The Battle for the Future

More From the Calorie Cops

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm sick of the government thinking it knows what's best for me. I understand that burgers, salt, BBQ wings, beer, pop, and ice cream are all bad for me. Our shoddy public schools taught me that much at least. But I want the freedom to use those things in moderation if I choose to. If I die 5 months sooner because I enjoyed some of those things throughout my life, well then so be it. That's my choice.

"But Brandon," my liberal friends will say, "when your health care costs go up, we all pay for it." Socialism's a bitch, ain't it? Perhaps if we had a health care system reliant on personal health savings accounts rather than shared (socialized) risk through insurance, people would be responsible for, pay for, and take an interest in their OWN health without imposing costs on their friends and neighbors.

What brought all this up was one of the more ridiculous headlines I've read in a while. From Politico.com, the headline Childhood Obesity: A Security Issue jumped out at me. Apparently many of our military recruits are a tad overweight and aren't qualified for service.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to extrapolate fat kids to a national security risk. We have plenty of people qualified for the military, and those who don't make it that want to join will probably get after their weight problems so they CAN join.

But manufacturing a "security risk" is certainly grounds for taking away freedoms, isn't it? Higher taxes on foods deemed bad for you--in the name of national security--are on the way. Just another excuse for the government to control your life and take away your choices. Don't think it can happen? British school systems are already severely limiting the things that kids can eat/bring to school. And don't forget the girl in Texas who got a week of detention for having a single Jolly Rancher.

Four Ways to Spend Money

Economist Milton Friedman (may he rest in peace), on the four ways to spend money:

What Do Katrina and the Oil Spill Have in Common?

Ok. Regardless of how much you pay attention to the news, I'm pretty sure you're aware the worst oil accident in United States history is going on in the Gulf of Mexico, right?

Many are saying this is Obama's equivalent of George Bush's hurricane Katrina, where there was slow national/federal governmental response to the worse natural disaster in U.S. history. Both presidents, regardless of political affiliation, have been accused of a lax response to a huge disaster.

What has annoyed me, in conservative circles, has been the accusation of Obama of a slow response to the oil spill. Sure, his responses have been lame, such as skipping out on speaking at Arlington National Cemetery on Memorial Day in favor of vacationing in Chicago and getting serenaded by Paul McCartney while the disaster continues--but that's beside the point.

True conservatives, like myself, realize that the national/federal government simply by its nature is inept when dealing with problems, regardless of party. Not to say either Obama/Bush are disingenuous, lazy, or poor leaders; simply the nature of top-down government is inefficient, wrought with red tape and tied in how quickly needed resources get delivered. Local governments know what they need, when they need it, and in what quantities better than anybody. Bobby Gindal is begging for resources, but national governmental red tape delays what is needed and dictates what the locals can do. The same was true post-hurricane Katrina.

Both Gulf Coast situations are less of a statement about leadership, but rather case examples of how smaller government closer to the people is much more effective.

A License to Work?

John Stossel makes some great points. The most severe recession in history really puts into context how ridiculous it is to make someone pay $2000 dollars simply to get licensed to sell flowers. Government at its best ;-)

From FoxNews.com:

John Stossel - FOXNews.com - March 11, 2010
The Right to Work

Licensing everything from florists to lawyers interferes with the freedom to make a living and harms consumers by limiting competition and protecting established firms.

The people of Louisiana must sleep soundly knowing that their state protects them from ... unlicensed florists.

That's right. In Louisiana, you can't sell flower arrangements unless you have permission from the government. How do you get permission? You must pass a test that is graded by a board of florists who already have licenses. To prepare for the test, you might have to spend $2,000 on a special course.

The test requires knowledge of techniques that florists rarely use anymore. One question asks the name of the state's agriculture commissioner -- as though you can't be a good florist without knowing that piece of vital information.

The licensing board defends its test, claiming it protects consumers from florists who might sell them unhealthy flowers. I understand the established florists' wish to protect their profession's reputation, but in practice such licensing laws mainly serve to limit competition. Making it harder for newcomers to open florist shops lets established florists hog the business.

Other states are considering adopting Louisiana's licensing law, but before any do, I hope that the law will be stricken. The Institute for Justice, a public-interest law firm, has challenged the licensing in court, saying it violates liberty and equal protection, and so is unconstitutional.

"One of the most fundamental tenets of the American dream is the right to earn an honest living without arbitrary government interference. What could be more arbitrary than saying who can and who cannot sell flowers?" IJ President Chip Mellor says.

Others states have their own sets of ridiculous licensing rules. In Virginia, you need a license to be a yoga instructor. Florida threatened an interior designer with a $25,000 fine if she didn't do a six-year apprenticeship and pass a test, at a cost of several thousand dollars. Fortunately, the Institute for Justice got that law overturned.

I'm rooting for IJ because licensing interferes with the freedom to make a living, harms consumers by limiting competition and protects established firms. By the way, this will be the subject of my Fox Business show on Thursday night.

It's an old story. Established businesses have always used government to handcuff competition. Years ago, small grocers tried to ban supermarkets. A&P was going to "destroy Main Street," the grocers cried. Minnesota legislators responded to their lobbying by passing a law that forbade supermarkets to hold sales. Consumers were hurt.

OK, while licensing of florists, interior designers and yoga teachers is ridiculous, what about more important professions, like law? Surely people need protection from people who would practice law without a license. Again, I say no. Lawyers' monopoly on helping people with wills, bankruptcies and divorces is just another expensive restraint of trade.

David Price recently spent six months in a Kansas jail because he wrote a letter on behalf of a man who was wrongly accused of practicing architecture without a license. When Price refused to promise never to "practice law" again, a judge sent him to jail.

All he did was write a letter. Price didn't misrepresent his credentials. However, he did save a man from paying $3,000 to a lawyer. Perhaps that was his real offense.

Some of the most famous lawyers in American history, including Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo, had no license from the state. Their customers decided whether they were worthy of being hired.

Competition is better than government at protecting consumers from shoddy work. Furthermore, licensing creates a false sense of security. Consider this: When you move to a new community, do you ask neighbors or colleagues to recommend doctors, dentists and mechanics even though those jobs are licensed? Of course. Because you know that even with licensing laws, there is a wide range of quality and outright quackery in every occupation. You know that licensing doesn't really protect you.

A free competitive market for reputation protects consumers much more effectively than government can. Today, online services like Angie's List make it even easier for consumers to get better information about businesses than government licensing boards will ever provide. We do need protection from shoddy businesses. But it's freedom and competition that produce the best protection.

If It Can Happen In England, It Can Happen Here

This seems like a scene right out of V for Vendetta. Apparently, they're talking about putting cameras in homes where the parents are arbitrarily deemed unfit in the United Kingdom. In fact, parents are encouraged to report other parents whose children act up in class to possibly put additional families on this "sin bin" list (see the bold sentence).

Home surveillance by the government? A little creepy. Yes, I know there are terrible parents out there, and child services are very important to help kids in terrible situations. But cameras in the home? Based on something as fickle as other parents complaining about disruptive kids? Preemptively, simply because of kids' behavior? Sheer madness.

If government is allowed to do this, what comes next? If you give a mouse a cookie, he's going to want a glass of milk...

Kind of a good reminder to make sure government stays small and limited, eh?

I found this story many places, simply because I found it so hard to believe, but this is the article I used. From the UK Express:

Thousands of the worst families in England are to be put in “sin bins” in a bid to change their bad behaviour, Ed Balls announced yesterday.

The Children’s Secretary set out £400million plans to put 20,000 problem families under 24-hour CCTV super-vision in their own homes.

They will be monitored to ensure that children attend school, go to bed on time and eat proper meals.

Private security guards will also be sent round to carry out home checks, while parents will be given help to combat drug and alcohol addiction.

Around 2,000 families have gone through these Family Intervention Projects so far.

But ministers want to target 20,000 more in the next two years, with each costing between £5,000 and £20,000 – a potential total bill of £400million.

Ministers hope the move will reduce the number of youngsters who get drawn into crime because of their chaotic family lives, as portrayed in Channel 4 comedy drama Shameless.

Sin bin projects operate in half of council areas already but Mr Balls wants every local authority to fund them.

He said: “This is pretty tough and non-negotiable support for families to get to the root of the problem. There should be Family Intervention Projects in every local authority area because every area has families that need support.”

But Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: “This is all much too little, much too late.

“This Government has been in power for more than a decade during which time anti-social behaviour, family breakdown and problems like alcohol abuse and truancy have just got worse and worse.”

Mr Balls also said responsible parents who make sure their children behave in school will get new rights to complain about those who allow their children to disrupt lessons.

Pupils and their families will have to sign behaviour contracts known as Home School Agreements before the start of every year, which will set out parents’ duties to ensure children behave and do their homework.

The updated Youth Crime Action Plan also called for a crackdown on violent girl gangs as well as drug and alcohol abuse among young women.

But a decision to give ministers new powers to intervene with failing local authority Youth Offending Teams was criticised by council leaders.

Les Lawrence, of the Local Government Association, said they did “crucial” work and such intervention was “completely unnecessary”.

My Big Fat Government Takeover

From William McGurn of the Wall Street Journal:

My Big Fat Government Takeover
Rule by the Best and the Brightest

Some mistakes are so big that only smart people are tempted to make them. One is the faith in Big Government.

We'll see that in full force today, when Barack Obama gives another major address on the economy. On the generalities, there won't be much real disagreement. But at a time when many claim to see no difference between the two political parties, President Obama and his Democratic allies are making one distinction paramount: their operating assumption that bigger government is better government.

Associated Press

Many of the people in the Obama administration, the president included, enjoy all the credentials we associate with the best and the brightest: the right schools, the good grades, the successful careers. Alas, whether it be allocating health care or defining the kind of jobs the economy ought to create, the policies they favor suggest a strong belief that they know what's best not just for themselves, but for everyone else too.

Of course, the kind of people who are apt to push for government-imposed solutions are those who are also apt to believe they will be the ones imposing decisions, not the ones who have to live with decisions imposed by others. Sometimes that's because they enjoy the wealth that gives them escape hatches unavailable to the less affluent, such as their ability to ensure that their own children never have to set foot in a public school. Mostly, however, their trust in government reflects their confidence that they have all the answers and that it's government's job to enforce them.

What about conservatives? Don't we have confidence in our judgment and abilities? Of course we do. The difference is that we trust free citizens to make decisions about themselves—and are skeptical about government. As someone who worked inside a White House, I say you really believe government should be small when you see your friends running it.

Now, I know there are people who believe that George W. Bush was a Big Government Republican. And you can make arguments about spending and so forth. Even so, however, there's simply no comparison with the Obama administration.

That's because conservatives believe that even our smartest friend is no match for the collective wisdom of the marketplace. If we were to wake up and find that someone we knew well had been given control over some important part of the economy, the conservative would not likely think, "Everything will be fine now that Harry's in charge." Far more likely we'd be saying to ourselves, "If it weren't for his wife, Harry would be wearing red and purple socks every day—and we're giving him that kind of power?"

Mr. Obama and his team appear to be unburdened by such modesty.

Detroit is in decline because its automotive giants no longer build the kind of cars Americans want to buy? Let's have the president sack the CEO of General Motors, and then use the bailout money as leverage to appoint a car czar and get GM and Chrysler to build the kind of cars that Washington wants.

Wall Street execs are getting sweet bonuses at a time when millions of other Americans are unemployed? Well, instead of encouraging these financial concerns to pay back the Troubled Asset Relief Program monies and get the taxpayers off the hook, send in Ken Feinberg to set their salaries.

Health-care spending is inefficient? The answer is obvious: Expand the Department of Health and Human Services and give its secretary more power. Under the bill now before the Senate, for example, Kathleen Sebelius would have the authority to decide what care insurance companies could offer, who could get an abortion under a government-run plan, what prices were fair, and so on.

Of course we shouldn't draw any conclusions from an advisory task force that recently created a stir when it suggested women get fewer mammograms—and Ms. Sebelius's disavowal in the face of public heat. She pointed out that the task force does not set government policy. But at some point some government task force will—and there will be fewer ways around it.

That's government by the smart. The good news is that it doesn't seem to be selling. According to a recent poll, 57% of Americans believe government is doing things that should be left to business and individuals. Not only do most Americans object, Gallup says the opposition is the "highest such reading in more than a decade."

Today Mr. Obama is going to give us more details about the wonderful things all those smart people in Washington are going to do to help us on the economy. Maybe he would do well to take another look at all those bright lights around him. For the more he proposes government will do, the more skeptical Americans seem to be.

How to Catch a Wild Pig

From an email I received:

A chemistry professor in a large college had some exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab the Professor noticed one young man (an exchange student) who kept rubbing his back, and stretching as if his back hurt. The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new communist government.

In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked, 'Do you know how to catch wild pigs?' The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said this was no joke. 'You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in The last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America . The government keeps pushing us toward socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc. while we continually lose our freedoms--just a little at a time. One should always remember: There is no such thing as a free lunch and a politician will never provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.