Crime

Here is a great example of how government actually causes "crime" simply by create a mandate in this case - bottle deposits on soft drink containers, water, tea drinks, etc.

This news comes via the December 2007 issue of State Legislatures magazine which reports that the State of Michigan "loses US$10 million per year" - correction State Legislatures editors, TAXPAYERS ARE LOSING $10 MILLION PER YEAR OUT OF THEIR POCKETS -- due to smuggling.

Yes smugglers (others might call them "entrepreneurs" or "arbitragers") from Michigan's neighboring states of Ohio and Indiana - states which do not have a bottle deposit law which is currently 10 cents per container for products purchased in Michigan.

Imagine the distorted economics the State of Michigan has created here -- despite historically high gasoline prices people ("smugglers" as the article says) are still able to transport empty bottles from Ohio and Indiana to Michigan to collect 10 cents per bottle AND make money while doing it!!!

So should Ohio and Indiana state governments simply create a 10 cent bottle deposit law to help Michigan taxpayers? No, why not let the good citizens of Michigan continue paying out tax dollars to clean up the environment while also create income for the smugglers. Given the economic basket care which Michigan is today I would not be surprised that some of these smugglers are Michigan residents who are simply trying to make a living.

Yes instead of worrying about how to tinker with the bottle deposit law the State of Michigan (one of the few states with a FULL TIME state legislature which meets throughout the year) should do things like the following list to boost their economy:

• Turn Michigan into a right to work state to save their auto industry from the labor unions that are driving them into bankruptcy
• Elimination of their state income and corporate income tax
• Elect a mayor that will actually work with property owners to clean up Detroit's burned out ( resulting from the 1968/69 race riots) downtown buildings
• Create an aggressive foreign exchange program for high school and college students (via tax credits) with Canada to drive greater free trade opportunities via NAFTA simply by getting people to develop personal connections to overcome anti-free trade rhetoric from labor unions

Walk the ditches,

Todd

Prometheus

Today's news coverage -- US and Minnesota -- included stories about house fires in the Bronx/New York City and Landfall, Minnesota. In the Bronx 8 out 9 children involved in a fire died and in Landfall a father saved one child but ultimately died in the fire with his wife and son. Both tragic stories especially given our modern housing codes which have reduced the volume of fires in American society to historic low levels -- so low in fact that I have seen fire departments (labor unions) fight for control over the provision of paramedic services to keep employees on the payroll (and paying union dues of course!).

Our local newspaper included a table of statistics entitled, "Most Common Causes of Home Fires", for 2006 which included the following results:

CAUSE PERCENTAGE OF FIRES

Cooking 26.4%
Heating 11.4
Incendiary/Suspicious 5.7
Open flame 5.4
Other heat 4.1
Exposure 2.6
Smoking 2.1
Appliance/AC 1.9
Natural 1.9
Electrical 1.0
Other equipment 0.6
Children playing 0.4

SOURCE: US Fire Administration - US Department of Homeland Security

Silly me, I thought Homeland Security was focused on fighting terrorism but hey, anything to keep us safe right? :-)

When I saw this list of Causes of Fire the "Smoking - 2.1%" line item coming in at #7 overall caught my attention given the ever increasing amount of public smoking bans in the USA and Europe. Now I don't use tobacco products at all but I love freedom for everyone as long as they don't affect my life and family but I have to wonder if government bans on public smoking will increase smoking at home as noted in this study --

http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=54426&c=1

which might then lead to an increase in home fires caused by smoking. So if that is the case are the societal objectives of reducing smoking/reducing home fires enough justification for the government to insert itself into our homes to regulate smoking to "protect the children" ?

However, based on the chart noted above "cooking" is the true villain when it comes to home fires so perhaps we should ban home cooking thus forcing everyone to eat in restaurants every day?

Crazy indeed but there is always a slippery slope when it comes to government regulation thus we never know where the government's reach will end. Public education is a great example since the government takes our children for Kindergarten (K) then gives them back to us after they graduate from high school but now the push is for creating all day "pre-K" programs -- so why don't we just have public school teachers show up in the delivery room when our children are born? Yea, that would improve the world for everyone (heavy sarcasm inserted here).

Eat sandwiches,

Todd

PS - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus -- in case you were wondering ;-)