Federal laws are both too numerous and vague

The vast majority of Americans are unhappy with the working of Washington. The President and Congress have overwhelmed the American people with an incredible number of laws that are difficult for the voters and even policy makers to understand. Many bills are now passing Congress without being read by many, if not any, members. With so many bills coming out of Washington, DC, it should be no surprise that most Americans are unhappy with the results and find much of this legislation confusing.

The National Center for Policy Analysis has brought to my attention the work of two organizations that are working together to try and persuade Congress to stop writing criminal laws in such a manner that leaves innocent people vulnerable to unjust prosecution. One is the Heritage Foundation, which is one of the nation's premier conservative think tanks and the other is the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Together they prove true the adage that "politics makes strange bedfellows," since the latter organization is better known for its affiliation with liberal groups and causes.

According to a recent report they produced:

• Over twenty federal laws that went into effect in 2005 and 2006, to combat nonviolent crime, lack an adequate provision that one accused of breaking the laws must have had a "guilty mind," or criminal intent. Good law has always required such provisions. It is imperative that the government prove "both a guilty act and a guilty mind." Without such, bad judgment and even mistakes could become criminal.
• On that rare occasion when the Congress makes a new law that includes a provision for a "guilty mind," it is "often so weak that it does not protect defendants from punishment for making honest mistakes, or committing minor transgressions."

For centuries the legal code of most Western countries have required "criminal intent" as a part of all laws designed to fight crime. This was intended to make sure laws were created to protect the public good and not be used for political agendas, such as punishing political enemies rather than true threats to the general population.

Currently, the more conservative wing of the Supreme Court is beginning to question the legality of many of these laws and has expressed concern on how they can be used. They are focusing on three laws in particular. Justice Antonin Scalia sees these type of laws as a great tool for "headline-grabbing prosecutors" who want to shut down unpopular and maybe even unethical behaviors, but not necessarily criminal ones. These type of laws make populations fearful, prosecutors powerful, and people less free. Scalia has noted that the law is so vague that it could be used against a mayor for using his political influence to get a better table at a restaurant or against a salaried employee who calls in sick, but goes to a beach. These, of course are the kind of laws that are selectively applied and are begging for abuse.

It is interesting that, after centuries of writing laws that protect the rights of individuals and require proof of intent, that the Congress has forgotten this simple, but important, practice. It is time for the Congress to develop specific tests to make sure these laws comply with the letter and the spirit of the law.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is also host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN radio). Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Obamacare will Create Doctor Shortages

Surveys among medical doctors during the health care debate showed that one out of three physicians intended to leave the profession of Obamacare became law. With the law on the books, many in the medical profession are not going to wait for states to sue or courts to over turn, but are going to simply find something else to do.

This is, of course, one of the many ironies of Obamacare. The Plan was suppose to make health care more accessible to the "15 to 30 million" uninsured that we have heard so much about. Instead, health care will be less accessible to everyone, including the uninsured, thanks to Obamacare.

Many doctors are getting ready to move on to other professions. According to the Heritage Foundation, the frustration among medical doctors is at an all time high, noting that "Arizona dermatologist Joseph M. Scherzer M.D. reports in the Daily Caller that he plans to do just that. He cites the impossibility of complying with Medicare's bureaucratic guidelines and paperwork. The fine for failure to comply used to be $10,000. Under Obamacare, it's now $50,000." How will this reduce the high cost of health care?

Another problem is that the government thinks costs first, the patient second, in terms of priorities. This stands in contrast to the mandate that physicians operate under. According to Jerome Groopman, M.D., in The New York Review of Books: "Medicare specified that it was a ‘best practice' to tightly control blood sugar levels in critically ill patients in intensive care. That measure of quality was not only shown to be wrong but resulted in a higher likelihood of death when compared to measures allowing a more flexible treatment and higher blood sugar.
Similarly, government officials directed that normal blood sugar levels should be maintained in ambulatory diabetics with cardiovascular disease. Studies in Canada and the United States showed that this ‘best practice' was misconceived. There were more deaths when doctors obeyed this rule than when patients received what the government had designated as subpar treatment (in which sugar levels were allowed to vary)." So the "best practices" would cost lives. The doctor choosing what was best for a particular patient, would be penalized at the tune of $50,000. Who would have thought we would live in a world with such choices?

This strange approach to health care was previously limited to Medicare and Medicaid. That is no longer the case with the passing of Obamacare. Every American, regardless of where their coverage comes from, will be subject to these laws. So much for "doctor-patient confidentiality." Heritage Foundation notes that "The new law creates an Institute for Comparative Effectiveness Research, which will define best practices using population-based research. This will be used to create government-approved standards for the practice of medicine-deviant physicians will pay a penalty for failure to comply." With such, doctors will cease to be in medical practice, but simply well educated government bureaucrats who are often opposed to the rules they must practice.

It is projected that some 40,000 physicians will leave medicine in the next decade. That is a very conservative estimate.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is also host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN radio). Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

The Demise of the US Auto Industry on FoxNews.com Strategy Room

FoxNews.com Strategy Room is an eclectic marketplace of ideas, especially when Eric Bolling is at the helm. Bolling’s academic background of economics and business, accompanied by a career that has included being a professional baseball player, one of the world's largest commodity traders, and years as a business news journalists (first with CNBC and now with Fox News and Fox Business) makes him something of an adrenaline addict and one of the most enjoyable TV hosts to watch.


Bolling is intelligent, eloquent, and passionate about his convictions, although they are not easy to label. He describes himself as one who is "center/right and believes in free markets." As a man who has made a significant part of his living as a commodities broker, his passions are both pragmatic and well founded.

When I was on the Strategy Room this week (Bolling hosts 3 PM EST hour) the show covered a plethora of issues early on, but slowly began to focus on the fact that the United States automobile industry is dying and seems to be doing so quickly. This is one of the most dominant topics in business news today.

Invariably these discussions lead to "what should the government do to solve this?" My answer to that is that government has been the primary reason the industry is in such a dire situation. You can go back decades to when Michigan became a close union shop state, making labor the primary customer rather the people who buy cars. This has led to Detroit paying over $70 an hour per employee compared to Japan's $40 an hour for employees in Southern states. Addressing the auto industry situation should include:

• Ending the controversial UAW "Job Bank" program . This program has paid tens of thousands to be idle at 90 percent of salary.


• Bring auto worker wages back to the real world. According to the Heritage Foundation, when it comes to salary and benefits, the average wage of all private sector employees is $25.36 and for American based Japanese auto plants (Honda, Nissan, Toyota) is $42.95 to $47.60 on average. The big three pays $70.51 (Ford), $73.26(GM), and $75.86 (Chrysler) per hour, per employee. These six digit wages for blue collar work demand a reality check.


• End the "30 and out" practice. The Detroit auto companies allow employees to retire with very lucrative packages at the young age after 30 years. If you start working at a plant at 20, you can retire at fifty. You can see where that can be costly. 60 or 65 should have to be the standard retirement age, which is what the market clearly demands.


• Seven week vacations need to be history. Detroit auto workers receive almost two months off a year. This is another pounding cost, on a very weak industry, that needs to change.


• Finally, they should require the companies to relocate to a right to work state. This would empower these companies to lower wages and make it easier to implement the other reforms listed above. Twentytwo states are Right to Work, 28 are not. It is more than a coincidence that all but one of the ten richest states are Right to Work, while the ten poorest are closed union shops according to the American Legislative Exchange Council. The threat alone could make the Michigan government come to its senses.

So how do I think the problems of the auto industry should be solved? This can only be done through markets, less government, more freedom, and plain old business sense. These are the kind of ideas that once made the automobile industry the envy of the world.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on AM 650 (M-F at 11 am) in Houston, Texas and on AOL Radio. His articles often appear in Chicago Sun Times, Reuters, USA Today, and other national media. Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

Conditions for an Auto Bailout

It appears that the US Government IS going to give the "big three" their long desired loan, but at a smaller level. Until this past weekend, Congress had been unimpressed. But as if an oracle of God himself, President-Elect Obama has declared that a bailout is necessary and the Congress now seems willing to comply, although with a lighter than expected package. The new package looks like it will be around $16 billion (versus the $25-$35 billion we have heard earlier).

With this bailout, there should be certain conditions that must be complied or there should be no such hand outs (which is my preference). Here are a few of the conditions that should be required:

• End the controversial UAW "Job Bank" program until the loans are completely paid off. This program has paid tens of thousands to be idle at 90 percent of salary. Although the UAW has agreed to make concessions about the program, their current situation could have the practice back in full force within days of the bailout becoming law.


• Bring auto worker wages back to the real world. According to the Heritage Foundation, when it comes to salary and benefits, the average wage of all private sector employees is $25.36 and for American based Japanese auto plants (Honda, Nissan, Toyota) is $42.95 to $47.60 on average. The big three pays $70.51 (Ford), $73.26(GM), and $75.86 (Chrysler) per hour, per employee. These six digit wages for blue collar work should be brought into the real world.


• End the "30 and out" practice. The Detroit auto companies allow employees to retire with very lucrative packages at the young age of 30. If you start working at a plant at 20, you can retire at fifty. You can see where that can be costly. 60 or 65 should have to be the standard retirement age with taxpayers involvement.


• Seven week vacations need to be history. Detroit auto workers receive almost two months off a year. This is another pounding cost on a very weak industry that needs to change.


• Finally, they should require the companies to relocate to a right to work state. This would empower these companies to lower wages and make the other reforms listed above.

I am sure you are saying that such reforms will not be happening knowing the temperament of the auto industry and the lack of courage in Congress. You are, of course, exactly correct, which is among the reasons why the companies shouldn't receive the bailout.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

On the Show: Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal

Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal is an old friend of mine whom I have known for 20 years. When I first met him, he was with the Heritage Foundation and I was working with the National Center for Public Policy Research.

Over the years he wrote a book for an organization I was the President of, led the charge in getting a book I wrote (Empowerment to the People) excellent attention on the political landscape, and we have worked together on many endeavors. Stephen got Congressman Dick Armey (than House Republican Leader) to write an endorsement of my book and got a copy of it with Armey's recommendation, in the hands of every Republican Member of Congress.

He has been a frequent guest on my show(s) over the years. Not because of his relationship, but because he has one of the finest minds in economics today. He's sharp. optimistic, and passionate. You can get an example of his brilliance in the excerpt from an interview with him here on a recent Houston Business Show. Also, you can hear him tomorrow at 11 AM on the Houston Business Show.

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at HoustonBusinessShow.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Starvation in Africa: Global Warming vs. Man Made Poverty

This morning I saw several headlines about how Global Warming will be particularly devastating on poor countries. Vast starvation will become common place in the years to come because of the "climate changes," these articles argue.

Ironically, I also recently stumbled on an article by the Heritage Foundation that noted that Zimbabwe had 7 million people facing starvation and it is one of the fastest declining countries of the last two decades. This is not proof of climate changes, however, but policy changes. Until the late 1970s the country then known as Rhodesia was the second richest country on the continent (following South Africa) and until the mid 1970s was a country who's economy was comparable to many countries in Western Europe in many ways.

If one studies climate and other issues since the late 70s when it comes to Zimbabwe (Rhodesia), there has not been any of the dramatic changes that people would expect to cause the type of deprivation that is rampant. The real problem is the same ones facing most African countries: bad policies. Impoverished African countries suffer from common themes:

* Corrupt governments that put their own personal wealth as their single biggest priority.

* Price controls that forces farmers to charge less for their products than it costs to make them (this is a leading cause of starvation), people will not make food if they can't make money from it. This has been a rampant force behind the "droughts" that Ethiopia has suffered from over the years.

* Punitive tax laws that discourage economic growth.

* Often the total disregard of private property rights, forcing land to be redistributed without cause.

These are just a few of the examples that relate to Africa's poverty, although we will see more news stories pointing to climate change than the real culprit of policy change. This type of government created poverty has been around for decades in Africa. Blaming it on the environment makes these third world dictators victims and allows Liberals to promote their environmental agenda.

The headlines continually warn of global warming, but many in the United States are preparing for a White Easter, including some who live here in Texas (in the Panhandle). There is discussion by very few in the media about "global freezing" (see picture). But, don't expect such an idea to become rampant in the media, it doesn't meet the media or the global warming communities' objectives, which have more to do with government control than the environment.

Giving Clinton His Due

Most Presidents accomplish very little in the legacy department during their tenure. Policy changes are relatively common and usually changed again by someone else. Presidents are fortune to leave one major legacy and it usually requires two terms. Reagan left a few, which is why he is held in such high regards by others. He changed the debate on taxes from one of the patriotic position paying as much as possible without complaining to holding the government accountable by demanding they tax less. Further, he profoundly convinced people that tax increases not only hurt the economy, but often fail to actually increase revenues. On the foreign policy front, Reagan developed the concept of "peace through strength," convinced the Soviets of the rise of the strategic defense initiative (AKA "Star Wars") and largely ended the Cold War without a shot being fired. Before Reagan, "Mutual Assured Destruction" (MAD) was considered the wise position of strength. Reagan believed and convinced enough Americans that the acronym was a good name for this philosophy.

The first President Bush left virtually no long term legacy. Hampered by a single term (largely, in my opinion, for failing to keep his promise not to raise taxes), Bush was largely lucky to leave with minimal damage reputation wise.

The current President Bush has developed a policy of preemptive defense (e.g., in Iraq), but the jury is out on whether on not that will create a legacy. A legacy is noted by how it effects future policy, not just current governing. Also, he has made an articulate argument for Social Security reform that certainly had the potential of leaving a positive legacy. But right now that is a dream. Bush II, as legacy maker, is in question.

What about President Clinton? Any regular listener of my radio show or anyone who has read my articles or books know how I feel about Clinton. He was an embarrassment on several fronts. There is, however, one area I must give him his due and that is welform reform. A policy for which we are celebrating a 10th anniversary. I believe we can call it a legacy because it is still in tact and Congress is entertaining on how to build on it. When welform reform was pursued in 1996 it had three objectives: to reduce dependency on welfare and foster employment, to slow down and reduce child poverty, and to reduce out of weklock births and promote marriage. It clearly succeeded in all three fronts.

The following are a few facts:

• Following the passage of this bill in 1996, welfare caseloads declined in earnest and has fallen 56 percent since then.
• There has been a hundred percent increase in employment among young single mothers age 18 to 24 since passage of this bill.
• Between 1995 and 2003, overall unwed childbearing has increased very slowly, only 2.4 percentage points, a fourth of the pre-reform rate of increase of 7.7 percent annually (and at over 40 percent when the bill passed into law).

This bill has succeeded and the legacy continues to expand as Congress considers tackling other means tested programs besides AFDC, which was centerpiece in the 1996 act. I encourage everyone to review some of the events and papers surrounding the ten year anniversary of this important law by visiting the Heritage Foundation's site commemorating it. I also encourage people to contact their Member of Congress and encourage them to take further action towards ending welfare as we know it.

For the many cynics out there (I know, I'm often one of them) who believe Clinton was forced to pass this legislation by a Republican Congress, I disagree. In the early 1980s when I was a student at Abilene Christian University, I remember reading about a young governor who offered hope to conservatives who thought the Democratic Party was entirely liberal. This governor actually supported a pro-life position and spoke widely about "ending welfare as we know it" and "replacing welfare with workfare." That governor was Bill Clinton and he wasn't a "Johnny come lately" on the welfare issue. And although he clearly lost his conservative leanings in some (if not most) issues, he didn't on that one, and the results have been nothing short of profound. And what he has left in this one important area is a legacy we should build on.

I also believe it took a Clinton. More than likely if there had been a Republican President, the proposal would have been shot down as cold hearted, even with a Republican majority. It was the right bill, for the right Congress and, most importantly, the right President, at the right time.