Category: free trade & free markets

Categories
free trade & free markets U.S. Constitution

Fighting for a Fair Shake

Ben Vargas wasn’t trying to be the odd man out when he chose to fight for what was right. That’s just how it happened. And he got clobbered for it.

Several years ago, Lieutenant Vargas was the only Hispanic among eighteen mostly white plaintiffs in a reverse discrimination case, Ricci v. DeStefano, just decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In 2003, 56 members of a New Haven, Connecticut, fire department passed a test for promotion. Fifteen of them were black or Hispanic. When city officials learned that only two of the 15 would be immediately eligible for promotion based on those scores, they threw out the results.

New Haven officials didn’t initially claim the test was unfair. They admitted fearing a lawsuit. But one should think twice — thrice, a thousand times — about acting unjustly in hopes of heading off injustice by others.

After Vargas — one of the two minority test-takers who scored very well — joined a lawsuit against the city, he was shunned by many colleagues. Once even got punched in the face. But he tells the New York Times he has no regrets, considering the kind of world he wants his children to grow up in.

Ben Vargas says, “I want them to have a fair shake, to get a job on their merits and not because they’re Hispanic or they fill a quota.”

Funny, isn’t that what good parents, of all races and ethnicities, want for their children?

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
Accountability free trade & free markets national politics & policies

Stress Test for the Fed?

A bill proposed by Congressman Ron Paul would shine a light on the mysterious goings-on at the Federal Reserve.

The Fed has been sopping up many billions in toxic assets, creating money hocus-pocus, loaning vast fortunes to central banks in other countries, and in general behaving as if its actions cannot have bad consequences.

HR 1207, introduced in February, would authorize the GAO to audit the Fed’s various funding facilities, used with such abandon over the last year. Look under the hood, see what’s going on in nitty-gritty detail.

Doesn’t sound very radical. But the Fed is accustomed to being “independent,” i.e., unaccountable. Yet as Jim Grant, editor of a publication that monitors interest rates, has observed, if the Fed had to accept the auditing it requires of others, it would be regarded as insolvent.

Except, of course, for that whole create-money-out-of-thin-air thing.

President Obama, a.k.a. Mr. Transparency, has said zilch to support the bill. Still, with over 150 Republicans and over 50 Democrats cosponsoring the legislation, it now has enough votes to pass if congressional leadership allows a vote.

An audit with a negative outcome would not force the Fed to shut down.

But it would provide more ammo for those interested in slowing or stopping fiscal insanity.

And that, too, should be bipartisan. Transpartisan. Universal.

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
free trade & free markets

Fast Lanes for Everybody, at a Price

Tolls on bridges and roads used to be common. Before the federal government began writing  humungous checks for infrastructure, the rule was to loan localities money. The feds would get paid back from tolls collected.

Earlier, private toll roads and bridges built our first good infrastructures.

There’s increasing talk, now, about congestion pricing of roads — charging more at peak hours, or for fast lane access.

Tim Rutten argues against this. In a Los Angeles Times op-ed called “Congestion pricing — a slippery slope to toll roads,” Rutten says that congestion pricing “discriminates against the working poor.”

Rutten imagines a low-level worker rushing from work to go to the day care center to retrieve her sick child. Driving the jammed lanes would be too slow, so she turns into the fast lane and pays money to get her child faster. Rutten says “A society that can rationalize the imposition of such pain doesn’t need to worry over how to define equity; it needs to worry about its soul.”

Yeah, right. There are costs and choices everywhere. In an emergency, spending a few bucks to help your child is reasonable. Even if you are poor.

But preventing the option from even being available?

Mr. Rutten should rethink his all-or-nothing approach. And maybe even the fantasies that jam up his own soul. Without faster lanes that cost money, the mother would have no choice at all but to sit in traffic.

Solutions that work are better than solutions merely dreamt.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets

Border Guards Confiscate Prescription Drugs

A few years ago, stories of Americans going to Canada to buy cheaper drugs were all the rage. Here’s a twist on that: Canadians going to Mexico to get cheaper drugs.

The Canadian government has been intercepting shipments and travelers at the border and confiscating the drugs.

The drug in question is Thalidomide.

You no doubt remember this drug for its horrific side-effects, in babies.

But it is still used — by people who won’t get pregnant — to treat a rare form of cancer. It turns out that it’s one of the better drugs on the market, extending the lives of sufferers from myeloma.

Trouble is, only one province pays for one version of the drug. Other versions are illegal. Canada’s socialized health care system does not approve of cheaper versions of the drug hailing from Mexican factories. Those factories haven’t gone out of their way to deal with side-effects.

So Canada confiscates Thalidomide as if it were cocaine.

Do you ever get frustrated hearing these tales? I do. I don’t know about your frustration, but it seems to me that if someone’s going to take the trouble to go out of the country to buy a drug to treat themselves, the full weight of responsibility for safety and side-effects — as well as the choice — should fall on his or her shoulders.

Not the government’s.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Accountability free trade & free markets too much government U.S. Constitution

Stop Unconstitutional Stomping

Here’s an idea about how to help businesses survive in this troubled economic climate: Stop allowing an unaccountable regulatory board — unclad by even a fig leaf of constitutionality — to ride roughshod over public companies.

In the wake of the Enron scam and other financial scandals several years ago, Congress enacted a packet of onerous new regulations. This Sarbanes-Oxley legislation created a regulatory board, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, to issue arbitrary edicts, impose arbitrary penalties, etc.

One problem with this star chamber is that its officers are neither appointed by the executive branch nor approved by Congress, as required by the Constitution.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Free Enterprise Fund want this practice to end. CEI explains that if the president were obliged to appoint and dismiss members of this board, as required by the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, “he will be on the hook for their policy failures, and thus have an interest in making them develop sound policies. . . . He won’t be able to blame the red tape on an unaccountable agency. . . .”

But the two organizations are not merely publishing op-eds and issuing press releases. They have filed suit, taking their case against the oversight board to the courts. And now the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case.

At last, this oversight board gets some much-needed oversight.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets individual achievement too much government

I’ll Clink to That

Awards, known as the Sammies, are given annually by the Sam Adams Alliance to recognize the efforts of citizen activists fighting governmental lunacies.

This year’s winners for best video, Caleb Brown and Austin Bragg, produced a film on the anti-competitive liquor laws of Virginia.

In the interests of full disclosure, I should report that I received a Sammy this year too — partly for fighting the Oklahoma Attorney General’s attempt to jail me for supporting Oklahoma democracy. Long story made short, we won that battle.

The award also recognized my decades-long work for term limits and citizen initiative rights.

Caleb and Austin’s video is entitled “The ABCs of Virginia Alcohol Law.” “ABC” is a pun on the name of the agency spewing the nonsensical edicts, the Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. The brief video gives you a good glimpse of the silliness, which includes violation of free speech rights.

Did you know that it is legal for a Virginia bar to sell you a beer, or a shot of liquor, or a beer and a shot of liquor, but not a shot of liquor in a glass of beer?

Or that America’s Founding Fathers would be thrown in jail under the liquor laws of today’s Virginia?

Watch the video. It’s slick, it’s funny. And it should make you mad.

For more on all of this year’s Sammy winners, visit samadamsalliance.org.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

Cuba Needs Freedom

A viral video is making the rounds of Latin America. You can find it on YouTube. It’s an interview with a man on the street, and another Cuban man walks up and steals the show. He points to his open mouth. In island slang he says he’s hungry, and that “what Cuba needs is food.”

A lot of people blame America for Cubans’ hunger. And our government is now considering removing the embargo we have had against Cuba since its Communist-inspired revolution. But that should be done — or not — for reasons that have nothing to do with the motto “Cuba needs food.”

Think about it. Cuba can trade with the rest of the world. In fact, on a cash basis, even with the U.S. Plenty of opportunities to produce and purchase food.

And hey: The resorts in Cuba are well-stocked with food. Canadians and Europeans and Arabs and others visiting the island don’t complain about a lack of food.

But the common folk do.

Why?

Well, Cuba suffers from a kind of apartheid. Everyday citizens get ration cards. Their food shelves are bare. They cannot visit tourist beaches, shop at tourist supermarkets, or eat at tourist restaurants. They have to make do with the meager food they’ve been rationed.

So much for the abolition of the class system by Castro!

To feed Cubans, just one thing is needed: Freedom — an end to socialistic apartheid.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

Fix Health Care?

When the president of the United States tells us that we “can’t fix the economy without fixing health care,” what do you make of it?

If you’re like me, you want to unravel the health care mess. And making it better would surely help the economy. But do I agree with President Obama?

Well, no.

The president and his party want to increase government controls and establish new government programs, the usual whatnot.

That is, the usual stuff that is precisely “what not to do.”

Instead of increasing costs by regulation, we should decrease costs by having the government stop mandating what health insurance companies must provide. Or unentangle our hyper-expensive Food and Drug Administration, with its longest and most expensive research rules in the world.

Generally, our politicians want us to emulate various socialized systems from across the globe, while ignoring the aspects of those systems that are freer than ours.

Specifically, Obama wants to set up a tax-funded Medicare system for everybody, in competition with regulated private insurance companies. And since Medicare is one of the main drivers of high prices, you can see where this will lead.

Funny thing is, our medical costs have not been shooting up these past few years as much as they were before, while in heavily regulated-and-rationed Britain, costs have skyrocketed during this same period.

I’m reminded of the Hippocratic Oath: First, do no harm.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.