Democracy versus Bureaucracy | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary

Democracy versus Bureaucracy | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'One provision of the new health care law empowers unelected panels of technocrats to make reductions in Medicare benefits each year in order to hit budget targets. This enables the politicians to claim they are not responsible for the cuts, but someone behind the tree is.'

'Control by the electorate in the United States will continue to diminish as long as the people demand more from government than they (not someone else) are willing to pay for and the economy can support.'

Back to Bush's Big-Government Conservatism | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary

Back to Bush's Big-Government Conservatism | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'Both Gingrich and Romney have long supported more federal involvement and spending in education. Both backed No Child Left Behind. In fact, both endorsed the same strange idea of having the federal government buy a laptop computer for every child in America.'

'In fact, both are even opposed to cuts in farm price supports or ethanol subsidies. Gingrich was last seen suggesting that anyone who wanted to cut ethanol subsidies must hate farmers, while Romney believes food subsidies are a matter of national security, as if al-Qaeda is going to corner the wheat market.'

'Romney is the quintessential better manager, a "turn-around specialist," someone who can make government run more like a business. And Gingrich's new ideas are nearly all about making government work better. For example, he doesn't oppose a national ID system (E-Verify); he wants it "run by MasterCard or Visa." He doesn't want to get government out of health care; he wants to use "Lean Six Sigma" business strategy to make it less wasteful.

Nowhere in their rhetoric is there a recognition that big government is bad because it makes us less free.'

Let the Boss Decide What to Do | Patrick Basham | Cato Institute: Commentary

Let the Boss Decide What to Do | Patrick Basham | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'If the nation's public health mandate is to produce a significantly lower level of obesity in the near term, the use of discrimination by employers is a perfectly logical and defensible instrument to employ in such a war on fat. The painful and inconvenient truth is that any rapid reduction in the number of obese Americans would require the private sector to discriminate against, rather than in favor of, the obese.

Instead of expensive lawsuits, counterproductive fat taxes and endless lists of (ignored) nutritional information, we should allow employers, insurers and other institutions to act toward the obese as they see fit.'

Down Syndrome Genocide | Nat Hentoff | Cato Institute: Commentary

Down Syndrome Genocide | Nat Hentoff | Cato Institute: Commentary: '"Today, 92 percent of mothers who get a definitive diagnosis of Down syndrome choose to abort, surveys show." These parents are told by their physicians that this child will not live a meaningful life.'

'However, a considerable number of families, instead of killing the child, provide their youngsters with regulated forms of therapy and tutoring. As a result, sizable numbers of these Americans graduate from high school and college and — as my next column demonstrates — enjoy meaningful lives.'

High-Tax Advocates Are Either Credulous or Envious of Wealthy | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary

High-Tax Advocates Are Either Credulous or Envious of Wealthy | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'If you think increasing tax rates on the "rich" is the correct economic policy, then you also need to believe the following:

That most government spending is cost-effective, and cutting 3 percent of it (approximately $110 billion out of the current $3.7 trillion budget) would be more damaging than increasing taxes by $100 billion on many of those who create jobs.'

'That getting rid of the huge amount of waste and fraud in government programs, whether it is Medicare, Medicaid or defense, would do more damage to the economy than increasing tax rates on many highly productive people. Every year, many studies by government agencies and nongovernment groups show billions of dollars of waste and fraud within government, yet few government employees are fired or sent to jail, and little is done to correct the problems.'

'That being "rich" or "wealthy" is the same thing as having a high income. Many wealthy people generate much of their income from nontaxable sources, such as state and local bonds, and would not be affected by the higher tax rates being proposed. But some people with high incomes, such as young doctors, may have negative net worth because of the debt they incurred to obtain their education, and yet they would be hit by these proposed taxes.'

Should the Government Narrow the Income Gap? | Alan Reynolds | Cato Institute: Commentary

Should the Government Narrow the Income Gap? | Alan Reynolds | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'The grander estimates of Piketty and Saez are frequently cited as a rationale for increased tax rates on the rich and increased transfer payments to the rich. This is an irrational rationale. Even doubling tax rates and transfer payments would have no direct effect on those estimates, because they explicitly ignore taxes and transfers.'

'the top 1 percent's share always falls in recessions and rises during periods of rapid economic growth such as 1983-89 and 1997-2000. This cyclicality of the top 1 percent's share makes that share a preposterous definition of "inequality" because poverty rises in recessions. Are the unemployed supposed to welcome recessions and stock market crashes simply because such crises demolish top incomes from capital gains, dividends, interest, and small business?'

We Don't Need a Balanced Budget Amendment | Tad DeHaven | Cato Institute: Commentary

We Don't Need a Balanced Budget Amendment | Tad DeHaven | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'The Constitution already places strict limits on what the federal government can and cannot do. The problem is that those limits have become stretched over the years to the point that the federal government can do pretty much what it pleases.'

'Most Republicans are about as enthusiastic to confront this reality as most Democrats are in reversing it. Thus, the convenient resurgence in popularity for a balanced budget amendment on the part of Republicans has been driven by an unwillingness — or inability — to flesh out exactly what federal agencies and programs would have to go in order to bring the budget into balance without raising taxes.

Indeed, it's not a coincidence that the balanced budget amendment wasn't a priority for Republicans when they were jacking up spending and debt during George W. Bush's tenure.'

'Republicans who support the balanced budget amendment cannot cite it as evidence that they're serious about cutting spending unless they're prepared to detail what they would cut in order to bring the budget into balance.

While proponents of the balanced budget amendment argue that it would also reign in spending, almost all the states possess balanced budget requirements and that hasn't stopped state spending from continuing to increase. In fact, the balanced budget amendment would actually end up solidifying the oversized and overbearing federal government we have today. Therefore, policymakers who truly desire a federal government that is smaller in size and scope should concentrate their efforts on convincing the American people that the country would be better off.'

Mandatory Medical Malpractice Caps Hurt Patients | Shirley Svorny | Cato Institute: Commentary

Mandatory Medical Malpractice Caps Hurt Patients | Shirley Svorny | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'Support for caps comes from individuals who see the medical malpractice system as broken, largely based on anecdotal observations. Everyone seems to have heard a story of a high verdict to a plaintiff whose claim was not valid. Yet, careful studies suggest these cases are anomalies, and the court system generally works. While there are no statistics for the country as a whole, based on the existing evidence, we can say confidently that a good chunk of initial claims (likely more than three-quarters) do not move forward because no negligence was involved. The vast majority of cases that do move forward settle.

This means that court signals from earlier trials are clear. If court awards were random, one would expect many more cases to go to court as there would be an expectation of an award even where there was no negligence. Many cases go to court because plaintiffs think they have a case when they do not. We know this because plaintiffs rarely win; less than a quarter of all cases that go to court are resolved in favor of the plaintiff. At least one study found court findings of negligence lined up with assessments by impartial reviewing physicians.'

'every review has found claims are concentrated among a very small subset of physicians; less than five percent of physicians are responsible for the overwhelming share of claims. Even if a large percentage of negligent actions are not reported, it would seem that the present system works in identifying physicians whose practice patterns put patients at risk.'

It's Time to Gut, Not Cut, the Federal Government | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary

It's Time to Gut, Not Cut, the Federal Government | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'But there is no line item in the budget for "waste, fraud, and abuse." Part of the problem is management, which has never been Washington's strong suit. A lot of money is lost due to incompetence or theft. Putting in place the right people and procedures isn't easy.

More basic, however, is the fact that one man's waste is another man's priority. The basic purpose of the national government today is to allow everyone to live off of everyone else. The intent is to give away trillions of dollars. What matters most is giving it away, not giving it away efficiently.'

'The big spending boulders are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Pentagon, and interest. Cuts here would cause much political pain, which is why politicians prefer not to talk about such possibilities. The people must decide not to have the government do certain things.'

'First, Social Security and Medicare should be narrowed to focus on the poor. No more middle class welfare. If you can afford to care for yourself, you collect no more federal checks. And the young should be allowed to opt out of the programs, putting money aside for their own retirement and health care. Over the long-term this will cut trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities.

Second, Medicaid should be turned into a competitive voucher program that shares cost savings with frugal recipients. It will never be cheap to provide health care for the poor, but only by changing the program's underlying incentives can much money be saved. Reforming Medicaid is important for state governments as well as Washington.

Third, the U.S. government should focus defense spending on defense. No more social engineering around the world. No more subsidies for rich states and nation-building in poor ones. No more interventions here, there, and everywhere for no good purpose. Then military outlays could be cut substantially.

Fourth, take these steps and the government would borrow less, reducing interest payments naturally. That would create a "virtuous cycle" of falling outlays, deficits, and debts.

Fifth, toss in big reductions in domestic discretionary spending for good measure. Let people spend their own money for their families and communities. Then government would be left doing the few things that it really should do.'

Laws Shouldn't Supersede Free Speech | John Samples | Cato Institute: Commentary

Laws Shouldn't Supersede Free Speech | John Samples | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'Political scientists have found that contributions explain little about lawmaking once ideology, party, and constituency are accounted for. One scholarly study of lobbying concluded that "the direct correlation between money and outcomes that so many political scientists have sought simply is not there."'

'Even as they fail to deliver benefits, campaign-finance regulations impose costs. The incumbents who write them are tempted to make it harder for challengers to raise money. Scholars have also found that reducing campaign spending leads to fewer and less informed voters.

In addition, those engaged in politics seek to legally evade regulations. So reformers constantly demand new regulations to close "loopholes," producing a complex body of law. Legal advice becomes vital for electoral engagement, discouraging participation — a perverse result for rules purporting to advance democracy.

Finally, the rhetoric of campaign finance reform has poisoned public debate. Instead of arguments, voters hear accusations of corruption. Not surprisingly, many attribute problems to malevolent "moneyed interests."

But our fiscal challenges, for example, come from popular and inadequately funded entitlement programs. No surprise there: Voters' desire for benefits without costs is a very democratic failing. But it is a failing Americans have refused to face; it's easier to blame moneyed interests for our problems.'