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.

VAT is neither fair nor responsible

It is interesting how the left will take a politically popular idea and pervert it into something that will only further destroy a country that is already well down the road to serfdom. The latest example is the Obama administration's repeated statements that it is looking into the possibility of a Value Added Tax (VAT). This comes after almost two decades of millions of Americans advocating a "Fair Tax" instead of the current income tax system. Obama's apologists will state that they both are, after all, taxes on consumption. The similarities after that, however, largely evaporate.

The Fair Tax is a system that has been promoted for years by individuals who support limited government and greater voter participation in the political process. Today, less than half of all Americans pay federal income taxes. This reality has been like a continuous cold shower on a population that should be on fire because government is out of control. A "Fair Tax" would be a national sales tax on every good and service. Everyone would know that cost of government at every transaction. Millions of Americans who have been sleeping politically, would come to an abrupt awakening. Centerpiece in this strategy would be that this tax would replace the very destructive and archaic income tax system, which wages a direct war on wealth and job creation.

In addition to waking up a sleeping public to the depth of our fiscal crisis, this law would also allow us to tax illegal aliens in our country and those who are committing illegal activities. Drug dealers, prostitutes, and others involved in illegal actions would now contribute to the government and help pay for the law enforcement designed to keep them in check. Who else should pay for these crimes? Remember, they are all involved in illegal activities; they have their income completely tax free. This reform would allow us to take a financial "bite out of crime."

Then there is the Value Added Tax. Like the Fair Tax, it would tax consumption. In fact, it would tax every single step of the production of every single good. Unlike the Fair Tax, VAT would be in addition to our current income tax system. Furthermore, it is a hidden tax that is included automatically in the price of goods. Where the tax begins and the real price ends, the typical consumer will be unsure.

The National Center for Policy Analysis notes that "The VAT has been in use in European countries since the late 1960s, and has had a strong, negative economic influence, says (Pete) du Pont (former governor of Delaware and current national policy chairman of the organization): Before the European VATs were put into effect, the average tax burden in the European Union (EU) was 28 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), compared with the 25 percent in the United States. By 2006, with the VATs, the EU average tax burden was 40 percent compared with 28 percent in America."

In addition to that,”Average European government spending was about 30 percent of GDP when the VATs were instituted in the late 1960s." Today we see that European "government spending has grown more than 50 percent and now hits 47 percent of GDP." Debt in European government in 2005 "was 50 percent of GDP, compared with under 40 percent in America." The biggest tax of all on Europeans has been on job creation, according to du Pont, "Between 1982 and 2007, Europe created fewer than 10 million new jobs versus 45 million in the United States. Our economic growth was more than one-third faster, says du Pont." That is, by the way, the entire continent of Europe.

Access to revenue does nothing in terms of providing fiscal restraint, as we have seen in the case of VAT or the many tax increases we regularly see in this country. In fact, new taxes and increases in old ones have encouraged governments to tax more. The answer to America's fiscal problems are found in less taxes and, more importantly, less government.

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.

Ten Ways to Improve Health Care Without Increasing Government

I have to preface this by pointing out that I remain convinced that the US Constitution -- that nifty document that politicians swear to defend -- is the first obligation to the health care debate. According to that document, the issue of health care is to be left to the states and the citizens. Health care is simply too important for the federal government to pursue. It requires many approaches to find a plan that would work. However, the reality is, the federal government already plays a huge role in health care. It has long been my contention that any discussion on reform should begin with the damage that government has already done.

Dr. John Goodman, President of the National Center for Policy Analysis, has written a report that addresses the government impact well and should be part of the debate. He examines ten different areas that should be addressed in any health care discussion.

1. Free the Doctor. "Medicare pays for more than 7,000 specific tasks, and only for those tasks. Blue Cross, employer plans and most other insurers pay the same way. Notably absent from this list are such important items as talking to patients by telephone or e-mail, or teaching patients how to manage their own care or helping them become better consumers in the market for drugs. Further, as third-party payers suppress reimbursement fees, doctors find it increasingly difficult to spend any time on unbillable services. This is unfortunate, since it means that doctors cannot provide the type of low-cost, high-quality services that are normal in other professions." Instead of merely behaving as repair providers, medical doctors should have incentives to restore their role of health care advisor.

Goodman goes on to point out that, in order to "change these perverse incentives, Medicare should be willing to pay for innovative improvements that save taxpayers money. And doctors and hospitals should be able to repackage and reprice their services (the way other professionals do), provided that the total cost to government does not increase and the quality of care does not decrease. This change in Medicare would almost certainly be followed by similar changes in the private sector."

2. Free the Patient. Goodman states that "many patients have difficulty seeing primary care physicians. All too often, they turn to hospital emergency rooms, where there are long waits and the cost of care is high. Part of the reason is that third-party payer (insurance) bureaucracies decide what services patients can obtain from doctors and what doctors will be paid. To correct this problem, patients should be able to purchase services not paid for by traditional health insurance, including telephone and e-mail consultations and patient education services. This can be done by allowing them to manage more of their own health care dollars in a completely flexible Health Savings Account." Some of these things seem very obvious to me. The health care system is plagued by a "penny wise, dollar foolish" approach to medicine.

3. Free the Employee. It is imperative to move the selling of health insurance from a "one size fits all" group approach to one in which people can buy want they want and, more importantly, take it with them when they leave.

4. Free the Employer. In the same vein, Goodman notes that employers should be allowed to be in a system where they can "make a fixed-dollar contribution to each employee's health insurance each pay period. Like 401(k) accounts, the health plans would be owned by employees and travel with them as they move from job to job and in and out of the labor market."

5. Free the Workplace. The system needs to be changed to allow greater flexibility in the purchase of insurance, which would encourage more people to get covered. For example, if an employee has a spouse with health coverage, it would be helpful if the employer could give another benefit. But, Goodman points out, "the law does not allow her employer to pay higher wages instead. On the other hand, a part-time employee might be willing to accept lower wages in return for the opportunity to enroll in the employer's health plan. The law does not allow that either." The answer is pretty simple, companies "should be free to give employees the option to choose between benefits and wages, where appropriate."

6. Free the Uninsured. People who must purchase their own insurance should receive the same tax relief as employees who obtain insurance through an employer. The way pre-taxing works is simple. The amount that is paid for health insurance is simply subtracted from gross wages for tax purposes. This would be a huge and cost effective benefit to individuals seeking coverage.

7. Free the Kids. The increase in the States Child Health Insurance Plan (S-Chip) will actually move 4 million kids into government health care programs where, as Goodman notes, "children have access to fewer doctors and medical facilities than children in private plans."

He argues that these limitations alone means that "incentives should be reversed. S-CHIP money should be used to encourage parents to enroll their children in their employer's plan or another plan of the parents' choosing."

8. Free the Parents. Goodman points out that, "Under the current system, a child could be enrolled in S-CHIP, a mother could be enrolled in Medicaid and a father could be enrolled in an employer's plan. However, medical outcomes are likely to be better with a single insurer." Instead, the system should be designed to support a single insurer. Therefore the government programs "should be used to subsidize private health insurance, so that low-and moderate-income families are able to see the same doctors."

9. Free the Chronically Ill. For this particular issue, Goodman provides a comprehensive approach: "Under current regulations, insurers are not allowed to adjust premiums to reflect higher expected health care costs. This encourages insurers to seek the healthy and avoid the sick before enrollment. After enrollment, insurers have an incentive to over-provide care to the healthy and under-provide to the sick. These incentives need to be reversed. For example, in the Medicare Advantage program, the government pays higher premiums for seniors with more expensive health needs. This encourages insurance companies to create specialized plans - especially for chronic illnesses - that compete with each other." The solution? "Chronic patients also need to be able to manage more of their health care dollars directly. For example, 'Cash and Counsel' programs in many states allow home bound, disabled Medicaid patients to hire and fire the vendors who provide them with services." Programs such as this provide almost 100 percent patient satisfaction.

10. Free the Early Retiree. "Most baby boomers will retire early, before eligibility for Medicare. Two-thirds will not get health insurance from their former employer and even those who have been promised employer coverage may see those promises broken, since there is almost no prefunding of benefits. Under current law, an employer can include early retirees in its regular health plan, but cannot contribute to more economical, individually owned plans." In the spirit of the portability argument mentioned before, the government should make it easier for individuals to have many options and to take them with them wherever they go. This would enhance competition and drive down prices.

Ten simple steps that would expand the availability of coverage and actually lower the costs for all concerned. This is simple common sense, which is why the government is not seriously weighing these type of reforms.

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.

Obama's Cap and Trade and Other Regulations will make Environment Worse

When I think of Cap and Trade and government efforts towards a better environment, I think of an interesting encounter I had while conducting seminars on Free Market economics. When I traveled Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, I was horrified by the pollution levels. Poland was particularly bad. I remember escaping to a large park because of the trees there actually made it easier to breathe. Much of the time my eyes simply watered and I coughed. It was miserable. I had a meeting with an economist in the Polish government and he noticed my distress. "What's wrong?" I said politely, "well, it seems I have caught something in your country." "Yes, we call it pollution, what do you call it in your country?" and smiled. I said, "why is it so bad?" He said, "well, it isn't because of the laws, we have the toughest environmental laws of any country in the world." Sure enough, I did my homework, and that was true at the time. He went on to say "the problem was recognized long ago by Aristotle who said 'What is common to the greatest number gets the least amount of care. Men pay most attention to what is their own; they care less for what is common; or at any rate they care for it only to the extent to which each is individually concerned. Even when there is no other cause for inattention, men are more prone to neglect their duty when they think that another is attending to it.'" He went on to say that he hoped that the moves the country was making towards free markets would lead to more ownership and better care of the environment.

Later, in another meeting he said, "the answer to these environmental problems are found in technology, not regulation." I liked the sound of that, so I asked him to elaborate, "as we recover economically, have more ownership, we will enjoy greater capital formation, which will lead to better and more efficient technology. That, more than anything else will reduce pollution." I casually responded, "I have never seen a poor country that wasn't polluted" and he responded back, "neither have I."

I have done further research on other government efforts to reduce pollution and found more stories that point to private, and not government, solutions. For example, according to the National Center for Policy Analysis, 90 percent of all dollars spent on the Super Fund has actually gone to lawyers and not clean ups.

The Obama Administration's multi tiered policies of Cap and Trade, CAFE Standards, and "Cash for Clunkers" (which largely benefits foreign auto makers, rather than domestic) while taxing wealth and job creation (which will only lead to more poverty), will actually contribute to more pollution in the years to come. One may be able to argue that one could pursue the aggressive regulations he desires in a strong economy, but in our current situation he is begging for immediate economic ruin and long term environmental disaster.

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.

What Will Global Warming Advocates Do with Coldest April Ever?

Bloomberg is reporting that this April in New York is the coldest in recorded history. The agriculture industry is reporting the same thing nationwide. Such news is having a chilling effect of the global warming campaign. Well, at least it should. But the common belief among the global warming crowd is "please don't bore us with facts."

The facts are is that weather has shifted in different directions for years. In the 1970s, when I was a young person in school, the fear was global freezing. Every serious weather scientist has told me that these changes have been cyclical and have serious doubts about global warming. The current extreme weather in April is indicative of this fact.

Why are conservatives and many libertarians suspicious about global warming warnings? Here's just a few reasons:

• Environmentalists need to produce negative reports in order to get more money. The alarmism fuels a very lucrative industry called "scientific research"


• The real issue for environmentalists is control. They are not nearly as interested in stopping pollution as they are in controlling the economy. For example, if the rain forest is so important in preventing climate change, environmentalists should buy large portions of the land, rather than try to force the Latin American governments to do what they demand. The ten largest environmental organizations have more money than the two major political parties in the US combined. They could certainly afford to preserve much of it.


• The best way to improve the environment is technology, not regulation. I visited Poland and found it almost impossible to breath. While there I found out it had the toughest regulations of any country in the world and that they existed for decades. Another example is the Super Fund, which was designed by the EPA to clean up waste from factories and other environmental disasters. The vast majority of that fund goes to lawyers, according to the National Center for Policy Analysts.


• The safety of such reforms are questionable. For example, every time fuel mileage requirements goes up, auto safety goes down because cars are not as safe when they face such difficult fuel mileage requirements (they reduce the weight in order to improve the mileage).

I can go on, but the theme is the same. The science is suspicious and the consequences to dramatic reforms could be huge and devastating on the economy. Freedom and economic prosperity could be victims of the global warming hysteria.

National Center for Policy Analysis is Idea Central

One of my favorite organizations for years has been the National Center for Policy Analysis. I often find myself too busy to spend time reading their articles or visiting their website, but every time I do they never disappoint. It seems everything I read of theirs provides a "eureka" moment and my understanding of the subject I am studying increases dramatically.

Recently I spent some time on their site and read an insightful article by the organization's Chairman, former Governor Pete du Pont (R-DE). du Pont (photo) was my choice for President in 1988 as the brilliant leader told people the truth about the problems the nation faced and the necessary policies to change the status quo. He told farmers in Iowa that subsidies was actually hurting agriculture both in the US and around the world and he told seniors that Social Security needed to be reformed in order for future generations to be able to benefit. He always told the hard truths, which may be why his candidacy didn't catch on. Even to this day I would gladly get on a Pete du Pont bandwagon.

In his recent article in Opinion Journal (from the Wall Street Journal), the former Governor pointed out that, if they thought things were bad under the Republicans in Congress, wait until the Democrats pursue their policy objectives. The following is a quick summary of two of their goals:

* Social Security. In ten years, Social Security will be paying out more than it is brining in, which will find the system in a crisis beyond rhetoric. We should obviously do something about it today. The Republicans wanted to look at options that empowered individuals to become investors in the economy by being able to have their "contributions" turn into real investments through private initiatives; resulting in an expanding economy, serious return on the money put into the system, and numerous other positive effectives. The Democrats are talking tax increases which will hurt job development when businesses are forced to match Social Secutiry tax and raising the age, which will discriminate against minorities who already suffer from the current system. The Democrats, in essence, desire more of the same policies that have failed for years.

* Tax Increases. The Republicans are opposed to such and point to long term economic expansion and low unemployment as examples of how the recent tax cuts have worked. Not only have they contributed to economic growth, they have led to revenue increases by spurring on taxable economic activity. While the Democrats want to exact huge largesse from every small economic action through excessive taxation, Republicans take a Wal-Mart approach, by making a little off of so much more activity. If the Democrats really want to reduce the deficit, they would never touch the tax cuts. They declare that taxes must go up, no matter how much harm they do. It isn't because of efficiency, but envy; because the Democrats simply seem to despise econonomic freedom.

The former Governor goes on to examine spending increases, protectionism, and more showing a clear difference between the two parties. Because of the President's veto pen and their slim majority in Congress, it is unlikely that the Democrats will be successful in their policy objectives (except for the possibility of reversing the tax cuts and minimum wage increases), but what they will provide through their policy initiatives is a great road map of what the future will be if the Democrats ever win a governing majority and a sobering warning to everyone who would consider such an option.

The National Center is one of the greatest resources of ideas in the public policy market today and I'm glad that it is out there helping to successfully wage a war of ideas.