The Impact of Regulation...

Over at The Spirit of Enterprise there's a great post that points to this article about the impact of regulation on jobs.  The post makes this point:

In the realm of government schools, we can hire teachers to teach children effectively in the classroom, or we can hire more administrative staff to make sure that the school complies with ever greater regulation. Both would put wages in the economy that would then be spent on food, but only the first has the delightful knock-on effect of teaching others how to create more wealth. The spent wages of the administrators add little or no value until they land in the hands of somebody else who will create wealth with them.

In the private sector, we can hire an engineer to design a new medical device, or an internal auditor to support our "internal controls" assessment required under Sarbanes-Oxley. We can add a programmer to improve our service to our customers and perhaps lower their own compliance costs, or an accountant to track the tax attributes of every product we sell.

You get the point.

Yup, I get it.  Damned few politicians – on either side of the aisle – have any clue at all, though.  Or they just don't care, as the regulation devolves to their immediate political benefit, and that's their only consideration.

When Even a Liberal Can See It Isn't Working...

...then maybe we can all agree that welfare still needs reforming.

What am I thinking?  The progressives will never see reality...

Means Testing for Social Security and Medicare?

Some time ago I read about one of the methods being considered to reform entitlements (specifically, Social Security and Medicare): “means testing”.  That's fancy economist-lingo for this: don't give Social Security or Medicare benefits to people who have enough money to pay for their own retirement (and their own medical care while retired).

I suspect most people would have a reaction something like this: “Well, that sounds fair, so long as they don't mean me!”  My own reaction was a little different: over the years of my employment (I'm 60, and about to retire) I have had hundreds of thousands of dollars forcibly removed from my paycheck to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes.  I was told by many sources, not least of which was the IRS, that those dollars would help fund my own retirement.  It's likely that if means testing for Social Security and Medicare is enacted, our assets in retirement would exceed the means testing threshold – so I would get none of these benefits at all, nor would my wife.

I have a lot of trouble with the word “fair”.  I'm not really sure what it means, in this context or in many others.  It's a very subjective term.  I have a much more objective complaint: in effect, the U.S. government made a contract with me.  They said that if I paid these two taxes, as I have, then I would be entitled to Social Security and Medicare benefits in my dotage.  These discussions about taking those benefits away sound to me like pseudo-sophisticated arguments for straight-up theft – the bureaucrats would like to take the benefits that I paid for and give them to someone else who didn't pay for them.  Highway robbery.  Classic redistribution of wealth.  Fair?  Who gives a shit?  They're proposing to rob me!

And that's on top of the higher taxes they're about to impose on me...

Peggy Noonan and Mickey Kaus have other thoughts...