BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

Government Meddling Archive

Saturday

12

March 2011

0

COMMENTS

$10 + Government Meddling = $1,500

Written by , Posted in Free Markets, Government Meddling, Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

And not in the good way.

A drug for high-risk pregnant women has cost about $10 to $20 per injection. Next week, the price shoots up to $1,500 a dose, meaning the total cost during a pregnancy could be as much as $30,000.

That’s because the drug, a form of progesterone given as a weekly shot, has been made cheaply for years, mixed in special pharmacies that custom-compound treatments that are not federally approved.

But recently, KV Pharmaceutical of suburban St.Louis won government approval to exclusively sell the drug, known as Makena (Mah-KEE’-Nah). The March of Dimes and many obstetricians supported that because it means quality will be more consistent and it will be easier to get.

None of them anticipated the dramatic price hike, though…

Of course they didn’t, because they don’t think about the consequences for their feel-good meddling.

Makena is a synthetic form of the hormone progesterone that first came on the market more than 50 years ago to treat other problems. Hormone drugs came under fire in the 1970s, following reports they might damage fetuses in early pregnancy. In the 1990s, the early incarnation of Makena was withdrawn from the market.

But the drug got a new life in 2003, with publication of a study that reported it helped prevent early births to women who had a history of spontaneous preterm deliveries.

…The study of women at risk for this condition found that only about 36 percent of those given the progesterone drug had preterm births, compared with 55 percent among those not on the drug.

…To get FDA approval, the company is spending hundreds of millions of dollars in additional research, including an international study involving 1,700 women, Divis said. The FDA last month signed off and gave Makena orphan drug status. That designation ensures Ther-Rx will be the sole source of the drug for seven years.

I’d say that the fools got what they deserve for wanting their precious “FDA approved” in front of what was already a perfectly good and safe drug, but really it’s the rest of us that will bear the costs through increased insurance premiums and entitlement subsidies, or loss of access to a beneficial drug.

It just amazes me that the doctors in the article, who are presumably intelligent people, are shocked and surprised that adding an expensive approval process and a government granted monopoly would make something more expense.

How can we ever hope to create good public policy with so much economic illiteracy to contend with?

Saturday

12

February 2011

2

COMMENTS

There's More Than One Way to Handout Government Benefits

Written by , Posted in Free Markets, Government Meddling

I recently read this article about the postal service, and there was one part that jumped out at me:

The USPS, a self-supporting government agency that receives no tax dollars, said it suffered a loss of $329 million in the first quarter of federal fiscal year 2011. That compared with a loss of $297 million a year earlier.

There are two things wrong with this statement. First, the USPS does receive tax dollars. The Postal Service Fund is a subsidy program established to  pay for postage-free mailing by the legally blind, pay the cost of election ballots, and keep open rural post offices.

Second, the USPS is not “self-sustaining” even if we ignore the contribution of the Postal Service Fund. Money is not the only means by which government benefits particular entities. Rules, regulations and laws are often also used to pick winners and losers. The USPS gets just such a benefit, and it’s a whopper: it is illegal for any other group than the USPS to deliver letters. They have a government granted and enforced monopoly, which refutes entirely the idea that they are “self-sustaining,”  at least in any meaningful sense of the phrase.

Tuesday

8

February 2011

1

COMMENTS

Government Orders Barber with 50 Years Experience Back to School

Written by , Posted in Government Meddling, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

I’ve written about the problems with government licensing schemes, and the Institute for Justice brings us yet another egregious example of this particular tool of government infringement on basic rights:

An 80-year-old barber cutting hair for 50 years now is told he has to go back to school.

He says the state never warned him his license was about to expire.

Americans have a constitutional right to earn a living in the occupation of their choice, free from unreasonable government interference.

What happened to this man is the very definition of unreasonable.

A properly engaged judiciary, is one that takes rights seriously, including the right to earn a living.

And it says to government officials you have to treat people reasonably, you have to respect their constitutional right to earn a living. The Institute for Justice created the Center for Judicial Engagement to educate the public about the importance of an engaged judiciary that will protect our constitutional rights including the right to earn a living.

And when we succeed, what you saw in this case the State of Oregon putting a man out of business who’s been cutting hair for 50 years,

That will never happen again.

Hat-tip: Hot Air

Saturday

15

January 2011

0

COMMENTS

A Lesson in Unintended Consequences

Written by , Posted in Government Meddling

I’m all for the scientific pursuit of knowledge. I have degrees in two very different scientific fields, I value the scientific method, and I firmly believe that knowledge is power (or as I learned from watching G.I Joe cartoons while growing up , “Knowing is half the battle”). I say all this to make clear that this shouldn’t be taken as a knock on science or the particular scientists involved in this story. Rather, I present this news item as an example of the dangers of unintended consequences:

Some scientists studying penguins may be inadvertently harming them with the metal bands they use to keep track of the tuxedo-clad seabirds, a new study says.

The survival rate of King penguins with metal bands on their flippers was 44 percent lower than those without bands and banded birds produced far fewer chicks, according to new research published Wednesday in the journal Nature.

The theory is that the metal bands — either aluminum or stainless steel — increase drag on the penguins when they swim, making them work harder, the study’s authors said.

Author Yvon Le Maho of the University of Strasbourg in France, said the banded penguins looked haggard, appearing older than their actual age.

Consequently, studies that use banded penguins — including ones about the effects of global warming on the seabirds — may be inaccurate, mixing up other changes in penguin life with the effects from banding, said Le Maho and colleague Claire Saraux.

Now imagine that the scientists are government and we are the penguins. Such unintended consequences are not at all uncommon from government policy. It’s not usually so bad as drastically increasing mortality rates, but unintended consequences abound whenever government do-gooders get a design in their eyes for how to improve society.

In the case of the penguins, I’m sure this new finding will be incorporated into future studies, with new study techniques being developed and implemented so that future beings aren’t condemned to death. That’s the difference between science and government. Scientists learn (eventually); government’s don’t. We know that government imposed minimum wages hurt the very people they are said to help, but still they remain, and are constantly increased. We know that government meddling in the housing market contributed to the economic collapse, yet the very same policies continue today.

We need a government that is aware of the likelihood and dangers of unintended consequences from sweeping legislation that drastically increases the role of government in society. It’s not that one expects the exact problems to be foreseen in every case (they are, after all, unintended), but a general awareness of the danger government can inflict on society through its meddling would result in far fewer destructive policies ever seeing the light of day. We penguins request just that little bit of additional consideration for our well-being.

Sunday

7

November 2010

1

COMMENTS

Taxpayer Money Used To Promote Food, Then Tell You Not To Eat It

Written by , Posted in Government Meddling, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

From the NYT:

Domino’s Pizza was hurting early last year. Domestic sales had fallen, and a survey of big pizza chain customers left the company tied for the worst tasting pies.

Then help arrived from an organization called Dairy Management. It teamed up with Domino’s to develop a new line of pizzas with 40 percent more cheese, and proceeded to devise and pay for a $12 million marketing campaign.

Consumers devoured the cheesier pizza, and sales soared by double digits. “This partnership is clearly working,” Brandon Solano, the Domino’s vice president for brand innovation, said in a statement to The New York Times.

But as healthy as this pizza has been for Domino’s, one slice contains as much as two-thirds of a day’s maximum recommended amount of saturated fat, which has been linked to heart disease and is high in calories.

And Dairy Management, which has made cheese its cause, is not a private business consultant. It is a marketing creation of the United States Department of Agriculture — the same agency at the center of a federal anti-obesity drive that discourages over-consumption of some of the very foods Dairy Management is vigorously promoting.

…[I]n a series of confidential agreements approved by agriculture secretaries in both the Bush and Obama administrations, Dairy Management has worked with restaurants to expand their menus with cheese-laden products.

…Dairy Management, whose annual budget approaches $140 million, is largely financed by a government-mandated fee on the dairy industry. But it also receives several million dollars a year from the Agriculture Department, which appoints some of its board members, approves its marketing campaigns and major contracts and periodically reports to Congress on its work.

The organization’s activities, revealed through interviews and records, provide a stark example of inherent conflicts in the Agriculture Department’s historical roles as both marketer of agriculture products and America’s nutrition police.

I know how to solve this conflict. It’s quite easy, in fact: abolish the Department of Agriculture. Government should neither be promoting a specific consumer good, nor nannying people to stop eating food that it deems as crossing some arbitrary health threshold.

Tuesday

28

September 2010

0

COMMENTS

Free Labor For Me, But Not For Thee

Written by , Posted in Government Meddling, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

Government bureaucrats think it is their business to prevent individuals from entering voluntary contracts with companies or organizations if the level of compensation does not meet some arbitrary threshold. Congress has used minimum wage laws to prevent certain arrangements, while the Department of Justice has a set of rules detailing when unpaid internships are considered legal.  Naturally, these rules do not apply to government.

At CEI’s Open Market, Brian McGraw points to these rules from the DoJ that won’t apply for the currently advertised unpaid internships at the White House:

  1. The internship, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to training which would be given in an educational environment;
  2. The internship experience is for the benefit of the intern;
  3. The intern does not displace regular employees, but works under close supervision of existing staff;
  4. The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the intern; and on occasion its operations may actually be impeded;
  5. The intern is not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the internship; and
  6. The employer and the intern understand that the intern is not entitled to wages for the time spent in the internship.

Yes, number 4 really does say that it’s legal only for a corporation to use unpaid interns if they are counter-productive. No such restriction will apply for the White House, though, as “Unpaid internships in the public sector and for non-profit charitable organizations, where the intern volunteers without expectation of compensation, are generally permissible.”

It is obviously hypocritical for government to restrict the use of unpaid interns for others, while at the same time everyone knows that Washington thrives on the practice. But there is no good reason for these restrictions on anyone. Individuals that enter into unpaid internships do so because they will receive something in return, usually training and experience to add to their resumes, that they value more than their labor. They would not take the position if this were not true. Like most government actions designed to protect people from themselves, prohibiting individuals from entering into voluntary unpaid internships actually harms them by limiting their opportunities.

Monday

27

September 2010

0

COMMENTS

Net Neutrality Is Still An Important Issue

Written by , Posted in Free Markets, Government Meddling

Net neutrality is a “solution” seeking a problem. Contrary to the excess of doom mongering from certain corners, there is no evidence that an absence of government control will result in an internet where data and information discrimination is the norm. The evidence suggests just the opposite, in fact, as internet censorship across the world is always a product of government influence or control.

There is no potential problem that, lacking a government enforced net neutrality standard, market competition cannot handle. If an ISP were to slow down access to a particular website because that site owner did not pay a kickback fee, or because the ISP objected to its content for political – or any other – reasons, the public outcry would be tremendous. Customers would flee that company in droves, and it would be promptly put out of business. There is no check more powerful than that of free consumer choice.

(more…)

Thursday

23

September 2010

0

COMMENTS

Government Insurance Meddling Costs Kids Coverage

Written by , Posted in Government Meddling, Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements

Consider this a prelude to Obamacare:

Tens of thousands of Texas children will be directly affected by the 11th-hour decision of a number of major health insurance companies to stop selling child-only policies rather than comply with the new federal law that requires they cover youngsters with pre-existing conditions.

…Spokespersons for Aetna and Cigna said the change was made to keep family coverage affordable for as many people as possible and avoid significant price hikes. They said that under the new law, people suddenly seeking coverage would predominantly be those who need to consume healthcare services immediately for known, high-cost conditions.

Some people may find this hard to believe, but insurers are a business.  Like any other business, if they lose money while doing something, they will opt not to do it anymore.  So when government makes covering certain people a losing proposition, it is government that has caused them to lose their coverage. Keep that in mind when the statists inevitable respond to such developments with calls for yet more government intervention and control.

Saturday

28

August 2010

0

COMMENTS

Alabama Redistributing from the Poor to the Rich

Written by , Posted in Government Meddling

Advocates of big government think it is appropriate for the state to redistribute wealth out of a sense of fairness.  They usually claim to want some form of taking from the wealthy to give to the poor.  But the practice of redistribution is actually quite different.  In reality, redistributive states take from those without political influence and give to the politically powerful.  This results in situations like this one in Montgomery Alabama, where the city is destroying the homes of the poor and giving their land to rich developers.

…[H]ere is how it works: The city decides it doesn’t like your property for one reason or another, so it declares it a “public nuisance.” It mails you a notice that you have 45 days to demolish your property, at your expense, or the city will do it for you (and, of course, bill you).

Your tab with the city will constitute a lien on your property, and if you don’t pay it within 30 days (or pay your installments on time; if you owe over $10,000, you can work out a deal to pay back the city for destroying your home over a period of time, with interest), the city can sell your now-vacant land to the highest bidder.

Alabama law empowers municipalities to do just this. Officials can demolish structures that they determine, “due to poor design, obsolescence, or neglect, have become unsafe to the extent of becoming public nuisances…and [are] causing or may cause a blight or blighting influence on the city and the neighborhoods in which [they are] located.” Keep in mind, so-called standards like “obsolescence” are so vague they can mean anything, so even a well-maintained home that government officials don’t like the look of can be fed to the bulldozers.

While this may sound like eminent domain for private gain, it’s not. This is a completely different section of Alabama’s code that the city of Montgomery is now abusing habitually to tear down homes it does not like in a predominantly African American community — once home to Rosa Parks.

Friday

13

August 2010

0

COMMENTS

Newer Entries →
← Older Entries

About Me

profileI serve as Vice President of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, a non-profit think tank dedicated to preserving tax competition and free markets. This site features my personal views, which are not reflective of CF&P.

Search Site

Categories

Archives