Don't Sweat the Small Stuff 46

Selling the Tetons

The State of Wyoming may be selling 1,366 acres in the Grand Teton National Park. The state, which has been getting $3,000 a year by leasing the land for grazing, is asking $125 million. Imagine what the federal government could raise if it sold off its land holdings. We could actually pay off a large part of the national debt. Unless of course, Congress decided to throw the money down some sewer like nationalized health care.

And They Get to Vote
A poll taken by the Marist Institute for Public Opinion found that 26 percent of those questioned did not know from which country the United States won its independence. Twenty percent didn't bother to even guess, while 6 percent named a country other than Great Britain, including China, Mexico, and Japan. Apparently all of that money that we've been throwing at public education is starting to pay off.

Perhaps worse than this ignorance of one of the most basic facts of American history is that these individuals get to vote. I think it is fairly safe to say that anyone who doesn't know about the Revolutionary War is certainly not going to understand the proper role of government, the principles on which this nation was founded, or the sanctity of individual rights. They will be easily influenced by any charlatan who panders to their whims.

Polls like this make we wonder if some kind of test should be required for voting.

Whose Life is It?

On Monday the Chronicle opined on a recent report that found two-thirds of Texas children flunked a physical fitness test. The editorial, which is subtitled "It's our duty to get Texas kids more fit," concluded:

The state of Texas has an interest in changing this picture, no less than it does in improving student performances on standardized academic tests. Failure to meet physical fitness standards has lifetime consequences every bit as serious as flunking algebra.

Physical fitness shouldn't be treated as an elective that can be modified or even eliminated at state lawmakers' whim. Let's get exercised enough to change this, Texas. 

The paper doesn't tell us why the fitness of Texas children is a proper concern of state legislators or what interest the state has in this issue. Apparently, we are supposed to swallow the bait with no explanation.

I assume that, if pressed, the paper would argue that childhood obesity ultimately costs taxpayers more in health care costs. Therefore, the state has an interest in promoting fitness because it will save us money in the long run. But this begs the question: Should government even be in the health care business? And the answer to that question is an emphatic NO.

The Chronicle implicitly regards children as property of the state, whose fitness is a proper concern of lawmakers. This of course, is nothing new. Through public education, vaccination requirements, and myriad other laws the state has long asserted its ownership of children within Texas.

And this ownership isn't limited to children. Anyone living in the state is subject to an abundance of regulations and controls premised on the belief that the state may dictate how we live our lives. From occupational licensing to taxation, from land-use regulations to protecting the environment, the state has steadily assumed greater and greater control over our property and our lives. Increasingly, we may live--not as we choose--but as the state deems appropriate. Increasingly, we may live--not by right--but with the permission of government officials. This isn't what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

Misrepresentations, Fallacies, and "Deregulation"

It is summer in Texas and that means that it is time for the annual chorus of voices decrying "deregulation" of the electric industry in the state. As an example, Bay Area Houston (BAH) declares that "Electricity deregulation has failed." While this certainly makes for attention grabbing headlines, it is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

The most relevant fact being misrepresented is that the electricity industry is still heavily regulated in Texas. The web site of the Texas Public Utilities Commission states:

We are responsible for regulating certain services provided by telephone and electric utilities in Texas and for protecting utility customers.

The electric industry has been operating in a mixed economy--a mixture of freedom and government controls--since "deregulation" in 2003 (and long before that). Yet BAH blames "deregulation", that is freedom, for higher rates. He doesn't even consider the possibility that perhaps it is the government controls that have stifled innovation and led to higher rates.

Instead he provides an excellent example of the fallacy of post hoc. Since higher electric rates occurred after "deregulation" BAH concludes that it must be "deregulation" that is to blame. He conveniently ignores the controls imposed on utility companies that lead to higher costs--such as the fact that a company cannot generate, transmit, and sell electricity to consumers. A web site--PowertoChoose.com--owned by the Public Utility Commission states:

In the past, one company provided all parts of your electricity service (generation, transmission and distribution, and retail sales). With competition, these parts are separated into different companies.

Neither the PUC nor BAH tells us that the vertical integration that existed prior to "deregulation" was prohibited in the name of competition. In other words, the practices that allowed a company to operate more efficiently were banned by government fiat, and now the market is taking the blame.

The irony of the PUC's web site is that while promoting consumer choice it actively limits producer choice. Consumers are encouraged to shop electric retailers--to act on their own judgment. But producers who deem it economically practical to generate, transmit, and sell electricity cannot act on their judgment. The decrees of politicians and bureaucrats are imposed on the utility companies and the utilities take the blame when the results are not to the liking of the public.

Higher electric rates are not the result of "deregulation", but of continued government intervention. That BAH and his ilk don't see this isn't surprising. When they look at the government's failed monopoly on education they don't call for more freedom, but more taxpayer money and more government controls. When they looked at soaring health care costs they don't blame the mountains of regulations imposed on insurance companies and doctors, they demand more government controls. When the financial industry collapses they don't blame the 1,500+ regulatory agencies overseeing that industry, they declare that the industry isn't regulated enough.

BAH, who labels himself a "consumer activist", is unconcerned about producers. (And he isn't concerned about consumers either, or he would be advocating freedom for both producers and consumers.) He is concerned solely with needs, the needs of consumers:

[Consumers] need reliable energy, with long term contracts, no cancellation fees, and a fair and reasonable price. 

And when "deregulation" does not meet this need, government must intervene. Government must place more shackles on the producers of electricity so that consumers can have "reasonable" prices. However, BAH doesn't have the honesty to state this openly. Instead, this is what he offers:

A small group of citizens approached the City of Houston with an idea. The City has negotiation power resulting in a 5 year contract at 9 cents a kWh. The citizens asked the City to require their chosen provider to offer the same rate to the homeowners and businesses of Houston....

We believe this idea has merit. The City will not resell electricity or provide billing services or customer support. They will only negotiate a rate and require the provider to voluntarily offer the same rate to its citizens. [emphasis added]

What does it mean to "require the provider to voluntarily offer the same rate" to Houstonians. How do you require someone to act voluntarily? When government is involved, such requirements are backed by force. When an individual or business is forced to act a particular way, the action cannot be called voluntary. And this is the essence of BAH's position--he wants to use government coercion to satisfy the whims and demands of consumers. And he's not about to let facts or logic get in his way.