Bag Police

Evanston ("the city that cares too much") is in the middle of a burning controversy. The Eco-fascists are all in a tizzy over whether to tax or ban disposable grocery bags.

Now, you may remember that Evanston's unofficial motto came from a Chicago Tribune article about Evanston's treatment of the homeless. It appears that no other city in America was so welcoming to the homeless. The town of Evanston had more shelters and soup kitchens per capita and offered more generous benefits to the homeless than any other city in America. Pretty soon, word filtered out nationwide and within a fairly short period of time, indigents from all over the country were flocking to Evanston in defiance of Milton Friedman's admonition that there was no such thing as a free lunch. It seems that Evanston had created its own demand for goods and services for the homelessness, and it has become quite a little cottage industry in that town.

Well, the good, responsible folks in Evanston are at it again. I assumed that if we dutifully put our plastic and paper bags, glass bottles and used newspapers in the recycling bin, and wheeled it out to the curbside and paid the special fee for the recycling guy to pick it up, we would satisfied our responsible green duty. Apparently, this is not good enough for Evanstonians. Evanstonians want to ban disposable bag entirely or, at minimum, punish users by taxing them.

No one has really put forward an estimate of the magnitude of the problem. No data has been put forward to demonstrate that we are gagging on disposable bags. Nor has anyone quantified how many people are actually likely to comply and stuff dozens of little canvas bag in their trunks in the event of a spontaneous grocery trip. I suspect that there are a vast quantity of males in Evanston that are just like me, and, rather than displacing their golf bags in their trunks with eco-friendly canvas shopping bags, they will trundle up the road to Wilmette to do their shopping, thus increasing their carbon emissions, negating all the eco-benefits of this measure. In addition, if even 10% of Evanstonians pick up and shop elsewhere, this will represent a material decline in sales for most merchants, and that doesn't even take into account folks like me that don't live there but stop to pick up groceries when I pass through. And this says nothing about the job loss to the companies that supply paper and plastic bags, and the companies that supply things to the companies that supply things to companies that make paper and plastic bags.

But none of this matters to the liberal mind. They know what is good for all of us. Inconvenience, cost, job loss, and unintended consequences matter not to them (see, e.g. our policy on Ethanol). If disposable bags are banned, we don't even know what the real benefit will be, other than the liberals in Evanston will have satisfied themselves that they are being ecologically responsible, at least in their own minds.

None of this is to suggest that all environmental regulation is nonsense. But it needs to be sensible, and be supported by real cost/benefit analysis, with a real eye on unitended consequences. Moreover, regulations need to be reviewed periodically to determine whether the premises underlying the original analysis still holds. The eco-facsists conveniently overlook all of this and simply want to impose their will and take lifestyle choices away from us. Lightbulbs, toilet tanks, microwaves, grocery bags... no product choice is too small for them to demand a say over, and no measure of impracticality can dissuade them.

And, by the way, what in the world will liberal Cub fans be placing over their heads at Wrigley Field by the end of the season?

Lunch Police

Coming on the heels of the friendly folks at the EPA abolishing the old Thomas Edison invented lighbulb and foisting the retrofitting costs on small business, we now face the lunch police. It turns out that many Chicago Public Schools have banned the old brown bag lunch from their schools. Parents no longer can be trusted to plan meals for their kids. Worse, we are told, some kids even use some of their allowance to surreptitiously purchase junk food like chips and candy bars and slip them in their lunches. Government has determined that parents are just too dumb or uninformed to make decisions for their children, and are largely ineffective at policing the nutrition of their kids, so parents now have no choice in the matter. At many public schools, children are required to eat meals provided by the school cafeteria. No matter that the children often complain that those meals are tasteless (and provided by a major contributor to the Democratic Party). Nope. Big brother has taken yet another decision away from the family. Lightbulbs, toilet tanks, microwaves, cars, and now school lunches. Day by day, bit by bit, decisions are taken out of our hands and placed in the hands of some administrator at the EPA, school board or Department of Energy.

I often eat at my desk, and sometimes I brown bag. Tomorrow, I plan to tuck two Twinkies in my lunch as my own quiet act of defiance.

Lightbulb Police

The lightbulb police came to visit my wife's office last week. She was informed that the EPA had banned the manufacture of certain lightbulbs and that she would be required not only to purchase new "Al Gore" approved lightbulbs, but that all the fixtures in her office would have to be retrofitted to accommodate the new bulbs. Total cost to her business of several thousand dollars. In addition to the city and state grabbing for more, the Obama administration pushing for more, now the lightbulb police get into the act. Light bulbs, microwaves, toilet tanks used to be designed by industrial designers. Not any more. Today, the specifications for those and other items are written by some "green" bureaucrat in Washington, who then turns around and hands the bill to us. We used to have choices in many products, weighing price, functionality, and design. Today, the bureaucrats have decided that those features must take a back seat to "green" conformity. You see, she had other ideas about how to spend that money--raises for her loyal, hardworking employees, a new computer, maybe stash some more away for retirement. But no, some pointy headed bureaucrat had other ideas. This is exactly the kind of thing that continues to weigh on our economy. At a time when small businesses continue to strain and struggle, the bureaucracy continues to pile more bricks on the load, without any thought whatsover as to the costs they are imposing. Germany's unemployment rate is 7.1%. Did you ever think you'd see the day when we would envy Germany's unemployment rate? Are you beginning to see how that happened?

Just a Couple Questions, Mr. President

Now that the Nobel Peace Prize winning president has started his first pre-emptive strike or "kinetic military action," I'd like to pose a few questions. What is the goal in this rush to war? Is it regime change? But regime change is not within the scope of the UN resolution. If it is humanitarian, then why here and not Sudan or Yemen? Will you do the same if unrest erupts in Saudi Arabia and the royal family cracks down? Why was congress not consulted or congressional authorization sought? Is that not necessary because the French OK'd the operation? If Gadaffi is taken down, is there a post-Gadaffi plan or have we not learned anything from Iraq? Don't we risk creating chaos and a vacuum that will be a magnet for Al Qaeda? If Gadaffi stays, aren't we risking more retributive terrorist attacks? So aren't we making America less safe no matter what- if he stays (attacks from Gadaffi who has done it before) or if he goes (safe stays (safe haven for Al Qaeda). When Saddam brutalized his own people, Mr. Obama said that wasn't sufficient cause to use military power because there was no imminent threat. Where is the imminent threat from Libya? Aren't you diverting precious and stretched military resources from two fronts that are already tired? Are you worried that your Muslim outreach program will be upset now that you have pre-emptively attacked another Muslim country that posed no imminent threat to the U.S.? Inquiring minds would like to know.

Finally, did you get around to sending a thank you note to cowboy President Bush for inducing Libya to give up its nuclear program? Bet you're glad that happened.

Teen Rage

Sometimes your kids say things that astonish you. Last week, when my 17 year old daughter came downstairs raging, "I don't need a nanny," I automatically assumed that my wife was trying to put some order to her room. But it was none of the sort. It turns out that there someone had introduced legislation to ban anyone under 18 from tanning salons, even with parental consent. My daughter was just furious. She has mild acne on her shoulders that is helped a great deal by a 10 minute visit once or twice a week to the local tanning salon. "This is a decision that should be made by me and my parents," she asserted.

Without any coaching from me whatsoever, she looked up our state senator and representative and sent them both emails. In her correspondence, she explained her condition and explained how helpful tanning was to her and how it helped her feel good about herself. She further explained that Obamacare had leveled a 10% tax on salons already and that 15-20% of tanning salon patrons are under 18. Banning them from salons on top of the tax would put many of these small business out of business and kill jobs. Further, she said that there would be a ripple effect because other companies sell them lotions, towels, tanning beds and other supplies.

She argued that in Illinois, with parental consent, is legally entitled to get a tattoo, a piercing, and, under current law, she can even have an abortion. Why should she be denied the ability to get a tan. Finally, she said she had looked on line and for $300 or $400, she could buy a tanning bed, so she could put herself out of reach of the regulation. She finished by stating that she felt that legislators had more important work to do than insert themselves in a decision that rightfully belonged to her and her parents.

She did this all without any prodding or coaching for me. I was pleased that she advocated for herself, and that she was able to understand and explain (without a single course in economics) the harmful effects of wrongheaded regulation. She understood that the consequences of overreaching regulation include job losses and unnecessary destruction to entire industries.

The bill never made it to the floor.

There is hope for the future.

Goin' Euro

I'm not sure that the Republicans should do too much gloating just yet after the resounding victory in November. President Obama promised that he would drag us to a more European model of society, and so far the evidence suggests that he has been remarkably successful. The Euromodel is marked by permanent high unemployment, slow growth, a pusillanimous foreign policy (especially in the face of ruthless dictators), a lack of initiative and a permanent entitlement class consisting of both government workers being paid above market wages and people that don't work at all. But the most salient symptom of goin' Euro is that you develop a penchant for making economic and foreign policy decisions by committee.

We're there.

Government spending is now 25% of GDP, up from about 18% in the Reagan years (and streaking toward 27%). Unemployment is still above 9%, making this the most anemic recovery in terms of job growth in history. Despite the 900 billion dollar stimulus, private sector employment has barely budged. Almost half of our taxpayers don't pay income taxes at all. Despite Bill Clinton's assertion that "the era of big government is over," what we hear from Washington is the old Carpenters' tune, "We've only just begun."

But unlike the federal government, state governments can't just hand the bill to the next generation or print money. They actually have to balance their budgets. To do that on a permanent basis will require a restructuring of the cozy little relationship between the unions and their Democratic benefactors that has existed for decades. Unlike the private sector, there is no incentive to reduce costs or need to show a profit, so all that needed to occur was to keep feeding the unions and the only brake was a bond default or taxpayer revolt. Well, the taxpayers have revolted and Wisconsin is beginning to look like France and Greece when those governments tried to impose a little fiscal discipline.

The other indicia of going Euro is the drive toward decision by committee. And under Democratic rule, governing by committee is blossoming. Dodd-Frank and Obamacare has established scores of these things--- little cabals of pointy headed Ivy League graduates deciding how much banks may charge for overdrafts, what kind of rules there will be for buying and selling derivatives, what my health insurance must cover, and on and on. We now have new rules for the energy output of microwave ovens and the old toy, the Easy Bake Oven will soon be illegal.

Our foreign policy is even out Euroing the Europeans. You know it's pretty bad when France shows a stiff spine than we do. The fall of Mubaruk elicited tepid and guarded comments from the administration, carefully crafted in bureaucratese. And as Ghaddafi strafes and murders his own people, we implore him to "show restraint," write harshly worded letters through the U.N. and impose sactions. That'll show him. I'm sure Ghaddafi is trembling now. We are faced with the most momentus change since the fall of the Berlin Wall, with an opportunity (albeit with some risks) to advance the cause of liberty, and Mr. Obama is more or less M.I.A. I suppose he's used his quota of tough talk on Governer Walker. Last I checked, Libya was still on the U.N. Human Rights Committee.

So, before Republicans get too big for their britches, the evidence is that we're still being pushed into the European model--permanent high unemployment, slow growth, entitled classes, lots of committtees telling us how to live, and a timid foreign policy. Oh, and GDP came in at 2.8% last quarter, remarkably low for a post-recession recovery. How do I fill out the application for the EU?

Cheeseheads!

It was bad enough that we had to suffer through a Packer win in the Super Bowl. But now, the Cheeseheads are acting like, well, Europeans. Did you expect less from those Socialist Swedes across the boarder from us in Illinois? So far, at least, they've left the Molotov Cocktails at home, unlike their brothers-in-arms in Athens. But just weeks after conservatives got a finger wagging lecture about vitriol and civil discourse, Wisconsin workers stormed their capitol over the outrageous prospect of having to chip in a little for their health care and pension benefits. What oppression!

Private sector workers have been ravaged by this most brutal recession, while the public sector has, for the most part, been relatively insulated. Companies I work with have struggled to make payroll, trimmed certain benefits to keep the doors open, and strained to make their budgets, for if they fail, their lenders will shut them down or force them to be sold. Their public sector counterparts until now faced no such pressure.

In Illinois, of course, we dealt with the collapse of tax revenues by raising taxes, cutting programs for the poor, slashing higher education, and borrowing money. You notice that there were no protests here. Who cares if the elderly do without and young kids get their tuition jacked up at U of I? We have union benefits to protect.

This is not a simple management/worker dispute. This is conflict of interest problem. In the private sector, the tension is between ownership and labor. Every dollar not spent on labor can either be a dollar reinvested in the business or returned to the shareholders. It's a classic tug-of-war. It is management's goal to constantly reduce costs to remain competitive, and labor is merely an input cost. Unfortunately for workers, labor does not get a say in who owns the enterprise.

The public sector presents a much different picture. In the public sector, both both sides are on the same side of this devil's bargain. Labor bargains for ever fatter bundles of pay and benefits and full employment, and in exchange, they promise their bosses their votes. There is no pressure to reduce costs. Their managers, the politicians, are more than happy to cave in to labor's demands. Unlike private sector bargaining where management and the shareholders feel the pain of a bad bargain, in the public sector, politicians don't get stuck with the bill. The taxpayers do.

That symbiotically parasitic relationship worked for decades. But now, the states and the federal government are broke and we are pushing back. The tea party protests of last summer were just the beginning. Workers in the private sector will not stand for a society where their home equity has vanished, their 401(k)'s have been decimated, and higher and higher taxes are being demanded of them so their public sector brethren can retire at age 55 with little or no out- of -pocket costs for their benefits. That is just slavery.

The petulant children that now occupy the Wisconsin capitol and their silly Democratic benefactors that fled the state need a healthy dose of reality. All in, these workers are generally paid above market wages and benefits for the skill level that they bring. Almost every company I have worked with over the past 3 years has had to do more with less.

Unions served a useful function in many industries. In coal and transportation, they ensured vital safety standards. They have provided a measure of protection against capricious treatment. But in the public sector, they have bankrupted us. They have manipulated a wealth transfer of monumental proportion and feathered their own nests by promising to deliver the vote to politicians.

Game's up. It's time to get you acquainted with reality. Elections do indeed have consequences.