Regulation


Legislator Speak

It is well known that legislators generally can only be trusted when they promise to take your money. They are not bashful about speaking disengenously, providing misleading information, and, for that matter, outright lying about the impacts of proposed legislation. They’ll regularly contradict themselves in the course of the same conversation.
For instance, the Illinois senate just passed a bill that says:

Working parents would be entitled to 24 hours of unpaid work leave during a school year to attend their children’s school conferences or classroom activities,

One of the sponsors, Senator Iris Martinez, touts the bill:

“I personally feel that when you have employees, and you are sensitive to their parental needs, you have a happy employee,” Martinez said. “It shows the employer cares about family. Then you have families involved in education.”
But Martinez said the legislation provides safeguards so employees don’t abuse the privilege. She said employees would have to give advance notice of their absence and would be required to provide employers with certification from an educator upon their return.

And then the lie:

“We’re making sure the employer doesn’t lose any productivity,” she said. “There are a lot of safety nets put into place.”

Uhh, let’s see: employee gets unpaid time off, there is paper work to process, but there is no productivity lost? She is probably saying this BS with a straight face.
Perhaps the Illinois house will have better sense.
Remember, when stuff like this becomes law we all pay for it through higher prices, reduced wages, and lost jobs.


Turning off the Federal Government

I haven’t heard anything good about the REAL ID Act, HR 418. Ron Paul, though, hints at a way to turn off the federal government:

Supporters claim it is not a national ID because it is voluntary. However, any state that opts out will automatically make non-persons out of its citizens. The citizens of that state will be unable to have any dealings with the federal government because their ID will not be accepted. They will not be able to fly or to take a train. In essence, in the eyes of the federal government they will cease to exist. It is absurd to call this voluntary.
If the people of enough states just say no then most of us can cease to exist in the eyes of the federal government. What a pleasing thought!
Aside from this remote possibility there are many reasons this legislation should be squashed. Read it, weep, then call your congress critter and tell them to just say no!
Via Declan McCullagh.


Grand Rounds

isemmelweis finds the health care industry to be the lone victem of special interest corporate-government collusion:

In all other economic sectors free people drive production, and good things happen quickly. In response to the Atkins craze, sodas and even beer cut out the carbs to meet the wants of a fit society. But in healthcare, rather than serve ordinary citizens, producers court the people in power: big insurers, government officials, and academics.
….
So who�s navigating this ship? While it may be enormous fun for managers, officials, and scholars to control how sick people get medicine, it would be much better if free people chose for themselves.
Yes, it should be much better but isemmelweis is mistaken to think that this problem is restricted to health care, e.g., consider communications and the FCC, agriculture, and education to name just a few areas. We would live in a much healthier world, physically and economically, if this phenomenon did not permeate both the American and the world economy.
There is a lot of interesting reading from the medical blogosphere at Chronicles of a Medical Madhouse which is hosting Grand Rounds XV.


Raich v Ashcroft

This is what you should be paying attention to today! Drug War Rant has a detailed guide on the issues and links to the supporting documents.
Though I do not have high expectations that the Supremes will do the right thing Lawrence v Texas does give me a bit of hope. Heck, maybe they will go just a bit extreme and just whack Commerce Clause legislation back to its foundations: the feds only business in regulating interstate commerce is to make sure the states do not establish laws that discriminate against the citizens of other states.


Sex Work in New Zealand

The good folks over at Marginal Revolution show again that they are paying attention to all things economic by bringing our attention to New Zealand’s decriminalization of prostitution.
Alex is so intrigued by the sex-safety manual (PDF) produced by the NZ equivalent of OSHA that he doesn’t get around to discussing the economic side of the decriminalization. Who can blame him? The manual is both well done and a hoot! I’ve downloaded a copy to read at leisure but even a brief skim will be both instructional and entertaining for any of you so inclined.
PZ Myers adds that the Kiwi feds have published a straightforward, unblushing guide to safe sex behavior and suggests that the manual’s section on repetitive stress injuries might also be useful to computer-using geeks.
One thing that is not quite clear to me is whether the ability to produce an entertaining manual is enough to justify the governments involvement in the business. I can’t think of any other good reasons…
Oh, the answers provided for the IQ question posed by Alex Tabarrok seem, at first look, to provide a topological solution more then a safe sex solution.