Walker Wins Recall, Does It Matter?

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (R) has won the country's third ever gubernatorial recall election, defeating union-supported democratic challenger Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett. Interestingly, this was the first time in the United States' history that a recall has not resulted in the success of the challenger. This speaks a few things to me. The first calls me to question the legitimacy of the recall. Obviously the voters of Wisconsin did not think that Walker has done such a terrible job (with 94% of precincts reporting, Walker lead by a 9 point margin (54%-45%, I think it's worth noting that Walker only won by a 5 point margin in 2010), after all, according to the state Department of Revenue, the state should boast $275.1 million surplus by June 30 of this year and a $154.5 million surplus by June 30, 2013. The other way in which the aforementioned statistic speaks to me is that Wisconsin, like much of the country, is incredibly polarized. Clearly this margin of victory was no landslide; many have strong feelings in both directions on many issues, including the debate over the appropriateness of unionized labor and its power.

Both sides of the political spectrum have been speculating over the importance of this election--what does it mean for November? I've heard many say that this recall election could be a big momentum swing for November or at the very least will be indicative of how the country as a whole feels. We all knew whoever the loser was--the media outlet on his side would surely shrug it off, even if the same person claimed the election was significant prior to knowing the results. Well unfortunately, this recall was primarily about one issue, where the issues that shape the results in November are a melting pot of problems primarily consisting of the economy, gas prices, and unemployment. However, we must also keep in mind that Wisconsin is very much so a blue-collar state, with heavy union influence. It's not much to say that the Boston Celtics beat the Heat in game 5, however it would be noticeable if my high school team beat the Miami Heat. Okay, maybe Walker wasn't that big of an under dog, but the point being is that I think it shows the truth; number don't lie, and his policies (whether you agree with them or not), have helped Wisconsin with a debt problem, something that New York State could afford to take some notes on. However Romney, (to my knowledge) has made no plans to tackle public-sector unions like Walker has, his policies and the policies of Walker are not a perfect match, and in an election atmosphere where independent voters turn the tables, it is important to keep in mind that many independents vote on issues pertinent to their daily lives. My diagnosis: this recall victory for Walker has little impact on the presidential election in November.

Nanny of the Month Award Goes To: Mayor Bloomberg

Politicians love to pretend that they care about you, but in reality all they care about is re-election and special interests. This month's Nanny Award goes to Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City, who thinks that it's government's role to end the obesity epidemic in the United States. 


Mayor Bloomberg, who recently proposed a ban on soft drinks sold in containers larger than 16 ounces, appeared on MSNBC to discuss with Andrea Mitchell his ban, stating, "The idea here is, you tend to eat all the food in the container in front of you. If it’s a bigger container, you eat more. If somebody put it in a smaller glass or plate or bowl in front of you, you would eat less.” Bloomberg also made the point that this does not solve obesity, nor is this the sole root of the problem, but that, "We have an obligation to warn you when things are not good for your health.”


Similar to other nannies, Bloomberg believes that big brother government can solve all of the woes of the world; that individual people are too stupid, too naive, to make this kind of decision for themselves. His logic, to my understanding, is that if individuals want to drink more soda, then they must make the conscious effort to buy another can or bottle, because the ban places no restrictions on the individual to buy the soda, solely on the vendor to sell the size of container. 


There are already nutrition facts on every food product out there. Taking it to the next step, as if people cannot read it for themselves, Bloomberg wants to end the sale of large soft drinks. It is a slippery slope my friends, and it is only a matter of time until our old friend the sugar-tax on soda rears it's ugly head, or the government wants to implement calorie/sugar restrictions. You're too stupid to make healthy life choices for yourself. But hey! Now that every one has/will have health insurance this is a good thing! We can stop paying for everyone that needs a triple bypass because they've been too busy drinking soda daily. 


Unfortunately, we are moving in the wrong direction. More big government only yields more big government. Our government believes that the solutions to our problems are to tighten the collar on individuals, restricting freedom, and as more and more universal services are offered, this will only get worse. Politicians in office believe that in order to get things accomplished, they must put in place more rules and regulations, but to me, a good politician repeals and vetoes more often than proposes and passes. 

ADA's New Mandate

Everyone wants to help those who are less fortunate. This rings true whether it be the poor, the sick, or the disabled. However when government gets involved unintended consequences emerge, often more harmful and outweighing the good that was intended. Then what happens? Anybody who opposes these laws and regulations who are intended to help people (but in reality don't) are labeled as "selfish"or "heartless." This results in ineffective laws standing; it is my firm belief that politicians ought to spend more time looking into how laws and regulations play out, rather than how they sound. 

The Americans with Disabilities Act is a prime example of good-intended legislation that has had a multitude of negative consequences. A few weeks ago, the Obama Administration placed a 60-day extension on the mandate most recently placed under that law. The mandate? Every pool that is open to the public most install a lift for those in wheelchairs so that they can safely be placed in the pool. This sounds great, now all the "disabled" will be able to safely enter the pool. What monster would oppose such a concept?

I do. My primary grievance comes as soon as I see the word "mandate." Anytime the government has to dictate what a private business can or can't do, it will inhibit the business owner, otherwise, if it was good for the business, I'm sure the business in question would already be doing it. But let me clear the smoke by laying out what the legislation actually entails. The mandate says that all pools open to the public (public pools, private pools, hotel-owned pools, etc.) must install a lift for individuals bound to wheelchairs that lifts them out of their wheelchairs and places them into  the pool. The Obama Administration recognizes that these lifts can cost several thousands of dollars (the estimates I've seen range from 3000-5000 dollars), so they offer a 5,000 dollar tax-credit to any of the pool-owners willing to comply, and if architectural work or renovating needs to be done, then the business will be granted a 10,000 dollar tax credit per year. However problems emerge because of how vague the mandate is, it does not constitute what will count as an acceptable lift. This type of law-ambiguity can easily result in a lawsuit which will ultimately cost the business owner much more. In fact, critics of the mandate say that one reason this legislation was imposed is due to the affiliation of trial lawyers to the Obama campaign, the same group that contributed $45 million to his 2008 campaign. As a result, many hotel owners who fear that they will not be able to comply with the mandate are closing down their pools. Now everybody loses. 

Legislation like this is intended to help the "disabled," to level the playing field. But I fear this legislation doesn't really help the "disabled." For several years of my life growing up, I was a member of a private pool for public use, which is where I met Stacy (Stacy is not her real name). Stacy had suffered a stroke early in her twenties, resulting in partial-paralysis of the left side of her body. She walks with an unnatural gait and wears a brace on her left leg, and surely qualifies as one of the 36 million Americans considered to be disabled. However, she is a fantastic swimmer, and would surely beat me in a swimming race. Does that make me "disabled?" The term disabled itself is degrading, because while those who are called "disabled" may suffer physical complications, they may excel at something else. My mom's father was stricken with cataracts at age seven and was totally blind by the age of nine. He got by just fine with the love and support of my grandmother, and his trusty seeing eye dog. He didn't need government's pity. 

Government's laws intended for good do nothing more than make the less fortunate subordinated and dependent.  I have no problem if the pool-owner puts in a wheelchair lift due to the request of customers, but the government mandating such is wrong. Vague rules invite lawsuits, which, even if the pool-owner wins, the time and money spent in trial is surely no victory. 

Gun Popularity Rises; I Feel Safer

We all have that initial thought, "more guns means more violence." It's intuitive that more guns in our society means the higher chance that some wacko starts shootin' up the place. I mean imagine if everyone had a gun, our society would turn into the wild west, a place of lawlessness that hardly is associated with a safe public.

However, time and time again, it's been shown through research and polling that more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, means less crime. Perhaps the most conclusive study (and most frequently cited) was the one conducted by John Lott from the University of Chicago Law School in 1996, which examined all 3,054 counties in the United States and conducted over an 18 year period (1977-1994), determined that there is a negative correlation between violent crimes committed and gun permits issued. Why is this?

Criminals are cowards. Just like the middle school playground bullies, criminals rely on power over the weaker, whether this mean physical size, strength in numbers, or a deadly weapon. By allowing more law-abiding citizens to possess firearms--and even carry them on their person, cripples the criminals' advantage. Even if you have no desire to own a firearm, the laws that allow for concealed-carry benefit you as well, because criminals do not know who is or isn't armed.

But what about schools? Surely the last thing we in society should do is to grant hormonal, drunken college kids the ability to purchase and carry firearms around campus. However there is evidence that also supports the contrary, as reported by the not-so-conservative Boston Globe in the article "A Safer Society with Guns." The article explains that the Colorado Supreme Court struck down the firearms-ban at Colorado University, which was followed by an outcry of terror by some. And I can't blame them, as pro-gun as I am, I even have uneasy feelings about letting college kids carry firearms on them around campus. As a hopeful future neuroscience major, it's easy for me to point out that the pre-frontal cortex, the area of the brain responsible for executive function and decision making, is the last part of the brain to fully develop, which does not happen until the average person's mid-20's. With that said, bad decisions are often made by college-age kids, and the thought of college kids making bad decisions with a firearm is morbid. Add alcohol to the mix and that is a recipe for disaster. However, the article then went on to say that Colorado State University, which allows for students to possess and carry firearms on campus, has experienced a crime rate drop of nearly 60 percent since 2004, whereas Colorado University has experienced a crime rate increase of 35 percent in the same time frame. This research was conducted by the independent think-tank The Cato Institute. Many also point out that college students are sitting ducks without guns, as the nation watched in horror as national news outlets covered the tragedy at Virginia Tech. Many large universities (Virginia Tech included), have their own campus police department. This is to provide safety for the students, however, even on campus police can be minutes away, and when a crisis emerges, a minute can be the difference between a shooter killing a dozen people, and a shooter killing no one.

I cannot end this post without discussing the most recent tragedy of the shooting of Trayvon Martin. Trayvon, a 17 year old black male went to the store, while walking back he was approached, shot, and killed by George Zimmerman, an appointed neighborhood watch captain, with a handgun. Trayvon was not armed, and Zimmerman's reasoning was due to "suspicious activity." Zimmerman pleaded self-defense, which, by all accounts seems very unlikely. This story has swept the nation within the last few days, and I'm sure many gun-control advocates will cite this story as a reason to ban guns. I would like to point out that stories such as these are far more likely to get reported. The number of attacks thwarted by the use of guns by law-abiding citizens ranges widely based off of reports, which is understandable, because people are not likely to report a crime that "almost happened." Unfortunately, "Robbers scared off by gun owner" is not a very exciting headline for media outlets, so it is easy to see all of the harm guns do.

Banning guns doesn't stop the bad guys from getting guns, like everything else that is illegal, if somebody wants to get it, they will, through the black market. All gun bans do is stop the law-abiding citizens, the ones who will use their firearms for self-defense, from equipping themselves with protection, while allowing criminals and thugs to prey on them. As gun sales continually increase across the country, I feel safer and safer. I only hope that one day all states, as our Constitution intends, allow for the concealed carry of firearms.

Government Lies: An Easy Guide to Deceiving the Public

            Politicians always promise new things to the people, most recently it was “free” healthcare, other times it may be price ceilings or controlling supply to keep prices low. However some politicians are just as good of actors as the Hollywood celebrities, especially President Obama, who makes his living off of looking into the camera and selling a speech that he most likely did not write, straight from the teleprompter. You may argue that this is irrelevant but it’s much easier to deceive the American public when you are not using your own words. This comfort of President Obama looking into the camera creates a feeling that he is connecting with you personally, and I can only wonder as to how many votes he secured solely based off of this. What’s the key for these politicians? Proper word-usage.

            President Obama is famous for this one: investment. It’s not increased spending because those words have a negative connotation, nobody wants to “increase spending” when the government is quickly racking up a large debt. Another one Mr. Obama loves to use is “increase revenue” which is merely a sly way of saying raising taxes. Frank Luntz, a Fox News pollster said one that Republicans dropped the ball on was “Drill baby, drill!” He points out that this too has a negative association, with dirty black oil oozing out of the ground. Instead, he says they should have used the term “energy exploration.” Unfortunately, there exist very few politicians left who say what they mean and mean what they say.

            President Obama, at the most recent State of the Union address, claimed: “We’ve already agreed to more than two trillion dollars in cuts and savings.” Wow! That’s great! The current federal budget is roughly four trillion, so that means cutting government in half, that’s fantastic, this guy is like freaking Jefferson! Well unfortunately, that’s not even close to the truth. He says he has agreed to two trillion in cuts, but that only means two trillion in proposed increases, not in real cuts. To quote Dan Mitchell from the Cato Institute, “…what if I came to you and said, I’ve been on a diet for the last month and I’ve gained ten pounds! Isn’t that great? You would say, woah, what are you talking about? And I said no, no, I was going to gain fifteen pounds, but I only gained ten, therefore my diet is successful.” This is the exact type of manipulation of words with which politicians have become so adept, and the media eats it up, and regurgitates it to the mindless public.

            Another manipulation occurs when a president tries to pass new legislation or start a new war that will increase spending. For example, the Bush administration projected the war in Iraq to cost between 50-60 billion dollars, so far the cost totals over 800 billion dollars. When Medicare was created in 1990, the government projected a 9 billion dollar cost, whereas the actual cost thus far is about $67 billion. According to Dan Mitchell, this is because politicians “low-ball” numbers and/or do not account for the change in demand for the government hand-out, which is of course intentional. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which keeps track of the federal government’s spending, originally gave Obamacare a price-tag of $940 billion over ten years. Which, according to Obama, pales in comparison with the money spent overseas in Afghanistan and Iraq (because you know, two wrong make a right, especially if the Republicans wrong is worse). However, the CBO just announced that the new healthcare law would now cost 1.76 trillion over the ten years, a small miscalculation of—you know, a mere $820 billion.

            Politicians will continually employ these techniques, whether it’s to push for an unfavorable war or conflict, or whether it’s to jam legislation through Congress. Next time you hear a politician talk about new “investments” or “revenue increases”, shake your head, and remember that you can always write him/her nasty e-mails telling him/her what a scam-artist he/she is. 

Government Theft: Eminent Domain

What's yours is yours, because thou shall not steal, right? Well, not exactly. At least if government is the perp, that is not always the case. For those of you who have not heard the term "eminent domain", it means that your private property, your house, camp, whatever--are all truly owned by the state and that if need be, they can be repossessed by the state for sale or destruction in times of extreme necessity or if the central planners determine that the repossessing of your property is ultimately for the public good (some states use the term "appropriation").

Let me give you an example. You have just received a notice from the government that your current home  in which you were born and raised is going to be demolished in order to build a new strip mall. You are reassured that you will be refunded the market value of your house and are given six months to pack up and move out. However, to many, houses are more than just objects like a TV or computer, a house often has sentiment attached to it and now the government is offering you some price based on property value to get you out on their schedule.

But wait! That's my house! I paid for it!

No, no, silly, you only think you own it, but the reality is, the state of New York owns your four bedroom, two and a half bathroom paradise, not you. Plus think of all of the nice tax-money we'll get to make now from all of the incoming businesses! Plus, all of the new stores in the strip mall will create jobs, and if it expands maybe even could lower property taxes in the town because of all the revenue we make! This will help everyone!

This type of nonsense does happen, like in the town of New London, Connecticut, where a host of houses in a neighborhood were demolished against the will of the landowners in order to build a new Pfizer plant (what a surprise, a drug company with political pull). But here's the kicker, after the houses were demolished, the big shots at Pfizer decided they didn't want to build a plant there anymore, oops. This is another example of government failure, businesses are going to want to expand, and any type of handout from the government that they can get, they will take, in this case Pfizer was getting the land for free and huge tax abatements.

Government agencies, particularly the ones steered by the radical environmentalists, also are guilty of abusing eminent domain and disregarding property rights. In January, the EPA declared that the air quality of Matagorda county in Texas was sub-par and that the must halt new business and construction until the air-quality reaches a level that the EPA deems acceptable. All this, despite the fact that the agency in charge of environmental protection of Texas disagrees, citing a decline in both population and emissions in recent years, however the people of the county are at the mercy of the bureaucrats in Washington of the EPA and are unable to pursue business ventures or new construction until the county emission standards raise (I have a lot more to say about the EPA, they will get their own post).

A free society should never have property rights infringed upon, and is a staple if the people of the United States are to retain the freedoms granted by The Constitution. Thankfully, a bi-partisan bill was introduced last year "Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2011" to help protect the liberties guaranteed to Americans under The Constitution.

Why Free Market Medicine Works

Recently, President Obama signed into law "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act", also known as "Obamacare." While many Americans do not agree with it, President Obama suggested that it was a law that would grow on even Republicans, and one that the whole nation would eventually get behind. However, Republicans have yet to get behind it with almost all calling for its repeal. Other than the obvious un-Constitutionality of the mandate, many Americans also have come to realize that government involvement in medicine will be terrible. As I don't like to play the parties game, it's fair to point out that government has been involved in medicine since 1943, when it first allowed insurance provided by employers tax-free. This trend continued with programs such as medicare, medicaid, social security, and now Obamacare.

You just graduated from college and are an extremely well qualified employee, graduating at the top of your class with much internship experience. Shortly after applying for jobs you hear back from a few businesses that are interested in what you can bring to the table. After discussing your salary and benefits with two of your potential future employers, you discuss benefits with the third. Yearly paid vacation? Sounds good. But no insurance coverage?! Is this guy out of his damn mind? Instead he offers you a Health Savings Account (HSA). He says that every year he will donate $500 dollars to your account, with which you can do whatever you want. Don't need to spend the money the first year? Great, because it builds up, so now for year two, you have $1000 dollars in the account. No insurance, no hassle.

What does that have to do with free-market medicine?

1) Many doctors love the system just fine the way it was. A lot of people who make doctor's office visits have insurance, so the patients just hand the receptionist their insurance cards and carry on. This allows the doctors to charge whatever they want, and then pass the cost on to the insurance companies. However, insurance companies are also in it for a profit, so they will then pass the cost on to the customers. This results in rising premiums and is part of the reason health care is so expensive. Now, with the mandate, since everyone is required by law to have health insurance, this problem is only going to get worse. HSAs would force doctors to compete, lowering prices, while increasing the quality of care. When was the last time you went to your doctor's office and asked: How much for a physical? If more patients did this and shopped around for the best combination of cheap/quality doctor, this would force doctors to expand care, give patients more bang for their buck and lower their overall prices. Prices adjusted for inflation have fallen in several markets while improving the quality of goods, with the exception of the car, where the price adjusted for inflation remains the same or slightly higher, however one must take into account that the cars nowadays do a lot more than the Model-T (GPS, OnStar, air-conditioning, anti-lock brakes, etc.), I digress.

2) HSAs would also encourage people to live a healthier life style. If I am given $500 dollars in my account yearly, maybe I won't go for medical care every time I get a bump on my arm. This is my own money that I'm dealing with here, maybe I should start eating healthier, exercising and getting more sleep. After all, I don't want to exhaust the money in my HSA. Now, I can foresee the argument,  "What if someone is diagnosed with cancer and has tens of thousands of dollars in costs for treatment, and they don't have enough money in their HSA?" Well, a valuable employee is worth more to a company than the cost of the loss of a valuable employee, so in cases such as these, the employee/employer can work something out. Too many people think of a free-market as static, where if you don't have enough money to afford health care, you simply rot in the street. The employer can easily work something out with the employee, as can the hospital, and donations from friendly neighbors are always an option. Doctors have taken a hippocratic oath to help the sick, and by all means, most good doctors will. Why? Because if they don't the news can spread like wild fire, and there you see another benefit of the free-market: consumer choice.

HSAs are the most viable free-market option to health care and give the best results while lowering prices. They keep doctors honest, and can help to make for a healthier nation. Government involvement makes costs sky-rocket, and while supporters of Obamacare think it is the right thing to do, to provide insurance for everyone, it is the wrong approach. Health care's main flaw is it's cost. If the cost of health care dropped, more people could afford it, with or without insurance.


Sources/Inspiration:

http://mises.org/daily/4434

http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/find-it-hard-to-defend-free-market-medicine/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzm5jhguYJ0



Got questions, comments, or concerns? Feel free to contact me at ryanokonski@gmail.com