Government – Page 6 – Rolling Doughnut

Libertarianism is not keen to watch Rome burn.

I’ve long admired Balloon Juice because of John Cole’s insightful, considered analysis. He supported President Bush but was willing to change his mind when it became clear that Republicans had lost theirs. Then the Republicans became so despicable that he actively switched to endorsing Democrats. That didn’t bother me because I’ve voted that way most of my life. The change in Balloon Juice over the last six months or so, however, is closing in on unbearable. Like this, from yesterday:

At what point did the normally sane people at Hit and Run turn into the libertarian version of the Rush Limbaugh show? If I had to guess, I would have assumed they would think a bill of $400 billion in tax cuts and $400 or so billion in spending would at least be considered half good, but instead the reaction over there the past few weeks has made Malkin look restrained by comparison.

I will not be the first to defend Hit & Run because it tries to be – or is – too hip for me at times. Still, much of what I’ve read there during as the stimulus package loomed is best exemplified in this post by reason editor-in-chief Matt Welch [links in original]:

Why do people oppose the stimulus? Here are a few actual reasons: There is no strong evidence that stimuli work, and plenty of evidence that they don’t (a relevant consideration, no?). Like the deeply flawed PATRIOT Act, the deeply flawed Iraq War resolution, and the deeply flawed bank bailout, it is being rushed through the legislature in an atmosphere of pants-wetting crisis and presidential warnings of impending doom. It is filled with special interest giveaways, big-government featherbedding, and "Buy American" considerations that have about as much to do with stimulating an economy as playing violin has with putting out fires. By taking from fiscally responsible states (like South Carolina) and giving to fiscally irresponsible states (like California), it violates basic notions of fairness and creates still more moral hazard in an already hazardtastic universe. …

Basically.

Rather than explain further, Mr. Cole summarized my sentiments in a comment to his entry:

If you asked anyone who read me in 2004 and liked what they read and then read me today, they would tell you I am howling bugfuck insane now, so take that with a grain of salt.

I wouldn’t go quite that far because Mr. Cole still shows flashes of his earlier skepticism. But even if that was 100% true, his next paragraph gets to current mindset at Balloon Juice that’s difficult to read:

I mean, we all have principles we like to think we adhere to, but reality often seems to get in the way. I would love it if we could lower taxes, cut spending, and frugal our way out of this mess. I just don’t see how that is the answer.

Difficult times do not require that we stop being rational. A belief in limited government held at a time when the government is constantly expanding recklessly does not imply an unwillingness to deal with reality. If a person has a 50 pound cancerous tumor, the libertarian’s response is not to suggest she go about her day as if she doesn’t have cancer. Likewise, the solution to the government being too large is not to set the charges and implode it all at once. Americans have allowed (and encouraged) government to get so tangled up in daily life that a simple stop is not possible without disastrous consequences. Mr. Welch’s statement suggests how massive, unquestioned spending is not the answer.

That’s not to say that libertarians are perfect and have all the correct answers. Even if we have no other flaws, we often fail to suggest the map to limited government. I’m guilty of that, I’m sure, a problem I’m aware of when I blog. We all need to do better at selling the principle and how to get there.

However, the first step is to not make things worse. A $1 trillion deficit (and growing) is a very dangerous ploy. American history provides evidence of what can happen when government does and does not intervene. This is not sufficient to make a decision, but watch the way politicians are exclusively deploying fear to dismiss any need for analysis. It’s “do this or die”. They claim it doesn’t matter what we do, as long as we do something. Buying a pony for every American is something, but only the Pony Owners of America, the United Horse Food Producers, and the American Saddle Makers Association would think that’s a good idea. Unsurprisingly, that type of special interest giveaway is what we’re going to get. It’s not hysterical to call bullshit.

AIDS relief does not redefine moral behavior.

Although I largely ignore Michael Gerson’s columns because I know it’s going to be feel-good, big government social conservatism, I will defend him on one point from his column today defending ousted PEPFAR coordinator Dr. Mark Dybul and condemning the method of his ouster. Primarily, Gerson states:

A few radical “reproductive rights” groups — the fringe of a fringe — accused Dybul of advocating “abstinence only” programs in AIDS prevention. It was always a lie. Dybul consistently supported comprehensive prevention efforts that include abstinence, faithfulness and condom use — the approach that African governments themselves developed. …

I conducted a quick search to find proof on what I know about PEPFAR and found this quote from the New York Times, from December 14, 2006:

[Dr. Dybul] also warned that it was only one new weapon in the fight, adding, ”Prevention efforts must reinforce the A.B.C. approach — abstain, be faithful, and correct and consistent use of condoms.”

So Gerson’s point that Dr Dybul is being unfairly attacked on these grounds is accurate.

However, the “it” Dr. Dybul refers derives from the previous paragraph in the New York Times story, an angle I knew I’d find in my research.

Dr. Mark Dybul, executive director of President Bush’s $15 billion Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, said in a statement that his agency ”will support implementation of safe medical male circumcision for H.I.V./AIDS prevention” if world health agencies recommend it.

From PEPFAR’s male circumcision brief, updated January 2009, here is a sample of PEPFAR’s work:

In Zambia, PEPFAR continues to support a broad approach to prevention which includes male circumcision. Safe and effective medical male circumcision services are now provided at various sites to reduce new HIV infections and other sexually transmitted diseases. Working with the Ministry of Health, male circumcision is offered at the University Teaching Hospital in Lusaka and the General Hospital in Livingstone, as well as through satellite facilities. PEPFAR is also supporting training, public health evaluation on neonatal circumcision, and the development of comprehensive prevention messages to accompany medical male circumcision services. [emphasis added]

This is an action overseen by an individual Gerson describes as “a great humanitarian physician — a man of faith and conscience”. I have no reason to question the second claim, but one and three are demonstrably false.

I do not expect anything better from the Obama administration’s eventual pick to replace Dr. Dybul. Always remember that when public health officials talk about voluntary, adult male circumcision, they never mean voluntary, adult. Never.

Fifty x Incompetence = Competence

It’s time to pick up the national switch to digital television once again since Congress is determined to somehow fix the problem by expanding the flaws of the transition plan.

Key senators have reached a compromise on a bill that would delay the nation’s switch to all-digital television from next month until June 12. A vote on the legislation is expected early next week.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Commerce Committee, has been working with ranking member Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.), to draft legislation that also would give consumers more access to coupons for the converter boxes needed to continue receiving broadcasts.

Congress set the deadline years ago, yet that wasn’t enough. Four more months will fix it, even though a trip into any electronics store will reveal more than enough converters. Obviously that isn’t the problem. The supply is there. But the price isn’t right, hence more “free” coupons. Why should anyone doubt this will be solved by June 12th?

That’s not my point, though. This is:

“The shameful truth is that we are not poised to do this transition right,” Rockefeller said in a statement. “We are only weeks away from doing it dreadfully wrong — and leaving consumers with the consequences.”

The “shameful truth” is that Congress can’t manage a transition to digital television that will cost the government (i.e. us) less than $2 billion. The outcome will be “dreadfully wrong”. This is standard operating procedure. But don’t anyone worry about the ongoing bailouts of banks and consumers. There will be no shameful truth in how Congress spends $1 trillion. Borrowing always solves a spending problem. Consumers will get only benefits there, we’re told.

It takes an active commitment to ignorance to trust Congress and the President. I can think of no other explanation.

Creating a Market in Coupons for Dead Technology

For those who can’t wait to have government take over health care and make it super fantastical and free, maybe another example will demonstrate the fallacy of this idea. The ongoing stupid party surrounding the subsidization of television as a right inherent in Congressional action protecting consumers from the forced national conversion to digital television continues with a new twist: Consumers have already demanded more $40 coupons than Congress authorized.

As of this past Sunday, consumers who request a $40 coupon to help offset the cost of a converter box are being placed on a waiting list. They may not receive the coupons before Feb. 17, when full-power television stations will shut off traditional analog broadcasts and transmit only digital signals.

Members of Congress are now scrambling to find ways to allocate more money to the program.

“We saw a massive spike in coupons in the past six weeks,” said Meredith Atwell Baker, head of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, an agency within the Commerce Department that runs the coupon program. She said a record 7.2 million coupons were ordered in December, while the agency was expecting roughly 4 million requests. She urged consumers to make sure at least one television set is ready for the transition, with or without a coupon.

The government guessed incorrectly in its attempt to centrally plan the American television viewing method and failed to fund nearly half the unsurprising demand. When something is “free” (i.e. offered below market value), consumers will demand the service or good more than they would at the market price. Who knew? Yet, Congress is competent to predict exactly how many doctors we need? It can accurately predict how many maternity beds we need?

“[NTA has] left us precious little time to respond,” said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass), chairman of the House Commerce subcommittee on telecommunications and the Internet. “They’ve created a mess by not admitting that there was not sufficient funding until the very last minute. So now we’re looking for creative ways of solving the problem.”

Perhaps if the market could respond to a signal as clear as rising demand, the price could rise to compensate for a finite supply. Nope. Just get in line and pray enough coupons expire. Or find more money for every critical demand, since every demand is critical. Somewhere.

It’s clear that Congress doesn’t understand the inevitable, arbitrary rationing that results when artificial demand intersects with finite supply. But health care will be different. Somehow.

———-

Want to know why I’m not a big fan of consumer advocacy groups?

“NTIA is going to stop processing coupons precisely at the time when people need them the most,” said Joel Kelsey, policy analyst for Consumers Union. “Whatever Congress decides to do, it needs to be done as soon as possible to help people through this complicated transition,” he said.

When people need them most. Congress is throwing money around recklessly, with a potential $1,000,000,000,000 deficit for the fiscal year, and we’re discussing television as a need worthy of public subsidy. There is no way to advocate for that, unless the system is broken.

Netflix $1 Blu-ray Fee Increase Crisis Watch

The Benevolent Giver of Rescue must be very, very busy with all the bailouts. It’s been 47 days since I demanded my fair share of Free Money. Have I received a response from my (outgoing) Congressman? Nope. He must be very, very busy. But I’m sure I’m somewhere in the queue for Free Money.

Remember, it’s not my fault I bought a Blu-ray drive or that I expected more expensive movies to cost the same in the mail-order rental business. With up to $7,000,000,000,000 in Free Money being discussed, I’m sure the government can figure out a way to give me $1 per month so I can continue enjoying Blu-ray rentals from Netflix.

I hope so, because the $1 per month increase kicked in. I’m not sure how much longer I can hold out.

Libertarians diagnose with open eyes.

David Z at …no third solution has a smart post today, titled If You Subsidize It…, about moral hazard in the context of Hurricane Katrina. He concludes:

…we can’t content ourselves to argue, “A free market would’ve built better levees!” when the reality is that a free market might never have built any levees in the first place.

This is exactly right. Maybe participants in a free market would build there. No one else is competent to judge another’s preference. Perhaps he really does like the ocean view in California that much more than the risk of wildfires (or earthquakes). And he’s willing to bear the costs. That’s his own rational, if not objective, decision-making.

This is part of my core knowledge that a limited government is the maximum – not some theoretical, unworkable minimum – to which we should strive. One complaint I see lodged against libertarians is that we don’t have ideas on how to run things instead, that we only offer complaints about what’s wrong. Of course. It’s entirely true, and the explanation against that attack is so obvious in the argument that to defend it is to elevate the oblivious to an unearned legitimacy.

I’ll make an attempt anyway. We can judge from facts that something does or, with government, doesn’t work. We make that judgment. We also realized that the answer isn’t necessarily to complete a task better. Perhaps the answer is, as David suggests, to not do the task. Individuals operating in their own self-interest are far likelier to discover that than the collective need to Do Something that mingles diligently with a world devoid of accountability for mistakes. No thing can ever be wrong, it is merely not yet achieved. People who invest their own time and money are much less prone to such silly observations about their own infallibility.

So, when I complain about single-payer health care, for example, I’m not saying I know what the solution is. I don’t. I know that I understand basic economics. I know I don’t know anything about operating a health insurance plan. Economics tells me one option, the Free Pony Plan, isn’t feasible. But I trust that there are smart people who understand economics and operating health insurance plans. They see the possibility of profit deriving from their knowledge and effort, so they seek to achieve the goal. There will be bumps regardless of the activity because we haven’t found perfect humans, but what we want will eventually happen. Injecting government only changes and removes natural incentives by replacing them with those inspired by nothing stronger than a hope for happy feelings. And run by non-perfect humans.

Stealing from another is not compassionate to the robbed.

I didn’t watch the debate on Wed. night, so I have little background to understand the context of Senator McCain’s discussion of abortion beyond what I read from various people who live-blogged the debate. That is admittedly incomplete. From what I can piece together, this blog entry at Flotsam (link via Dooce) is an excellent rebuttal to McCain’s attitude. But I wish to point out one flaw in the entry:

McCain states that he would deal with the issue of abortion with “courage and compassion.” I quote: “the courage of a pregnant mother to bring her child into the world and the compassion of civil society to meet her needs and those of her newborn baby.” As if terminating my pregnancy would be the easy way out, the way not requiring his precious “courage.” As if dictating my medical care based upon his religious beliefs is compassionate. And I find it interesting to note that his “compassion” for this newborn does not extend to guaranteeing it health insurance.

First, McCain is pandering on abortion. I do not believe he cares. He’s trying to secure the Republican base with a few well-rehearsed lies. That makes him a scumbag, but for his pandering, not his position.

More importantly, the issue at stake is the right to control one’s own body, an issue I care deeply about. As much as I personally do not like abortion, I recognize that this is the issue involved. That matters as a principle of individual liberty. I believe it’s incomplete as an absolute when considering abortion, but not in a self-evident, attack-proof manner. It’s a complicated issue that will never be clear enough for a definitive policy. Therefore, we must err on the side of the individual with the clearer claim. Restrictions based on science are not abhorrent, but abortion should be legal, generally.

I do not get how that right to control one’s own body creates a right to have someone else provide material support (i.e. money for medical insurance) to care for the child. If a woman and her partner make the choice to have a child, it’s their obligation to support the child. In not guaranteeing health insurance, McCain is correct. His stated position is more logically consistent in that he’s saying people choosing to have children are responsible for everything involved, from start to finish, which is different from this blogger’s apparent belief that individual’s are responsible for the good (children, yay!), while society is responsible for at least some of the bad (health care expenses, boo!). No. This is a cheap straw man.

McCain is wrong on abortion. Attack that. He is cruel because he uses air quotes where compassion and understanding are necessary. Attack that. But he is not cruel because he won’t offer “free” health insurance.

The only time I’ll (mockingly) use Sarah Palin’s folksy fraud.

This is old, but I still want to write about it. In the lead up to the bailout bill, executive compensation caught fire as an issue. It’s something shiny because the numbers can be large. It’s also convenient because it enables partisans to avoid the complex discussion of causes and factors that might implicate them as part of the problem. From Ezra Klein (via Andrew Sullivan.):

One quick point on the bailout negotiations: The Democrats are making a big deal over limits on executive compensation. Such limits are nice, but in the context of this crisis, utterly meaningless. If Democrats extract concessions such that CEOs can be paid a lot of money rather than an obscene sum of money, but are unable to add provisions protecting homeowners, they will have lost, and lost badly.. Limits to executive compensation are a feel-good provision with little real world relevance or impact, and while it would be nice to have them in the bill, no one should be fooled into thinking them a high-level priority, nor believing that a compromise where compensation limits feature as a key Democratic boast suggests anything other than a total collapse in the negotiations.

This is why I’m not a partisan. I can’t (correctly) dismiss a provision as little more than a quest for happy feelings and then suggest that the provision should be in the legislation anyway because I want those happy feelings. There are real principles and, more importantly, real people involved.

In Mr. Klein’s defense, that isn’t quite enough evidence to support my argument, nor am I implicating him beyond that sentiment. Rather, nonsensical rhetoric from Senator Obama on the proposals then under consideration is a perfect example. (Mr. Klein sourced this without a link, which I tracked down.)

First, the plan must include protections to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not used to further reward the bad behavior of irresponsible CEOs on Wall Street. There has been talk that some CEOs may refuse to cooperate with this plan if they have to forgo multi-million-dollar salaries. I cannot imagine a position more selfish and greedy at a time of national crisis. And I would like to speak directly to those CEOs right now: Do not make that mistake. You are stewards for workers and communities all across our country who have put their trust in you. With the enormous rewards you have reaped come responsibilities, and we expect and demand that you to live up to them. This plan cannot be a welfare program for Wall Street executives.

This is collectivist crap. Executives are stewards for the shareholders. Their responsibility is to run the business according to the goals of the owners, which is presumably to earn profit. Sometimes this goes badly. The owners should learn to write better compensation contracts for the future if they dislike their current results.

The political side is irrelevant, but Congress doesn’t think so. Where contracts exist, including for ~~excessive~~ subjective adjective compensation, government has a responsibility to honor the binding nature for all parties (i.e. not the politicians). Where politicians don’t like the contracts they’re buying, they should not buy the contracts. (They shouldn’t buy them, regardless. I’m sticking with the bailout line of reasoning.) Bitching that J. Dom Pérignon should suffer to make Joe Six-Pack feel better is obscene. If you need your schadenfreude, don’t bail J. Dom Pérignon out of his mess.

I’d question why we can’t agree on this, but I realize that punishing J. Dom Pérignon is more about implementing more regulation. The happy feelings are the bonus.

Age Discrimination: Patient and Doctor Edition

Here’s a story that taps my two main interests:

A MEMBER of the Bagisu Cultural Board has proposed that the retirement age for the circumcision surgeons (Bakhebi) be set at 60 years if their sight is still good.

He said this would minimise the accidents that occur during the operation. John Musila made the remarks at a consultative workshop on the promotion of safe male circumcision in the era of HIV/AIDS, held at Communications Centre hall in Mbale town on Saturday.

I’ll take the paragraphs in reverse order. As for reducing accidents during circumcision, clearly not performing circumcisions would be most effective. Again, I do not care what an adult chooses for himself (or herself). But that’s not what we’re ultimately discussing with this story. When introducing the HIV topic, we inevitably move from voluntary, adult circumcision to involuntary, child circumcision. Making the latter safer is better, but it is barely an ethical improvement.

Now I’ll assume only that we’re talking about voluntary, adult circumcision. In considering the libertarian implication of the age restriction, I’ll also assume the legitimacy of the state licensing the medical profession¹. Obviously it’s irrational to have a blind doctor. But what does age have to do with it? A 30-year-old doctor can go blind and a 75-year-old doctor can retain all of her capabilities. The test is competence, not arbitrary lines the may or may not lead us to a good result most of the time.

This is similar to suggesting that we must prohibit medically unnecessary circumcision, unless it’s imposed on children to meet their parents’ religion. There is no principle involved. In the scenario in the story, if the doctor is competent, no needless limits should be placed on him to prevent him from engaging in his profession. He must be free to trade his services to a willing customer.

¹ My default position on this low-priority issue is an endorsement of something close to our status quo.

Restrict Employer Choices, Have Fewer Employers

BusinessWeek has a debate today on the Employee Free Choice Act, which is up for consideration before Congress. I’m against based on the very little information I know. Essentially, the pro and con between Rep. George Miller (D-CA) and Home Depot co-founder Bernard Marcus provides the bulk of my knowledge. If Rep. Miller’s rhetoric sufficiently corresponds to what the Act would do, I’m against it because Rep. Miller demonstrates that he only recognizes rights that are convenient for his partisanship.

(Note: I’m not advocating the opposite of his view. Rather, I believe the relationship between employers and employees must be voluntary and mutual. I am not qualified to set all rules for all exchanges. No one is.)

To Rep. Miller’s essay:

Unfortunately, in recent years, the middle-class life has become increasingly difficult to maintain. Workers’ wages have stagnated as the cost of everything from milk to college tuition has skyrocketed. The staples of a middle-class life—a fair wage, access to health care, a sound retirement—are getting squeezed. The percentage of national income going to workers’ wages is at its lowest level since 1929, while the percentage of our nation’s wealth going to corporate profits is at its highest since the 1940s.

I’m a skeptic; I want data where Rep. Miller provides anecdote. He’s a politician, so I never expect to see it. But, for fun, I’ll assume he’s telling the truth. If “national” income is now being directed to corporate profits rather than to workers, then workers should become investors. They will claim “their” share of the “national” income.

Continuing:

The Employee Free Choice Act would fix this broken system so workers can freely exercise their right to organize. It would do three things. First, it would allow workers to use a majority sign-up process to form their union, without their employer vetoing that choice. Second, it would increase penalties on employers who violate workers’ rights. Third, it would ensure that, once workers form a union, collective bargaining leads to a first contract—not delay and more union busting.

Focusing on point two: what penalties do we have on employees who violate employers’ rights? (I refuse to concede Rep. Miller’s ridiculous use of employer/worker rather than the objective employer/employee.) To demonstrate what I mean by this, Rep. Miller later writes this:

If these advantages aren’t enough, an employer can fire a pro-union worker to make its point, or threaten to close the business down if workers vote the wrong way, without facing more than a slap on the wrist. At the end of this process, the NLRB holds an election on the employer’s premises.

Employees have rights, but employers do not. At least, they do not have the right to shut down their business if one of the inputs (labor) is not to their liking. That’s absurd. Rights belong to the individual, not groups. But if they applied to groups, all groups would have rights, not just the groups who agree with us. Starting a business is not an agreement to perpetuate the business beyond the owner’s desire to continue it. The Employee Free Choice Act seems to suggest that the ultimate decision in running a business – whether or not to continue – becomes the sole discretion of employees. This is a blatant violation of one individual’s rights to satisfy another’s (claimed) rights.

This is not any democracy that most Americans would recognize as such. Yet this is the system that opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act want to preserve. Another process exists. If an employer allows it, as some major companies already do, workers can avoid the conflict-ridden NLRB process and form a union by signing cards, the same way you might form a civic association. When a majority has signed up, the employer recognizes the union.

Unfortunately, current law allows employers to veto the use of this freer majority sign-up process—and they do. The Employee Free Choice Act would simply take this veto power away from the employer and restore the democratic principle of free choice to the workplace.

The right for an employer to determine that she will employ individuals on the condition that they deal with them individually rather than collectively – the employer’s freedom of (voluntary) association – is subject to the whim of the majority. Remember that potential and current employees for any organization can always refuse to continue providing their services. If the employer is unable to find enough people willing to agree to her terms, she will either offer better terms or go out of business. This is the freedom of association perpetuated by natural incentives for cooperation that need no encouragement from government. Rep. Miller’s advocacy for the Employee Free Choice Act shows his misunderstanding of the American concept of individual rights.