found in your average Sunday passing of the offering plate.

This story is almost a parable — of why zoning laws don’t make good neighbors. Zoning is a blunt instrument, indeed. There are alternatives.

But the alternatives require a bit of common sense.

I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall tax policy too much government

Prop 13 Declared Innocent

You hear it all the time: California’s in such a mess “because of Proposition 13.”

You probably wonder how that initiative, passed way back in the ‘70s, could be so key.

Well, it was the first of a long line of voter-instigated tax limitation measures, and it made politicians ache with frustration. Politicians LIKE spending money; Proposition 13 limited, somewhat, their greedy quest for ever more money to spend.

But did it really unbalance California fiscal policy?

Chris Reed, writing in the San Diego Union-Tribune, explains how nutty this charge really is:

[S]ince shortly after Prop. 13’s adoption, property tax revenue increased by 579 percent. That is not a typo. It went up 579 percent.

During the same span, population went from 24 million to 38 million — an increase of 58 percent.

Reed checked his numbers against the inflation rate, and found that “property tax revenue has increased by more than triple the combined rate of inflation and population growth.”

He did a little more checking and learned that property tax revenues went up faster than any other major revenue source!

So Prop 13 simply cannot be the reason for California’s impending bankruptcy. Though the measure limited tax rate growth, and helped homeowners, it did not unbalance the budgets.

Humungous increases in spending did. Politicians need look no further than their own projects.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
education and schooling general freedom too much government

No Smiling, No Hugging

Things sure have changed since I was a kid. It used to be okay to smile. Encouraged even. And hugging someone was considered nice, friendly, compassionate.

Today, in my home state of Virginia, the Department of Motor Vehicles, or DMV, is discouraging smiles. No, not just discouraging smiles, wiping them out entirely.

The DMV is telling people not to smile — or say “cheese” — when getting their photos taken for their drivers’ licenses. If they do smile, the picture cannot go on their license and they have to take another.

And all over the country, public schools are banning hugging.

Why the official suppression of friendliness and good cheer?

Well, in schools the administrators apparently cannot tell a friendly hug from a sexual grope, or a jovial high-five from a bullying slap.

So they’re outlawing all touching.

When I was in school, I don’t remember any rules against hugging or holding hands or even kissing — unless folks got carried away. And we trusted teachers and principals to make the judgment as to what was going too far.

Now, any touching invites what one administrator calls a “gray area.”

The DMV may have a better excuse to suppress smiles and grins and such: They are developing facial recognition software, and smiles get in the way. It’s all to protect us from identity theft, they say.

And yet isn’t it odd that protecting us makes us less human? Can that really be protection?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.