The law of unintended consequences

There is one law that legislatures can never repeal. That is the Law of Unintended Consequences. When legislators rush into something that sounds good without carefully considering possible consequences, that is when they are apt to write a law that does more harm than good.

If you think the legislature should pass some proposal, try to imagine what might be the unintended consequences. If you can’t think of any, try harder.

“Bad luck”

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as “bad luck”.

 

Price of ground beef sets record high

The price of ground beef is now above $4 per pound – for the first time ever. This is the second record high in two months. In July it set a record high price of $3.88. In just one month the price rose another 13 cents, or more than 3% in one month.
A year ago, it was $3.54. That’s an increase of 16% in one year. Five years ago the price was just $2.13.
Working harder, getting less.

Is the recession over yet? – II

“What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?” — Winston Churchill

Statisticians say the recession ended mid-2009, four and a half years ago. But what do you think? Does it feel like the recession ended or does it feel like we are still in a recession? In a recent poll, 74% said we are still in a recession.

It’s no wonder most people feel that the recession never ended. Employment is miserable. GDP growth is pathetic. Median family income is down for four straight years. Almost 50 million Americans live below the federal poverty line. A record 47 million people are on food stamps. One pundit declared that “More people in the United States are poor, unemployed, underemployed, looking for work, disgusted and quit looking for work, on food stamps, and on disability than anytime in our history.”

If those words look familiar it is because I first wrote them three months ago. In that column, the focus was on the worst employment picture in more than 30 years. Three recent pieces of economic news make this a good time to look more broadly at the economy.

1) On April 22, the New York Times reported that the U.S. no longer has the highest Median Family Income in the world. Canada is now #1.
2) April 30, the headline news was that in the first quarter of 2014, the U.S. economy grew at an almost non-existent rate of 0.1%.
3) That same day other headlines stated that China would soon pass the U.S. as the world’s largest economy.

Our economy stinks and we will have more such headlines if we don’t fix it. So, how do we fix it? The first step is to replace all the politicians who don’t even realize there is a problem, who do the same wrong things year after year expecting different results.

For decades, probably for more than a century, the U.S. has had the richest middle class in the world. Not just the richest middle class, but also the richest lower class, the richest upper class, and even the richest poor people. Those in the bottom 10% were much better off than the bottom 10% in any other country.

U.S. median family income is now down for five years in a row. In Canada, median family income is up for four of the last five years. Is it pure coincidence that Canada has been governed by Conservatives in recent years, the U.S. by Progressives?

The Index of Economic Freedom is an annual scoring of some 180 nations by ten measures of economic freedom. As the Index states, “The ideals of economic freedom are strongly associated with healthier societies, cleaner environments, greater per capita wealth, human development, democracy, and poverty elimination.”

The U.S. was rated economically “free” in 2006. Since then, its freedom score has dropped 6 points, it has fallen out of the top 10 to now #12 and is ranked only “mostly free”. The U.S. has lost economic freedom for seven years in a row, particularly in the areas of property rights, and freedom from corruption.

Conversely, Canada has increased its freedom score by more than 10 points over the last 20 years. It is currently ranked #6, and is rated “free”.

Hmm, is there a pattern here? The U.S. loses economic freedom seven years in a row and median family income goes down for five years in a row. Canada increases its economic freedom and median family income goes up four of the last five years. It now has the world’s highest median family income.

GDP growth in this so-called “recovery” has been pathetic. For four years it has been around 1.5% to 2%. That is the slowest by far of all the recoveries in 65 years. The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis has a nice interactive chart of all postwar recoveries. The current recovery amounts to merely an 11.1% increase in GDP over the almost five years since the recovery began. Many of the previous recoveries had double or almost triple that growth. This recovery is barely half the average of the ten previous recoveries.

Imagine if we had had as much as average growth in the last five years. Investor’s Business Daily estimates that we would now have $1.3 trillion higher income. That is about $10,000 higher per household. That is the cost of bad economic policies.

Apologists for the Obama “recovery” say that the recession was especially severe. Historically, the more severe the recession, the stronger the recovery. It should have been easy to produce better than average numbers. They now say that financial recessions take longer to recover. But that’s not what they said back in 2009 and into 2010. Back then they forecast a strong recovery. It was only after their economic plans failed that they started spouting the “financial recession” excuse.

The Democrat Party would be wise to heed the words of one of its Presidential candidates from some 20 years ago, the late Senator Paul Tsongas, who said, “You cannot redistribute wealth that you never created. You cannot be pro-jobs and anti-business at the same time. You cannot love employment and hate employers.”

Did we win the war?

Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest. — Mark Twain

This year is the 50th anniversary of the War on Poverty (WOP). In January 1964, during his State of the Union speech, President Lyndon Johnson declared a “War on Poverty”. “Our aim is not only to relieve the symptom of poverty, but to cure it and, above all, to prevent it.” In August of that year, Johnson signed the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, which stated that it was the policy of the United States to eliminate poverty. “The United States can achieve its full economic and social potential as a nation only if every individual has the opportunity to contribute to the full extent of his capabilities and to participate in the workings of our society.”

Even before the WOP, poverty rates were falling steadily. From 1940 to 1960 the poverty rate for black families dropped from 87% to 47%, then in the 60s it dropped another 17%. In 1950 the overall poverty rate was 30%. By 1956 that had dropped to 25%. By the time of LBJ’s announcement the rate had dropped to 19%.

A few years after the WOP legislation was passed, poverty dropped to 12%. Supporters cheered that the law was working, but how much of that drop was due to the new law and how much was a continuation of a long-term trend going back to the 1940s and 50s?

Since then, now amounting to some 45 years, the poverty rate has bounced up and down between 12% and 15%. The average for the last two decades is higher than when LBJ left office. For the first time in about 50 years, the poverty rate is 15% for three years in a row. A record high 50 million Americans live in poverty. 

We can do better. We should do better.

What we have been doing for most of 50 years has not worked. The War on Poverty has not achieved its stated goals: it has not cured, prevented, or eliminated poverty. The goals were laudable but we should judge the law by its results, not its goals. The result after 50 years is an increase in poverty, not a decrease. People are trapped in poverty, not freed from it.

LBJ’s goal was to help people become prosperous and self-sufficient. Instead, people have become dependent on government, surviving from one benefit check to the next. The Act stated as a goal that “every individual has the opportunity to contribute to the full extent of his capabilities.” 50 million Americans are not contributing; the programs’ perverse incentives punish people who try to work.

Some say the WOP has been a success as measured by the great number of people receiving assistance. Wouldn’t it be better – better for poor people themselves – to measure success by the number of people who have been lifted out of poverty and no longer need assistance?

We all know Einstein’s definition of insanity: “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” For most of 50 years we have been doing the same thing year after year and the result has been to trap more and more people in poverty.

The myriad of welfare programs reward people for being poor and penalize those who try to move out of poverty and up the income ladder. Someone who works harder, takes a second job, learns more skills, might earn $10,000 more but lose $15,000 of benefits. Hence, many say “I can’t afford to take that job. I’d lose my benefits!” With perverse incentives like these, it is no wonder that we have more people in poverty and fewer people making the effort to better themselves.

New York Times’ columnist Nicholas Kristof recognized the problem: “This is painful for a liberal to admit, but conservatives have a point when they suggest that America’s safety net can sometimes entangle people in a soul-crushing dependency. Our poverty programs do rescue many people, but other times they backfire.”

As a caring society we want to help the vulnerable. But do we want to trap them into a lifetime of dependency on government, where they are punished for trying to better themselves? Is it good for society to have millions of people unable to contribute their skills and energy? Is it good for the recipients themselves to live in poverty their entire lives with no hope of ever becoming self-sufficient and moving upward? 

For Kristof, “a tentative lesson from the field is that while we need safety nets, the focus should be instead on creating opportunity — and, still more difficult, on creating an environment that leads people to seize opportunities.”

Our social safety net all too often acts as a trap net. It traps people at the edge of poverty and prevents them from moving up the ladder of success. A true safety net is rarely used. People create opportunities to reach their work site above the safety net. In the unlucky event that they fall to the net, they climb back up and continue their work.

Let’s think more about creating ladders or stairways or ramps to help people escape poverty and reach for their dreams and less about nets that support them and trap them at the edge of poverty with no hope of rising higher.

Oh, the Shame!

“This country has gotten where it is in spite of politics, not by the aid of it. That we have carried as much political bunk as we have and still survived shows we are a super nation.” — Will Rogers

According to a recent report, “Taxachusetts” now has a lower business tax burden than NH. For decades, we have ridiculed Massachusetts for its high taxes. Now it seems that our business tax rates are even higher than theirs. Among the six New England states, NH is outranked by both Connecticut and Massachusetts for low business taxes.

Did you know that the share of state taxes paid by businesses is almost 60%? In Massachusetts, businesses pay about 35% of the state’s taxes. NH businesses pay the fourth highest percentage of state taxes in the entire country.

With businesses paying so much of our taxes and employing most of our people, shouldn’t we want more businesses, hiring more employees, paying more taxes? Sadly, Governor Hassan and House Democrats have done nothing to encourage businesses to move to or expand in NH. Of the 180 Democrat bills passed by the House, not a single one makes NH more attractive for business.

Some 20 years ago a Democratic Presidential candidate remarked that “You cannot be pro-jobs and anti-business at the same time. You cannot love employment and hate employers.” Today’s Democratic politicians often seem to be anti-business and to hate employers.

NH House Democrats this year have passed some 30 bills that make life a little more difficult, a little more expensive for businesses. None of those bills alone will kill a business, but together they will make some businesses decide, “It’s just not worth it. Too much hassle, too much risk.” Collectively, they create a “Closed for Business” sign around NH.

There were some bills that were ever so slightly pro-business. Democrats sponsored some; Republicans sponsored many more. But all of those pro-business bills were killed. 

Did you know that a convenience store that sells beer and wine is mandated to keep $3,000 of groceries in stock? A bipartisan proposal would have removed the mandate and let stores stock what their customers wanted rather than what politicians wanted. That bill was killed. A few days later a seacoast paper reported that a gas station was fined $250 for not having the requisite amount of groceries on hand.

I can’t help wondering how many inspectors we taxpayers are funding to travel around from store to store counting how much groceries each has in stock. Is that really a good use of taxpayers’ dollars? How about letting the business owner stock what he thinks his customers want? If he thinks they want to buy hamburgers and hot dogs along with beer, then let him stock those items. If he thinks his customers want nothing more than wine and cigars, then so be it. Let the customer be king, not the politicians.

In a recent poll, 74% said we are still in a recession. It’s no wonder: Employment is miserable. GDP growth is pathetic. Median family income is down for four straight years. If you are like most people, you think our representatives should be working to help the economy grow and create more jobs. The Democrats down in Concord have not been doing that, nor have they made any effort to fix the problems with ObamaCare such as people losing their hospitals, their doctors, their plans, and seeing 35% increases in their premiums and deductibles.

So just how have the Do-nothing Democrats been spending their time? You might say they have been rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. They have no concept of the big problems ordinary people are facing, so they have made piddling little changes to our laws. They have passed bills to establish thirteen new committees, to add members to some advisory councils, and even to support voting rights in Washington, DC.

The Democratic House passed a bill to tax paint $0.75 per gallon. They tried to ban children under 18 from using tanning facilities even with permission of their parents. That bill seemed headed for passage until members realized the absurdity that young girls would be able to get an abortion without parental consent but would not be able to get a tan even with parental consent.

What else have the Democrats spent time on? Two social issues come to mind. They tried twice to restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners, while doing nothing about criminals. The first bill took more than an hour of debate but in the end was decisively killed by more than 2:1. The second bill also took more than an hour of debate. The vote was closer but the measure was again defeated.

Another hot button for Democrats is voter identification. They offered four separate bills that would make it easier for out-of-state persons to vote fraudulently in NH. They like to claim that there is no voter fraud but how can you find fraud if you don’t look for it? Last year, North Carolina strengthened its voter ID laws; this year they are investigating some 800 cases of apparent fraud, and another 35,000 cases of possible fraud. 

Come November could we please elect representatives (and a Governor) who will work on the economy and jobs?

ObamaCare problems and solutions

“A government which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul.” — George Bernard Shaw

“If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.” Do you remember that promise? President Obama spoke those words dozens of times. Well, it wasn’t true – and he knew it. His own Department of HHS estimated and published in the Federal Register in 2010 that 93 million Americans would have their policies canceled in order to meet the requirements of ObamaCare. For the next three years, Obama continued to tell people they could keep their plans, even though he knew it was not true.

The fact checking organization, PolitiFact, rated Obama’s statement as “Lie of the Year” for 2013. The Washington Post’s Fact Checker gave it four Pinocchios and also ranked it “Lie of the Year.”

New Hampshire’s Senator Jeanne Shaheen and Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter joined in Obama’s lie of the year, repeating it many times. It is possible that they did not know it was a lie, but they certainly should have known it.

Then last year, cancellation letters went out to some 4 million Americans. Millions of people were perfectly happy with their plans, but the ObamaCare law did not allow them to keep their plans. Virtually every major NH newspaper has run stories about the turmoil caused by ObamaCare-mandated cancellations.

People lost the plans they liked, may have lost their nearby hospital, may have lost the doctor they’d been visiting for decades. In New Hampshire, the one and only insurer on the ObamaCare exchange nixed 10 of the 26 New Hampshire hospitals. In parts of the state, you may have to drive 2 or 3 hours, halfway across the state to go to a new hospital, driving right by your old, much closer hospital. Some people had to give up the doctor they have been seeing for decades and find a new doctor perhaps hours away.

Even worse is that the new ObamaCare policies don’t cover care in hospitals outside NH. Some of the best doctors and hospitals in the country are in Boston, but NH citizens cannot go there. The Union Leader reported about a woman who was told by her Nashua hospital that her cancer was untreatable. Under her old insurance she was allowed to go to a Massachusetts hospital for treatment and now three years later she is doing well. Under her new ObamaCare insurance she would be dead.

And then there are the premiums and deductibles. I have talked with people who say the combination of higher premiums and higher deductibles is costing them an extra $1,000 per month. I asked an insurance agent if her clients were seeing increases like that. She responded that most were not quite that high, but she could believe that some were paying that much extra. Another insurance agent told me that his clients were seeing up to a 100% increase but the average was about 20% to 40% increase. 

Nationally, Aetna’s CEO reported that premiums have increased an average of 30% to 40%. He also reported seeing lower employment overall and more part-time employment. A large union similarly reported seeing a shift to part-time work by companies seeking to avoid ObamaCare’s requirements. The Congressional Budget Office recently predicted that ObamaCare during the next ten years will cause job losses equivalent to 2.5 million people.
 
It’s no surprise that a recent Gallup poll found that more than twice as many Americans say that ObamaCare has hurt them or their families compared to the number it has helped. It might be a surprise that most (63%) say it has made little difference but that is only a matter of time. Most people get their insurance via their employer and that part of ObamaCare has been delayed and delayed – for political reasons.

As the New York Times reported, “[The recent change] is designed to provide political cover for Democratic senators facing tough re-election campaigns.” The law as written would have had millions more cancellation notices going out a month or two before Election Day. So with a stroke of his pen, without any authority granted to him, Obama decided to change the law so that the cancellation notices would go out AFTER the election.

The Wall Street Journal notes that “if [ObamaCare] were really working the way it should, senators who voted for it wouldn’t be running away from it, and the administration wouldn’t be forced to choose between enforcing its provisions and protecting the Democratic majority.”

As much as nervous politicians are shying away from ObamaCare, so also are the uninsured. The Washington Post reports that “The new health insurance marketplaces appear to be making little headway in signing up Americans who lack insurance, the Affordable Care Act’s central goal, according to a pair of new surveys. Only one in 10 uninsured people who qualify for private plans through the new marketplaces enrolled as of last month.”

The first step in fixing a problem is recognizing that there is a problem. NH Democratic leadership seems oblivious to any problems with ObamaCare, jobs, and the economy. NH Republicans know that there are problems and that we can help solve those problems. The guiding principle is that people should be able to choose what they want, not what some politicians in Washington tell them they should want.

Poll: jobs, economy, government most important problems

From Gallup:

Three issues — jobs, economy, and government — have been at the top of the “most important problem” list since the beginning of the year.

gixuowzlek6ufxz_x3go_a

Americans are about equally likely to name unemployment and dissatisfaction with government as the most important problems facing the U.S., with the economy in general following closely behind. These issues have ranked at the top of the most important problem list since the beginning of 2014.

Nearly one in five Americans still cite government itself as the nation’s top problem.

Independents name as their top four problems:
  • Dissatisfaction with government
  • Jobs
  • Economy in general
  • Poor healthcare

See the full poll here.

Common Core Math is not rigorous, it is just ridiculous

“In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.” — Napoleon Bonaparte

One wonders if the supporters of Common Core have ever opened a CC-aligned textbook. The math textbooks, curriculum, and homework are so bad that they will leave most kids math-challenged their entire lives.

Can you solve 8+6? Most of us would instantly answer 14 because we learned how to add the traditional way. In Common Core Math, kids are taught to “Make a 10” by adding 2 to the 8, then subtracting 2 from the 6 to get 4, then adding 10 plus 4 to get 14. They are taught to go through three separate steps, including subtraction, to “solve” a very simple addition.

“Making a 10” is just one of the ways Common Core teaches kids to do addition. In 2nd grade, they are taught doubles and “double plus 1”. They are taught that 7+7 is 14, 8+8 is 16, etc. Then they are asked to “solve” 7+8 and explain their result. Well, 8 is 7 plus 1, so now we have 7+7 plus 1. They know that 7+7 is 14, so 1 more makes 15. Let’s see. They are taught 7+7, and 8+8, but they are not taught 7+8; they have to “solve” to get that answer.

When adding two numbers there is no mathematical reason to set an intermediate goal of making a 10, pausing to figure out how much more to add, then finally reaching the right answer. The only reason to pause at 10 is because we have 10 fingers. The authors of common core actually invite students to count on their fingers. “They learn to replace counting the dots by tracking the count on their fingers to find the solution.”

The Common Core Math lessons invite kids to count on their fingers even as far as 4th grade. Is it any wonder that many teenagers and even adults do simple arithmetic on their fingers? Wouldn’t it be better to discourage, not encourage, kids from counting on their fingers?

In 3rd grade, instead of using a “doubles fact” they learned in 2nd grade that 7+7 is 14, they are told to “solve” 7+7 by “decomposing” the second 7 into 3+4, then adding the 3 to the first 7, yielding 10, then adding 4 to get the answer.

Early on, kids are taught to draw a small circle or dot to represent a unit, then a vertical line to represent ten units. They add numbers by counting the dots. If there are more than 10, they draw a new line. That is a good way to explain the concept of addition and place values, but once students understand the concept, they should practice only with digits. Common Core continues those drawings even into 4th grade.

In some textbooks, kids are taught to draw a square to represent a hundred, and a cube for a thousand. To add three numbers they would draw a bunch of cubes, squares, lines, and dots. They would add up all the dots, then combine some of them into a new line, add the lines, drawing a new square, and so on. Then they would convert all these drawings back into digits. A popular video on the web shows a 3rd grader taking 8 minutes to add three numbers – getting the wrong answer. Then she solves it the way her mom taught her in about 10 seconds – correctly.

And then there is the “arrow way”, yet another way Common Core teaches arithmetic. No, it is not worth describing; it is just one more technique they will never use in real life. So, we have at least four ways to do addition: counting dots and drawing lines, making a 10, doubles and doubles plus 1, and the arrow way.

Is it any wonder kids are confused? Not only are they are taught multiple ways to reach an answer, the right way one year can be the wrong way the next. A Manchester father told of his 3rd grade daughter coming home in tears because she was penalized for correctly answering a problem using the way she was taught in 2nd grade instead of the new way.

Through grades 1, 2, and 3, students are barely taught the standard way for addition: add the ones, carry to the tens, add the tens, carry to the hundreds, and so on. Not until grade 4 does the Common Core Standard expect students to become fluent with the standard algorithm for addition and subtraction. They should have become fluent in 2nd grade.

Supporters claim that having to memorize all the one-digit sums is somehow bad. But they have the kids memorize all those that add up to 10 or less, and all the “doubles”, and then learn four useless ways to add. Wouldn’t it be better to have kids learn useful facts instead of useless ways to do arithmetic?

Kids learn differently, it is true. But math fluency is foundational, built brick by brick with repeatable processes (algorithms) and practice. While some kids will learn arithmetic in spite of Common Core, we do them no favors by insisting that they solve 7+8 by decomposing 7 to 5+2, adding 2+8 to make a 10, then adding 5+10 to make 15.

Gun control laws cost lives

“Things in our country run in spite of government, not by aid of it.” — Will Rogers

Down in Concord, the big news last month, i.e. February 12, was the defeat of yet another gun control bill. The NH House killed HB 1589 by the overwhelming vote of 242 – 118. The battle is over, but could always reappear.

How would you have voted? Do you think we should require a background check for every gun buyer except for criminals? Okay, that isn’t exactly what the bill said but that would have been its effect. Common sense tells you that criminals would not have obeyed this new law any more than they obey existing laws.

Some months ago I came upon some people holding signs for “universal background checks”. I asked one of them, “How are you going to get the criminals to submit to a check?” His answer was, “We probably won’t. So what?” His side apparently wants to do background checks on all the law-abiding people who would pass a background check, but not do checks on any of the criminals who would fail a check.

Supporters admit that the bill would have had no affect on criminals, and they admitted at a hearing that it would not have stopped the Newtown tragedy or any of the other terrible shootings. But what if the bill could save just one life? Sadly, all such bills are more likely to cost a life than save a life.

One simple fact that the gun controllers don’t understand is that guns are used in America far more to STOP crime than to cause crime.  A wheel-chair bound grandfather uses his gun to stop an armed robbery in a restaurant. A mother saves herself and her two kids by shooting a home invader. There are hundreds of thousands, even millions, of episodes every year where a law-abiding citizen stops a crime, usually without even firing a shot.

Gun haters often say that guns are designed for one thing – to kill people. But that is nonsense. By most estimates, there are about 300 million guns in America. 299.99 million of those guns never killed anyone. Did they not work as designed? Or could it be that their owners never had any intentions of killing anyone?

No, guns are not designed to kill people. They are designed to DEFEND against people who would kill or rob or rape others. Throughout history there have been thugs who used knives, baseball bats, or simply their fists to victimize the weaker, the aged, the infirm, the women. Very few of us are martial-arts experts able to defend ourselves without a weapon. Firearms make it possible for a little old woman to defend herself against a big strong man.

The fastest-growing group of gun owners is women. They are buying guns to defend themselves and their families. Many are carrying their guns concealed. That gives thugs something to think about. Criminals are lazy; they go where the pickings are easy. If they think a woman might be carrying a gun, they will go looking for easier prey.

There is a photo going ’round the web of a woman shooting an assault rifle. The caption says, “You are not for women’s rights when you want to strip them of their right of self-defense.”

The right of self-defense is the most fundamental of all rights. Every living creature has the right of self-defense – not just defend self, but defend family and community. Just picture a mother bear defending her cubs. A bear has natural built-in weapons but a human mother needs artificial weapons to defend her children.

For self-defense, a firearm is the most useful tool yet invented. Just showing a gun can scare a criminal away. Nothing else can do that, not a Taser, not pepper spray, not a knife, definitely not calling 911. If a criminal continues to threaten, a gun can stop him before he can hurt or kill the victim. Virtually every would-be victim is capable of using a gun. It does not require special strength, agility, or training.

Guns have been called the great equalizer because even the weak, infirm, or untrained can be the equal of the criminal. Without guns the weak are at the mercy of the strong, the ordinary person at the mercy of an attacker who is well trained in fighting or knife work.

In his excellent “Opinion on Gun Control”, Larry Correia reports that “The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5.” Armed civilians save lives. The other side tries to dispute that fact by defining mass shootings as only those shootings in which 4 or more people are killed. They throw away the shootings that would have killed dozens or even hundreds but an armed citizen stopped the criminal early.

The many gun control laws have no effect on the criminals. But for law-abiding citizens, these laws cost time and money. In effect, they tilt the balance in favor of the criminal. One or two victims won’t have guns. That is why these misguided laws are more likely to COST lives than save lives.

‘Taxachusetts’ has lower business tax burden than NH

A new report by the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center says that Massachusetts actually has a lower business tax burden than most states, including New Hampshire. Regionally, NH is behind both Connecticut and Massachusetts for combined business and local taxes.
Nationally, NH is fourth highest for the share of total state taxes paid by businesses. NH businesses pay 59.4% of all taxes. In Massachusetts, they pay about 34.5%.
If we want a growing economy, creating more jobs, then we must find a way to make NH more attractive to businesses.

Simple invention can save thousands of lives

Hospitals are dangerous places. Some 75,000 patients die each year of hospital-acquired infections. Now two Canadian doctors have stumbled on a solution that could save 10,000 lives a year – and that is just in Canada. Worldwide, it could save hundreds of thousands of lives.

The doctors discovered that a mixture of ozone and peroxide can kill 100% of the bacteria in a hospital room. They have built a gadget that spreads the bug-killing mist through a room. It is the first product ever that completely cleans a room tainted with drug-resistant bacteria.

A hospital in Belleville, Ont. used it on a contaminated ward and seven months later not a single patient has been infected by MRSA, a bacteria that kills about 2,200 patients in Canada every year.

 

Is the recession over yet?

“Be thankful we’re not getting all the government we’re paying for.” — Will Rogers

Statisticians say the recession ended mid-2009, four and a half years ago. But what do you think? Does it feel like the recession ended or does it feel like we are still in a recession? In a recent poll, 74% said we are still in a recession.

It’s no wonder most people feel that the recession never ended. Employment is miserable. GDP growth is pathetic. Median family income is down for four straight years. Almost 50 million Americans live below the federal poverty line. A record 47 million people are on food stamps. One pundit declared that “More people in the United States are poor, unemployed, underemployed, looking for work, disgusted and quit looking for work, on food stamps, and on disability than anytime in our history.”

But the December jobs report says that unemployment dropped from 7.0% down to 6.7%. Doesn’t that show that the economy is improving? Well, no. Almost all of the reaction, other than from hopelessly partisan hacks, says that the report is bad news. E.g. CNN described it as “weakest job growth in years”, USAToday referred to it as “unexpectedly weak jobs report”. Many reported that there were “only” or “just” 74,000 new jobs, the worst in almost a year. (UPDATE: The January Jobs Report is better but “is another disappointing jobs report”. “Job growth remains weak,” “disappoints again”.)

Not so well known is that jobs have to increase by about 150,000 every month just to keep up with the increase in population. Since 2009, when the recession supposedly ended, the civilian population age 16 and above has grown from 236 million to 246 million. Meanwhile, the number who were employed grew from 140 million to 144 million. In other words, of the 10 million who entered the working age population, only 4 million found a job.

Compare the current “recovery” with two others. From 1983 to 1987, population grew by almost 9 million; jobs by almost 12 million. From 1993 to 1997, population grew by a bit over 8 million, jobs a bit over 9 million. Those were strong recoveries – employment grew even faster than population. In the eleven recoveries since they started collecting statistics in 1948, the current recovery is by far the weakest and slowest.

US News magazine has a fascinating chart from the Federal Reserve of St. Louis. It shows both the unemployment rate and the EMployment rate from 1948 through 2013. They show the data for employment and unemployment separately because the two are calculated differently. But for more than 60 years, covering 10 recessions, employment and unemployment are mirror images of each other. When employment goes up, unemployment goes down and vice versa.

This time is different. For the first time in the history of these employment statistics, employment is NOT moving up. By the government calculations, unemployment has improved but employment as a percentage of the population has held steady for four years at a level much worse than we have seen for 30 years.

employment to population

But how can unemployment go down without employment going up? If you stop being unemployed doesn’t that mean you are employed? Well, no. Many people are not counted as either employed or unemployed; they are counted as “Not in labor force”. If you have been unemployed for so long that you give up looking, then you stop being counted as unemployed, and are instead counted as no longer in the labor force.

A record high 92 million people are counted as no longer in the labor force, an increase of 10 million in just 4 years. Some people will say that it is because baby boomers are retiring. That’s a nice theory but the numbers say otherwise. Those aged 55 and above have actually seen their employment numbers grow by 6 million people. It is the younger workers from 16-54 who have lost jobs – 8 million jobs.

In the four years of the current “recovery” the number of Millennials working full-time has decreased every year. The number living at home with their parents has grown every year. This is a human tragedy.

On top of all the ongoing poor employment numbers, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently estimated that ObamaCare will cost 2.3 million jobs by 2021. Apologists quickly countered that it would not be because people lost their jobs; rather it would be because people decided not to work. “When Americans quit looking for work because they conclude not working beats working, America faces a significant problem” says a white paper from Express Employment Professionals.

Some say that were are in a “New normal”. Many of us – I hope most of us – do not believe in a “fate that will fall on us no matter what we do.” For most of its existence, the United States has been the freest, most prosperous nation on earth. It is long established that freedom and prosperity go hand in hand; more freedom produces greater prosperity.

Sadly, the U.S. has moved away from freedom to a more and more intrusive government. The Index of Economic Freedom reported just last month that “The U.S. is the only country to have recorded a loss of economic freedom each of the past seven years.” Hmm, could that explain the awful employment?

What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen

“Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself.” — Mark Twain

The great French economist Frederic Bastiat observed that “In the economic sphere an act, a habit, an institution, a law produces not only one effect, but a series of effects. Of these effects, the first alone is immediate; it appears simultaneously with its cause; it is seen. The other effects emerge only subsequently; they are not seen; we are fortunate if we foresee them.

“There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.”

The same is true in the sphere of public policy. The bad economist or the thoughtless politician (but I repeat myself) sees only the direct effect of a law; he doesn’t foresee the indirect effects. In many cases the politician may consider only the short-term effects that might help him win the next election; he may not consider at all the long-term effects.

Bastiat noted that “it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favorable, the later consequences are disastrous, and vice versa.” So when a politician urges a great new solution to some problem – or typically, the same old ineffective solution to a problem – the long-term result very often is more harm than good.

One such example was alcohol Prohibition almost 100 years ago. The problem of alcohol may have been bad, but Prohibition made the problem much worse, to the point that Prohibition was later repealed. Another example was a luxury tax on yachts to “soak the rich”. Even a mediocre economist or a slightly thoughtful politician could have foreseen the disaster it turned out to be. The tax collected virtually nothing from the rich but did send many blue collar boat builders to the unemployment line. Two years later Congress repealed the law.

With the greatest intentions of reducing poverty, politicians have enacted policies that, in the short-term, help people survive one month until the next government check, but the unseen long-term effect is to trap people in poverty, sometimes for generations. If we truly care about helping people – and I think most of us do – then wouldn’t it be better to find long-term solutions that help people escape poverty?

As long ago as the 1980s, better economists and more thoughtful politicians saw the indirect effects of the welfare system – it “fostered a permanent underclass dependent on government handouts.” In 1996, a Republican Congress and Democrat President Clinton passed welfare reform with the goal of reducing the dependency trap and helping people escape poverty. Ten years later, The New Republic, a liberal magazine, looked back and editorialized that the reform “worked much as its designers had hoped [foreseen].” Since then, less thoughtful politicians seeing only the easily visible effects of welfare, and not seeing the long-term consequences, have undone most of the successful reform.

Our disability system likewise helps disabled people survive month-to-month but traps them in poverty. Wouldn’t it be better to find long-term solutions, using some amazing modern technology to help them overcome their disabilities, become productive, and no longer trapped in poverty?

Some short-sighted politicians want to extend the length of unemployment benefits beyond 26 months, but the long-term effect can be permanent unemployment. Studies have found that someone unemployed for more than six months has very little chance of ever getting a job.

Other bad economists and thoughtless politicians suggest raising the minimum wage. The immediate effect would be to slightly raise the pay for a small number of people – but cause others to lose their jobs. The long-term consequence would be to destroy many more entry-level jobs, making it harder and harder for teenagers to enter the work force.

When was the last time you saw a full-service gas station? That used to be a good first job for many young kids. Washing dishes was another good first job. Kids learned the self-discipline of showing up on time every time. While on the job they often picked up skills from the auto mechanics or cooks around them. But as the minimum wage rose, machines replaced those jobs. If it continues to rise, we will see machines taking orders for fast food, flipping burgers, and delivering the goods. The long-term effect of raising the minimum wage is disastrous for millions of young people.

Some politicians saw ObamaCare as a good idea; they did not foresee the terrible consequences. Today, some people think we will see good effects if we adopt the ObamaCare expansion of Medicaid. Not only do they fail to see the indirect, long-term terrible effects, they don’t even see the bad effects that have already occurred elsewhere. To put it simply, Medicaid is an inefficient, incredibly expensive program that provides even worse health outcomes than for people who are uninsured. Expanding it would cost even more than now predicted and would lead to much higher taxes.

To achieve better results – better economy, more good jobs, higher pay, less poverty, lower cost health care – we need to see not just the immediate effects of a policy, but to foresee the long-term effects.

Real health care reform (not ObamaCare)

“Learn from the mistakes of others. You can never live long enough to make them all yourself.” — Groucho Marx

It’s no laughing matter – well, actually it is. The late night comedians have found lots to laugh about in what otherwise would be a tragedy. ObamaCare that is.

Most of us have heard the horror stories about the so-called “Affordable” Care Act. The least of the problems is the web site that doesn’t work. Much worse is the huge increase, sometimes even doubling or tripling, of premiums and deductibles for many people. Perhaps worst are the millions of people who have suffered cancellation of the health plans they liked.

ObamaCare is a disaster. This year when the employer mandate takes effect, tens of millions more people are likely to find that the plans they like are canceled to comply with the dictates of big government. But there is hope. Real health care reform is coming – not from politicians, but from doctors.

One surgeon wrote in the Wall Street Journal about a patient who needed a fairly simple operation. His bare-bones insurance would easily cover the cost of the surgeon, the anesthesiologist, and, they thought, for the operating room, nurses, etc. But when the patient went to check in, the hospital wanted an additional $20,000 from him above and beyond what the insurance would pay.

The patient canceled the operation and returned to the surgeon. Dr. Singer told his patient an open secret: that hospitals and other providers will usually negotiate a much lower cash price for people who don’t use insurance. The doctors are happy to take a lower fee now instead of paying office staff to wade through the insurance paperwork for reimbursement much later.

Dr. Singer made a few phone calls; the anesthesiologist accepted an upfront cash price, a different hospital charged a reasonable fee for its services. The patient had the operation the next day with a total out-of-pocket charge of a bit over $3,000. He saved $17,000 by not using his insurance.

Most people don’t shop around like this because they have no incentive to do so – their insurance picks up almost all of the bill. But with insurance deductibles becoming higher and higher, more people are beginning to shop around. That’s not easy to do because most hospitals keep their prices a secret.

One hospital that is very public about its prices is the Surgery Center of Oklahoma, a for-profit facility that offers first-rate care at low prices. About five years ago, they posted their price list for more than 100 common procedures. And those prices can be as low as one-tenth the prices at other hospitals.

Compare the cost of a “complex bilateral sinus procedure” performed at a nearby non-profit hospital, to the cost performed by the same surgeon at the Surgery Center. The other hospital charged $33,505, not including the surgeon’s or anesthesiologist’s fees. The Surgery Center charged just $5,885 total for the entire procedure.

The other hospital delivered a four-page bill with detailed cost items for such things as $360 for a steroid that wholesales for 75 cents, and a total of $630 for three pills that cost about $1.50. The Center’s bill was a single line with every cost item included in the published fixed price.

The Surgery Center is able to keep its prices so low partly because it takes cash upfront; it does not accept insurance. But what about people who can’t afford several thousand dollars for an operation? In many cases, the Center’s total price is less than just the co-pay and deductible would be at another hospital.

The Surgery Center pays “tons of attention” to making systems more efficient. One surgeon reports that he can perform twice as many surgeries per day at the Center because it operates so efficiently. At the other hospital, he spends half of his time waiting around for the patient to arrive and then for the equipment to arrive.

As one measure of efficiency, the Center has no administrative employees. At the other hospital, the eighteen top administrators are paid an average of $413,000. At the Center, all of the staff except a small clerical staff are involved with patient care. The head nurse does double duty as chief of human resources and building maintenance.

The Surgery Center of Oklahoma might have been the first to provide transparent pricing but they are far from the only ones. One commentator described the movement toward transparent pricing as a “fever pitch … pretty soon [all providers] will be fully transparent.”

The effect of published cash-upfront pricing is nationwide and even international. Canadians who could get “free” treatment at home are flying to Oklahoma to save months or even years on waiting lists. Other patients are taking a firm price quote from the Surgery Center along with an airline ticket for Oklahoma City, and are challenging the local hospital to charge a competitive price.

Much lower prices, higher quality, whether it is Direct Primary Care or surgery, physicians are producing real reform, effective reform. Politicians think reform means forcing more people to buy insurance they don’t like. Doctors know that real reform is to get insurance out of the way, to let nothing come between doctor and patient. My money is on the doctors.

Health Insurance is not Health Care

Tammy Bruce opines that ObamaCare is not just a train wreck, because after all, once a train wreck is over, it is over. It doesn’t keep on going. No, ObamaCare is more like a cancer, growing and destroying everything.

A California man bought insurance on the ObamaCare exchange, then called a doctor for an appointment. He called every single doctor who was listed as being in-network, but none of them actually was.

In the normal world, this would be called “fraud.” In Obama’s America, it’s called a “snag,” and on a national scale, the Obama regime labels it “Shut up, Fox News!”

After all, isn’t the goal getting everyone insured? Who cares if you can’t actually see a doctor or get health care, because everyone will get a terrific piece of paper that says “health insurance policy.” Equality, at last — everyone’s got the same thing; namely, nothing at all.

A woman cancer patient enrolled in ObamaCare, then went to see her oncologist, only to be greeted by a sign at the door announcing that they did not accept any of the ObamaCare plans. She says that she is, “a complete fan of the Affordable Care Act, but now I can’t sleep at night.”

When the Congressional Budget Office forecast that ObamaCare would cause 2.5 million people to lose their jobs, the White House responded that those people were just a “small percentage of the economy.”

Back here in New Hampshire, Jeanne Shaheen and Carol-Shea Porter say that they would vote for ObamaCare all over again if they could. Whose side are they on?

Guilty until proven innocent

“It is better 100 guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer.” — Benjamin Franklin

You and your spouse are eating breakfast in your home of nearly fifty years. Several vans pull up, armed police stream out and tell you that you have 10 minutes to grab your things and leave. Permanently. They are seizing your property. No notice, no warning, no court hearing, no due process of any kind. You might believe that could happen in a dictatorship, but can you believe that it happened in Philadelphia?

A police officer stopped a car and falsely stated that a taillight was out. The officer then claimed that the driver “looked like a drug dealer” and had him searched by a drug dog. The officers asked him if he was carrying drugs, guns, or money. He replied that he had $3,500 in cash. The officer seized the money, claiming that it must be proceeds of drug dealing. The man was never charged with a crime.

Terry Dehko and his daughter Sandy run a small grocery store. In January, 2013, the federal government seized all the money from the store bank account on the theory that his cash deposits might have been a cover for illegal money-laundering. No evidence, no due process. The Dehkos had done absolutely nothing wrong, but the government took their money. A year later, he is still trying to get his money back.

Welcome to the world of civil asset forfeiture, where people are guilty until proven innocent. If police have the slightest suspicion that property, including cars, cash, or even homes, was connected to a crime, then they can take the property, and dare the owner to try to get it back.

The theory behind civil forfeiture was to take the ill-gotten gains of major crime figures even if those criminals could not be caught and brought to trial. But now almost all the seizures involve minor criminals and all too often people who have committed no crime at all.

In most cases, the police act as judge, jury, and executioner. They seize money on the excuse that they think it was going to be used to buy drugs, they don’t charge the “suspect” with even a violation, they just send him on his way. There is no due process, no court hearing, the victim is given no information about how to get his money back.

There might not be even the slightest evidence of any crime but the victim has to sue the state, then prove his innocence to get his property returned. The cost of hiring an attorney is usually more than the amount of money seized so most people give up.

The police, and sometimes the DA, keep the money as their own, and spend it however they see fit, with no oversight in the executive branch or by the legislature. A district attorney in Texas spent forfeiture money on an office Margarita machine. Police in a small Florida town spent $23,704 on trips with first-class flights and luxury car rentals. The Milwaukee County Sheriff’s office used civil forfeiture funds to buy nine flat-screen TVs for $8,200, and two Segways for $14,500.

The late Congressman Henry Hyde exclaimed, “Civil asset forfeiture has allowed police to view all of America as some giant national K-Mart, where prices are not just lower, but non-existent — a sort of law enforcement ‘pick-and-don’t-pay.'”

The abuse of power, absence of due process, and harm to innocent people has created opposition across the political spectrum, from the ACLU on the left to the Heritage Foundation on the right. The non-partisan Institute for Justice has fought many forfeiture cases (all pro-bono) in the courts.

A former Justice Department forfeiture official became so dismayed by the injustice of the forfeiture system that he switched from prosecution to defense. David Smith explained, “We are paying assistant U.S. attorneys to carry out the theft of property from often the most defenseless citizens,” given that people sometimes have limited resources to fight a seizure after their assets are taken.

We do not know whether New Hampshire has experienced some of these abuses – the record keeping requirements are so lax that we cannot know. We do know that our laws are so weak as to allow these same kinds of problems to occur here. Many of us think we should reform the statutes to prevent future problems.

A bill, HB 1609, has been offered with bi-partisan support to reform our forfeiture laws.

The bill requires that a person must have his day in court. He must first be convicted of a crime in criminal court before his property can be forfeited. No one will lose his property on the mere suspicion of a police officer.

Any forfeiture proceeds go to the state’s general fund, not to a police department’s slush fund. This is the same as fines for other crimes – they go to the state, where legislators during the budget process decide how to appropriate them. Police departments and prosecutors cannot divvy up the funds for their own benefit.

If property such as a car or house is connected to a crime, but the owner(s) were neither involved nor had any knowledge of the crime, those innocent owners cannot have their property forfeited.

Why Not Common Core?

Extracts from an interesting article by Barbara Haney, PhD.:

If the objective of the K-12 education system in Alaska is to produce students who can excel in the areas of math and science, the Alaska State Standards and the Common Core will not produce that result. These standards are not more rigorous, they are simply ridiculous. They are developmentally inappropriate and do not specify outcomes. Standards specify outcomes, not processes. With rare exceptions, the Alaska State Standards and the Common Core specify processes, not outcomes.
:
It is noteworthy that states have been fleeing the consortia and the common core. Michigan has paused and is re-writing their standards. Massachusetts has paused implementation. Maine and Florida left the consortia via executive order and they are fighting to get the common core out of their state with the assistance of both the governor and the legislature. Georgia left the consortia and is re-writing their standards. Alabama and Utah left the consortia, and there are active movements to get the common core out of that state. Pennsylvania has an effort to rescind the core as well, because oil companies like Exxon and Anadarko have thrown considerable support behind the core making the job of Senate Democrats difficult. (Note: Mike Hanley’s brother, Mark Hanley, is a lobbyist for Anadarko). New York State has what could be termed as a rebellion, and the rejection of the common core was decisive in the school board elections in Buffalo, New York as well as in the Mayor’s race in New York City. Governor Cuomo is a major advocate of the Common Core nationally, along with his anti-gun agenda.
:
The developmentally inappropriate nature of the common core has had disastrous results in New York and in other parts of the country. The increase in suicides and clinical depressions that have accompanied the implementation of the common core are well documented. One researcher who has been tracking the impact of the standards on mental health is Mary Calamia. Her research shows a marked increase in self-mutilating behaviors, insomnia, panic attacks, depressed mood, school refusal, and suicidal thoughts during the state exam cycle last spring.

Our Status Quo Governor

Manchester, NH – Gubernatorial Candidate Andrew Hemingway released the following statement in response to Governor Maggie Hassan’s State of the State Address:

“Governor Hassan successfully spoke for nearly an hour without mentioning one accomplishment of her administration. Using the words “solution and innovative” repeatedly does not unto itself mean you have achieved or even proposed an innovative solution. The people of New Hampshire are smarter than that.

“Governor Hassan gave a lot of lip service to the business community, yet every policy she proposed would harm the very community she is praising. Study after study has proven that a hike to the minimum wage harms exactly the people it is trying to help. Increasing the minimum wage causes jobs loss, it drives more people to welfare, it drives up state budgets and raises the cost of doing business. The people harmed the most? Minorities and women.”

“Where exactly are her solutions? She failed to even mention the serious problem with our healthcare situation here in New Hampshire, even though it is arguably one of the largest concerns of our citizens. 22,000 people were kicked off their insurance thanks to Hassan-supported Obamacare; 12 hospitals were removed from the network for anyone on the Exchange, or anyone with individual insurance from Anthem; Anthem is the ONLY provider approved for the Exchange. Where is her plan to bring more insurance providers into the state?”

“On education, Governor Hassan praised Common Core. This bureaucratic mess lowers existing state standards and replaces parents with bureaucrats. Common Core is not right for NH. We have increased our spending on education by over a billion dollars in the past decade; our enrollment is down and our education has not improved. Governor Hassan believes differently than me. She thinks more government control is the solution to everything, I think individual freedom is.”

“We very much are in need of certain transportation improvements for our roads and bridges. I agree with the Governor there. But she failed to tell us how we can pay for that. Just as she failed to tell us how we can pay for her expanded natural gas pipeline, or extending broadband internet. A good idea is only a good idea if you tell us how to make that idea a reality. Governor Hassan didn’t do that.

“Our Governor says absolutely nothing. She maintains the status quo, because as her record has shown, she has no solutions. This ‘do nothing’ leadership is doing nothing to improve things for students, patients or workers.” –Andrew Hemingway, Candidate for NH Governor

Can YOU answer this Common Core question?

This question is from a Common Core quiz book for 1st graders.
How would you answer the question?

8 toys are in the chest.
6 toys are on the shelf.
Which can you use to
find how many toys in all?

A) 8 – 6 = 2
B) 6 + 2 = 8
C) 8 + 4 = 12
D) 10 + 4 = 14

I am at a loss for words.

Medicaid is a cruel program

“If we wish to be compassionate with our fellow man, we must learn to engage in dispassionate analysis. In other Walter E. Williams

Would you believe that many politicians over-promise and under-deliver? They promise you that a new law will fix some terrible problem, but usually it does not fix the problem, and often it makes the problem worse.

Too many politicians look only at the stated goals of a program. They believe so much in the goals that they refuse to believe any harm could result. They don’t look beneath the surface for possible unintended consequences. Even when other people do find bad side-effects in the bill, the true believers ignore the potential problems.

Thus is the case with expanded Medicaid. The same politicians who thought ObamaCare was a good idea and promised us that “If you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance”, those same politicians now tell us that expanding Medicaid is a good idea.

Sadly, Medicaid is a cruel program that hurts the very people it’s meant to serve. One commentator wrote: “Imagine a government-run health care program in which medical access is severely limited, that is racked by uncontrollably rising costs, and that in many instances results in demonstrably worse health outcomes than having no insurance at all. Such a program isn’t a mere hypothetical; it already exists, and it’s called Medicaid.”

More and more doctors are refusing to accept Medicaid because the system doesn’t pay enough to cover their expenses. Would-be patients spend hours on the phone trying to find someone willing to treat them. If they do succeed in finding a doctor, the appointment is, on average, three weeks later than someone with private insurance.

And it gets worse…, multiple studies have shown that Medicaid patients are more likely to die from surgery than privately insured patients and sometimes even more likely to die than uninsured patients. A Univ. of Pennsylvania study of colon cancer found that the mortality rate for Medicaid patients was 27% higher than for uninsured patients. A Florida study found that Medicaid patients were more likely than uninsured patients to have late-stage prostate cancer, breast cancer, or melanoma.

On broader measures of health, the Oregon Medicaid health experiment found no significant difference between Medicaid patients and uninsured patients in objectively measured physical health outcomes. Put simply, Medicaid did not make patients any healthier, though it did make them feel more financially secure.

Expanded Medicaid has been tried and has failed. The state of Maine expanded their Medicaid program ten years ago. Every predicted benefit failed. Politicians said it would reduce the number of uninsured. Wrong. Politicians said it would reduce emergency room visits. Wrong. Politicians said it would relieve uncompensated care. Wrong. The only significant change was that thousands of Mainers switched from private insurance to Medicaid.

There was one absurd result from Maine’s Medicaid expansion: Since the eligibility rules differ for expanded Medicaid and regular Medicaid, 10,000 able-bodied, childless adults received benefits while 3,000 elderly and disabled were put on a waiting list.

A pernicious aspect of Medicaid is that it traps people on the edge of poverty. The eligibility rules make it very difficult for someone to escape poverty and move up the ladder of success. A young person entering the workforce, earning $14,856 gets free health care. But if he or she earns just one dollar more, then that same young person not only loses the free coverage, but becomes obligated to purchase coverage or else face a penalty. This is a terrible incentive that encourages people to stay poor.

Isn’t it a good thing to learn more skills, get a better job, work more overtime, earn more money, save toward the future? Medicaid and similar entitlement programs punish people who try to better themselves and become self-sufficient, not dependent on government. Why should we encourage people to be involved in such a terrible system?

Proponents of expanded Medicaid rarely, if ever, discuss the adverse health outcomes for people on Medicaid. They never talk about the perverse incentives that can keep someone trapped in near-poverty forever.

What proponents mostly talk about is getting “free” money from the federal government. It is as if the poor are mere pawns for collecting more money. But does anyone really believe that the money is “free”? The federal government is running gigantic deficits. It has borrowed trillions and trillions of dollars. Our children, grandchildren, and their grandchildren will be stuck paying off this debt.

And the money isn’t free even in the short term. The feds talk about paying 100% of the cost for two years, but can we really believe that promise? And the federal budget negotiators are already talking about reducing the 100% promise because the costs keep going higher and higher and higher.

Many opponents of expanding Medicaid worry that the ever-increasing costs to NH taxpayers will lead us inevitably toward a sales or income tax.

The ObamaCare Medicaid expansion is bad for the people it claims to help, bad for the taxpayers, and bad for the future of New Hampshire. We should fix the broken system, not expand it.

Rethinking the War on Poverty

Some time back there was poll that described two options without using party labels. By a 2:1 margin people preferred the option that happened to be the Republican position. But then the pollsters asked the very same questions but identified which were the Democrat positions and which were the Republican positions. The result was a slight preference for the Democrat position.

To put it simply, voters prefer Republican positions, but don’t like the Republican label.

I am going to try a similar experiment here. Below are extracts from an interesting article about the War on Poverty. Decide whether you like the ideas without knowing who wrote it.

Just over 50 years ago, LBJ announced a War on Poverty.

The world has changed profoundly in the half-century since Johnson declared a war on poverty. In that time, as Peter Ferrara points out, the welfare bureaucracy has spent more than $16 trillion on means-tested entitlements. For each American living in poverty, we now spend $17,000 annually on these programs. And after 50 years of this strategy, there are still nearly 50 million Americans living in poverty today, and President Obama calls “inequality” is “the defining issue of our time.” The war, he says, is “far from over.”

He’s right: 50 years in, we’re still far from winning the war on poverty. But what does he–what does the left–propose to turn the tide? A small hike in the minimum wage, (when only about one third of one percent of Americans lives under the poverty line earning minimum wage). They want some higher taxes on the rich, a few new bureaucracies at most. In other words, the same ideas we’ve been trying for the last 50 years–programs whose most notable achievement is trapping millions of Americans in dependency.

The best response to these proposals may be a half century old itself: Ronald Reagan’s “A Time for Choosing” speech, which he, too, delivered in 1964. “Do they honestly expect us to believe,” he asked, “that if we add 1 billion dollars to the 45 billion we’re spending, one more program to the 30-odd we have—and remember, this new program doesn’t replace any, it just duplicates existing programs—do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic?”It didn’t. And none of the same old, timid ideas we’re hearing from the left to mark this anniversary will do that either, of course.

We owe it to the least well-off Americans to develop a completely new approach to the war on poverty. Instead of recycling bureaucratic proposals from the era of black and white television, it’s time to rethink fundamentally how it is possible to help the poor in this very different world.

Great article by Rand Paul

One of Rand Paul’s strengths is that he connects well with his audiences. This article is addressed to college students but has a good message for all of us.

The federal government now attempts to micromanage American life at practically every level.

The government tells you what kind of lightbulbs you can buy, what kind of toilet can be in your home, how much water can come out of your showerhead. Privacy is seemingly an antiquated notion, with government snoops able to access third-party records, such as phone records, e-mails, financial records, and pretty much any other personal information they want, without a judge’s warrant.
:
America has drifted away from the constitutional principles of limited government, separation of powers, and individual liberty.
:
We need to do a better job of communicating why big government is the problem—why it is bad for the economy, freedom, and a restrained, yet strong, foreign policy.
:
conservative solutions are tangible too. We’re not just saying no to more government. Our proposals will lead the way to more prosperity, more stable families, political decisions made at the local level, a dollar that holds up in a global marketplace, an education system that puts students and parents first, a vibrant culture supported by religious institutions, and opportunities for young people like you to grow and lead America into a renewed age of freedom.
:
Our political opponents and the media like to portray conservatives as unconcerned about the poor, senior citizens, and minorities. Nothing could be further from the truth. But we need to do a better job of communicating the promise of conservatism, not simply the failures of liberalism. We advocate not for special privileges for “the rich” but rather for a flourishing economy that lifts everyone up, creating millions of jobs and lessening the burden of taxes and government regulation.

We need to shout to anyone who will listen, “More freedom and less government means more jobs, more wealth, and a better life for everyone.” Despite the trillions of taxpayer dollars spent on bailouts and “stimulus” plans over the past several years, the economy hasn’t fully recovered from the Great Recession.

One in six Americans lives in poverty, more than at any other time in the past several decades. This is unacceptable.
:
Decentralization of power is the best policy. Government is more efficient, more just, and more personal when it is smaller and more local. By decentralizing government, we strengthen communities, allowing people to depend on and care for one another, rather than on some distant, incompetent bureaucracy masquerading as defender of the common good. This is a message we need to do a better job communicating.

Read the whole thing.