Category: too much government

Hairdressers Unbound?

Joe Biden, licensing, salon, Occupational licensing, cosmetology, license

Joe Biden, late of the U.S. Senate and Blair House, is not someone I typically rush to for policy advice. Were I looking for a weather vane to indicate whence bad ideas come a‑gusting, in full poisonous gasbaggery, Biden might serve as well as any of the budding socialists now running for the presidency.

But he has a clue about one thing: Occupational licensing.

Last week, Biden came out against the cosmetology licenses so common in states throughout the union. “Joe Biden knocks licensing requirements for hairdressers,” Philip Wegmann summarized on Twitter, “says it’s ridiculous that licenses take ‘400 hours’ of training: ‘It’s all about not helping workers.’”

Now, this is hardly a federal issue for a president to tackle. And Biden sure seems to be itching to run for the top banana position that he was so close to for eight years.

But states can do something — about their own stupid regulations. As Arizona just showed when the legislature passed a bill to acknowledge the occupational licenses from other states when a person moves to Arizona. This allows more freedom of movement among the states, and brings the state back into line with the common market idea of the U.S. Constitution. Governor Doug Ducey is expected to sign (or may already have done so, by the time this is published): it sure fits with the governor’s proclaimed desire to roll back regulations.

And this notion of openness and inclusion could be extended to other issues. You know, like concealed carry permits.

After all, states universally recognize all others’ drivers’ licenses. If you may navigate a metal-and-glass mortician’s little helper based on your state’s licensing, surely you can clip hair safely enough.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags cosmetology, Joe Biden, license, licensing, occupational licensing, Salon

Accountability government transparency national politics & policies too much government

Long Gone Rogue

Chuck Schumer, Rachel Maddow, deep state, Donald Trump

Back in the 1990s, we used to talk about “rogue agencies” of the U.S. Government. And for good reason: the Branch Davidian massacre and the Ruby Ridge fiasco were hard to forget.

After 9/11/2001, however, we cut the agencies some slack. Why? Their incompetence and our hope.

But it became obvious from the NSA’s illegal metadata collection program, as revealed by Edward Snowden, the core agencies of the military-industrial complex do not like playing by rules that the American people have a say in.

How bad is it?

On New Year’s Day this year, Sen. Chuck Schumer was talking to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow about their favorite conspiracy theory. Maddow, as we all know, had gone Full Nutter on this “collusion”/“corruption” story, and Democratic politicians (along with nearly the whole of the mainstream news media) ran with the story for two years. Then, the Mueller report is “no collusion.”

But on that first Tuesday of 2019, Ms. Maddow was talking about Trump’s tweets which she characterized as “taunting” the CIA and other agencies obsessed with the “Russian hacking” angle of the brouhaha. And Schumer’s response?

“Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.”

We should take this as a signal. It is like making prison rape jokes. It says something about the situation: prison rape or Deep State machinations. And about the speaker: leveraging a rogue element as a threat.

No wonder many now think the Russiagate/Mueller investigation was a “Deep State Coup” attempt.

A republic with rogue agencies is hardly a republic at all.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags Chuck Schumer, deep state, Donald Trump, Rachel Maddow, Trump

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

Just Like That!

socialism, magic wand, economics, healthcare, prescription drugs, drugs,

“We will do that,” he said.

Do what?

“We will look at the average costs of prescription drugs in Canada, the UK, Germany, Japan and France,” says Sen. Bernie Sanders (I/D‑Vt.), “which are 50 percent lower than they are in the United States,” he told Margaret Brennan on Face the Nation.

And Sanders promises: “if I am elected president I’m going to cut prescription drug costs in this country by 50 percent so that we are not paying any more than other major countries are paying. Maybe we can do better than that.”

When Ms. Brennan asked how, he replied as above — looking at “average costs” as directly priced to consumers (patients) — and then … “we will do that.”

Socialism is so easy!

Why have we waited so long for utopia?

Well, saying is not the same as doing. We must think “beyond Stage One,” as Thomas Sowell advises. For if “Medicare for All” tells a company it will pay only so much for a drug, that company cannot just sell that drug and all others below cost. No wonder that in socialized medicine schemes around the world, not all drugs are even available.

The world prescription drug market is set up … peculiarly. Americans in effect pay more (because of patents and trade agreements) thereby covering development costs. If we pay less, others may have to pay more (which would be an odd thing for a “socialist” to want) and we would all come to get even less.

Bernie is no wizard, and socialism has no magic wand with which to wave away scarcity.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags Bernie Sanders, drugs, economics, healthcare, magic wand, prescription drugs, socialism

free trade & free markets ideological culture too much government

Finns Fail at Fix

Bernie Sanders, Finland, health care, socialism, single payer, costs, spending

Finland’s government-run health care system is a mess.

This normally wouldn’t faze me much. I have to navigate our American mess, er, system. But Finland’s medical service delivery system is relevant to Americans — as is Denmark’s and Norway’s and Sweden’s — because the current crop of Democratic presidential hopefuls tout these “Scandinavian socialist” programs as models to follow.

Yet Finland’s program is in crisis.

How bad is it?

Bad enough for Finland’s government to fold early, before an election, with Prime Minister Juha Sipilä throwing in the towel earlier this month. He had been struggling “to get social and health-care reforms that he made the cornerstone of his government’s four-year term through parliament,” The Wall Street Journal informs us. Finland’s health care system is somewhat decentralized, and that quality of service varies district by district. Silipä had been trying to centralize administration while also allowing for some privatization.

Left-leaning parties have balked at this, hence the impasse.

So, what is the lesson? A medical delivery system should be anti-fragile, capable of functioning despite incompetents or corrupt officials in government, despite voting blocs at loggerheads. A vast segment of the service industry should not be held in hock to the political machinations of special-interest groups.

Behind all of it, though, is the looming demographic crisis: the population of Finland, like here in America and throughout the First World, is aging. This puts heavy stressors on welfare-state systems run on a Ponzi-like re-distributive basis.* Of course costs will increase and service levels will fall, given how it’s all set up.

But once in place, government-run medical systems do not heal themselves.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* An endemic problem for socialists, which they try to ignore. See “Finland: Government Collapses Over Universal Health Care Costs, #Bernie2020 Hardest Hit.”

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags Bernie Sanders, costs, Finland, health care, single-payer, socialism

national politics & policies Popular too much government

Seriously Not Serious

Trump, deficit, spending, military, cuts, budget

While one segment of the voting public regards President Donald Trump as a heaven-sent savior, a louder mob treats Trump as the Beast, a veritable Anti-Obama.

I am in neither tribe.

To me, Mr. Trump must be judged on what he does. Nominating Neil Gorsuch? A‑plus. But The Donald has also reneged on a number of important campaign promises, not the least being his pledge to “eliminate the national debt in eight years.”

Sure, it was never quite believable. But is this administration even making progress?

If all goes according to the new plan, “the country would run a deficit of $631 billion in 2025,” writes Eric Boehm. That is not much of an improvement over Barack Obama’s final-year deficit of $666 billion.

Boehm’s Reason article is titled “Trump’s Budget Would Add $7.9 Trillion to the National Debt Over the Next Decade,” which gives a serious picture of Trump’s under-performance.

Now, you could react to the news and just say “less than $8 trillion — could be worse!”

But by accepting such a high number, we set the bar awfully low. It just isn’t serious.

And speaking of frivolity, it is “hard to take the president’s calls for belt-tightening seriously,” Boehm writes, “when the cuts only apply to some parts of the federal budget.”

You can guess which part of government is being given a free pass. Trump’s team is attempting to hide something: “spending increases for the Pentagon.”

Now, if American foreign policy were not the incoherent mess it is, we might make excuses.

But it is.

Serious Americans would exempt no part of the budget from intense scrutiny.

And real cuts.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags cuts, deficit, military, spending, Trump

Fourth Amendment rights general freedom national politics & policies Popular too much government

Snowden Won?

surveillance, metadata, Snowden, Edward Snowden

“The phone records program” that Edward Snowden risked life, limb and freedom to expose “had never thwarted a terrorist attack,” the New York Times informs in a somewhat startling bit of reportage published on Monday.

But that isn’t the startling part.

The National Security Administration’s unauthorized metadata phone-records collection program was a wish-list snoop system snuck into practice under cover of the Patriot Act. After the Snowden revelation, Congress halted it, replacing it with a similar operation in 2015, via the U.S.A. Freedom Act. But we have long known that U.S. spies could do most of what they “need” without pre- or post-Snowden versions.

What is startling in the Times article, “Disputed N.S.A. Phone Program Is Shut Down, Aide Says,” is there in the title: the federal government’s top spy agency has allegedly not used the program in its Freedom Act version in months, has even closed it.

And the Freedom Act, up for renewal, may just be allowed to die a quiet death.

Nick Gillespie, at Reason, cautions that “the possible end of the USA Freedom Act doesn’t mean the federal government doesn’t have access to all sorts of tools needed to secretly snoop on you, or that your personal data isn’t being collected in any number of ways you have little control over.” And he cites a recent Reason piece on how Patriot Act survellaince powers have been used to bust up a prostitution ring.

Which shows how terrorism is not the only government target.

And why giving government vast surveillance powers could be used for anything.

Not to mention that niggly problem of abridging the Fourth Amendment rights that had so concerned Ed Snowden.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing