Political Rhetoric Doesn’t Match Economic Reality

We are losing jobs in America faster than Vice President Joe Biden can contradict President Obama. While Biden tells us that the administration misread the economy, Obama says the so-called stimulus bill is working as intended.

The administration warned six months ago that if we didn’t pass the stimulus bill right away, unemployment could reach an astonishing 8 percent. Well, we got stimulated and now nearly 10 percent of Americans are out of work. The teenage jobless rate is almost 25 percent, which doesn’t bode well for the future of the American work ethic and job skills.

Just 15 months ago, unemployment stood at about 5 percent — that’s considered nearly full employment. Since Obama has taken office, we’ve lost more than 2 million jobs.

Obama tells us to be patient while he hurries. He promised to “create or save 3 or 4 million jobs.” Now he promises 5 million green jobs. So, what gives?

When is Obama going to tell us if he is creating or saving jobs? If you still have your job, do you owe the president a thank-you letter?

Or are you standing by with your shovel to build one of those roads, bridges or windmills? One of my favorite ancient Chinese proverbs says, “Man wait for long time with mouth open before roast duck fly in.” It seems there are lots of people standing around with their mouths open.

Let’s start at the beginning: Jobs are the result of productivity. If we opened a deli and customers stood in line all day, we’d better hire more people. But we can’t hire a bunch of people first and then hope for customers to line up.

And hiring people costs money. Labor is just one slice of the pie that business owners have to pay for. So are taxes, fees, and utilities. What if all of these costs increased? Are businesses likely to hire more or fewer people?

Business owners can look forward to paying more for all these things. Making business more expensive and burdensome is bad for all of us. It’ll be harder to find jobs when companies are paying more money to the government. Moreover, companies will have trouble keeping people hired.

Think about it. Labor costs went up July 24 when the minimum wage rose from $6.55 an hour to $7.25. The labor slice of the business pie will get bigger, which means another slice must get smaller.

It won’t come out of the tax slice, that’s for sure. The Obama administration and Congress are threatening higher income taxes for those making more than a couple hundred thousand dollars per year, higher capital gains taxes and higher corporate taxes.
And it won’t come out of the slice of pie that goes toward fees and business licenses either. The government continues to tell Americans that it’s an ever more expensive privilege to do business. Just complying with the alphabet soup of administrative agencies costs an arm and a kidney.

Don’t even think about skimping on utilities. Congress is sprinting to pass the cap-and-trade bill, which is designed to make energy costs more expensive. And President Obama is waiting at the finish line with a stopwatch and a pen to sign it into law.
All of this government pie is making me sick. And the economy is getting sicker. I never thought Uncle Sam would grow so fat, gluttonous, and grabby. Is it any wonder the economy shrinks and people lose jobs while the government digs in?
We should remind ourselves about the goose that laid the golden egg. Government does not create wealth — it confiscates it from the producers. The economy can only take so much.

The economy certainly can’t sustain the colossal healthcare costs that Congress is threatening or the back-door unionization on the horizon. The American auto industry broke down largely because of the United Auto Workers union overload. Costs can be shifted, but not ignored. And ultimately fiscal reckoning arrives with a vengeance.

We can expect more job losses because of political plunder. Economics is all about how scarce resources are allocated among people with unlimited wants. Government by nature shifts capital from its most productive uses to its least. The proof is that government subsidizes projects that real investors avoid – political payoffs outweigh profits.

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner says the deep and extended recession is necessary and healthy, and that families and government will go back to living within their means. In reality, the family budget shrinks while the federal budget explodes.

The political rhetoric doesn’t match the economic reality. If it did, Geithner would have said, “Let them eat pie!”

How To Build Your Own Liberty Library

Too many liberals and conservatives have one thing in common: They want to unleash the coercive power of government against free people in order to pursue their ideas of justice. The great battle in human history has been between liberty and state power. Liberty has usually lost. Many Americans think the Constitution grants our rights and freedoms. It does not. The Constitution does not give us a single right. Rather, it protects the rights with which we were born. Thomas Jefferson said, “The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time.”

Our Founders built America on the foundation of Judeo-Christian ethics and natural law. Our right to life, liberty and property is a divine gift from God and is inherent in our humanity.

Free people have limitless rights to live self-directed lives, but the federal government only has the powers expressly enumerated in the Constitution. Jefferson also warned of government encroachment and the yielding of liberty.

The Constitution and our freedom have suffered the ravages of power-hungry politicians, activist judges and apathetic Americans.

We must reclaim our patriotic heritage before it’s too late. But first we have to understand it. Since it would undermine public schools (read: government) to teach the virtues of limited government, we must teach ourselves.

Every American needs a liberty library in order to support and defend freedom with a keen understanding. Along with the Bible, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, I recommend nine books as essential additions to your collection:

1. “The Law” by Frederic Bastiat — The 19th century French economist and philosopher explains the self-serving nature of humankind and condemns the confiscatory inclination of government: “The state is the great fiction by which everybody tries to live at the expense of everyone else.”Therefore, the proper application of law is to protect private property and punish plunder from individuals or government.

2. “The Road to Serfdom” by F.A. Hayek — The Nobel Prize-winning economist championed free markets in the mid-20th century while the American intellectual elite universally touted collectivism. He coined the term “spontaneous order”to describe the economic and social harmony arising from free people pursuing their own interests. He contrasts that with the shortages and misery caused by the “fatal conceit”of coercive central planners, as in the old Soviet Union.

3. “Free to Choose” by Milton and Rose Friedman — Milton Friedman — another Nobel Prize winner — is perhaps the most-respected economist and commentator of the 20th century. Ronald Reagan considered this book a must-read in order to better understand how the explosion of laws, regulations, agencies and spending are as counterproductive as they are oppressive.

4. “Economics in One Lesson” by Henry Hazlitt — Even Hayek was impressed, saying, “I know of no other modern book from which the intelligent layman can learn so much about the basic truths of economics.”Hazlitt’s explanation of the “broken window”economic fallacy is priceless. Politicians can’t pander to readers of this book because the fallacies become obvious.

5. “The Incredible Bread Machine” by R.W. Grant — This brilliant book discusses the history of American capitalism, principles of a market economy, and how political force disrupts our lives. It’s best known, though, for the poem about an inventor who fed the world by creating a machine that produced bread for less than a penny a loaf. But he was vilified rather than celebrated: “What right had he to get so rich on other people’s hunger?”

6. “Liberty and Tyranny” by Mark Levin — This new book is an exciting refresher for people who have studied American government and a near-perfect introduction for those interested in learning. Levin’s succinct and lucid prose is irrefutable and packed with relevant historical notes. It goes beyond partisanship and focuses on the principles of liberty, and its ever-encroaching threats.

7. “1984” by George Orwell — This haunting negative utopia traps us inside a world where our thoughts are controlled by a totalitarian government. Doublespeak prevails — for example, the Ministry of Truth rewrites history and spreads propaganda. Orwell shows how the natural human yearning for freedom, truth, and love can be altered though government control of language. Political correctness — or totalitarian tolerance — is one great leap toward Orwell’s nightmare.

8. “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand — This is a celebration of reason, creativity and self-ownership; her magnum opus was chosen the second most-influential book on Americans’ lives (after the Bible) in a 1991 joint Library of Congress/Book of the Month Club survey. Think of productive members of society as Atlas holding up the world of social entitlements —what if they refused to be plundered any longer, and shrugged off the burden?

9. “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution” by Kevin Gutzman — This empowering new book explains how the Framers understood the Constitution and how judges and politicians have trampled it.

I’ll leave the 10th spot open for your recommendation.

America’s Success Requires Obama’s Failure

“So this is how liberty dies – to thunderous applause.” – Padme Amidala, Star Wars III

Weeks after cheering throngs wept in jubilation over the election of Barack Obama, dissenters are now being urged to support the president-elect and come together as one.

This is a splendid idea if you want higher taxes and more regulations to further damage our economy, a weakened military, rationed healthcare (some call it “universal”), and a myriad of other disastrous policies that trample our freedoms.

Pray for Obama’s success if you want him to “fundamentally change America” into a place where you exist to fund the government’s every whim. Instead, legitimate government exists to protect our rights to life, liberty, and property so that we can pursue happiness.

That’s what our Declaration of Independence articulates, and what our Constitution guarantees. But the First Lady in waiting said that we need to change our tradition and our history. With what would she propose to replace our two sacred documents?

But as long as the majority wants to transform America, perhaps we should also change our name while we’re at it. The United Sates of America is so yesterday, and the name itself carries terrible baggage. I suggest we make a subtle name change. How about O-merica instead?

Imagine classrooms across the country singing, “O-merica, O-merica, Obama shed his grace on thee …”

And speaking of brotherhood, it’s interesting that even with the collective loss of our minds, from sea to shining sea, voters rejected same-sex marriage. Evidently, Americans didn’t want the fruited plains to be too fruity.

But I digress. Back to the name change.

You: “O-merica is better off under Obama.”
Friend: “Did you say, ‘O-merica’?”
You: (Plausible deniability): “Huh?”

Here’s the problem: Too many Americans don’t understand that we did not vote for a benevolent dictator, we voted for a president. And presidents don’t have the constitutional authority to issue commands from on high. They don’t “run the country”; they preside as the head of government and head of state with powers limited by the Constitution.

Or, at least it’s supposed to work that way. But ever since FDR, presidents have put government ahead of people. The current president Bush has been a colossal offender. Under this administration, the federal government has grown 40 percent. Congress has a $3.1 trillion annual budget.

To put that in perspective, you’d have to stack $1,000 bills 68.9 miles high to reach $1 trillion. And we’re told they don’t have enough of our money. The future vice president says we’re not patriotic if we don’t yearn to be taxed even more. Doesn’t Washington have enough? Wouldn’t it be patriotic for Congress to thank us and curtail its runaway spending?

Obama says he wants to spread the wealth around so everybody has a chance to succeed. But by what ethical code is it OK to plunder people of their earnings and wealth in order to give it to others? After government overhead costs and special interest payoffs, it’s more like spreading the crumbs. Dollars are taken out of the economy, confiscated and chopped up. It’s a terrible misdirection of resources – it will cause less employment and raise costs for everyone.

This is evident to anyone who understands that benefits come with costs. Government doesn’t create wealth, it takes it away. A government job is paid for with chopped up dollars that could have created more jobs in the real economy. Obama will injure the goose that lays the golden egg – American enterprise.

That’s why I hope Obama fails. But with the unchecked power of a liberal Democratic Congress and future leftist Supreme Court justices, he will probably succeed. Thunderous applause will become a smattering of claps. More jobs will be outsourced to countries that respect private property.

I don’t know how we got here. But I’ll resist a government that insists free people exist for its purposes. I’ll remind people that legitimate government exists to protect our rights so that we can pursue happiness the way we see fit.

Barry Goldwater echoed our Founding Fathers when he said, “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.” In the same spirit, supporting a president who seeks to subvert the Constitution in pursuit of socialism is no virtue.

Florida Highway Patrol: Your Papers, Please!

Twice recently the Florida Highway Patrol asked me to show my driver license. Well, they didn’t exactly ask me. They seized me.

Not just me — they’re setting up roadblocks all over Florida and demanding you show your papers. They call them driver license and vehicle inspection checkpoints. They say it keeps us safer. It’s for our own good.

Here’s how it went Aug. 2 on Lisenby Avenue near Grace Presbyterian Church at 3:30 p.m. I’m on my way to get groceries when a trooper standing in the road directs me to stop and tells me to show my license.

Sure, I say, but first I ask if he’s familiar with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. He looks perplexed. I tell him it protects us from unreasonable seizures of our persons. He tells me I haven’t been seized.

Really? I ask, “If I prefer not to show my driver license, am I free to go?”

His demeanor changes. He’s no longer waving at children in the backseat as he did to the car ahead of me. Instead, he says, “Absolutely not. You will relinquish your driver license right now!”

He’s clearly ticked.

I hand him my license. He walks to the front of my car and tells me to honk my horn. He says, “I know my rights very well.”

I reply, “It’s not yours I’m talking about; it’s ours.”

He walks to the back of my car and eyes my license plate. When he returns he slaps my driver license on my car door for me to pick up, and says, “Remember, driving is a privilege, not a right.”

Actually, that’s up for debate. After we’ve demonstrated our competence to drive, we’ve earned a state-granted right, which can’t be revoked unless we do something wrong. A privilege can be given or taken on a whim.

After a couple minutes, I was a free man again. But why was I seized in the first place? Just governments exist to protect our God-given rights to life, liberty and property so we can pursue happiness.

If our Creator grants us freedom – as our Declaration of Independence insists – then nobody has the just power to make us unfree even for a few moments. Troopers who take an oath to support and defend the Constitution should protect and serve within constitutional guidelines.

It’s always wrong to begin a dialogue with someone who has done nothing wrong by initiating force against them. And let’s be honest: Preventing people from making their way around public roads they supposedly own is an initiation of force.

The Fourth Amendment protects our right from unreasonable searches and seizures; it specifically requires “probable cause.”

Think about it: If seizing us for doing nothing wrong (no probable cause) is reasonable, what would be an unreasonable seizure?

The FHP says it can “temporarily detain” us in order to keep the roads safer. They say there are nearly 8,000 out of almost 153,000 drivers in Bay County with suspended or revoked driver licenses. Why do the irresponsible 5 percent justify creating a police state for the rest of us?

The FHP claims it has state statute and case law on its side. But since when did lawmakers in Tallahassee and Florida judges supersede the U.S. Constitution?

Ben Franklin warned that those who would trade essential liberties for temporary security deserve neither. I argue those who make that trade will end up with neither.

I wonder how much safer we would be if those three highway patrolmen standing around Lisenby Avenue were out catching red-light runners and reckless drivers rather than detaining people for no probable cause.

The trooper was angry that I questioned his authority. He was close to showing me who was boss. I may have been moments away from being arrested for failure to exhibit my license even though I showed it to him within a few seconds. I was presumed guilty until I proved my innocence.

Many argue it’s a minor inconvenience for the public good. But doesn’t the Constitution already settle the matter? Perhaps government is conditioning us to be good subjects rather than empowered citizens.

If you find yourself ensnared in an FHP roadblock, you can show your papers without question and the trooper might smile and wave at your children. Or you can read him the Fourth Amendment as I did before relinquishing your license.

Even troopers need to be reminded of our liberty and the supreme law of the land.

John McCain And The Crist Tryst

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist is on John McCain’s vice-presidential short list. Talk-radio host Glenn Beck has predicted that Mr. McCain would tap Mr. Crist.

Mr. McCain would be hard pressed to make a worse choice.

True, Mr. McCain won Florida’s primary on the wave of Mr. Crist’s late endorsement, which Mr. McCain rode to shore as the Republican presidential candidate. The Florida governor is especially popular in the state’s liberal precincts, and he likely would deliver the Sunshine State in November.

But this would spell victory for big-government Republicanism, and a definitive departure from the virtues of small government and personal responsibility. Mr. Crist and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger are the bookend faces of the new Republican Party. Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater’s pictures on the grand old mantle have been turned to the wall.

Mr. Crist is the RINO poster boy. He’s a Republican in name only. He’s as politically calculating as the Clintons, and equally enamored of power. That explains why he’s been flying around the country on the Arizona senator’s left wing, vying for the vice presidency as his state’s economy sinks.

Rumors about Mr. Crist’s vice-presidential aspirations emerged quickly after he moved into the governor’s mansion only 17 months ago. He promptly signed a bill requiring paper receipts on electronic voting machines that included a provision permitting state officeholders to run for federal office without resigning. So, now, Mr. Crist does not have to step down to join a McCain ticket. How’s that for planning ahead? After Florida said goodbye to former Gov. Jeb Bush because of term limits, Mr. Crist campaigned to lower property taxes and property insurance rates, and to stimulate the economy.

But consider what Mr. Crist has done in Tallahassee.

He called global warming the definitive issue of our time, and he’s determined to save the world, starting with Florida. He signed aggressive executive orders last summer to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. This would slash CO2 emissions to 1902 levels, according to Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute.

Mr. Crist neglects to tell people how much this measure will cost while he exaggerates the benefits. These regulations will boost utility costs, trigger job cuts, and chase away employers. The Florida Chamber of Commerce warns, “Florida will lose 251,000 jobs if we don’t change course.” Mr. Crist also supports America’s Climate Security Act, which more accurately should be dubbed the Cost of Living Increase Act. The Heritage Foundation points out the hidden tax on nearly every facet of American life: a cumulative GDP loss of $4.8 trillion in inflation-adjusted dollars by 2030.

He rushed to socialize Florida’s insurance market by making the government-run Citizens Property and Insurance Corporation the largest insurer in the state and the fourth-largest in the nation.

Former Gov. Bush was disappointed that the new Republican governor would promote “Cuban economics,” as the Wall Street Journal editorial board called it. Mr. Bush explained, “When the government assumes the risk of these catastrophic events, they are putting at risk the livelihoods and quality of life of the taxpayers and citizens they serve.” The WSJ editorial board argued that Mr. Crist put Florida on the path to financial ruin just three months after taking office. “His campaign to socialize Florida’s insurance market has placed the Sunshine State one big hurricane away from financial disaster.” Mr. Crist has been trying to push his hurricane politics onto America with a national catastrophic insurance fund designed to make premiums more affordable in high-risk states at the expense of others. That’s unfair, and it encourages risky property development in disaster-prone areas.

He declared, “Lawyers are back,” soon after taking office. The trial bar pumped millions into his campaign and its investment paid off handsomely, scoring multiple victories during this year’s legislative session. The Senate already has killed one effort to cap contingency fees.

An overly litigious Florida already has sent doctors fleeing. The state estimated that 50,000 physicians practiced here, but a study last year found the number closer to 34,000. A 13 percent drop is expected over the next five years. You still can move to Florida to ease your arthritis, but you may need to travel to another state to see a doctor.

And he proposes to spur economic growth through public works projects by speeding construction of highways, ports, homes, and schools. Florida is suffering from a housing bust, a retail slump, high property taxes and insurance premiums. So the governor turns to Keynesian economics: government spending to create consumer demand. History has shown it’s hard to spend your way into prosperity.

In less than 18 months, Mr. Crist has socialized Florida’s insurance market, hamstrung businesses with climate regulations, invigorated trial lawyers, and launched costly public-works projects to stimulate the economy.

With a record like that, could a New York Times endorsement of Charlie Crist for VP be far behind?

This op-ed appeared in The Washington Times.

Dissenting Opinions Foster Balanced Debate

Lately, when I read The News Herald’s Viewpoints section I feel like a long-tailed cat in a room full of angry rocking chairs. Much credit has been given to my talk-radio show for the defeat of the half-cent sales tax, and it’s generated a vicious barrage of vitriol.

Take, for instance, last week’s online Squaller: “Our schools are bad enough. Thanks for rallying your goons, Burnie.”

Or the local writer last Friday who called me an “agitator,” a “divisionist,” and implied that my opinions had been bought by the Bay Tax Foundation (“Local agitators negatively influenced sales tax vote,” op-ed, Nov. 9).

Goodness grief — all this just because we disagree? The last writer also claimed he could reveal me for who I really am. No need — it’s no secret: I’m a husband and a father of two girls, and a former Air Force captain with four college degrees. I have taught English composition at three different colleges. I’m a libertarian minded Republican who champions personal freedom and responsibility. And I don’t sign up for more taxes.

Name-calling and character assaults indicate not only intolerance toward another’s point of view, but also intolerance toward the very expression of it at all. The writers’ frustration might emanate from their inability to control or contain information. My show is a vibrant marketplace of competing ideas that can’t be regulated by those who have grown accustomed to regulating.

I welcomed proponents of the half-cent sales tax on my show, including School Board member Ginger Littleton and Citizens for Bay Schools Chairman Doug Merkle. All told, they had a few hours to set me straight, but listeners didn’t buy it. Ultimately, it came down to truth in advertising.

Talk radio is compelling because arguments can be challenged instantly. I criticized Bay District Schools for inappropriately advocating a political issue on school property and during work hours; they contended it was a worthy cause. It was a fair debate. Listeners heard both sides and challenged me and my guests. In the end, people gained clarity and conviction.

A letter writer last Thursday chastised Bay County for letting me “spew radical views” ( “Half-cent defeat reflects badly on Bay County,” Nov. 8 ) He was “ashamed to be counted as a Bay County resident” after voters said no to the half-cent sales tax. Isn’t that a bit of an emotional overreaction, considering there were good arguments on both sides?

This isn’t the first time I’ve had to dodge arrows of slander. I was called a racist after I invited several prominent medical examiners on my show to debunk the autopsy myths in the Martin Lee Anderson case. One online Squaller called it my “master plan to rile up the bigots.”

Racism is an evil belief system that insists some people are superior to others based on skin color. People who find power in victimhood dilute the severity of the charge when they sling it around recklessly. I agree with Holocaust survivor Victor Frankl, who was asked if he hated the German race. “There are only two races in the world,” he said. “The decent, and the indecent.”

Another local writer last Wednesday accused me of hurting our community “in ways yet to be realized” (“Trial brings old diversionary tactics,” op-ed, Nov. 7). He said I “whip up a frenzy among the populace for ratings and job security.” Evidently, it doesn’t occur to the writer that good people can reach different conclusions.

Wouldn’t public debate improve if people didn’t start out by impugning other people’s motives? Wouldn’t we do better by engaging arguments directly and encouraging more dialogue rather than less?

All this really comes down to maturity and tolerance. Hearing dissenting opinions can be unsettling, and contemplating their merits even more uncomfortable. But the best way to respond is with better arguments, rather than launching insults and personal attacks.

Acknowledging that we might be wrong is paramount to critical inquiry; hypotheses must be subject to continual testing. This happens daily on my show. I realize that if I were right even 51 percent of the time, I could make a fortune on Wall Street. My show is not about being right — it’s about pursuing the truth and treating people with dignity.

That’s not to say there aren’t spirited debates and even occasional heated exchanges.

Grappling with dissenting opinions is a healthy exercise. Listeners benefit most when they get antagonism as well as confirmation — it strengthens their intellectual bones. That’s how we develop our philosophy.

As British poet William Blake wrote a couple hundred years ago, “The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water and breeds reptiles of the mind.”

Unfortunately, evidence of these reptiles in the form of intellectual intolerance is becoming too prevalent in our community.

Media Malpractice In The Anderson Case

Walter Lippmann once said, “The theory of a free press is that the truth will emerge from reporting and free discussion.” He should have been more specific: Truth will emerge if the reporting is good and honest.

The news media have consistently distorted the facts surrounding the Martin Lee Anderson case. Citizens concerned about the tragic death of the teenager who died last year hours after his first day at the boot camp are being duped, and the former employees facing charges are being railroaded.

This journalistic malpractice prevents “public enlightenment,” which the Society of Professional Journalists upholds as the “forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy.”

The preamble of the SPJ states that the duty of a journalist is to seek truth and provide “a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.”

The Washington Post’s ethical guidelines sum up basis of objective reporting: “No story is fair if it omits facts of major importance or significance. Fairness includes completeness.”

The news media have failed to meet these criteria in the Anderson case.

Various media outlets reported that Anderson died after being “manhandled” and “roughed up.” The incident was described as “a violent struggle” and “brutal treatment by guards.”

The media have not informed the public about the “pressure point tactics” used by drill instructors to compel good order and discipline from hundreds of insubordinate detainees. Anderson was not singled out for a beating, as reportage has indicated. Responsible journalists are obligated to explain that pressure point tactics limit injuries to muscle bruises to the arms and legs, and call the technique by its name.

The Miami Herald has been especially negligent. Reporter Marc Caputo described the incident as “apparently criminal acts.”

Carol Marbin Miller reported in The Miami Herald that “guards punched the youth and shoved ammonia capsules up his nose when he said he could not run.”

The writer declares without attribution that ammonia capsules were shoved up Anderson’s nose. People following the case closely know this egregious accusation is false. Ammonia capsules are used by a majority of professional football players as a stimulant, and have never caused a single death.

The news media also have presented the first medical examiner as incompetent, and perhaps even corrupt.

The Associated Press explained, “An initial autopsy report blamed the death on complications from sickle cell trait. A second autopsy, though, found Anderson died from suffocation from being forced to inhale ammonia.”

Get it? Bay County Medical Examiner Charles Siebert “blamed” the death on sickle cell trait, but Tampa Medical Examiner Vernard Adams “found” that Anderson died of suffocation. The writer uses these words to editorialize on the sly, and violates any standard of objectivity.

The Tampa Tribune marginalized Siebert as a lone quack, reporting that he was “sticking to his guns in spite of widespread criticism and ridicule over his finding that a teen died of natural causes at a Florida boot camp.” The paper reported that “the embattled Panhandle medical examiner” stuck to his opinion “even after a second autopsy placed the blame squarely on the guards.” Instead, reporters should explain how boot camp and hospital employees were unaware of Anderson’s sickle cell trait until Siebert discovered it.

The news media’s dismissal of sickle cell trait as a potential killer has been reprehensible. Four doctors have released medical reports on the Anderson case, and only Adams denies that sickle cell trait had anything to do with his death.

Recently in Tampa, a 12-year-old boy died of complications of sickle cell trait. There is confusion in the black community about sickle cell “trait” and sickle cell “disease.” The news media could provide valuable information about Martin’s condition that could save lives, but instead have ignored it.

Journalists are fond of a saying that gives them a sense of purpose: “Comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable.” They would do better just reporting the facts instead of pursuing their vision of social justice.

Panama City Beach Recycles Same Trashy Idea

The Panama City Beach City Council believes in recycling. Unfortunately, it believes in recycling bad ideas. Take the mandatory single trash-hauler proposal — please!

Before Mike Thomas was a Bay County commissioner he was a PCB city councilman. His attempt to foist this bad idea on residents in the late 1990s was rejected by people who value consumer choice and free market competition.

Now PCB Mayor Gayle Oberst is promoting a franchise system that would give one company exclusive rights to pick up everyone’s trash. The problem is that most of her constituents don’t want it. At least that’s what they’ve said recently on my morning radio show.

Currently, residents are able to hire one of three private trash haulers. Ninety percent of residents do just that, and most are happy with their service. But one caller to my show explained the ostensible problem that has pushed this issue to the fore: “When you leave it to the people, too many won’t get trash service.” Indeed, some people are irresponsible and dump trash illegally. It’s a serious enough problem that everyone agrees something needs to be done.

The caller’s fear of “leaving it to the people” precisely is what threatens principles of freedom everywhere. The question is: Does robbing people of choice and running trash companies out of town best address the problem of illegal dumping?

A consultant has presented three options to the city council: 1) Keep the current system but make participation verifiably mandatory; 2) create a municipal trash service; 3) contract with one private trash company, which Mayor Oberst endorses.

My listeners overwhelmingly favor the first suggestion. But methinks constituents are going to get hosed. For whatever reason, the City Council is determined to push through the last option. I’m left wondering who’s behind this boondoggle. If we followed the money, where would it lead us?

Because some people are dumping trash illegally is no justification to establish a monopoly trash service. Though not a traditional monopoly, the key effect would be that competition would be excluded, threatening customer satisfaction.

Once established, the trash company or city officials could cut service from twice per week to once per week. Some say that’s not likely, but it has already happened in other municipalities. Try calling and complaining when you have nowhere else to turn.

It’s not uncommon for companies to push for change after winning a contract with a city.

The trash collectors for PCB recently requested more money for their services. Coastal Parasail Incorporated asked the Tourist Development Council for an additional $41,000 annually to cover maintenance, fuel and operation expenses. This comes after the corporation was awarded another five-year contract.

Switching to a single-hauler system is unethical because it would put good people out of work. Awarding one trash company the exclusive contract would send the others packing. “I’ve grown and built what I have by working hard,” said Wanda Beason, the owner of Parker Sanitation on Panama City Beach. “And now all of a sudden, they don’t need me anymore. That hurts.” All three trash companies have earned their business fairly, and should not be forced out of town.

Neither should satisfied customers be forced to discontinue their current service. Voluntary exchanges in the marketplace are more likely to lead to satisfactory business arrangements than government enforced monopolies.

One concerned resident sent me an email asking what she and others could do to protect their rights to choose their own trash service. I recommend two approaches: First, make your voices heard in no uncertain terms — write letters to the editor and call my show. Second, contact City Council members directly to express your concerns in a concise and cogent manner.

Why didn’t the City Council ask their constituents for solutions to the illegal dumping problem rather than paying a consultant? Ken Nelson, the lone city councilman who consistently respects principles of freedom, recommends placing Dumpsters in strategic places to mitigate illegal dumping. Listeners agreed with him that government encroachment into the trash business is unwarranted and wrongheaded. In the end, how much will the City Council value the wishes of its constituents?

The City Council should not recycle this bad idea whose time has passed. It should dump the single-hauler idea and enforce the code against illegal dumping.