Share This Page

The cost of government meddling

| Saturday, Dec. 15, 2012, 8:54 p.m.

Politicians claim they make our lives better by passing laws. But laws rarely improve life. They go wrong. Unintended consequences are inevitable.

Most voters don't pay enough attention to notice. They watch the Rose Garden signing ceremonies and hear the pundits declare that progress was made. Something got done.

Intuition tells us that government is in the problem-solving business. And so the more laws passed, the better off we are. So politicians pass and pass — a thousand pages of proposed new rules each week — and for every rule, there's an unintended consequence. Or several.

It's one reason America has been unusually slow to recover from the Great Recession. After previous recessions, employers quickly resumed hiring. Not this time. The unemployment rate is still near 8 percent. It only fell last month because people stopped looking for jobs.

Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute understands what's happening: “Add up all the regulations and red tape, all the government spending, all the tax increases we're about to get — you can understand why entrepreneurs think: ‘Maybe I don't want to hire people. ... I want to keep my company small. I don't want to give health insurance because then I'm stuck with all the ObamaCare mandates.'”

We can see our future in Europe — unless we change. Ann Jolis, who covers European labor issues for The Wall Street Journal, watches how government-imposed work rules sabotage economies.

“The minimum guaranteed annual vacation in Europe is 20 days paid vacation a year. ... In France, it starts at 25 guaranteed days off. ... This summer, the European Court of Justice ... gave workers the right to a vacation do-over. ... You spend the last eight days of your vacation laid up with a sprained ankle ... eight days automatically go into your sick leave.”

Both European central planners and liberal politicians in America are clueless about what really helps workers: a free economy.

The record is clear. Central planners failed — in the Soviet Union and Cuba — and now they stifle growth in Europe and America. Yet for all that failure, whenever another crisis (real or imagined) hits, the natural instinct is to say, “Politicians must do something.”

In my town, unions and civil rights groups demand a higher minimum wage. That sounds good to people. The problem is in what is not seen. I can interview the guy who got a raise. I can't interview workers who are never offered jobs because the minimum wage or high union pay scales “protected” those jobs out of existence.

The benefit of government leaving us alone is rarely intuitive.

Because companies just want to make a buck, it's logical to assume that only government rules assure workers' safety. The Occupational Safety & Health Administration sets safety standards for factories, and OSHA officials proudly point out that workplace deaths have dropped since the agency opened its doors.

Well, not so fast. Go back a few years before OSHA, and we find that workplace deaths were dropping just as fast.

Workers are safer today because we are richer, and richer societies care more about safety. Even greedy employers take safety precautions if only because it's expensive to replace workers who are hurt.

In a free society, things get better on their own — if government will only allow it.

John Stossel is host of “Stossel” on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of “No They Can't: Why Government Fails, but Individuals Succeed.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.