Category: free trade & free markets

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

Privatize the Post Office!

Weeks ago, in the debate over whether to euthanize what’s left of freedom in American medicine, President Obama made a stunning concession about the so-called “public option” being proposed. Hoping to assure attendees of a townhall meeting that private insurers would not be threatened by the public option, he said, “if you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? . . . It’s the post office that’s always having problems.”

Yes. The post office. The “public option” in mail delivery: chronically in financial trouble; chronically over budget; chronically being bailed out by taxpayers.

So, don’t worry, everybody! Government expansion into our medical delivery system will be just as lumbering and inefficient as the post office is in our mail and package delivery system.

Er, good point, Mr. President.

Some might argue that under the proposed public option, direct private competition will in fact be allowed, whereas direct competition with stamped-envelope postal delivery is not allowed. But, as many supporters have conceded in unguarded moments, the Democrats’ reform is intended to be a transition to a single-payer system. Moreover, the medical reform bills pending in Congress are bulging with new mandates and price controls for private insurers that will hamper their ability to compete — something UPS and FedEx don’t have to contend with.

The president has done us a favor. He’s reminded us why we should privatize postal delivery.

Health care too.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

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

The Wrong Job

I’ve criticized the cash-for-clunkers program; I’ve argued against the notion that government should spend our tax dollars to create jobs.

Now the two come together. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is hiring 1,100 people to process the paperwork associated with the clunkers program.

Will these be long-term jobs? Well, sure, just as long as there is a powerful need in our country for processors of ten-page government forms to facilitate the forking over of $4,500-a-pop subsidy payments.

Maybe these United States can lead the world in such work.

Thank goodness the feds so botched up the program it didn’t cost us as much as it could have. Dealers across the country quit the program early, scared Uncle Sam wouldn’t pay back what they had fronted to customers.

Or, at least, not fast enough. Turns out auto dealerships have certain cash-flow concerns that our solons fail to fully appreciate.

Also not appreciated by Congress is the fact that taxpayers will have to hand over their hard-earned money to pay for all these deals. More billions. Money that taxpayers could have put to more productive use.

Our federal government shouldn’t be in the car business. It shouldn’t be in the car finance business, either, much less subsidizing car purchases.

The only productive jobs our current office-holders should create is by stepping down and giving someone else a chance.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies

Cargo Cult Auction in Progress

State and local governments are lurching into insolvency because of their previous profligate spending. In the current economic downturn they are now turning to lobbyists, to beg money from Washington. Money they should be spending on services they now spend in a sort of cargo-cult frenzy, hoping against hope for a bailout.

Funny thing is, they may actually spend more on lobbyists than they will get, in total, from the central government.

That’s what happens when the government gives away HUD grants, for instance. Cities around the nation spend more money preparing grant applications than they actually get in federal money. It would be better had HUD never existed. But, once in play, most cities cannot stop themselves from bidding for HUD’s handouts.

Yes, I said the word “bid.” From an economic point of view, that’s what the grant-writing and lobbying businesses are: bidding auctions in that most peculiar market for “free money.” Economist Gordon Tullock showed why this kind of auction is so different from trade auctions. There’s no theoretical upper limit. It’s crazy.

And it’s how federal government handouts work in our society.

How much better to not bid in such auctions at all. How much better if the federal government were prevented from giving away taxpayer funds to state and local governments entirely . . . better simply to follow the limits in the Constitution.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

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

The “Confidence” to Accept a Free Lunch

Does the alleged “success” of the cash-for-clunkers program prove consumer confidence is on the rebound?

Cash-for-clunkers is the new handout program for car owners and car dealers. Bring in an old car with lower mileage than the latest models, and the government gives you $4,500 toward a new car.

It took about a nanosecond to dole out the first billion dollars. So Congress tossed another two billion into the pot.

Alan Greenspan, former Federal Reserve chairman, was at the controls when the Fed’s massive credit-for-clunky-mortgages program helped create the housing bubble. So he’s an expert. He’s been in the news lately saying that although he has his doubts about the  clunkers program, its “success” shows renewed “confidence in the economy.”

Question: If the government simply threw bags of cash at people, and people stooped to pick up this cash, would this also prove “confidence in the economy”?

Observation: The clunker subsidies comes from somebody. Because the recipients didn’t directly drop by, directly put a gun to our heads, and directly compel us to write out a check for $4,500, we’re not supposed to notice. But if you had just been forced to turn over $4,500 to subsidize somebody’s new car, you’d probably say your household economy had just taken a hit.

Your confidence might even be shaken.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

Getting Jobbed on Jobs

There’s lots of talk these days about jobs. Many kinds of jobs.

First, there’s the snow job. The best known version of this is that avalanche of an idea that our federal government will “fix” the economy by creating or saving millions of jobs.

“Saving” jobs? Folks in Washington want to take credit for every one of us who happen not to get fired during their reign.

Not that the idea of politicians “creating” jobs makes much sense, either. I certainly don’t want people to be unemployed. But color me skeptical about the ways that politicians go about creating jobs — and the types of jobs thus created.

Spending trillions of dollars to stimulate the economy will indeed produce some jobs. It would be difficult to spend that much money without creating some work for somebody.

But there is a big difference between creating a job where someone produces a product or provides a service that then turns a profit and conjuring up make-work tasks by handing tax dollars over to some scheme that everyone realizes couldn’t sustain itself in a competitive marketplace.

If we want our economy to rebound — if we aim to rebuild our wealth — then we need productive jobs. Yes, jobs that employees have because of their productivity. Not jobs produced by politicians plunging us deeper into debt and grinding us down further into inefficiency.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

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

The Big “Single-Payer” Lie

Scan the history of government programs. The scope and costs usually grow much larger than originally projected.

Moreover, ham-fisted government intervention distorts markets, causing shortages or excesses of supply, leading to high prices for goods that should be cheap, and so on.

When the problems pile up one can either repeal the controls or heap on more controls.

Guess which “solution” politicians tend to prefer.

Regarding medical care, the politicians’ answer to decades of government bungling is more bungling: regulation, subsidies, rationing, mandates and a new “public option” in health insurance to squeeze out private plans.

President Obama and other public option advocates promise, on stacks of Bibles, that this is not “somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system.”

But they’re lying. Go to YouTube. Watch the videos of Obama and congressmen explicitly admitting their goal of a single-payer system. Just two years ago, Obama was saying, “But I don’t think we’re gonna be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s gonna be potentially some transition process. . . .”

That’s how we lose our freedoms. Not all at once, but a slice at a time.

Oh, and about employer-provided medical insurance. That’s a clumsy institution that exists because of World War II wage controls. We do have to transition out of that system. But we should “transition” towards more freedom, not less.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

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

Medical Insurance to the Max

Get everybody into a medical insurance plan, fast! But how?

Lots of “universal coverage” talk assumes that most uninsured folks are “too poor.” But look, most young people don’t buy insurance because they are healthy. And I know oldsters who have gone through life without medical insurance. When they’ve needed a shot, or a few stitches, they’ve visited the doctor and paid the bill.

Becky Akers, writing in The Christian Science Monitor, wants to know why everyone wants to force her to buy something she thinks makes no financial sense.

Ms. Akers admits that, though she is healthy and without insurance, she could get run over by a bus. But she bets she can cover most medical needs out of her savings and income.

Supporters of government managed medicine judge this irresponsible.

And yet, many of these critics are the same folks who insist that catastrophic medical insurance — the kind that is inexpensive because of huge deductibles — cover everybody, regardless of pre-existing conditions. But this turns insurance into a transfer program, workable only with high prices. Add full coverage rather than catastrophic, and medical insurance skyrockets beyond most people’s pay grade.

Yet if politicians would just stop tinkering with insurance, medical prices would come down for everyone, as Akers suggests . . . including, even the uninsurable, who would still require aid other than insurance.

If you are already sick, it’s too late to insure against sickness.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

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

Health Rations and You

Want a laugh? To keep you from crying at what President Obama and the Congress are trying to do to health care in this country?

Over the decades, the federal government’s involvement in health care has been making it harder and harder for doctors and patients to make independent, sensible decisions about care.

Many advocates of “reform” deny the destructive consequences of past “reform” and insist that the only way to solve our problems is, in effect, to make them worse: Get government even more involved, tie the bureaucratic noose even tighter around the necks of patients and doctors.

Despite all the problems in the health care industry, we often still get great care because of the freedom that still exists. But what if advocates of Obamacare get their way and government takes over? Well, that’s the scenario satirized in a new two-minute video produced by the Sam Adams Alliance, all about “Health Rations and You.”

It adopts the black-and-white style of a 1950s-era educational film. “Health rationing. What is it? What does it mean for you?” And it’s all about how the Health Administration Bureau will give you nothing but “the best” medical care.

The video is funny. Memorable. Getting a lot of hits on YouTube. And it just might help stop this socialist monster in its tracks. Give it a look-see, and pass it on.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

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

Slavery Is Not Freedom

There is one fact about the health care “reform” legislation being debated in Washington, DC, that is unavoidable. The fact that it is coercive.

Governments coerce. It would be great if governmental force were used only to combat criminals, not also to tell us how to live our lives. But, alas, this is not the case.

If the proposed health care legislation is passed, it will result in new orders from the federal government that everyone must obey. Everyone: Doctors; employers; patients; taxpayers. One mandate would force you to sign up for health insurance if you currently lack it. Refuse, and you’ll pay a penalty. Unless you qualify for a “hardship exemption.”

Do we all know what this means? A Washington Post report claims that the notion of penalizing Americans who decline to sign up for health insurance “has its roots in the conservative philosophy of self-reliance.” Because, presumably, the best way to encourage self-reliance is to point a gun at people and tell them what to do “for their own good.”

This is worse than messy thinking. It is the opposite of the truth. Self-reliance is a matter of making choices. It implies the freedom to make choices. Self-reliance has nothing to do with Big Brother ordering you about as if your own thinking, values, and circumstances were irrelevant. And self-reliance has nothing to do with the current health care debate in Washington.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

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.