Tag Archives: ethics

Free Speech in Illinois

Posted on by
Reply

Particularly, free speech in Progressive-Democratic Party reigned-over Illinois. A charitable organization, Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender, wants to register as a charitable organization in Illinois, but it’s being blocked by the State’s Secretary of State, Alexi Giannoulias.

Giannoulias’ rationalization is that a State law, the General Not for Profit Corporation Act, bars the use of terms like “regular democrat,” “regular democratic,” “regular republican,” “democrat,” “democratic” or “republican”  in any organization’s name without the party’s prior permission. It doesn’t matter that these terms are entirely generic and not—nor being generic, can they be—trademarked or copyrighted in any way.

DIAG is being blocked from registering in Illinois because it opposes Party’s support for puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical interventions so they more closely resemble the opposite sex over those procedures’ permanent effects, especially in children. The use of “Democrats” in the organization’s name is just an excuse, and DIAG, along with Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, have sued the State and Giannoulis over the legitimacy of that part of the law.

This is the level of free speech that Party allows in Illinois: what is freely spoken is what Party says its subjects are free to speak.

An Alternative Choice

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump (R) is considering settling his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over that agency’s illegal (and politically motivated, I say) leak of his tax data to the New York Times. His thought is to send the proceeds to charity.

I have an alternative thought. Require, under the terms of the settlement, the IRS to send the settlement funds to the 401(c)(3) NGOs that it had blocked from certification or whose certifications it had slow-walked. Or, require the IRS to agree to allow Trump to spread the settlement funds across those entities in the IRS’ name.

Sometimes poetic justice also is legitimate justice.

Wrong Distinction

Posted on by
Reply

There’s a new challenge, allegedly, for grocers and their junk food sales; although their problem is whether, and if so how much and where, they should stock junk food on their shelves. This is suggested by the headline:

Is a Cookie a Type of Candy? Supermarkets Have a New Food-Stamp Conundrum

This is a trivial question, though, one that awaits only a government definition of what foods are eligible for food stamps. The larger, and the far more serious problem is posed by this claim, buried in the middle of the article:

Critics said that limiting grocery options ignores the real causes of poor diets, such as low incomes, high food prices and access to healthy food. Studies, they said, show little difference between what SNAP recipients buy and the purchases of non-SNAP households.

Say the critics are correct, and food stamp food eligibilities don’t address those root causes. Say, further, that those studies are accurate in their conclusions.

Those criticisms are wholly irrelevant. The fact remains, and it remains unaddressed, as well, that there is no reason for the rest of us to pay with our tax dollars for the poor diet choices those eating on our dime—those food stamp programs—make. If they want those junk foods, let them pay for them on their own dime, just as the purchasers in non-SNAP households do.

How dare we presume so, some might bleat. It’s a simple dare. We’re the ones paying and with our money. We’re the ones who should be determining how our tax dollars are spent.

It’s that straightforward, and it should be that simple.

Hardly Defiance

Posted on by
Reply

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reduced its vaccines for children recommendation from a schedule of 18 diseases to a recommendation of 11. The American Academy of Pediatrics still recommends children be vaccinated against 18 diseases. The Wall Street Journal calls the AAP defiant.

No.

HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy, Jr, and HHS’ CDC have all along recommended patients and parents of child patients consult with their physicians on ailments, treatments, and vaccines. Kennedy has emphasized that recommendation while he has had CDC scale back the recommendations.

Parents are heeding that CDC recommendation and are consulting. Pediatricians and their medical association are acting like physicians and treating their child patients rather than parroting those ancillary CDC recommendations.

Wrong Answer

Posted on by
Reply

House and auto insurers’ profits and the rate increases they charge policy holders are coming under political scrutiny, but politicians’ proposed solutions are badly counterproductive.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul (D) this month became the latest state lawmaker to advocate profits caps on insurers, to tackle escalating home- and “crushingly expensive” auto-insurance rates.
Her plan would require home insurers with “outsized profit margins” to lower or justify their rates, and review the profits threshold at which auto-insurers are required to refund customers.
Also this month, lawmakers in states including Oklahoma proposed profit caps targeting insurance.

No.

Government definitions of “outsized profit margins” have nothing to do with business imperatives or what happens in a free market. Those definitions serve only the personal political ambitions of the politicians doing the defining, and they’ll vary across politicians and their political parties.

Beyond that, all price caps do is limit the availability of the product being capped—whether oil and natural gas and gasoline, rental housing availability and quality…or insurance policies. The limit on supply, too, hurts those on the lower economic rungs of our economy first and hardest.

Requiring insurers to justify their rates and the profit levels at which policy holder refunds are paid is a good idea, but government is the wrong crowd that must be satisfied.

Better simply to require insurers to disclose their profit margins and the basis on which they arrive at their definitions of profit. Their policy rates already are publicly available; making both sides of that process public would let the public more effectively shop for policies that suit their individual needs.

Doing that within an increasingly deregulated (not unregulated) insurance market environment would move the industry closer to a truly competitive market within which insurers would reap fair profits and insurees would pay fair premium amounts for the policies they want. And the Critical Item: “fair” would be defined within that competitive market by those market participants, not by any government.