The Press-Dispatch
Issue link: https://www.ifoldsflip.com/i/105037
Opinion C-2 Wednesday, January 23, 2013 The Press-Dispatch Observations by Thomas Sowell Liberalism versus blacks There is no question that liberals do an impressive job of expressing concern for blacks. But do the intentions expressed in their words match the actual consequences of their deeds? San Francisco is a classic example of a city unexcelled in its liberalism. But the black population of San Francisco today is less than half of what it was back in 1970, even though the city's total population has grown. Severe restrictions on building housing in San Francisco have driven rents and home prices so high that blacks and other people with low or moderate incomes have been driven out of the city. The same thing has happened in a number of other California communities dominated by liberals. Economic freedom on the wane By Ed Feulner "Land of the free." It's right there in our national anthem. As well it should be—the personal liberties we enjoy are the envy of many around the world. But freedom is no accident. It requires constant vigilance. Takes economic liberty, an area where the United States has begun to slip quite a bit lately. How would you say the U.S. compares to other nations? No need to guess. We can pinpoint it exactly by using an annual guide known as the Index of Economic Freedom. Top three, you think? Top five? Nope. Last year at this time came the news that the United States had dropped to 10th place. Well, the 2013 Index is out, and we can see that the U.S. hasn't budged from that spot. In fact, we're lucky we didn't fall out of the top 10 altogether. Our Index score went down a bit over the last year. We held onto the No. 10 slot mostly because Ireland declined enough to wind up in 11th place. As recently as 2008, the U.S. ranked seventh worldwide, had a score of 81 (on a 0-100 scale, with 100 being the freest), and was listed as a "free" economy. Today, the U.S. has a score of 76 (its lowest since 2000) and is "mostly free," the Index's second-highest category. Before explaining why, let's back up and touch on how the editors of the Index—published annually since 1995 by The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal—determine the scores. Each country is evaluated in four broad areas of economic freedom: 1. Rule of Law. Are property rights protected through an effective and honest judicial system? How widespread is corruption— bribery, extortion, graft, and the like? 2. Limited Government. Are taxes high or low? Is government spending kept under control, or is it growing unchecked? 3. Regulatory Efficiency. Are businesses able to operate without burdensome and redundant regulations? Are individuals able to work where and how much they want? Is inflation in check? Are prices stable? 4. Open Markets: Can goods be traded freely? Are there tariffs, quota or other restrictions? Can individuals invest their money where and how they see fit? Is there an open banking environment that encourages competition? For the most part, of course, the United States does very well on these measures. Finishing 10th out of 177 countries, after all, is impossible if you don't have a large degree of economic freedom. Property rights are strong in the U.S. Our court system is independent. Business start-up procedures are efficient. The labor market is flexible. But in certain key areas, the United States is lagging badly. The biggest decline since last year comes in the area of regulations. Simply put, it's becoming costlier and more complicated to start up or maintain a business. More than 100 major new federal regulations have been imposed since early 2009, at an annual cost that exceeds $46 Continued on page 3 The no-spin zone—by Bill O'Reilly Just say yes If you have kids, you most likely prayed hard that they would avoid drugs and alcohol. Once a child becomes intoxicated, childhood is over. The young person will never be the same again. Thus, a sane society discourages substance abuse if only to protect children. A sane society does not put a happy face on inebriation. We are not a sane society. With almost 30 million Americans currently categorized as "substance abusers," you would think that Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign, which launched in 1983, would be resurrected. But saying no is not what America in 2013 is all about. Saying yes to whatever you want to do is the rule of the day. Washington State and Colorado have legalized the use of marijuana, and many Americans are celebrating. As Bob Dylan once sang: "Everybody must get stoned!" The usual excuses are put forth: It's a freedom issue. We can tax the drug to generate revenue. It will get the criminal element out of it. But the truth is that legalized pot (or drugs of any kind) creates massive unintended consequences. —In Holland, so many problems arose from pot being sold in "coffee shops" that a law banning the sale of cannabis to "foreigners" was passed. It seems the streets of Amsterdam, in particular, have become saturated with stoned people doing things outside that should be done inside. —The Netherlands recently passed a new law, forbidding children from smoking pot in school. That's right, some of the urchins were getting high between classes. One teacher told the press it's hard to stop that when pot is being sold legally across the street where hard-core drug addicts buy it and then sell it to the kids in order to get heroin money. —In Portugal, they have legalized all drugs. The result: Drug-related homicides have increased by 40 percent. Drug overdoses are up by 30 percent. —In Switzerland, drug-related deaths doubled and the health care system was overwhelmed after heroin was made legal in Zurich. The law was rescinded. But here in the USA, we are now bullish on pot. Willie Nelson wrote a book glorifying the drug. Snoop Dogg says he wants to teach his kids how to smoke reefer. And the media in general see marijuana as a harmless diversion. If you are down on pot, you are decidedly uncool. Fine with me. I'll risk the stigma. According to the federal government, 8,400 Americans begin using drugs every day, half of them under the age of 18. And 68 percent of folks who become addicted to drugs begin with marijuana. Get the picture? Celebrate the pot culture if you want. But know that you are not helping kids by taking the high road. Points to ponder—by Ford Bond Christianity and Self Defense – Part II President Obama is offering 19 measures to begin his agenda for gun control. Many law-abiding citizens are up in arms, and at least one Congressman is suggesting impeachment. Many Christians are asking, "What place does a weapon have in connection to Jesus Christ and my faith in him?" The core of the question is "what avenue is the Christian to take over in self-defense." When the term selfdefense is used, the immediate conclusion is the person is a potential killer, which is predominantly not true; but this is the core of the question and goes to the heart of the Christian life. One passage from Christ's Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:39 cannot be abridged nor ignored: "But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also." Scholars point to this passage as the ideal state of discipleship and pacifism. Nevertheless, we do not live in a perfect world, and evil is ever present. A brief examination from the noted theologians of Christianity is needed to find a clear-cut answer. Saint Augustine of the 5th century AD did not embrace the right to self-defense, for he argued that it was never permissible to kill over A woman's perspective—by Mona Charen Digital medical hubris Now the other shoes begin to drop. Voters knew in November that many of the promises Obama made in 2008 had been broken. The economy had not revived as he had promised it would ("or we'll be talking about a oneterm proposition"). He has not "changed the tone in Washington"—except for the worse. He didn't prevent lobbyists from holding positions in his administration. He didn't cut the deficit in half; he increased it radically. But voters apparently decided that the president deserved credit for good intentions. How long will that indulgence last? The next four years, whatever else they may bring, will tally the results of Obama's first term policies. Some of those will not be felt until 2014, when Obamacare comes fully online. Others will be subtle, like the depressing effect of Dodd/Frank on lending. Still others will be obvious—Obama's "chickens coming home to roost." One of these deserves close attention because it so perfectly captures what's wrong with the president's (and the Democratic Party's) approach to government. Remember Mr. Obama's pet project to improve American medical care by moving to digital medical records? Candidate Obama talked it up in 2008, and the newly-elected president inserted it into the stimulus bill in 2009. Switching from paper to digital medical records, Obama said, would reduce the cost and improve the quality of care. It would "cut waste, eliminate red tape and reduce the need to repeat expensive medical tests." Digital records would also reduce "deadly but preventable medical errors that Liberals try to show their concern for the poor by raising the level of minimum wage laws. Yet they show no interest in hard evidence that minimum wage laws create disastrous levels of unemployment among young blacks in this country, as such laws created high unemployment rates among young people in general in European countries. The black family survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but it has disintegrated in the wake of the liberals' expansion of the welfare state. Most black children grew up in homes with two parents during all that time but most grow Continued on page 3 pervade our health care system." Because Obama thought it would be a good idea, because it seemed like common sense to him, U.S. taxpayers spent $19 billion to transition doctors' offices and hospitals to electronic systems. Doctors and hospitals that adopt digital systems are eligible for payments from Uncle Sam. Those who fail to comply will be punished with declining Medicare reimbursements starting in 2015. It's a coercive, top-down, big government "solution" in search of a problem. It might be a good idea to adopt digital medical records. But the "common sense" way to do it would be through an organic, grassroots system in which doctors and other health professionals tested systems and selected those that worked best for the money expended. Only doctors themselves are in a position to judge whether switching to an electronic system makes them more or less efficient. Doctors would not spend the money unless they were confident that such technology would be worth the price. If the government is paying for it, such calculations fly out the window. In fact, with the government coercing adoption, bad decisions are inevitable. A number of studies and reports are filtering in showing that government-sponsored digital medical records have not reduced medical costs. A study in the journal Health Affairs found that offices with digital medical records were 40 to 70 percent more likely to order diagnostic tests—thus increasing medical spending. Doctors have also raised privacy concerns. Pa- tient confidentiality is strictly regulated by the 1996 HIPA A law. Unauthorized releases could leave physicians vulnerable to lawsuits. But many of the existing software systems fail to protect confidentiality. As with so much government cash, we have no idea whether it really gets spent on the intended ends. HHS has issued a report suggesting that Medicare officials have failed to verify whether the health professionals who got the government cash to adopt digital systems have actually used them. None of the payments has been audited. The RAND Corporation, which had issued a cheerleading report in 2005 arguing that the U.S. could save $81 billion a year by adopting digital records, has issued a new report suggesting that its original estimates were, ahem, optimistic. "Evidence of significant savings is scant," reports The New York Times, "and there is increasing concern that electronic records have actually added to costs by making it easier to bill more for some services." The latest R AND study notes that many of the electronic records systems are hard to use and lack interoperability. Anecdotal evidence suggests that doctors hate them. Like all computerbased systems, they are vulnerable to crashes. Dr. David Brailer, the health information czar under George W. Bush summed it up well for the Times, "The vast sum of stimulus money flowing into health information technology created a 'race to adopt' mentality— buy the systems today to get government handouts, but figure out how to make them work tomorrow." If then, but taxpayers will never see that $19 billion again. That's Democratic leadership—less efficiency at higher prices. one's life or property, but in defense of another was permissible. From the 14th century AD, Saint Thomas Aquinas taught a balanced approach; while he wrote it is not permissible for a private individual to intentionally kill a person, a person can use moderate force to repel an aggressor in order to protect oneself or someone for whom the person is responsible. From the 16th century, Martin Luther taught "no one should harm another for any evil deed, no matter how much he deserves it." A contemporary of Luther, John Calvin declared that Christ's law of love requires defense of one's helpless neighbor, but one should not defend his own life. John Wesley taught in the 18th century that self defense is justified, but he generally held that Christian perfection required believers to show love and mercy to their oppressors. In our own times, the Catholic Church takes a stand similar to St. Thomas Aquinas and allows the use of force in self-defense, as do most Baptists and Pentecostals. On the other hand, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church has publicly stated it is opposed to the killing of anyone for any reason, and the United Methodist Church Social Principles states that war is to be used only as a last resort; therefore, it seems logical that the same holds for self-defense. The Quaker Church, though giving latitude to conscience, supports non-violence as does Amish theologian John Yoder; who wrote that Christ taught radical nonviolence and refused to give into violence; therefore, the Christian stance is pacifism. Historically, the church as a whole has been anti-war, but not anti-self-defense. Jesus lived out His ministry as a pacifist and chose not to defend Himself when arrested, tried, mocked, and executed and encouraged such. When Peter drew out a sword and cut off a man's ear that was there to arrest Jesus, he was told by Christ to "Put up your sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." We could interpret this to mean if one takes up violence, then he/ she will perish by violence, such is war. This needs to be tempered with as Jesus was facing the end of his earthly ministry he made reference to a sword (weapon). Luke 22:36, reads "Then Continued on page 12 The P Dispatch ress- MR. AND MRS. FRANK HEURING, PUBLISHERS ANDREW G. HEURING, EDITOR JOHN B. HEURING, ADVERTISING MANAGER Wednesday, January 23, 2013 Entered at the Post Office in Petersburg, Indiana for transmission through the mails as Periodical Mail, Postage paid at Petersburg, Indiana. Published weekly. Change of Address—Subscribers changing addresses will please give old address as well as new one along with phone number. We cannot guarantee prompt change unless this is done. Postmaster: send changes to Post Office Box 68, Petersburg, Indiana 47567-0068. Phone 354-8500 • FAX—354-2014 P.O. BOX 68, PETERSBURG, INDIANA 47567 E-mail—subscribe@pressdispatch.net (604-340) SUBSCRIPTION RATES 3 mos. 6 mos. 1 year 2 years Pike and Surrounding Cos. .......$ 10.00$15.00$25.00$45.00. $15.00$25.00$45.00.. Elsewhere in Indiana ................. 14.0019.0027.0049.00. 19.0027.0049.00.. Outside Indiana ............................. 18.0028.0043.0075.00. 28.0043.0075.00..