Minor Thoughts from me to you

My telephone service is about to get more expensive -- thanks to the FCC.

The Federal Communications Commission voted to boost the amount that cell-phone companies must pay to a fund that subsidizes phone service in rural areas, and to require Internet-based phone companies to contribute to the fund for the first time.

Under the FCC's proposal, cell-phone and other wireless providers would have to contribute as much as 3.9 percent of revenue from customers for the third quarter, while providers of Internet-based phone service would have to contribute as much as 6.8 percent of revenue.

We use Vonage for our telephone service. As an "Internet-based phone service", I expect they'll have to jack rates by a couple of percentage points in the next month or so. I'm close to getting another cell phone. Looks like that'll be getting more expensive as well.

How long has it been since rural phone service has truly needed a subsidizing? All that's happening now is that people who choose to live in the sticks get artificially cheaper telephone service -- at my expense. Hope they're enjoying it.

The Wisconsin State Journal has a decent article on the pitfalls of regulation. The article correctly points out that many regulatory investigations are simple abuses of power and that regulation targets anyone with innovative, new, or disruptive ideas.

I do have one comment, however. The article points out that the state legislature makes decisions about what to regulate.

"What often happens is that constituents contact their local legislators and talk to them about the need," Martin said. "Often the professions themselves approach the legislator, asking to be regulated."

True enough. But there is a good reason why professions ask to be regulated -- and it's not for the good of the consumer. Professions can face competition from new businesses, new practitioners, or new ways of doing something. By regulating a profession, the members of that profession can ensure oversee who enters the profession. They can ensure that no new methods of doing business are introduced without their approval. They can limit the number of new practitioners that enter the profession. In short, they can limit competition and better insure their own business success. This is not aimed at protecting the consumer, but at protecting the existing businesses or practitioners.

After all, are you really at risk from unlicensed barbers or interior designers? In Wisconsin, these privileged workers are protected from undue competition. I seriously doubt that Wisconsin consumers were ever really at risk from either profession.

The United Automobile Workers Union recently held its annual convention. While in Las Vegas, they discussed what steps were necessary to grow union membership.

Mr. Bailey [president of Local 2865] told fellow members that organizing could often take a long time, saying that it took nearly two decades to change California law to allow academic student workers to organize.

"We all know that the industrial sector is flying away to right-to-work states, where it's going to take time and big-time financial resources to win campaigns," he said, referring to states with laws that do not favor unions.

This is why the unions need to spend big money on recruitment:

The union is about to lose thousands more members in manufacturing. Ford Motor and General Motors want to reduce their hourly work forces by 60,000, and suppliers represented by the U.A.W. also are cutting jobs. Delphi, G.M.'s largest supplier, plans to close 21 of its 29 United States plants by 2008 and cut its hourly work force by thousands

So. High costs of labor is forcing many employers to lay off union workers and move to non-union states. The solution: follow them to non-union states and force them to keep paying ever higher wages. Sounds like a winner to me.

That's certainly what this retroactive tax hike sounds like. Because 2006 taxes aren't officially due until April 2007, this isn't an ex post facto law. But I bet it certainly feels like one to the people paying the taxes.

This is exactly what I don't trust government with the authority to tax. Chief Justice John Marhsall said: "The power to tax involves the power to destroy." I think Congress may have destroyed a few jobs this month.

The U.S. Treasury department laid to rest a long-cherished friend today. The federal excise tax on long-distance phone calls was officially declared dead by Treasury Secretary John Snow. The tax was first enacted in 1898 as a temporary measure designed to "soak the rich". Along the way it has managed to soak the middle-class, the poor, the indigent, and the homeless.

This tax, sadly, outlived my grandfather. He saw long-distance service go from an expensive luxury to something that cellular companies gave away as a free benefit. Nevertheless, the federal government continued to tax everyone who used long-distance service as part of "the rich".

Keep that in mind the next time someone wants to tax "the rich". In another generation or two, we might all be "the rich".

Instead of using our oil ourselves, we may soon be watching Cuba use them on behalf of China and India. Does something about that sound wrong? It sure does to me.

We can do something about the potential encroachment on our oil fields by lifting the bans on off-shore drilling and increasing the domestic production of oil and natural gas. The Times notes that we could become self-sufficient for energy for the next generation just on the known oil and gas reserves off our shores, and that does not count the ANWR preserve. The commodities market for oil would deflate with the US running on its own energy production, greatly reducing the revenue to potentially dangerous regimes. At the least, we can shed our trade with Venezuela and the Middle East, focusing on imports from Canada and Mexico instead, and extending the life of our reserves in the process. That would send a message that we have the will to reach self-sufficiency as well as remind some regimes how much they rely on American petrodollars and the inflated price of oil for survival.

Instead of providing for our own needs -- thus lessening our dependence on Venezualen oil and Iranian oil -- we're content to "protect the environment" and ignore our energy needs. While I have my (large) differences with the Republicans in Washington, the Democrats increasingly seem to be bent on stupidity.

Instead, we will probably continue to dream up conspiracy theories about greedy oil companies which have few investment choices, given the restrictions on drilling and refining that the US has imposed on the domestic industry. And while we travel through the fascination of paranoia, we will allow our economic and military rivals to steal our reserves out from underneath us -- literally -- and pretend that their drilling somehow doesn't carry the same environmental problems as our drilling would.

(A tip o' the hat to Captain Ed. The analysis is his, I'm just passing it along.)

There's a very simple way to demonstrate that high taxes are a bad idea. Rich people have lots of money. The best thing possible for everyone else is that rich people spend that money. Every dollar spent by a rich person is a dollar that helps employ someone else. If buying a car, auto works are employed; if buying a suit, textile workers are employed; if buying a house, construction workers are employed; if buying a yacht, dock workers are employed.

The more government taxes someone, the less likely they are to put their money in places where it can be taxed. If they stop spending, the entire economy suffers. If government lowers their taxes, they will be more likely to spend their money, thus creating jobs for everyone else.

Call it trickle down economics. Call it Reaganomics. Or call it psychology. Whatever you call it, it works. Tax someone more, they'll spend less; tax someone less, they'll spend more. I'm better off when they spend more. Aren't you?

The California Legislature thinks you're too dumb to own an ultrasound machine. Here's why:

"I've seen the images, and they are amazing," Mr. Lieu, referring to ultrasound pictures, said in a telephone interview after the Assembly vote. "I could watch for hours. That's the problem. Someone could leave it on the belly all day long and do harm without even knowing it."

Some studies have shown that when used improperly, the ultrasound machine can heat internal organs and the fluid inside a womb, possibly causing neurological damage to a fetus, Mr. Lieu said.

Is Mr. Lieu afraid that he's a moron or that the voters are morons? I trust that the American populace is smart enough to use ultrasound machines responsibly. Mr. Lieu just thinks you're an idiot who will strap one on and leave it running for the next 8 hours.

Fortunately, one California legislator actually uses his brain:

"We can't legislate everything, and this is certainly one of those things that we're going down the path of just really binding our society with a billion little laws," said Assemblyman Dave Cogdill, a Republican from the Central Valley.

Would that the rest of the legislators took a hint. Wouldn't it be simpler to just outlaw everything and force voters to ask for permission before doing anything? It sure looks like that's the road we're headed down.

The biggest problem with our current tax code is that it's too complex. Millions of hours worth of effort are wasted every year calculating who owes what, to whom, for what, in what quantities. Every year Congress makes the entire enterprise more complicated. For instance, after Hurricane Katrina, Congress wrote all kinds of breaks into the tax code for those who had been harmed by the hurricane or those who were helping those harmed by the hurricane. The result is a mess of new forms, qualifications, deductions, credits, required documentation, and -- most of all -- confusion.

It turns out that there's actually a very good reason for all of this confusion:

Three of the four top lawmakers on the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means committees, which are in charge of writing tax laws, pay professionals to file their annual tax returns with the Internal Revenue Service.

(The fourth files his own taxes every year.) Will any of the other law makers ever consider filing their own taxes?

"Absolutely not," said Rep. Jim McCrery (R-La.). "I'm not an accountant. I'm a lawyer."

Well, buddy, I think you should feel the pain that American taxpayers feel. I propose -- beginning next year -- that all Congresspeople and Senators be required to fill out their tax returns by hand. No calculators. No computers. No tax advisors. No visits to H&R; Block. Furthermore, any errors will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. And why not -- they're writing laws that all Americans are expected to follow fully. It's only fair that they themselves face the same expectations and the same penalties for failure.

As for not allowing the lawmakers to have any help when filing their taxes, just consider it an incentive to simplify the tax code. After all, not everyone can afford fancy software of expensive advisors. If the people that write the code (who are supposedly experts on the topic) can't follow the code, maybe the code needs to be changed. Left to its own devices, I don't expect Congress to ever simplify the tax code. But maybe if we make them feel the full and undiluted pain of the tax code, they'll see the light.

Dr. Rick Scarborough in his latest "Rick Scarborough Report":

The New Testament is largely silent on the subject of immigration. However, the Old Testament has much to say on the subject of boundaries. In Genesis, the Children of Israel are invited to settle in the land of Egypt; they don't just up and move there without permission (illegally).

Well, sure. Then, 400 years, later they left Egypt, trecked across the desert, moved back to "the sacred land of our ancestors" (uninvited), and proceed to kick the stuffing out of everyone who was currently living there. Kinda makes our own reconquista problems seem minor, doesn't it?

This is a perfect example of why I get nervous when Christians get involved in politics. While Christ does say that our beliefs will make us appear foolish to the world, I'd rather not give "the world" any extra ammunition along the way. So, let's lay off of using the Bible to support any positions on immigration policy. It's just not there. It's not a subject that the Bible is concerned with. Trying to pretend that the Bible does speak on immigration is foolishness and does a disservice to the Gospel.

While I was growing up, my dad frequently mentioned a set of tapes he had once heard. The speaker on the tapes proclaimed that no American truly owed income taxes. He proclaimed that the entire tax code was a fraud foisted upon the American public and that you were free to earn income without paying taxes. The idea sounded kooky, but my dad (and I) was intrigued and, as I get older, asked me to help him investigate the idea.

Well, Papa, I've got your answers in. Reason magazine published a May 2004 article: "It's So Simple, It's Ridiculous": Taxing times for 16th Amendment rebels.

The partisans of the tax honesty movement go beyond complaining that the income tax is too high, or that out-of-control IRS agents enforce it in thuggish ways. They claim, for a dizzyingly complicated variety of reasons, that there is no legal obligation to pay it. The continued life -- and even flourishing -- of that notion, in the face of obloquy, fines, and jail sentences, says something fascinating about a peculiarly American spirit of defiance. It may even say something encouraging about what it means to live in a nation of laws, not of men.

Never has any court anywhere -- much less the IRS -- accepted as valid any of the many arguments the movement offers for how and why there is no legal obligation for individuals to pay federal income tax. In fact, courts will fine you up to $25,000 for even raising them, insisting such arguments have been rejected so often by so many courts at so many levels that they are patently frivolous and time-wasting.

According to FoxNews, Mayor Ray Nagin said that New Orleans residents should be allowed to rebuild anywhere -- as long as they do so at their own risk. Quoth the good mayor I don't recommend you going in areas I'm not comfortable with. I'm confident that the citizens can decide intelligently for themselves..

Actually, I am too. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that citizens will intelligently decide to rebuild in dangerous areas. Why? Because apparently poor decisions no longer have harsh consequences. President Bush's Gulf Coast Rebuilding Coordinator, Donald Powell, recently announced that President Bush would seek $4.2 billion for uninsured home owners that lived in the flood plains of New Orleans. The home owners that lived in that flood plain risked being flooded out. Many of them chose to accept that risk even without flood insurance. No matter. The federal government is now promising to cancel out any of the painful consequences of those decisions.

With consequences like that, I'm sure many citizens will choose to live wherever they please. It would be an intelligent decision too. After all, if the government's bailed them out once, it's likely to do it again. And we'll pay for it. How's that for living in the land of freedom and opportunity? Our government is guaranteeing that you can have the freedom to live wherever you want and your fellow citizens will have the opportunity of paying for your choice.

In American politics today, there is a simple question that divides us: who makes our choices? Do we make our own choices or do we stand aside and let someone else make our choices for us? This is the question that fuels the debate over school choice, over ethanol mandates, over FDA drug approvals, and over a host of other issues.

There are those that believe that only government employees can be trusted to make decisions. They believe that parents cannot be trusted to choose a school for their own children. They believe that drivers cannot be trusted to choose the best fuel for their vehicles. They believe that patients cannot be trusted to choose which medicines to take. As a result, they established the FDA to pick and choose our medicines for us. They established local School Boards to run the schools, making it as difficult as possible for parents to use non-government schools. They support ethanol mandates, to make us use the fuels they like best.

This governmental paternalism is always presented as a benevolent service. A service that government willingly provides to its citizens. But is it benevolent? Does government paternalism really make our lives better? Are we really better off if the government makes our choices for us?

Let me make this entire issue more personal: do you trust the FDA to make the right decisions about your drugs? Be cautious how you respond. The FDA has two criteria for approving drugs: is it safe and does it work? Every drug must be tested thoroughly -- a process that often lasts 10 years or more. Some drugs make it through these tests and are approved for sale, most don't.

What does it mean when a drug fails its tests? It means that the drug doesn't work more often than it does. It means that the drug hurts more people than it helps. It doesn't mean that the drug never works and it doesn't mean that the drug always causes harm. FDA employees look at the test results and make a decision. Does the drug work often enough, in a safe enough manner to be sold? In some manner, these decisions are arbitrary. There is no hard and fast line that can determine whether or not a drug is appropriate for human usage.

FDA doctors look at all of the variables, all of the tests, all of the evidence and make one decision. This decision is binding on all 300 million American citizens. This decision is no mere recommendation. It is a crime to use a drug that the FDA has not certified as being safe and effective. Both the patient taking it and the doctor prescribing it can be thrown into jail if their usage of the drug does not meet FDA "guidelines".

Is the FDA's decision really that valid? Is it really valid for all 300 million Americans? Probably not. There are tradeoffs involved in the decision to take any drug. Is it going to work? How well will it work? What side effects will there be? How severe will the side effects be? Is there a danger of death? How big is that danger of death? What benefits does the drug offer? How dramatic are those benefits? Are those benefits worth the danger of death? These are questions that don't have a one-size fits all answer. Some drugs may be very dangerous for some patients and very safe for others. Some drugs may have no effect on one person and a life-changing effect for another person. And yet, the FDA makes the same decision binding on both people.

Case in point: yesterday, the FDA heard testimony from patients with multiple sclerosis about a called Tysabri. This drug has been called a breakthrough for the treatment of M.S. Multiple sclerosis is a neurological disease that affects about 400,000 Americans. It wouldn't be surprising if a drug that treats neurological defects has neurological side effects. So it is with Tysabri. Tysabri has been linked to P.M.L. (progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy), a rare but deadly neurologic virus.

On the one hand, we have a drug that's been hailed as a breakthrough treatment for a debilitating disease. On the other hand, we have a drug that can kill those who take it. Should it be available for patients to take or not? The FDA is currently deciding. The FDA is currently deciding whether or not M.S. patients can take a potentially life-changing (and possibly life threatening) drug. Why is the FDA deciding this issue? Why can't these patients make their own decisions? Pamela Clark of Salt Lake City told the agency that "We understand the risks of using experimental drugs, but we also understand the risks of doing nothing." She also reported that "Tysabri had allowed her to walk to a duck pond with her two 5-year-old sons and stand up long enough to cook dinner."

Tysabri has made Pamela's life better. It's allowed her to enjoy life again. She weighed the risk and decided that the benefit of the drug was worth the risk. Unfortunately for Pamela, she's not allowed to make that decision. She has to wait for the FDA to make the decision for her.

Do you think that's right? Do you think that Pamela should be prevented from deciding for herself? Do you think that her illness distorts her judgment in such a way that she is incapable of making her own decision? Would your answer change if you were in Pamela's shoes? Are you willing to turn control of your life over to government employees?

It's time to make a choice.

A little black comedy from the Associated Press to start your day off right, Lords and Ladies:

CHICAGO "” Nation of Islam officials on Tuesday said Jewish leaders who resigned from a state hate crimes commission rather than serve with one of their members should rejoin the panel or quit criticizing it.

Two former commission members said they had no intention of returning to the Governor's Commission on Discrimination and Hate Crimes because Sister Claudette Marie Muhammad refused to repudiate the religious movement's leader, Minister Louis Farrakhan.

In her first comments since four commissioners resigned last week, Muhammad said it was ridiculous that she has been condemned for Farrakhan's remarks.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich's appointment of Muhammad to the commission in August drew no public attention until she invited commissioners to attend a speech given by Farrakhan, who is known for his disparaging remarks about Jews, whites and gays.

Some commissioners began criticizing her presence on the panel after Farrakhan's speech Feb. 26 in Chicago that included references to "Hollywood Jews" promoting homosexuality and "other filth."

On Tuesday, Farrakhan's chief of staff, Brother Leonard Muhammad, said the Nation of Islam forgave the former commissioners because they "left out of confusion."

"You misunderstand what the commission is all about," Leonard Muhammad said on WVON-AM. "Come back to the commission and debate your point."

He later issued a stronger challenge for them to return.

"They need to come back or shut up," Leonard Muhammad said.

Claudette Muhammad urged her critics to leave her alone.

"For those who try to condemn me because of the honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan's remarks," she said, "it's ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous."

Claudette Muhammad said she and her family have been victims of hate crimes and discrimination, and that she has Jewish family members, has traveled to Israel and has worshipped in synagogues.

"Please know I am not the victimizer here, OK, but instead I am the victim," she said. She refused to repudiate Farrakhan and recommended that people who disagree with him, speak with him.

"I have no intention of returning to the commission until it is cleansed of the stain and stench of bigotry caused by Sister Claudette's continued presence," said Hirschhaut, executive director of the Illinois Holocaust Museum and Education Center.

As a cherry on this little sunday, the governor has stated that he didn't actually have any idea that he hired a Nation of Islam follower for his commission, apparently thinking that this would make everyone feel better.

If you live in Colorado, you may be surprised at how hard it is to start a business. Coyote recently won a concession to manage the Elk Creek Marina on Blue Mesa Lake. He posted a list on Getting the Government's Permission to do Business. It's a 20 item list. Everything on there is either time-consuming, expensive, or both.

• To register as a foreign corporation, we need to hire a person to be a "registered agent" to be a contact with the state. The only real purpose of this person I have ever found is to provide an avenue for mail to get lost.
• We need to fill out a pretty elaborate application to sell Colorado fishing licenses, and may need to post another bond to do so. (Update: Confirmed, we need a $4000 bond).
• We need to go through an extensive application process to transfer three current liquor licenses into our name. I wrote about liquor license hassles here.
• The person on the phone today told me a corporation in Colorado cannot own more than two liquor licenses. If this is true, we will have to form a second company in Colorado, repeating all the tasks above plus the initial work just to form the company
• Our managers need to attend food handlers training in Colorado. Of course, they have attended the exact same course in California, but Colorado wants them to sit through it again within their state's borders

There's more. Lots more. Think of this if you wonder why there aren't more jobs available. Every potential employer has to go through this hassle before being legally allowed to offer jobs.

Another John Stossel special will be airing on ABC this week. Reason Magazine reprints a summary of Myths, Lies, and Nasty Behavior.

The special will air in Madison on ABC-27 and run from 9pm to 10pm. We have a dinner guest tonight, but I'll be taping it to watch later.

Also worth reading is Stossel's older article Confessions of a Welfare Queen. You may be surprised at who's collecting welfare checks.

The Heritage Foundation has published a new report entitled "Federal Spending: By the Numbers". If you value fiscal conservatism, if you value living within your means, if you wish your government shared your values, you'll find this to be a depressing read. If this keeps up, we'll have nothing to leave our children -- the government will have taken it all in taxes, leaving our children and grandchildren with nothing but debt and memories of prosperity. Courtesy of Captains Quarters:

However, federal spending has kept the pace of the expansion in revenues. Last year's budget came in at $2.472T, and this year we expect to spend $2.77T, according to estimates released this week. Of that money, $969B comes in so-called discretionary spending, up $300B since 2001. But by far and away the worst of the bill comes in entitlement spending, which went to $1.32T last year, up from $1.009 in 2001. As a measure of the rate of increase in both areas, discretionary spending has increased 93% since 1990, but entitlements have gone up 132%, while revenues have increased by 109%.

Where has the increase come? Some of it has gone to national defense, but not all of it. In fact, the federal budget has grown across the board since 2001, outstripping inflation (12% overall) in several categories, such as Education (137%), Community and Regional Development (342%), Medicare (58%), Housing and Commerce (58%), Medicaid (49%), and Water Transportation (46%). Do you like the idea of nationalized health care? We may be heading there by default, as the federal budget for Health Research and Regulation has grown by 78% since 2001 and now consumes $76B of our budget.