The writing is already on the wall. Government is poised to take over health care. The next logical step in controlling the cost of this “public service” will be controlling your eating habits. While I believe that people should pay for their eating habits via increased insurance premiums, I do not believe the government should be telling people what to eat, trying to change the way people eat, or getting involved in people’s eating habits what-so-ever.

Instead of hoping that individuals can muster the self-discipline on their own to avoid processed foods, fast food and days without physical exercise, the idea is that governments must actively work to change environments and reduce the menu of harmful options available in everyday life.

As a result, hundreds of towns in Europe and elsewhere have adopted a version of this strategy, aimed particularly at preventing children from becoming overweight and obese. They hired dietitians to counsel children and their families in schools, organized walk-to-school days, hired sports educators and built new sporting facilities. The U.S. government, meanwhile, is increasing its funding for cities and towns to pursue so-called community-based obesity prevention, in an effort to gather data about which kinds of tactics work best.

“People are finally acknowledging that the obesity problem is so pervasive that it isn’t just because people are making bad choices,” says Laura Kettel Khan, an obesity expert at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which makes grants to states for community obesity-prevention programs.

via New Obesity-Fighting Programs Enlist Entire Towns – WSJ.com.

The free market has a way of dealing with obesity via health insurance premiums. It also would deal with it, if the government would stay out of the free market. The government encourages bad eating habits. It does this by promoting the idea that no one should pay increased insurance costs because of pre-existing conditions, obesity or any other higher risk factor. Once government controls health care, there will be no penalty what-so-ever for bad habits.

Also, the government subsidizes corn more than any other crop which is used in most fattening foods to the tune of almost $10 billion a year. Because corn is so cheap, things like high fructose corn sryup have been developed to make food cheaper. Corn is also used to feed most live stock, which makes live stock cheaper as well. This is why fast food is so cheap. If you remove the government subsidies, corn prices will go up. With corn prices, the cost of some of the worst foods will also increase, which would result in less consumption of those foods.

We are watching the same old sitcom. Government side effects cause or contribute to our societal ills, and the government inserts itself to be our saviors willing to take our freedoms in order to fix our problems. Unfortunately, the people are all too willing to take the government solution.

Bob Murphy had a great post,  Free Advice: “The Money That Is Sold Abroad Is You!”, that reiterates my post on selling our kids into slavery. This video is a lot more dramatic though. I’m jealous.

As usual, our government finds it wise to punish good behavior. If you are a small growing business, you better not hire anyone once payroll reaches $499,999. Once you cross over that line, you are in the cross hairs of government regulators who decide how you must treat your employees. If you don’t do what they say, you will pay more taxes.

The House bill mandates that employers with payrolls above $500,000 must contribute — for each full-time employee — 72.5% of the premium cost for single coverage and 65% of the premium cost for family coverage. The penalty for failing to do so is a 2%-to-6% tax on employers with payrolls between $500,000 and $750,000 and an 8% tax for employers with payrolls above $750,000.

via Small Business Crunches Numbers – WSJ.com.

So how does this promote job growth? Business aren’t in the business of charity. If they must spend more on health care or even worse send money to Washington, they are not going to have that money to grow and to create jobs. Those employees will get less pay, because businesses figure out the overall cost of employees. If they budget X for a certain position, the person will get X minus health care, minus taxes, minus social security, minus unemployment insurance, minus workers comp, minus other benefits, and minus any other business cost associated with that employee.

If an employee takes care of themselves and their employer didn’t pay for their health insurance, they would have more money in their pocket. The employer would be able to pay more for the position without the extra costs.  Shopping for themselves, the employee would get better rates and maybe buy a low premium, high deductible insurance plan. This would increase their income substantially. Because businesses are forced into buying health insurance for all regardless to health conditions of each individual, their plans are more expensive and eats more money out of the healthy worker’s pocket. This lowers the standard of living for all workers, and is more punishment for doing the right things.

In the movie “The Last Boy Scout”, Bruce Willis would ask people that he was about to punch, “Head or Gut?”. If you were an unlucky person who didn’t understand the question, you got both. This is similar to how the government treats industries that they want to get involved in. Apparently, the utilities are asking for the gut, thinking it will be less painful.

The executives’ desire for prompt action is colliding with Washington’s focus on other issues and growing reluctance to tamper with power-industry costs during a weak economy.

An American Electric Power coal plant, with a new carbon-capture unit, in New Haven, W.Va. Most power companies don’t think any effective, affordable technology exists to capture and store their carbon-dioxide emissions.

Some executives said last week they think intervention by the Environmental Protection Agency would be doomed because, for the most part, all the agency can do is order firms to install “best available control technology.” Most power companies don’t think any effective, affordable technology exists to capture and store carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants.

Most power companies prefer so-called cap-and-trade legislation to EPA regulation because the former is expected to give them greater flexibility on how to comply and thus cost them less than EPA regulation, they say.

Still, plenty in the utility sector continue to oppose legislation to cap carbon emissions.

Under cap-and-trade legislation — which the House has passed but the Senate hasn’t vote on yet — the government would require companies to hold permits to emit greenhouse gases. Over time, the government would issue fewer permits, bringing emissions down gradually while allowing companies to trade the permits among themselves. Companies that find it too expensive to reduce their own emissions could pay other firms to reduce theirs. They could also invest in activities that offset carbon-dioxide emissions, such as planting trees.

The EPA would be “forced to pursue a technology road map that doesn’t exist,” warned Jim Rogers, chief executive of Duke Energy Corp., Charlotte, N.C., who also has lobbied the Hill repeatedly to pass a bill.

John Rowe, head of Exelon Corp., Chicago, said that EPA regulation would be “more arbitrary, more expensive, and more uncertain for investors and the industry than a reasonable, market-based legislative solution like cap and trade.”

The executives said they want legislation — and soon — because utilities need to make billions of dollars of investments in coming years and risk bad choices in a legislative void.

via Some Utilities Push Congress to Act on Carbon Emissions – WSJ.com.

Guess who the people are who don’t understand the question? That would be the you and me. We are about to get both in the form of a huge increases in the cost of living. This will come in our utility and health care costs. Not only that, each one of these touches every other part of our lives. Every business is going to be affected by these increased costs, which means they will have to raise prices of their products.

Instead of picking either head or gut, utilities should throw the first punch. They should be telling the public/customers what this means to them. Then again, the government could tell them they can’t do that. Look at Humana during the health care debate. But hey, luckily we still have freedom of speech right?

If you read my first post you know capitalism and the free market have nothing to do with greed. Greed is a derogatory term used to undermine self interest. Everyone pursues their own self interest, even the bleeding heart liberal who shouts compassion from the roof tops. True compassion comes from the person who earns and then voluntarily gives up part of their earnings to help another. Compassion is not sacrificing your fellow man for your belief in your own, false altruism. Milton doesn’t argue the word greed, but he pretty much shuts Phil Donahue down.

Being a huge UFC fan, this analogy has to be my favorite of all time.

I’ll borrow an analogy from Peter Schiff. Imagine if you will a victim at the unfortunate end of a Brock Lesnar knuckle sandwich. The blow has knocked him out cold and the medics try to revive him. The best suggestion they can come up with is to have Lesnar pound the man’s head even harder with his fists. When the man has seizures from the repeated pounding, a medic (coincidently named Bernanke) screams gleefully “Hurray, he’s moving.”

Sadly, such is the response to our present crisis by the policy makers in Washington, DC. To solve a problem caused by malinvestments resulting from easy credit at 1 percent interest rates, the Fed is supplying even more easy money at 0.25 percent. None of the malinvestments have been allowed to be liquidated.

Housing prices have been propped up, banks and auto companies have been bailed out, regulations have been increased, debt covenants have been violated, unemployment insurance has been extended. In addition, there’s the cap-and-trade bill, the healthcare bill, and a “czar” around every corner.

All of these increase the already-humongous burden on wealth creators. In short, the problems that caused the Great Recession have been compounded. Real output must then necessarily decline. How can anyone logically assert that we are in the beginning of a recovery?

via A Path To Runaway US Inflation – Ganesh Rathnam – Mises Institute.

Fannie Mae announced a new “deed for lease” program, where they will take your deed and rent your house back to  you if you don’t qualify for a loan modification and can prove you can’t pay your mortgage. They will sign a one year lease with the current owners. They are hoping they can then sell off the houses a year from now, when they assume the housing market will be better and the value of the homes will be higher. This is some pretty optimistic thinking from a now government owned institution.

What would make them think the housing market is going to pick up that much over the next year. So far, unemployment continues to rise. The Fed has been busy at the printing press, and the government is taking debt levels into unknown waters. More than likely if the economy begins to pick backup, we are going to have massive inflation. That will lead to two scenarios. Either we’ll have hyperinflation that makes the 70s look like child’s play, or we’ll have a Fed induced recession to bring inflation under control. Neither scenario paints a pretty picture for a booming housing market.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Freddie is already doing something similar) are only delaying the inevitable. The market is much smarter than the government is. It will take into account that these government institutions have a ton of inventory being hidden from the market, what analyst call “shadow” inventory. If the housing market begins to pick up, it will be driven back down with this excess inventory. Instead, Fannie should take the short term pain and end it quick.

Because of Fannie’s mistakes it is asking the government (me and you) for another $15 billion after a quarterly loss of $18.9 billion. In total, it’s estimated that we will have wasted $200 billion on both Fannie and Freddie by the time this mess is over. Then again, we know how reliable government estimates are. So far we have handed over $61 billion to Fannie, and estimates are that Fannie is sitting on inventory around 65,000 homes.

Instead of becoming landlords, why doesn’t Fannie and Freddie sell of packages of houses as investment bundles. This would get the houses off their books, and it would bring them back into the free market where they can begin to stabilize the market. Investors will buy theses homes, and guess what they’ll have to do? They have to pay taxes on their profits, which ultimately will help with the government losses that will occur with the sale. With the investors holding properties, they will want to drive prices up. They’ll either rent them out, which investors are better at than the government, or they will fix up the homes and put them back on the market. Investors will not shoot themselves in the foot by flooding the market. They will slowly bring the houses onto the market to maximize sale prices and make the most profit. Whether renting or selling, the investor will be paying taxes on his capital gains.

The government should just take the short term pain of selling them off now? This may hurt the housing market, but it will be over and stabilization can begin. Instead, the government is prolonging this crisis and making it worse, and who’s going to eat this mess? We are.

As I have said many times, the free market allocates resources based on their highest and best use. It is fine tuned by millions of decisions and transactions of individuals. This is why the market is so efficient, and meets the needs of society. On the other hand, government allocates resources based on politics. It has nothing to do with real needs, other than the need of a politician to get re-elected. The Wall Street Journal has  an article on how the Democrats are trying to please all their members with pay offs in order to get their votes. So how is paying off all members with pork for their state supposed to lower cost?

LAFAYETTE, La. — Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu says she generally backs President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul efforts. But she’d like to see a few items in the bill before voting for it, including bigger federal Medicaid payments for her home state of Louisiana, extended health coverage for her pet cause of foster children, and help for teaching hospitals in her state.

While pushing more spending in those areas, Ms. Landrieu also wants the plan to cut the overall amount the nation spends on health care.

via Democrats Pose Health Bill Hurdle – WSJ.com.

In an op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal, Dr. Pardes, president and CEO of NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, talks about the coming doctor shortage.

It is important to note that the shortage the country will soon face isn’t just of primary-care physicians. It is true that there aren’t enough primary-care doctors and nurse practitioners. But it is also true that we need more cardiologists, neurologists, general surgeons, pediatric subspecialists, urologists and other highly trained specialists.

Nonetheless, the few ideas to address the coming doctor shortages that were briefly considered in Washington treated the problem merely as a shortfall of primary-care doctors. One idea is to shift unused federal training funds to hospitals that need more positions, but only if those funds are used for primary care. Another is to move primary-care physician training out of hospitals and into federally qualified health centers. A third idea is to take training dollars away from doctors and instead use it to train nurses and other professionals.

None of these ideas would actually increase the number of doctors. At most the first two ideas would increase the number of primary-care doctors at the expense of the number of specialists.

But that’s not likely to happen either. The fundamental reason why medical students are not entering primary care on their own is that they can’t afford it. Medical-school tuition can cost a student as much as $50,000 a year. Some doctors start out owing hundreds of thousands of dollars before they are even able to open a practice. Going to medical school is a little like taking out a mortgage, only without getting a house in return.

Once doctors do start treating patients, they are squeezed between what they earn from government programs and insurance companies on one side and escalating malpractice insurance rates on the other. Meanwhile, specialists can often charge more and pay less in other costs than primary-care doctors. The reality is that many physicians cannot afford to go into primary care.

To address the shortage of doctors and the incentives that compel young doctors to eschew primary care, Congress needs to think about how to increase doctor pay, institute malpractice reform, and provide subsidies to reduce the amount of debt doctors have to take on. Residency caps should also be raised so teaching hospitals can train more doctors. Without these actions new doctors would be foolish to enter primary care, and thankfully our medical schools do not recruit foolish people.

via Herbert Pardes: The Coming Shortage of Doctors – WSJ.com.

Unfortunately, the doctor seems to suffer from what most commentators and policy wonks suffer from. They believe that you can cure an illness by increasing the causes of the illness. It would be like telling an alcoholic to drink a different alcohol to cure his liver disease. The government creates the shortage by manipulating the free market. When the government implements price controls via program reimbursement rates, you end up effecting supply negatively.  The doctor also doesn’t seem to realize that part of the reason education is so expensive is there is a massive amount of government money chasing after education services. The more dollars chasing a good or service, the higher the price rises.

The doctors has many bad assumptions here that undermine his stated goal. He says that the cost of education is extremely high. He compares it to taking out a mortgage without getting a house. This is in my opinion economically silly. Tuition is in investment like any other investment. Actually, if you pick the right major, it can be a very high yielding investment. With the high cost of medical school, one would expect a high return on that investment. In the free market that would be the case. As I’ve already said, tuition has climbed year after year because of all the government money in education. Remove government, and you will lower cost. On top of that, the doctor says government programs squeeze doctors with government reimbursement rates. This alters the return on investment analysis as well. If your investment continues to grow larger because of government, and your return is “squeezed” by government, of course you are going to begin to see shortages. This is what government always does.

Unfortunately, he then argues the government should do more. He says Congress should be looking at ways to raise doctor pay. Are you serious? Government is the reason your pay is decreasing. Get the government out of health care, and you will begin to see salaries increase.  In the free market, if there is a shortage in supply, prices increase. Seeing the increase in price (or pay in this case), competitors enter the market (in this case doctors).

Also, as price is driven up, entrepreneurs will look for alternate solutions to doctors. An real world example of this are the clinics at many local pharmacies.

Government on the other hand will just hold prices against the will of the market. As Austrian economists will tell you, “You can control price or supply, but you can’t control both.” Because government is controlling price, they will drive down supply. This will ultimately lead in the opposite outcome that the doctor claims to want. Even if the government funnels money in to subsidize doctors, they are taking that money from another area of the economy. While they may be able to falsely increase the supply of doctors, they’d end up producing a shortage in another area. This is why we defeated the Soviet Union. Central planning never works. Government always gets it wrong. The free market does this on its own by the decisions of millions of people. While I appreciate the doctors concern, I wish he’d drop his assumption that government can fix this. They have never been able to fix a problem in the economy without creating multiple new and worse problems.

The Senate, including Republicans, continue to alter incentives by passing tax cuts and tax increases. In other words, favors and punishments. And people whine about lobbyists. Well, of course, big companies are going to send lobbyists to Washington. Don’t you want to get the favors? If you don’t your going to get the punishments.

So let’s see how some of this effects the market. I’m guessing senators passed this without a care in the world about it’s effects.

Senate Alters Taxes for Big Companies

By JOHN D. MCKINNON and LAURA SAUNDERS

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Wednesday passed legislation that would give tax breaks to big companies hit by the recession and expand a credit for homebuyers, while raising other corporate levies, particularly for multinationals.

….

The Senate has passed a bill extending unemployment benefits and the popular tax credit for homebuyers. It also includes proposed tax increases to offset the costs that may be hard for some businesses to swallow. WSJ’s John McKinnon explains.

The senate passes the tax credit for homebuyers again. We are in the midst of a collapse in housing because of easy money by the Fed, which they are doing again, and because the government’s push for “everyone should own a home” social engineering. So what does the Senate do? Just more of the same. Incentivize people to buy houses. If it is in the homebuyer’s best interest to buy a home, they will do so without the government. Incentivizing them changes the behavior of purchasers and will make people who otherwise wouldn’t have purchased a home purchase one. This is what happened during the housing boom that led to this mess.

“We clearly are going to have tax increases going forward,” said Bruce Josten, executive vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The latest changes to business taxes are contained in a measure that would extend unemployment benefits by as much as 20 weeks from the current 79 weeks. In a bid to aid the property market, the bill would also extend for five months a tax credit for homebuyers, and expand it beyond first-time purchasers. That move is estimated to cost about $10.8 billion over the next decade.

So, we are going to extend unemployment by another 20 weeks. What does this incentivize? You can go without work for almost two years. Does the Senate believe that this doesn’t effect peoples behavior? Surely, many people won’t even attempt to look for a job for over a year and a half if they have two years before they are without money. Also, unemployment insurance is insurance. You pay for unemployment insurance in the event of losing your job. Those people who now are going to have checks rolling in for two years did not pay enough in for the two year pay off. So, who pays for this? That’s right. The productive workers of society have to pay to cover the difference. That’s real motivating for those who are producing and keeping this country afloat.

The Senate on Wednesday approved the measure 98-0. The House was expected to pass the measure quickly and send it to President Barack Obama.

I’m sure glad this was unanimous. Goes to show we don’t have one intelligent politician in the bunch.

House Democrats, led by Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, shown in February, still seek a full corporate-tax overhaul.

Hey, let’s have someone write the tax laws who doesn’t even follow the laws himself. Genius!

via Senate Alters Taxes for Big Companies – WSJ.com.