Category: Stupidity

Virginians may breathe a little easier

The proposed statewide “public” smoking ban I wrote about recently failed to muster any support in the Virginia House of Delegates. This is hardly a surprise, but it’s still good news for property rights in the commonwealth. Worth noting are a pair of quotes. The first offers what should be the end of this debate everywhere it’s occurring in America:

“The problem is, I want to have smoke-free restaurants and businesses. But in America, you don’t pass a law to tell a private business owner who is paying rent or mortgage payments what he can and can’t do in his own place,” said Del. David B. Albo (R-Fairfax).

I wish Virginia’s Republicans practiced that throughout the spectrum of potential business activities, but every little bit of retreat from insanity is welcome. Unfortunately, the debate includes a few politicians suffering a shortage of brain power. Our politicians can barely wait to trample on our rights established by both the U.S. Constitution and the state constitution, but this bill’s sponsor wants us to respect his rights. Consider:

“The bottom line is that we’re not talking about a smoker’s right to smoke indoors,” said Sen. J. Brandon Bell II. “We’re talking about my right not to breath in 4,000 chemicals and 60 known carcinogens that are associated with secondhand smoke.”

Admittedly, if someone is going to ignore rights established in a Constitution so that his agenda can be furthered, it’s not a giant leap to expect new rights to appear which allow him to trample on the rights he dislikes. That doesn’t make it any less objectionable.

Father Congress knows best

Yesterday, the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys released a study showing that last year’s bankruptcy reform has been ineffective at its original purpose of stopping deadbeats exploiting creditors. Although the data represents preliminary results, few outside of the financial companies pushing the legislation expected otherwise. I highlight this because I like this quote from the story:

“The vast majority of people pushed to the brink of financial collapse by circumstances over which they had no control,” said Brad Botes, executive director of the NACBA. “Abuse of the process is the rare exception, not the rule.“

That last statement could be said about most every statist ideal currently pursued by our elected officials. It’s just so much easier to criminalize and prosecute every incident than to legislate the specific activities that harm society. It makes for better sound bites from politicians, since fear is better used with a thump than a nudge. It’s too bad reason takes the brunt of that hit.

I’m corrupting my own mind

This isn’t shocking, but the FCC is back in the nanny business:

The Federal Communications Commission plans to levy fines against broadcasters or their affiliates for violating decency standards in about a half-dozen cases, people familiar with the matter said yesterday.

One incident involves Nicole Richie saying “shit” on Fox’s broadcast of the 2003 Billboard Music Awards. The first obvious response is to state that it was the Billboard Music Awards. Nobody was watching. For those few who were, I’m going to guess that they’ve heard the word “shit” before. They’ve probably even uttered it once or twice. Our society still exists. Somehow.

Another case involves the unsurprising conclusion that Janet Jackson’s not-really-revealed breast during the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show violated decency standards. I have nothing else to add about the specific incident beyond what I’ve already written. Instead, I’ll point out that human creativity provides me with uncensored radio, in spite of the decency cops at the FCC (and Congress). They may be violating one Amendment, but they haven’t figured out how to violate all of them. Yet.

Until then… Suckers.

Citizens On Patrol. What a joke. You know what C.O.P. really stands for, Proctor?

Anyone care to offer theories on how poorly this will proceed?

Prosecutors in some Maryland and Virginia counties have adopted a potent tactic to discourage check-bouncing: threatening writers with prosecution if they don’t attend “bad check school” run by private contractors.

It is a way for the counties to make money — they get a portion of the fees the companies charge people who attend the courses — and law enforcement officials say the practice saves resources for fighting more serious wrongdoing.

But critics say the private companies violate the law when they send out letters warning check bouncers to attend classes or face prosecution. The critics add that in most states, it is not a crime to write a returned check unless there is intent to defraud. And federal law bars debt collectors from making false threats.

I’ve never bounced a check, but let’s assume I make an innocent mathematical mistake in balancing my checkbook and send too much money to an investment account. Should I receive a letter from a private contractor, threatening me with prosecution if I don’t make restitution? What responsibility does the party that accepted my check have to verify my check before accepting it? Technology makes this possible. Companies institute policies regarding returned checks. What is the burden upon the state to first determine that evidence exists that a crime was committed? Should the state convey that power to a private contractor?

Who needs questions, though, when logic like this can prevail:

“I don’t have to use prosecutors to take these cases to court,” said Glenn F. Ivey, the state’s attorney in Prince George’s County. “The homicide rate is up, carjacking is up, sex offenses are up, armed robberies are up. I could probably use about 10 more prosecutors to handle violent crimes alone. So to the extent there’s a program like this that allows us to get good results on restitution, it’s a good way to go.”

In Maryland, a contractor charges those who attend the courses a $35 administrative fee, which is split with the counties, and $125 more for the class itself, an eight-hour session on financial responsibility.

Local prosecutors say the threat of prosecution for not participating is legitimate. “The general rule is we prosecute” people who fail to repay bad checks, said Frank R. Weathersbee, the Anne Arundel state’s attorney. Maryland law allows people 10 days to make good on a bounced check, he said. If check-restitution programs are curbed, he said, “you’re just setting us back a step, making it easier for bad-check writing.”

So, some criteria seems to exist. That’s reasonable. But, curbing check-restitution programs run by private contractors does nothing to make it easier to write bad checks. Messrs. Ivey and Weathersbee do not know that, if writing bad checks is so prevalent and dangerous, it’s reasonable to find more state funding for curbing it? The police power, and the prosecution of law-breakers, is a legitimate use of taxpayer funds. Ask for the necessary funding. It’s not too much to ask.

But really, what could possibly go wrong with this:

The Maryland counties have hired American Corrective Counseling Services Inc. The largest of the few private check-restitution companies, ACCS operates in 140 counties in 16 states. ACCS President Michael Schreck said the company sends 10,000 to 15,000 notices a week and conducts about 2,500 classes a year.

Retailers typically allow consumers at least 10 days to make good on a bounced check and pay a service charge. After that, retailers may either continue to try to collect the checks on their own, send them to a debt-collection firm or forward them to the prosecutor’s bad-check program.

When ACCS gets the checks, it sends check writers a notice using the local prosecutor’s letterhead. ACCS’s name is never used in communications with check writers or on the telephone hotline that ACCS operates.

I realize I’m being hyper because no one entrusted by government oversteps limits and abuses their newly emboldened authority.

The tobacco fields are weeping in Virginia

I’ve written about smoking bans in the past, but I suspected the push to enact them in Virginia would take longer. Not so:

The Virginia Senate voted Monday to ban smoking in restaurants and virtually all other public places, an extraordinary sign of cultural change in a state that is home to the worldwide headquarters of Philip Morris and whose agricultural economy has been rooted in tobacco farming for almost 400 years.

The bill is unlikely to survive review in the House of Delegates. Yet its passage on the floor of the Senate — where smoking has never been formally banned and lawmakers lit up openly even until the late 1990s — signaled mounting popular support for smoking restrictions.

The second paragraph is the key support for my original conclusion. The House won’t pass this, and Governor Tim Kaine (D) opposes it, but I’m still amazed that it passed the Senate. Just as interesting, the bill’s sponsor, Sen. J. Brandon Bell II, is a Republican. First came tax increases (pushed by Democrat Mark Warner/passed by Republican General Assembly) and now anti-property rights anti-smoking legislation? Remind me again how Virginia is a bastion of limited government conservatives?

That should be enough lunacy surrounding one bill, but we’ve abandoned all hope of reason, so there’s more:

“This is not about whether I prefer or do not prefer the smell of smoke,” said Sen. J. Brandon Bell II, the sponsor. “This is about public health. . . . The research has come forward over the years, and it’s shown us that secondhand cigarette smoke is a very insidious health problem.”

It’s not about whether or not Sen. Bell prefers the smell of smoke. It’s about whether or not he prefers property rights. That shouldn’t be a hard distinction. But with arguments like this next one, who’s surprised:

“This shows that Virginia is ready to move its way to where the mainstream is on health issues,” said Keenan Caldwell, director of government relations for the [American Cancer Society]’s regional office. “People are starting to see, even in Virginia and other tobacco-growing states, that there is proven science about the harmful effects of secondhand smoke.”

There’s proven science about the harmful effects. So what? There’s also a previously-accepted principle that property rights trump everything. I win the intellectual fight. But this isn’t about who is right. Clearly that’s not getting anything for those of us with principles, especially when this is a justification:

“It makes you really pay attention,” Bell said. “I may have reservations about increased regulations [on businesses], but this is something that people seem to want to be regulated.”

When we come to the conclusion that regulation is good and appropriate because people want it, with no further consideration necessary, what are we left fighting over? Which television programs and books my neighbors think it’s acceptable for me to consume? Smashing.

Some sanity remains, of course:

… opposition has been spearheaded by the Virginia Hospitality and Travel Association, which represents restaurants. The group lobbied vigorously against an early version of the bill that would have given localities the ability to regulate indoor smoking, complaining that the option would lead to a patchwork of regulations and pit businesses in neighboring counties against one another.

So Bell moved forward with the statewide smoking ban and picked up enough support to pass the bill, 21 to 18.

Those who voted against the measure said the marketplace is already pushing many restaurants to ban smoking, without government regulation. They said businesses should have the right to cater to their customers.

“We’re talking about a legal product that’s licensed and sold in Virginia — that’s taxed and taxed and taxed,” said Sen. Charles R. Hawkins (R-Pittsylvania), who represents tobacco growers. “Now we’re saying we know better than people who operate their own businesses what they can do.”

Count me among those not amazed that market forces have the ability to solve the problem.

Uncle Sam is a brilliant banker

This article about state prepaid college savings plan raised an interesting point, without actually making that point. I noticed it because my experience reflects a flaw in the financial aid system for college. Consider:

But under the new law, prepaid plans will receive the same financial aid advantage that 529 college savings plans do. The money in 529 plans, which let parents save in a tax-advantaged investment account, is treated as the parents’ money. And under the federal aid formula, only 5.64% of parents’ money is expected to go toward college expenses, [Mark Kantrowitz, a financial aid expert in Pittsburgh] says.

I haven’t dealt with undergraduate financial aid in more than a decade, so perhaps the rules have changed, but when I attended college, I faced a different reality than some alleged 5.64% parental responsibility. Coming from a poor background, I knew two facts: I was going to college and I was paying for it. The federal financial aid process would only recognize one of those facts by making it virtually impossible for anyone other than an orphan or 23-year-old to be considered independent financially from his parents. My mother had to take out PLUS loans, which amounted to 40% of the total I borrowed for four years of undergraduate study because the borrowing limits for me as the student were capped. (They still are.) So I ended up with only 60% of the debt from my 94.36% federal responsibility. My mother enjoyed debt totaling 700% of her responsibility.

But let’s continue pretending that turning private dealings over to the rule-making of government nannies works best.

I have no faith in my fellow Virginians

When the polls close November 7, 2006, I suspect I’m not going to appreciate my neighbors:

The state Senate all but guaranteed on Wednesday that Virginia will hold a November referendum on whether to amend its 230-year-old Bill of Rights to bar same-sex marriages.

The Senate voted 28 to 11 to follow the House of Delegates in approving the amendment. Though each chamber still must pass the measure adopted by the other, their wording is identical and support among the senators and delegates is strong.

There’s nothing new here, of course. Already codifying a ban on same-sex marriage and adding an additional, stricter law against binding personal relationship intentions through contracts wasn’t enough. Fine, Virginia, I get it. I live in a state full of anti-gay bigots who can’t see the reality that allowing same-sex marriage will mean nothing in your life other than a growing respect for equal treatment under civil law. (Hint: no one will force you, or your children, to marry anyone of the same sex. Shocking, I know.) But can’t you fathom the lunacy involved in modifying the Virginia Bill of Rights to impose the will of the majority on the minority? Or is this too hard to grasp:

The state Bill of Rights was last amended in 1996, when voters supported adding a section protecting the rights of crime victims. Although changes to the state constitution are common, the 1996 action was the only time the Bill of Rights has been amended since 1970, when voters ratified a new version of the constitution.
…

“The only place in the constitution to put this is in the Bill of Rights,” said Sen. Stephen D. Newman (R-Lynchburg). “There is currently no right in the United States, or certainly not in Virginia, for anything other than a marriage between one man and one woman.”

That’ll look real nice merged into Section 15 of the Virginia Bill of Rights (Qualities necessary to preservation of free government):

That no free government, nor the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles; and by the recognition by all citizens that they have duties as well as rights, and that such rights cannot be enjoyed save in a society where law is respected and due process is observed.

That free government rests, as does all progress, upon the broadest possible diffusion of knowledge, and that the Commonwealth should avail itself of those talents which nature has sown so liberally among its people by assuring the opportunity for their fullest development by an effective system of education throughout the Commonwealth.

From protecting victims to victimizing in ten years. Well done, Virginia.

When “W” is spelled “Hillary”

I’ve written about screwy incentives distorting health insurance before, but it’s apparently going to be in the news a lot in the next week as President Bush prepares to address the topic in his State of the Union address. As with most of his proposals over the last few years, I’m less than optimistic that he has the leadership fortitude to get real reform passed. At this point, I barely expect any reform to pass, even if it appeals to the misguided warm and fuzzy crowd. If this story is accurate, the president might test my least optimistic suspicion:

President Bush is weighing proposals for new tax breaks for health care costs, which will be a major topic of next week’s State of the Union address, a top economic adviser to the president said Tuesday.

“People are very, very frustrated about the cost of health care,” said Allan Hubbard, director of the National Economic Council.

Hubbard told reporters at USA TODAY and Gannett News Service that the tax code offers advantages when a company buys health coverage for its employees but doesn’t do the same for employees who have to buy coverage on their own.

Somehow I’m not surprised that the solution will be new tax breaks instead of fixing the underlying problem built into the tax code. One idea is to start taxing employer-provided health benefits, but President Bush and his economic team rejected that idea. But will the administration come up with a structural solution?

“The president’s very concerned about the unfairness of the tax code,” Hubbard said.
…

“Tax reform is not off the table,” Hubbard said. “At the same time, it doesn’t have the priority that health care does right now.”

The implied answer is clear: where it should be about tax reform, the answer is always targeted breaks. Apparently, President Bush has the courage to ease the symptoms. While it’s certainly possible that new tax breaks could alleviate the health care “crisis”, something new will appear in its place until the tax code is fixed. Remove the government from the pushing its “this is good for you” influence and let the free market decide.

Prior posts.

You are officially never invited to our game again.

Everyone knows by now that poker is exceptionally popular in America now. With an abundance of poker on television and easy availability of poker supplies such as clay chips, anyone can enjoy the game. Few laws seem to object to home games, but most still prohibit organized poker, whether it’s for profit or charity. No matter that it’s a “crime” between consenting players, it’s a vice and is restricted for our own good. Worse, with the growing popularity has come a crackdown.

Some areas are letting a little sense into their laws, but it’s too slow and for dubious reasons. Consider:

New York state Sen. John Sabini is pushing to allow bars or restaurants to host poker tournaments offering prizes such as Yankees tickets or a trip to Las Vegas.

Because players spend money on food and drinks, businesses would earn more, and “that would trickle down to the state,” Sabini says.

Sen. Sabini could, of course, focus on the concept that poker houses or casinos could generate profits themselves, which would then be taxable, rather than waiting for it to result in greater beer sales. The taxability should be an outcome and not the reason for decriminalization, but some victories aren’t quite so complete.

Alas, with the rise in nanny laws protecting people from themselves, the victory may also by Pyrrhic:

If gambling laws are relaxed, society should help those whose playing gets out of control, says Keith Whyte, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based National Council on Problem Gambling.

It’s not society’s responsibility to help. Private members of society are free to help all they want, but government society as I think is implied here should not. I shouldn’t be compelled to use my money and/or time, whether through new gambling taxes or personal ID checks, to prevent someone from being stupid. I know how to control my gambling. Don’t punish me because someone else can’t do the same.

An endorsement for poor leadership and government intrusion?

Skimming the news this morning, I came across this editorial. It’s about health care reform and an apparent coming push from President Bush in his State of the Union address. There are several angles to this, all of which the writer approaches. The whole piece is so discombobulated that I can only offer a few bits and try to make a little sense out of them, which is something I think the writer forgot. Consider this opening paragraph:

This time last year, President Bush was preaching Social Security reform; that got nowhere. This time six months ago, his team was thinking tax reform; it soon got cold feet. Now the new theme is health reform. “This is a big priority for the president,” Al Hubbard, the White House national economic adviser, told me Friday. “The system has got to be reformed.”

If that’s the path President Bush is going to pursue, there’s a lesson in how leaders (leadership in character, not title) behave. Flip-flopping around to every new issue, hoping to make a mark, only to abandon it when it becomes apparent that it might be challenging is not the mark of a good leader. A leader sets his course and then moves in the direction of its achievement. That clearly can’t be said of Social Security and tax reform, so I fail to see how health care will be different. But let’s continue:

Some look at the U.S. health mess and see a failure of the market, but the authors [R. Glenn Hubbard of Columbia University and John F. Cogan and Daniel P. Kessler of the Hoover Institution] insist that government clumsiness prevents the market from working. Modest tort reform would free doctors from practicing expensive defensive medicine. Tougher antitrust policies would prevent price-raising alliances among hospitals. Pruning mandates on health insurers — which often reflect lobbying by doctors’ groups — might free insurers to cover only the most cost-effective procedures.
…

Enter the authors’ really big idea — the one on which the White House is likely to build a story about its grand health-reform vision. To make the health market work, the trick is to create and then empower consumers. You create them by making individuals pay more out of pocket. And you empower them by forcing hospitals and doctors to publish information on quality and price.

As I read this I thought this plan might be a start. My experience backs up much of what they’re saying in some form. Essentially, I read this as a way to make the free market work. Wherever an obstacle exists, figure out a way to remove it. Mostly, I see the government’s role as removing governmental obstacles to free market success. Beyond that, a solution that involves individuals in making choices relavent to them is the most logical. One specific example I’ve offered in the past is breaking the paternalistic link between employer and health care. Mr. Hubbard seems to propose that with an imaginary scenario.

The idea appeals to Al Hubbard, a bluff, no-nonsense business type with a genial, uncomplicated style. Hubbard invited me to imagine a world in which companies paid for their staffs’ groceries: Employees would load up with more food than they needed; supermarkets would seize the chance to mark up groceries; pretty soon, they wouldn’t even bother posting their prices. So it is today with medicine. You don’t know the cost of your hospital visit until a few days later, when the bill arrives.

Too extreme an example? Possibly. Too far-fetched? I don’t think so. The writer goes on to explain a supposed weakness in this. I’m simplifying, but he posits that the system is too complex, whether for consumer intelligence or consumer knowledge for decision-making. Throw in a dose of “people won’t take care of themselves” if they have to pay for it, and the proposed outcome starts to take shape. The market works, but only if people are smart, which leads to this conclusion:

Beyond the imperative of restraining prices, the biggest challenges in health care are to get insurance to everyone and to create incentives for preventive treatment — even though prevention may pay off 30 years later, by which time the patient will have gone through multiple switches in health plans. The most plausible subsidizer of universal insurance is government, and the only entity with a stake in lifelong wellness is the government. Is the administration ready to see that?

Somehow we’ve gotten to a situation where waste, inefficiency, and bureaucratic largess resulted in a health care crisis in need of urgent reform. The logical conclusion is to hand that over to the government to eliminate those problems? Are we talking about the same government? The United States government? I would not have come to that conclusion, although I fear the Bush administration will. (See: prescription drug benefit) Right, great idea.