John Stossel ColumnBlog's for December, 2016http://www.BillOReilly.comBill O'Reilly2024-03-19T06:47:38Z2024-03-19T06:47:38ZBill O'ReillyStossel: Trump's ChoiceJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossel:-Trumps-Choice/-114344630934339893.html2016-12-28T08:00:00Z2016-12-28T08:00:00Z<p>America's socialists -- I mean, progressives, are enraged that President-elect Trump chose Betsy DeVos to be his secretary of education. <br /><br /> "Not a good appointment," yelled Al Sharpton. <br /><br /> A "proponent of a <em>f</em><em>or-profit</em> institution! She does not believe in the public school system!" complained CNN's Bakari Sellers. <br /><br /> Wait. Is your for-profit local supermarket less "public" than your kid's school? No! For-profit institutions serve the public and usually do it better than governments do. <br /><br /> Let's stop calling government schools "public." Call them what they are: "government-run" schools. <br /><br /> Anyway, the charter schools DeVos supports are public. They're just not controlled by the usual crowd of education bureaucrats. That's why the education establishment hates them. The establishment has had total control for a century and doesn't want to lose it. <br /><br /> They complain that DeVos:<br /> --Doesn't have a degree in education! <br /> --Has no teaching experience! <br /> --Didn't attend government schools! <br /> --Didn't send her kids to "public" school! <br /><br /> But that was also true about Arne Duncan, President Obama's education secretary. We didn't hear the same complaints about Duncan. Perhaps <em>avoiding</em> government-run education helps people <em>become</em> successful. <br /><br /> For 50 years, the education establishment said that government schools struggled because they didn't have enough money. So America <em>tripled</em> spending per student. <br /><br /> That brought zero improvement. Again, today, they say, "Just give us <em>more</em> time, <em>more</em> money!" <br /><br /> No. Time is up. Children have suffered enough. <br /><br /> My consumer reporting taught me that things only work well when they are subject to market competition. <br /><br />Services improve when people are free to shop around and when competitive pressure inspires suppliers to invent better ways of doing things.<br /> <br /> DeVos understands that. That's why she wants to allow parents to choose the schools their kids attend. Schools that do a better job will attract more students. Better schools will grow, while some inferior ones will close. <br /><br /> Inferior schools, like any failing business, <em>should</em> close. It's a disservice to students to keep them open. <br /><br /> Educrats and teachers unions refuse to look at it that way. They don't want kids escaping their grasp. Unions don't want to lose dues-paying members. <br /><br /> They prefer that kids stay trapped while bureaucrats decide what improvements, if any, need to be made. <br /> Progressives are also upset because DeVos gave $200 million of her own money to the "wrong" schools, Christian schools. <br /><br /> A smear in the New Yorker suggests that DeVos will have government-run schools teach creationism: "DeVos is a fundamentalist Christian with a long history of opposition to science ... (S)he could shape science education decisively for the worse, by systematically depriving young people, in an era where biotechnology will play a key economic and health role worldwide, of a proper understanding of the very basis of modern biology: evolution." <br /><br /> That would be bad -- were it true, but DeVos' critics don't quote anything she says that shows "opposition to science." DeVos once told me that in a free society that shares her philosophy of education, "some religious schools might teach creationism, but not in <em>science</em> class." <br /><br /> Reason's J.D. Tuccille points out that DeVos "was instrumental in enacting Michigan's and Detroit's charter school program." Progressives say this was "tragic for Michigan's children ... Detroit's charter schools have shown themselves to be only incrementally stronger ... than traditional public schools." <br /><br /> Hello? Stronger is better, even if the difference is just "incremental." A Stanford study concluded that charter students achieved "two months of additional gains in reading and math." <br /><br /> That suggests DeVos has already done more to improve American education than most government education bureaucrats have. <br /><br /> DeVos won't have much power over your kids' schools. K-12 education is mostly locally and state run. In fact, the wasteful $90 billion education department should be abolished altogether. But DeVos' appointment sends the right message. <br /><br /> It tells educators they should face pressure to get up each morning looking for ways to improve education. That won't happen unless parents are free to experiment and escape experiments that fail. <br /><br /> I wouldn't want to be trapped in a bad restaurant while government debated how to improve it.<br /> <br /> Everyone deserves the freedom to get out of there and try something better.</p>John Stossel2016-12-28T08:00:00ZStossel: Close Them Down!John Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossel:-Close-Them-Down!/-300019270210015820.html2016-12-21T08:00:00Z2016-12-21T08:00:00Z<p>Donald Trump is appointing good people -- Andy Puzder, for example, Trump's nominee for labor secretary.<br /> When Puzder took over Carl's Jr. and Hardee's restaurants, they were deep in debt. Four years later, they were profitable. I bet his 70,000 workers are happy about that.<br /><br /> "What did you do that your predecessor didn't?" I asked Puzder. His answer sounded a little like Trump.<br /> "They were entrenched. ... My second memo as CEO was: Next person that answers a question with 'because we've always done it that way' will be fired."<br /><br /> Sounds ruthless. No wonder he opposes the minimum wage! But wait: He got his start scooping ice cream at Baskin-Robbins.<br /><br /> "Minimum wage, dollar an hour... I learned about customer service, about inventory. That was a good start, a good step on that ladder."<br /><br /> Puzder painted houses and mowed lawns as a teenager, jobs that today's minimum wage and employment regulations sometimes make illegal. People think those rules are compassionate, but not Puzder.<br /><br /> "I have a 16-year-old son, and I really love him," he told me, but "there's no way in the world I'd pay that kid $12 an hour to do something. We're losing a generation of people because we've eliminated jobs that those people normally filled. How do you pay somebody $15 an hour to scoop ice cream? How good could you be at scooping ice cream? It's just not a job where you could compensate somebody like that."<br /><br /> The media hate businessmen who say things like that. A Washington Post headline: "Ayn Rand acolyte Donald Trump stacks his cabinet with fellow objectivists." This is absurd. Trump likes capitalism, but he's no objectivist. Objectivists have firm principles.<br /><br /> The Post article smears Puzder as a cruel Ayn Rand fan who "wants to automate fast-food jobs." But Puzder doesn't <em>want</em> to automate. He just states an obvious truth: A higher minimum wage leads employers to replace some workers with machines. Fast-food companies were already installing touch screens. A $15 minimum wage speeds that process.<br /><br /> If reporters were actually compassionate, they would oppose the endless regulations they routinely champion. People can't gain the experience needed to earn higher wages if they aren't allowed to be hired in the first place.<br /><br /> "We have restaurants in 33 countries and 45 states," says Puzder, describing how hard it is to get permits to open restaurants. "In Texas, it's 60 days. In LA, it takes 280. I can open a restaurant faster in Siberia than I can in California."<br /><br /> Remember when it was <em>Russia</em> that opposed capitalism?<br /><br /> "The permitting is ridiculous," says Puzder. "They make us put in stoplights and curb cuts and plant trees two blocks away. Everybody on the planet wants input. You've got to get approvals from the city, the county, the state, satisfy federal regulatory requirements."<br /><br /> As a result, "You can't grow, can't build restaurants, can't build a new Wal-Mart, that new office building if you can't use the land, if you can't get through the regulatory process."<br /><br /> Trump nominating someone who sees that problem is encouraging. I hope he surrounds himself with other people who love free markets, not just power.<br /><br /> Another <em>possibly</em> good Trump appointee is Linda McMahon, his nominee to head the Small Business Administration. McMahon almost defeated Connecticut's clueless socialist Sen. Richard Blumenthal in the 2010 Senate race. She calls herself a fiscal conservative, so I wish she'd won.<br /><br /> But I hesitate to support her, since I once sued her and her husband for allegedly telling one of their giant actors to beat me up because I pointed out that WWF wresting is fake. Really. Google "Stossel wrestler" and you'll see what I mean.<br /><br /> But my main objection to both nominations is that we don't need either agency! The SBA is wasteful cronyism. Federal bureaucrats have no clue which small businesses deserve funding.<br /><br /> Likewise, workers don't need a Department of Labor to set one-size-fits-all labor policies. Let competition set the rules. Employers and workers will make the choices and contracts that work best for each of them.<br /> I hope Andy Puzder and Linda McMahon take over the SBA and Labor Department, then immediately shut them down.</p>John Stossel2016-12-21T08:00:00ZStossel: Skating to FreedomJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossel:-Skating-to-Freedom/-61285723307232900.html2016-12-14T08:00:00Z2016-12-14T08:00:00Z<p>My last Fox Business Network TV show airs Friday. <br /><br /> That news pleases some people, like internet trolls who write that they are happy to be "rid of that noted LIAR and falsifier of news" who produces "hit pieces." Another wrote, "Hopefully the cancer came back to finish him off." <br /><br /> To be clear, I'm not ending "Stossel" because I have cancer. I don't have cancer. I had a small tumor removed, and, best we can tell, it's gone. I didn't even have chemo or radiation. <br /><br /> I'm moving on because I want to create a new libertarian internet-based platform with Reason TV and become an educator with the Charles Koch Institute's new Media and Journalism Fellowship program. I will still make appearances on Fox News. <br /><br /> I had a good time hosting my own show for seven years, trying to find new ways to simplify economics and demonstrate the benefits of free markets. <br /><br /> Unfortunately, economic freedom can be hard to demonstrate. Adam Smith's "invisible hand" is, well, invisible. How do I explain it on TV? Friedrich Hayek's phrase "spontaneous order" is clearer but still hard to show. <br /><br /> I was stumped until I read "Rinkonomics: A Window on Spontaneous Order" by George Mason University's Dan Klein. That inspired me to rent a skating rink. <br /><br /> Why? Well, imagine you've never seen a rink, and you are the government regulator who approves new businesses. <br /><br /> I tell you: I will flood that arena, freeze the water and then charge people money to strap sharp blades onto their feet and zip around on the ice. I will have few rules. Anyone can skate: young and old, skilled and unskilled. <br /><br /> Most any regulator would resist my bizarre skating idea. Hillary Clinton might say that for my rink to be approved it must have stoplights, skating police and barriers between skilled and unskilled skaters, adults and children. I must have someone with a megaphone direct the skaters to make sure they don't smash into each other. <br /><br /> So, I actually tried that. I rented a rink and bossed people around: "You, turn left, you slow down." Of course, the skaters hated that. And it didn't make skating safer. Some people, responding to my instructions, lost their balance and fell. <br /><br /> There is spontaneous order on a normal skating rink. Skaters make their own decisions. No regulator knows the wishes, skills and immediate intentions of individual skaters better than skaters themselves. <br /> Regulators might say my attempts to direct skaters failed because I'm not a skating "expert." On my TV show, one guest said regulation must be done "by technocrats with expertise." <br /><br /> So I hired an expert, an Olympic skater. She did no better with the megaphone. No "technocrat" has enough expertise to direct the skaters on the ice. <br /><br /> For safety, rinks usually just have a few employees who police reckless skaters and simple rules like "skate counterclockwise." That's enough! <br /><br /> Good thing rinks were invented before the modern regulatory state took over. <br /><br /> Leave people free to make their own choices and a spontaneous order arises. Skaters find their own path. Buyers and sellers adjust to changing prices. Families raise kids. Musicians create jazz. <br /><br /> That's what I've tried to demonstrate on my show. <br /><br /> Control freaks have criticized such spontaneity for at least 2,400 years. Plato warned that music should be simple so that it does not stir up passion. In America, Ladies Home Journal once warned that jazz would lead "to a breaking away from all rules." Lucky America didn't have a Department of Music Safety then or jazz would have been banned. <br /><br /> Over seven years on the "Stossel" show, I've done all sorts of stunts, trying to explain the benefits of liberty. I've dressed as a Founder and Santa and Uncle Sam, begged for money on Manhattan streets, broken windows, collected signatures on petitions to ban "dangerous" chemicals like dihydrogen monoxide (that's water), stolen things from children, held a racist (that is, affirmative action) bake sale, smashed cars with a sledgehammer (inspired by the "cash for clunkers" government program) and cut the federal budget with a chain saw. <br /><br /> If it helps explain the benefits of freedom, I'll try it.</p>John Stossel2016-12-14T08:00:00ZStossel: Thanksgiving TragedyJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossel:-Thanksgiving-Tragedy/88438505474813941.html2016-11-23T08:00:00Z2016-11-23T08:00:00Z<p>Tomorrow, as you celebrate the meal the Pilgrims ate with Indians, pause a moment to thank private property. <br /><br /> I know that seems weird, but before that first Thanksgiving, the Pilgrims nearly starved to death because they didn't respect private property. <br /><br /> When they first arrived in Massachusetts, they acted like Bernie Sanders wants us to act. They farmed "collectively." Pilgrims said, "We'll grow food together and divide the harvest equally." <br /><br /> Bad idea. Economists call this the "tragedy of the commons." When everyone works "together," some people don't work very hard. <br /><br /> Likewise, when the crops were ready to eat, some grabbed extra food -- sometimes picking corn at night, before it was fully ready. Teenagers were especially lazy and likely to steal the commune's crops. <br /><br /> Pilgrims almost starved. Governor Bradford wrote in his diary, "So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could ... that they might not still thus languish in misery." <br /><br /> His answer: He divided the commune into parcels and assigned each Pilgrim his own property, or as Bradford put it, "set corn every man for his own particular. ... Assigned every family a parcel of land." <br /><br /> That simple change brought the Pilgrims so much plenty that they could share food with Indians. Bradford wrote that it "made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been." <br /><br /> We see this principle at work all around us today. America is prosperous because private property is mostly respected, and people work hard to protect what they own. China rose out of poverty only when the Communist rulers finally allowed people to own property and keep profits from it. <br /><br /> But wait, you say, didn't the Native Americans live communally? Isn't that proof that socialism and collective property work? <br /><br /> No. It's a myth that the Native Americans had no property rules. They had property -- and European settlers should have treated those rules with respect. <br /><br /> Native American property rules varied. There wasn't much point trying to establish private property in rocky hinterlands where no one traveled. But, writes Terry Anderson of the Property and Environment Research Center, "Private garden plots were common in the East, as were large community fields with plots assigned to individual families. Harvesting on each plot was done by the owning family, with the bounty stored in the family's own storehouse." <br /><br /> Today, however, many American Indians live in poverty. It's not because Native Americans are lazy or irresponsible. When Indians are allowed to own their own land, they prosper. The laws of economics are the same for all people. <br /><br /> I asked Manny Jules, chief of the Kamloops Indian Band for 16 years, why so many Indians are poor. <br /> "Nobody chooses poverty," he said. "We've been legislated out of the economy by the federal governments, both in the United States and Canada." <br /><br /> That sounds odd to people who know how much money governments spend to "care for" Indians. <br /> "Well, by taking care of us, that means providing social welfare programs," says Jules. "The only way to break the cycle of poverty (is) real property rights." <br /><br /> The U.S. government, after killing thousands of Native Americans and restricting others to reservations, gave tribal governments control over Indians' lives, in collaboration with the government's Bureau of Indian Affairs. <br /> Since then, no group in America has been more "helped" and "managed" by the federal government than Indians. Because of that, no group has done worse. <br /><br /> Homes on reservations are likely to lack electricity and indoor plumbing. There is serious alcoholism and drug abuse. A staggering number of American Indians are unemployed. Many commit suicide. <br /><br /> Jules says not being able to own your own land is part of the problem. "You can't borrow. You can't get a mortgage. You can't be bonded. There's nothing that you can have that'll allow you to be able to go to the bank on your own without the (government) minister co-signing that loan." <br /><br /> Tribal governments function about as badly as governments run by white people. They waste money, mismanage valuable resources and give sweetheart deals to crony businesses. <br /><br /> If we want to give people -- all people -- reason to celebrate this Thanksgiving, give them the proven formula for prosperity. Get government out of the way, and respect every individual's property rights.</p>John Stossel2016-11-23T08:00:00ZStossel: Stossel the FoolJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossel:-Stossel-the-Fool/360183638898704241.html2016-11-16T08:00:00Z2016-11-16T08:00:00Z<p>I was so dumb last week. <br /><br /> I wrote my column Tuesday -- before election results were in. I assumed Hillary Clinton would be president-elect. <br /><br /> I looked so stupid. <br /><br /> On Facebook, commenters pounced: You owe Trump an apology! I'm sorry for the lies you continued about him! You were never fair! You're nothing but another left-wing mouthpiece. You're a washed up, anti-American gutless TV host! <br /><br /> I was wrong because I trusted the bettors. <br /><br /> That's usually <em>not</em> dumb. The best predictor of things has been betting markets. They are more accurate because they reflect the wisdom of crowds. Crowds can be an ignorant mob, but crowds do have wisdom. Know the TV show "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire"? <br /><br /> When contestants are stumped, they may ask the audience for help or an expert. The experts are often brilliant specialists. The audience -- well, they are the kind of people who wait in line in the rain to watch a game show. Still, the audience gets the answer right 91 percent of the time, the experts succeed just 65 percent of the time. <br /><br /> With betting markets, the crowd is made up of people willing to put their money where their mouths are. That makes them extra careful. <br /><br /> Most of these "prediction markets" are based overseas because, useful as they are, American law calls them "illegal gambling." <br /><br /> So producer Maxim Lott and I converted European betting into an easy to understand website, Electionbettingodds.com, and I've come to trust it. Again and again, betting is more accurate than pundits and polls -- until this election. <br /><br /> I'm not the only one who got it wrong. The Huffington Post's statistical model gave Clinton a 98 percent chance of winning. The prestigious Princeton Election Consortium gave Clinton a 99 percent chance. <br /><br /> People just lie to pollsters when they think the pollster will sneer at them if they say they're voting for someone smugly described as racist and sexist. <br /><br /> This was the second time this year that betting markets were wrong. Most bettors thought Brexit would never happen -- people in Britain would vote to stay in the European Union. Again, British voters lied to pollsters because they were embarrassed to admit they would vote for Brexit after months of the elite telling them they were xenophobes and racists if they wanted a change. <br /><br /> Relying on the betting markets, I also wrote that it was sad that freedom-loving senators like Wisconsin's Ron Johnson lost to command-and-control bureaucrats like Russ Feingold. <br /><br /> Oops, wrong again. <br /><br /> But the prediction markets are right <em>most</em> of the time. <br /><br /> Consider what happened early in this year's Republican primary. Ben Carson surged to first place in polls, but the bettors knew better. They never gave him more than a 9 percent chance. In 2012, when Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich and then Herman Cain surged to first place in polls, prediction markets correctly said Mitt Romney will win. In 2008, bettors correctly predicted results in every state but two. In 2012, it was every state but one. <br /><br /> The markets even predicted when Saddam Hussein would be captured. Right before his hideout was found, the odds on that date tripled in price. Somehow, people with skin in the game pay more attention and intuit the right outcome. <br /><br /> Even last week, when bettors were wrong, the betting odds still <em>adjusted</em> faster than pundits on TV did. The bettors saw what was happening and quickly hedged their bets, while many in the media -- mostly Clinton supporters -- still clung to their failed expectations. <br /><br /> My failure won't make me abandon prediction markets and go back to trusting pundits or opinion polls -- or internet commenters who had fun trashing me: <br /><br /> "Dewey beats Truman ... oh wait." <br /><br /> "I can't laugh enough at this article." <br /><br /> "I liked Stossel ... but he is as clueless as the liberal media." <br /><br /> I sure was! But I will still trust prediction markets over everything else. <br /><br /> There is wisdom in crowds, especially crowds that put their own money on the line.</p>John Stossel2016-11-16T08:00:00ZStossel: It's OverJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossel:-Its-Over/831777951827455993.html2016-11-09T08:00:00Z2016-11-09T08:00:00Z<p>Oh, no! <em>President</em> Hillary Clinton! For four years we must follow her bureaucrats' edicts. <br /><br /> It's full employment time for trickster lawyers and other parasites who feed off complex government. Even The New York Times admits her taxes will make life more complicated. Useful people who actually produce things must kiss more bureaucrats' rings begging for their approval. <br /><br /> I should probably be more careful with my assumptions, because I write this column Tuesday -- well before election results are announced. As of now, I don't <em>know</em> that Clinton won. <br /><br /> But by the time you read this, I'm sure she'll be president-elect. <br /><br /> I've grown to trust the world's best predictor of future events: gamblers -- futures markets, a.k.a. prediction markets. Despite the vast optimism of enthusiastic Donald Trump supporters and media babble about "polls tightening" and a Trump "surge," etc., by now, he's lost. Lost big. <br /><br /> Another prediction: Trump did not challenge the results. He surprises sneering pundits by being gracious in defeat. Well, sort of. He does throw in a few zingers. But he doesn't challenge the results. <br /><br /> Thank goodness Republicans held the House of Representatives. Presidents have grabbed more power in recent years, but Congress still writes the laws, so the Republican House will limit the legislative damage Clinton's socialists will do. <br /><br /> Unfortunately, the Senate gives consent to Supreme Court picks, so Clinton may have her way. The bettors predict Democratic control, although the race is close. <br /><br /> I fear that on Tuesday, freedom-loving senators like Wisconsin's Ron Johnson lost to command-and-control bureaucrats like Russ Feingold. That means, over four years, Clinton gets to appoint as many as five big-government-loving justices. They serve for life. It may be half a century before America recovers from that.<br /> <br /> Clinton can do a lot of damage over the next four years. <br /><br /> She will keep America at war -- Afghanistan is already the longest war America has ever fought -- 15 years and counting. She may start other wars. She will continue our march toward bankruptcy. She will stifle economic growth by pushing countless new rules. <br /><br /> But aside from that, cheer up! It could have been worse. Destructive ballot measures like "ColoradoCare," progressives' attempt to create state-run health care, were soundly defeated, I assume. <br /><br /> Also, thanks to our constitution, the president's powers are limited. Around election time, people fight as if the president has unlimited power. On NBC, Chuck Todd says voters "decide who can lead this country." No, Chuck, scientists, artists and entrepreneurs lead the country. Politicians just preside over <em>government</em>. <br /><br /> Chris Hayes talks about politicians "running the country." Wrong again! A president doesn't run the country, <em>we</em> do. A president is commander in chief. She runs just the federal government (and just a third of that, the executive branch). <br /><br /> Despite the destructive growth of government under Presidents Bush and Obama, free people have continued to find ways to do things better, faster, cheaper. <br /><br /> Despite decades of presidents like them, we live longer than ever, and we're richer today than we've ever been. Even those who didn't gain in income have gained in other ways. We now have air conditioning, music services like Spotify, fresh fruit in winter and the world at our fingertips via tiny smartphones. Low-income Americans live better than kings and queens once did. Would you change places with King George? George didn't have antibiotics, Netflix or flush toilets. <br /><br /> Things got better not because of any politician, but because America has rule of law and individual freedom. Individual Americans were allowed to create -- usually, without government getting in the way. <br /><br /> There's no doubt that, under President Clinton, innovation is threatened. Entrepreneur George Hotz just shut down his driverless car startup, he told Venturebeat.com, because "[I] would much rather spend my life building amazing tech than dealing with regulators and lawyers. It isn't worth it." <br /><br /> Clinton's higher taxes, environmental regulations, labor laws and higher minimum wage will kill other opportunities. <br /><br /> But the checks and balances provided by our Constitution will stop the socialists from wrecking everything that's good. <br /><br /> It's time people realize that no president -- or government -- is the answer to most of our problems. We are.</p>John Stossel2016-11-09T08:00:00ZStossel: The Rest of Your BallotJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossel:-The-Rest-of-Your-Ballot/660244795949865436.html2016-11-02T07:00:00Z2016-11-02T07:00:00Z<p>The presidency isn't the only choice next week. There are more issues than "Who's worse, Trump or Clinton?" <br /><br /> Other important things are on the ballot. <br /><br /> Congressional elections may determine whether Obamacare lives or dies. <br /><br /> Electionbettingodds.com currently says Republicans will hold the House but lose the Senate. But it's close. <br /> And politicians aren't the whole story. <br /><br /> In Kansas and Indiana, voters will decide whether the "right to hunt and fish" should be protected by their state constitutions. Advocates say such a right is needed because zealots will keep inventing "endangered" species and new gun restrictions until most hunting and fishing is impossible. <br /><br /> For similar reasons, Oklahoma voters will vote on a ballot measure guaranteeing a "right to farm." <br /><br /> Several states will allow voters to punish their neighbors on Tuesday by imposing "sin" taxes. Politicians like taxing "sin" because it gives them money while letting them claim that they discourage bad behavior. <br /><br /> So, four states offer ballot measures that would raise tobacco taxes. <br /><br /> Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Jersey vote on whether to expand legal gambling, but only <em>state-run</em> gambling. In Rhode Island, 61 percent of the revenue will be kept by the state. State-run gambling is always a bad bet, but government will <em>really</em> screw you in Rhode Island. <br /><br /> I'm surprised politicians stop at gambling and don't tax <em>all</em> the Bible's deadly sins: pride, envy, lust, etc. Probably because politicians don't want to tax <em>themselves</em>. <br /><br /> Californians will vote on expansion of a counterproductive rule: a ban on plastic bags. Its supporters say it reduces litter and protects oceans and wildlife. As usual, the zealots ignore science, convenience and health. <br /><br /> A canvas reusable bag must be used 131 times before it will compensate for the minor environmental impact of plastic bags. <br /><br /> Most reusable bags get contaminated by bacteria. The government tells us to carefully wash reusable bags, but almost no one does. <br /><br /> So California voters are likely to vote themselves increased health risk, bad smells and higher costs -- for no real environmental benefit. <br /><br /> In Massachusetts, voters are likely to prohibit keeping pigs, calves and hens in spaces where they "can't lie down or turn around freely." This may improve animals' lives. I write "may" because more space also leads to more fighting -- even cannibalism -- among animals. <br /><br /> But the new law will triple the amount of space farmers need. That raises costs. Egg prices increased 22 percent after California passed such a law. <br /><br /> On Tuesday, Washington may vote to impose a carbon tax on itself. It won't have a noticeable effect on climate change, but it will make enviro-zealots feel better. <br /><br /> Fortunately, Tuesday also offers voters some good choices. Nevada voters may choose to open their state's energy market to competition. Competition lowers costs. I was surprised to see that unions oppose that. <br /><br />Do unions now oppose <em>everything</em> that's good? <br /><br /> Four states will get to vote on legalizing medical marijuana, and five vote on whether to legalize weed for all adults. The betting suggests that most of these measures will pass. <br /><br /> These are issues Americans disagree about -- and it's good we don't have to wait for Washington, D.C., to reach agreement about them. Innovation often comes from state experiments. <br /><br /> Abortion and gay marriage were first legalized by states. Likewise, women first got the vote in Wyoming. Only after that did other states, and the federal government, follow. <br /><br /> James Madison, chief architect of the Constitution, would have approved. He wanted leeway given to state governments. In the Federalist Papers, in words that would be partly echoed in the Constitution, Madison wrote, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." <br /><br /> Since then, arrogant presidents and other federal officials have taken powers from the states. That leaves Americans fewer choices. <br /><br /> But the states will prove again on Tuesday that they still have a say, even if we're stuck with President Hillary Clinton for the next four (or eight?! please no!) years.</p>John Stossel2016-11-02T07:00:00ZStossel: The Ruling ClassJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossel:-The-Ruling-Class/-616533272706504535.html2016-10-26T07:00:00Z2016-10-26T07:00:00Z<p>America is often described as a society without the Old World's aristocracy. Yet we still have people who feel entitled to boss the rest of us around. The "elite" media, the political class, Hollywood and university professors think their opinions are obviously correct, so they must educate us peasants. <br /><br /> OK, so they don't call us "peasants" anymore. Now we are "deplorables" -- conservatives or libertarians. Or Trump supporters. <br /><br /> The elite have a lot of influence over how we see things. <br /><br /> I don't like Donald Trump. I used to. I once found him refreshing and honest. Now I think he's a mean bully. I think that partly because he mocked a disabled person. I saw it on TV. He waved his arms around to mimic a New York Times reporter with a disability -- but wait! <br /><br /> It turns out that Trump used the same gestures and tone of speech to mock Ted Cruz and a general he didn't' like. It's not nice, but it doesn't appear directed at a disability. <br /><br /> I only discovered this when researching the media elite. Even though I'm a media junkie, I hadn't seen the other side of the story. The elite spoon-fed me their version of events. <br /><br /> Another reason I don't like Trump is that he supported the Iraq war -- and then lied about that. Media pooh-bahs told me Trump pushed for the war years ago on The Howard Stern Show. <br /><br /> But then I listened to what Trump actually said. <br /><br /> "Are you for invading Iraq?" Stern asked. <br /><br /> Trump replied, "Yeah, I guess ... so." Later, on Neil Cavuto's show, Trump said, "Perhaps (Bush) shouldn't be doing it yet, and perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations." I wouldn't call that "support" -- the way NBC's debate moderator and many others have. <br /><br /> I was stunned by how thoroughly the media have distorted Trump's position. That's a privilege you get when you're part of the media elite: You get to steer the masses' thinking. <br /><br /> At the second debate, we all know that Trump walked over to Hillary Clinton's podium, as if he was "stalking Ms. Clinton like prey," said The New York Times. CNN said, "Trump looms behind Hillary Clinton at the debate." <br /><br /> Afterward, Clinton went on Ellen DeGeneres' show and said Trump would "literally stalk me around the stage, and I would just feel this presence behind me. I thought, 'Whoa, this is really weird.'" <br /><br /> But it was a lie. Watch the video. Clinton walked over to <em>Trump's</em> podium. Did the mainstream media tell you that? No. <br /><br /> The ruling class has its themes, and it sticks to them. <br /><br /> When Clinton wore white to a debate, the Times called the color an "emblem of hope" and a Philadelphia Inquirer writer used words like "soft and strong ... a dream come true." But when Melania Trump wore white, that same writer called it a "scary statement," as if Melania Trump's white symbolized white supremacy, "another reminder that in the G.O.P. white is always right." <br /><br /> Give me a break. <br /><br /> The ruling class decide which ideas are acceptable, which scientific theories to believe, what speech is permitted. <br /><br /> In the book "Primetime Propaganda," Ben Shapiro writes that the Hollywood ruling class calls conservatives "moral scum." <br /><br /> He says, "If you're entering the industry, you have to keep (your beliefs) under wraps because nobody will hire you ... they just assume you're a bad person." <br /><br /> They won't tell you why you weren't hired. They just tell you, "You weren't right for the part," explains Shapiro. "Talent is subjective, which means that it's pretty easy to find an excuse not to call back the guy who voted for George W. Bush." <br /><br /> Years ago, the ruling class was the Church. Priests said the universe revolved around Earth. Galileo was arrested because he disagreed. <br /><br /> Today, college lefties, mainstream media, Hollywood and the Washington establishment have replaced the Church, but they are closed-minded dogmatists, too. <br /><br /> We are lucky that now we have a lot of information at our fingertips. We don't need to rely on the ruling class telling us what to believe. We can make up our own minds.</p>John Stossel2016-10-26T07:00:00ZStossel: A Better ChoiceJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossel:-A-Better-Choice/-509157805321222464.html2016-10-19T07:00:00Z2016-10-19T07:00:00Z<p>Hillary Clinton is a manipulative, power-mad liar. <br /><br /> Donald Trump is a selfish, sexist, narcissistic bully. <br /><br /> These are our choices Nov. 8? <br /><br /> The leading candidates' avarice is bad enough. Their ideas are worse. <br /><br /> Clinton wants to micro-regulate America into poverty and stagnation. Trump would start a trade war, if not an actual war. <br /><br /> While America is going bankrupt, both candidates brag that they will spend <em>more </em> -- Trump on the military and his pointless wall, Clinton mostly on social programs. <br /><br /> Both promise a new child care entitlement: paid maternity leave. I'd think a Republican presidential candidate would resist promising more "free" stuff. But Trump, with daughter Ivanka standing behind him, offers Clintoncare "lite": paid leave for six weeks instead of 12. <br /><br /> Naturally, the Clinton media want <em>more</em>. Socialist cheerleaders at Fortune complain that Trump's proposal is stingy compared to Clinton's and very stingy compared to <em>real</em> family leave, offered by civilized nations in Europe -- especially Greece.<br /><br /> Hello? Have you not noticed how Greece suffers largely because of "generous benefits" like that? You think it's a coincidence that Greece's unemployment rate is 25 percent? Why would employers hire workers if they must later give them 12 weeks of pay <em>not</em> to work? <br /><br /> I'd think Fortune writers and Democratic and Republican presidential candidates would understand that "free" benefits come with nasty costs. But they don't understand. Or if they do, they just ignore it. <br /><br /> Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson doesn't ignore these problems. He promises to avert America's bankruptcy by cutting spending 43 percent. <br /><br /> But the candidate of the third party (I should call Libertarians the <em>first</em> party, since they respect the Constitution) is in a tough spot. He must both convince voters that he has better ideas -- and that he's not strange. That's tough to do when you're a politician who stumbles over words and the RepubliDems won't allow you into the debates. Recent polls show that almost 40 percent of Americans don't even know that Johnson's running. <br /><br /> That's too bad. If there were ever a year for a third party to thrive, this was it. Most voters -- from both major parties -- are unhappy with their party's nominee. <br /><br /> Sadly, they are not unhappy enough to vote for Gary Johnson. I have to respect the betting; bettors give Johnson just a .1 percent chance. <br /><br /> The bettors also say Clinton is favored 84 percent to 15 percent over Trump. Get ready for President Clinton. Sigh. <br /><br /> Polls suggest about 6 percent of Americans will vote Libertarian. <br /><br /> Some will be Bernie Sanders supporters. How can that be? Sanders is a socialist! He's an economic illiterate who wants government to control <em>more</em>! <br /><br /> But on civil liberties, Sanders is better than Trump and Clinton. <br /><br /> Both Sanders and Johnson are sympathetic to immigrants. Johnson knows that most become workers, customers and entrepreneurs who boost economic opportunities for everyone. <br /><br /> Like Sanders, Johnson wants to avoid getting bogged down in foreign wars. <br /><br /> Like Sanders, Johnson has long been in favor of marriage equality, whereas Clinton only recently decided it was politically safe to endorse it. <br /><br /> Like Sanders, Johnson knows that some complaints from the Black Lives Matter movement are valid and that the drug war does more harm than good. <br /><br /> Obviously, those positions upset some conservatives, but Johnson still has plenty to offer Republicans. He's more sensible than Donald Trump. <br /><br /> Unlike Trump, Johnson knows that free trade decreases poverty and makes the world a better, happier place. He understands that the minimum wage makes most people poorer and that free speech is a good thing. <br /><br /> Like Trump, Johnson opposes gun control, Obamacare and increasing regulation. <br /><br /> A vote for Johnson will give Americans more choices and freedom in the future. Johnson getting 6 percent of the vote this election means easier ballot access, more money and more advertising next time. More people would know that there are other -- <em>better</em> -- options. <br /><br /> That's why I'll vote for Gary Johnson. He did a good job as governor of New Mexico. He vetoed the excesses of power-hungry state legislators 750 times. He'd stand up for limited government in Washington, too. <br /><br /> Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton won't.</p>John Stossel2016-10-19T07:00:00ZStossel: What Candidates Won't SayJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossel:-What-Candidates-Wont-Say/879005802014489509.html2016-10-12T07:00:00Z2016-10-12T07:00:00Z<p>Catch politicians in private moments and you might hear what they really believe: Donald Trump "can do anything" to women because he's powerful. Hillary Clinton's "private" positions aren't the same as her "public" ones. <br /><br /> In public, politicians mostly get away with spouting talking points and clamming up about questions that really matter. <br /><br /> When Clinton was asked if she agrees with Trump's approach to terrorism and immigration, she confidently replied, "This is a serious challenge. We are well equipped to meet it. And we can do so in keeping with smart law enforcement, good intelligence and in concert with our values." <br /><br /> That's meaningless! Do we have "dumb" law enforcement now? Bad intelligence? What will Clinton do about it? She doesn't say. Reporters don't ask. <br /><br /> When Trump was asked how he'll handle terrorism, he replied, "I am very unhappy when I look at the world of radical Islam. I'm very unhappy with it. We're going to find the problem and we're going to come up with a solution. Obama could never come up with a solution. Number one, he's incompetent. And number two, the solution just is never going to be out there for him." <br /><br /> Trump wants us to trust that <em>he</em> has the solutions. He'll give us details later, I guess. <br /><br /> The media should talk more about the Clintons' foundation. It's raised billions but gives little to outside charities -- a measly 6 percent of their assets, according to the foundation's last filing. It's apparently a "pay to play" operation; donors get meetings with Clinton -- Clinton family cronies get well-paid jobs. <br /><br /> Neither candidate wants us looking too closely at their financial records. But both leading candidates say we should trust them with money and power. <br /><br /> Clinton promises more than $1 trillion in new "investments," free day care, maternity leave, an expansion of Obamacare, more funding for veterans, new solar subsidies, new bridges and tunnels and "college, tuition free!" Then she says, "We're not only going to make all these investments, we're going to pay for every single one of them!" But that's absurd. <br /><br /> Sometimes she says money will come from new "taxes on the rich," but America's rich aren't rich enough to fund her grand schemes. Even if they were, they'd move out of the country or use tricks to evade her high taxes. Even The New York Times admits that Clinton's tax plan adds "so many new layers of complexity" that it would "be a huge boon for tax lawyers." <br /><br /> Trump is as bad, promising tax cuts <em>and</em> new spending on the military, infrastructure and that giant wall. Other than promising that Mexico will pay (it won't), he never says where he'll get the funds. <br /><br /> The biggest chunk of America's budget is entitlements: Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid. Trump never talks about making those benefits sustainable -- in fact, he says he "won't touch" Social Security. <br /><br /> Clinton rarely talks about entitlements at all. <br /><br /> Since we're $20 trillion in debt, you'd think journalists would press candidates to explain how they'll pay the bills. But they don't. <br /><br /> So the candidates talk and talk, and there is so much they don't say. Neither candidate will say much about how huge government bureaucracy has gotten. They never talk about the Constitution and what it says presidents <em>cannot</em> do. They almost never talk about the horrible violence that drug prohibition causes. <br /><br /> Instead, we get promises. Trump "will make American great again." Clinton will "get your kids the opportunities they deserve." Platitudes. But voters prefer them to ugly truths. <br /><br /> If you look at the details, you realize the candidates can't be trusted to do very much. Our government is already broke. Someone should level with the public about that instead of promising new free stuff. <br /><br /> Both leading candidates hide from the truth. It's one more reason I'll vote Libertarian. Gary Johnson has looked dumb when he's been asked about foreign affairs, but he does say what needs to be said about Social Security, Medicare, our ruinous debt and the limits of government. <br /><br /> Those are not popular things to talk about. But presidential candidates ought to talk about them anyway.</p>John Stossel2016-10-12T07:00:00ZStossel: Admiring Foreign LeadersJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossel:-Admiring-Foreign-Leaders/743181647304359048.html2016-10-05T07:00:00Z2016-10-05T07:00:00Z<p>Asked on a TV show to name a foreign leader he admires, Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gov. Gary Johnson choked. He couldn't produce a name. He said he had "a brain freeze." The media pounced.<br /> <br /> "Unable to name a foreign leader," sneered NPR. "Cannot name one," echoed USA Today. <br /><br /> But that's just unfair. Johnson wasn't asked to name a foreign leader. MSNBC's Chris Matthews asked him to name one he <em>admires</em>. <br /><br /> Why should he admire any of them? <br /><br /> Johnson should have dismissed the question outright for its pro-government bias. Why presume that everyone should venerate "leaders"? If we're free, we lead ourselves. Stop giving the politicians the credit.<br /> <br /> We libertarians admire free individuals, entrepreneurs and sometimes activists who <em>resist</em> government. We don't idolize politicians. <br /><br /> What I wish Johnson had said was, "Asking libertarians to pick their favorite politicians is like asking vegans how they like their steak cooked. I don't even <em>like</em> most politicians. I don't respect schemers who long to rule over others. If we must have politicians, at least make them heads of state who humbly govern instead of ruling -- ones who use the state only to enforce contracts and keep the peace." <br /><br /> Unfortunately, Johnson didn't say that. Instead he struggled to remember the name of the former president of Mexico, Vicente Fox, who supports free trade and legalizing drugs. <br /><br /> A Time Magazine writer smugly wrote that she would "offer Johnson some assistance" by providing a list of leaders. Heading up Time's list was Russia's Vladimir Putin. Are you kidding me? He's a cruel authoritarian who robs his own country. <br /><br /> Time also threw in Pope Francis, probably because Francis doesn't like capitalism very much. <br /><br /> Johnson also might have told Matthews, "I'm sure someone like you, Chris, who worships the state, has a dozen favorite leaders who love presiding over others. But I don't. In fact, my favorite president was George Washington because when they asked him to become a king, he refused. If Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump were asked, they'd leap at the chance." <br /><br /> When politicians do the right thing, we should take note. But usually they don't. So politicians rarely appear on my list of heroes. <br /><br /> But the media fawn over politicians. When Ed Koch, former mayor of New York City, passed away, newspapers ran 100 stories about him. We heard little about other people who died that month but who probably did more for the world -- people in the private sector, people who don't mooch off taxpayers. <br /><br /> There were zero major news stories about the death of Joseph "Pep" Simek. He co-founded Tombstone Pizza out of the back of a bar and created more than 1,000 jobs. <br /><br /> There were no major news stories about Ralph Braun. He founded BraunAbility, a company that makes wheelchair lifts for people who need them, including himself. His company has made life easier for the disabled, and it, too, employs more than 1,000 people. <br /><br /> Likewise, there were long obits the day that former senator Edmund Muskie died but little about David Packard, who died the same day. Packard founded Hewlett-Packard, which gave us innovation like laser printers and created enormous wealth. Sen. Muskie was best known for crying at a press conference. <br /><br /> The media blathered on for weeks after Sen. Ted Kennedy died. But that year Norman Borlaug died, too.<br /><br /> His crop-breeding techniques have saved a<em> billion</em> lives. Ted Kennedy? I won't go there ... <br /><br /> The media love politicians. But when it comes to improving lives, entrepreneurs accomplish much more.<br /> <br /> One refreshing thing about Johnson is that he's not just a former governor -- he has also run businesses. <br /><br />He knows politics is not the most admirable thing people do. To me, that makes him smarter than those who speak with reverence for "public service" as if only government serves the public. <br /><br /> Gary Johnson is mocked because he can't name a foreign leader he admires. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump push bad policies that should keep them off anyone's list of great heads of state.</p>John Stossel2016-10-05T07:00:00ZStossel: The Debate I HeardJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossel:-The-Debate-I-Heard/607187779447495788.html2016-09-28T07:00:00Z2016-09-28T07:00:00Z<p>Something's wrong with me. <br /><br /> I watched Monday's presidential debate. But what I heard was different from what Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton seemed to say. <br /><br /> When Clinton said, "I want us to invest in you," what I heard was, "I will spend your money better than you will." Also, I heard, "I will spend <em>lots</em> of your money!" <br /><br /> When Trump said our economic problems are China's fault, what I heard was, "Blaming China wins me votes." <br /><br /> When Clinton told Trump, "My father ... printed drapery fabrics," what I heard was, "Donald, you are a spoiled rich kid." <br /><br /> When Trump replied, "My father gave me a very small loan," I heard Trump saying, "Anything less than $200 million is a pittance." (It's actually not clear what Trump received from his dad. Trump claims it was $1 million; others say $200 million. Anyway, is a million dollars a "small" loan"?) <br /><br /> When Clinton said, "I'm going to have a special prosecutor ... to enforce the trade deals we have," I heard, "Kiss my ring and pay my foundation if you want your trade deal approved!" <br /><br /> When Trump said President Obama has "doubled" our debt, I swear I heard Trump promise, "I'll triple it!" <br /><br /> When Clinton said, "I think it's time that the wealthy and corporations paid their fair share," what I heard was, "Good thing Bill and I are 'broke,' because we're going to soak the rich like they've never been soaked before." <br /><br /> When Clinton said Trump's taxes "must be something really important, even terrible, that he's trying to hide," what I heard was, "My emails, on the other hand, were just a minor mistake and nothing I'm trying to hide -- next question?" <br /><br /> When Trump said, "I was the one that got (Obama) to produce the birth certificate, and I think I did a good job," what I heard was, "Since Hillary and her staff spread the lie first, I'm blameless." <br /><br /> When Clinton said, "Barack Obama is a man of great dignity," I swear I heard her add quietly, "despite me smearing him in 2008." <br /><br /> When Trump said, "I was just endorsed (by 200) admirals and generals," what I heard was, "I wish members of the military supported me the way they support Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson." <br /><br /> When Clinton said, "Putin is playing a tough long game here," I swear I heard Hillary say, "I guess my 'reset' with Russia was a bad idea." <br /><br /> When Clinton said she'll "do much more with our tech companies" to fight ISIS, what I heard was, "I'll force Facebook and Twitter to shut down parts of the internet." <br /><br /> When Clinton said she'll "take out al-Qaida leadership," what I heard was, "I don't know exactly who they are, but I'll kill a bunch of military-age males." <br /><br /> When Trump said, "I did not support the war in Iraq," what I heard was, " ... except when I did." <br /><br /> When Clinton said, "A man who can be provoked by a tweet should not have his fingers anywhere near the nuclear codes," I heard, "A man provoked by a tweet should not be near the nuclear codes." (Clinton got some things right.) <br /><br /> When Trump said, "My strongest asset is my temperament," I heard viewers laughing. <br /><br /> When Clinton complained that Trump "said women don't deserve equal pay unless they do as good a job as men," I wondered, "So Hillary believes that women should get equal pay even when they <em>don't</em> do as good a job?" <br /><br /> If only there were some way both Clinton and Trump could lose. Oh, right -- there is! Governor Gary Johnson's in the race. But the most reliable predictor of future events -- the betting odds (see ElectionBettingOdds.com) -- doesn't give him much of a chance. The bettors don't give Donald Trump a great chance either. As I write, Clinton is favored 68.7 percent to 29.6 percent. <br /><br /> During the debate, Trump's odds dropped 5 percent. I didn't think he performed that badly, but I must be wrong. The bettors are generally right. <br /><br /> We may as well get used to hearing the title "<em>President</em> Hillary Clinton."</p>John Stossel2016-09-28T07:00:00ZStossel: Supreme Court PicksJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossel:-Supreme-Court-Picks/319861831765239723.html2016-09-21T07:00:00Z2016-09-21T07:00:00Z<p>Hillary Clinton and her fellow progressives shout things like "Health care is a right!" They've also said that education, decent housing and child care are "rights." <br /><br /> The U.N. goes further. Its bureaucrats declared that every person has a "right" to rest and leisure, food, clothing, housing, "necessary" social services, free education, periodic holidays with pay and protection from unemployment. <br /><br /> Wow. I guess Abe Lincoln, Thomas Edison and Mark Zuckerberg were denied basic human rights. <br /><br /> Clinton and the U.N. busybodies are wrong. Health care, housing and food are not "rights." They are "gifts" bestowed by politicians. These "gifts" violate other people's rights because politicians take from people to give to favored groups. <br /><br /> When America's founders talked about rights, they had something else in mind. <br /><br /> In the Bill of Rights, each right is a right to <em>not</em> be meddled with, a right to be free from government -- the right not to have your speech abridged, your religion banned, your guns taken or your property searched without a warrant. <br /><br /> The founders were tired of kings and dictators bossing them around. In their new country, they wanted to <em>vote</em> for presidents and other officials. But they also knew that over time even elected officials lust for more power. So they wanted clear limits on what those officials could do. <br /><br /> They created three branches of government -- to check each other. <br /><br /> "Gridlock is a feature, not a bug," says Ilya Shapiro, editor-in-chief of the Cato Institute's Supreme Court Review journal. "The founding system was not to make government more efficient. It was meant to pass policies that have large agreement that's sustained across time." <br /><br /> Because presidents think Congress is failing when it doesn't pass legislation they like, they nominate Supreme Court justices who may give them leeway. Franklin Roosevelt tried to increase the size of the Court to squeeze in more justices who supported his programs. George W. Bush nominated his own White House Counsel. <br /><br /> The media call President Obama's current nominee, Merrick Garland, "a centrist." But he is "centrist" only in that he sides with Democrats who want to ban guns and Republicans who want government left free to do most anything in Guantanamo Bay. Garland repeatedly supports increased government power -- and fewer checks. <br /><br /> Shapiro went to Chicago Law School when Obama was a professor there. He says Obama understands the limits the Constitution places on presidents but ignores them. He ignores them so often that the Supreme Court has overruled Obama unanimously more often than any modern president. <br /><br /> When Congress rejected Obama's immigration plan, he just imposed it via executive order. The Supreme Court overturned that, but the final vote blocking it was close, 4-4. But what will the next court do? <br /><br /> I hope Hillary Clinton doesn't get to replace Justice Scalia because she sounds a lot like President Obama.<br /><br /> On her website, she says things like, "If Congress won't act, I will ask the Treasury Department ... to use its regulatory authority!" <br /><br /> Donald Trump is no better. He says he'll impose the death penalty on anyone who kills a cop. <br /><br /> "But the executive has no say over that," points out Shapiro. <br /><br /> Presidents cannot pass laws. They execute laws passed by Congress. Congress is supposed to reject legislation it doesn't like. That's its job. Most legislation is bad. <br /><br /> Former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson understands that. The Libertarian presidential candidate promises to only appoint judges who will ask whether any power or program proposed by the government can be found in the Constitution. <br /><br /> One judge he mentions as a possible Supreme Court pick is Fox commentator, Judge Andrew Napolitano. <br /><br /> "I'm flattered by that," says Napolitano. "Johnson would clearly choose a small government, maximum individual-freedom court." <br /><br /> Gary Johnson understands that the Constitution keeps us free by restraining government. <br /><br /> Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, like many politicians, treat the Constitution as an annoying obstacle. <br /><br /> It <em>is</em> an obstacle to their plans. Good. <br /><br /> But I worry. The current court is not young. Our next president may get to choose <em>five</em> new justices.</p>John Stossel2016-09-21T07:00:00ZStossel: Sausage Party PoliticsJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossel:-Sausage-Party-Politics/-439995045732989431.html2016-09-14T07:00:00Z2016-09-14T07:00:00Z<p>Seth Rogen, co-writer, co-producer and co-star of the animated comedy "Sausage Party," is unhappy with me -- for defending him. <br /><br /> His movie was attacked by some online commentators for using ethnic and sexual stereotypes, as cartoons often do. What was remarkable is how incensed some people get over a cartoon, even one about talking food. <br /><br /> A reviewer for a site called Autostraddle at first praised the movie, including its depiction of a talking lesbian taco voiced by Salma Hayek. <br /><br /> But then the site replaced the review with a 2,600-word apology. Autostraddle calls itself a "progressively feminist online community for a new generation of kickass lesbian, bisexual & otherwise inclined ladies." <br /><br />Its endless apology said, "After we received feedback about (the "Sausage Party" review) from our Trans Editor (and others including Facebook commenters), we decided to un-publish the piece." <br /><br /> Un-publish. Last week, I did a show on free speech. A tweet I sent out plugging it said, "The attack on free speech even extends to silly movies like @SethRogen's Sausage Party." <br /><br /> Rogen sent my tweet to his 4 million Twitter followers. (Thanks for that, Seth!) But being a Hollywood leftist, he didn't thank me for defending his movie. Probably because I work for Fox, he tweeted that my tweet is what happens "(w)hen idiots use your movie to pretend that free speech is being attacked when it isn't at all." <br /><br /> Rogen's followers pounced, one saying, "It's baffling that some people can't comprehend that criticism is a part of free speech ... Everything is working as intended. Stossel is a tool." <br /><br /> Rogen tweeted again: "People tweeting that they hate your sh-- isn't an 'attack on free speech.' It's people using free speech to tell you they hate your sh--." <br /><br /> But wait! I agree! As I said, private organizations have the right to publish or "un-publish" just about anything. <br /><br /> Fortunately, commenters who read about this on the website Mediaite got it: "Rogen would have been wise to not say anything ... (L)ike a typical Hollywood star, he thought it was all about him. Stossel was making a point about the state of free speech in America today and mentioned the reactions a silly movie is getting to help make his point." <br /><br /> To clarify: Private individuals are free to criticize all they like, and the First Amendment forbids <em>government</em> to decide whether a taco is offensive to lesbians -- or to fundamentalist Christians for that matter. <br /><br /> It's an important rule. We have just one government. When government censors, we're all screwed. <br /><br /> Private citizens and private organizations, whether they're TV channels, universities or activist groups, can duke it out in the arena created by our right to free speech. <br /><br /> We should keep in mind, though, that the same people who get upset about lesbian tacos, irreverent depictions of Jesus, drug use in movies or whatever the controversy of the day is, sometimes become politicians. Some then try to use government force to shut their enemies up. Hillary Clinton wants to censor a movie that criticized her. Donald Trump promises to "rewrite" libel law. <br /><br /> I fear that the growing belief that no one should ever have to suffer being offended or hearing something that upsets them could come back to haunt us with calls for real censorship.<em>That</em> would be a real attack on free speech. <br /><br /> It's good to have a thick skin. In the free-for-all of public debate, people will get upset.<br /><br /> I can't order people to listen to their enemies any more than I can order my enemies to shut up. The best thing we can do when we hear upsetting ideas is respond with good counterarguments. <br /><br /> People who keep arguing with each other, even if they offend each other, are less likely to look for uncommunicative, violent ways to settle their disputes. <br /><br /> Keep making art, voicing opinions and expecting other people to tell you you're an idiot who should stay silent. That's the messy process by which we learn from each other. <br /><br /> I assume Seth Rogen agrees that's the best use of free speech there is.</p>John Stossel2016-09-14T07:00:00ZStossel: Trump/Clinton and Free SpeechJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossel:-Trump/Clinton-and-Free-Speech/-857882795420975434.html2016-09-07T07:00:00Z2016-09-07T07:00:00Z<p>Donald Trump tells reporters, "We're going to have people sue you like you never got sued before." <br /><br /> Hillary Clinton doesn't like her opponents funding documentaries that criticize her, so she demands Congress overturn the Supreme Court decision that allows it. <br /><br /> The world is full of people who want their enemies to shut up. Some college students get so upset seeing "Trump 2016" chalked on sidewalks that they call the police, demanding the chalkers be punished and their words erased. <br /><br /> But because America's founders added, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" to the Constitution, the police have no role here. <br /><br /> Those idiot college protesters want to shut me up. And I want to shut some of them up. But we have to tolerate each other. That's a good thing. The First Amendment helps keep America free. <br /><br /> Of course, the Amendment just says, "<em>Congress</em> shall make no law." <br /><br /> Private groups can limit speech. Fox can fire me if they don't like something I say. So can this website (or newspaper) by dropping my column. The NFL can fire Colin Kaepernick for not standing up, and a Black Lives Matter group can expel a member who <em>does</em>. <br /><br /> The First Amendment applies to government. Which is why presidential candidates should get it right. Unfortunately, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton don't. <br /><br /> Both have talked about "closing down" parts of the internet to fight ISIS. When frightened, some politicians promise all kinds of things to look like they're protecting us. But shutting down those areas of the Web may not be technically possible, and if it were, it would mostly hurt innocent people. <br /><br /> That didn't stop Trump or Clinton from proposing it and making sneering comments about free speech. <br /><br /> They should know that rules meant to prevent ISIS from speaking can soon become laws to suppress any opinions that politicians don't like. <br /><br /> The same men who created our Constitution turned around a few years later and passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which punished people for insulting politicians, as though criticizing politicians was a threat to social order. Governments in Russia, China and Saudi Arabia still think that way. <br /><br /> I say, <em>not</em> criticizing politicians is a threat to social order. <br /><br /> Both Trump and Clinton want to ban flag burning. But burning a flag is a form of speech, as long as you own the flag and don't endanger anyone. Government bans should be limited to real threats. <br /><br /> Trump says, "We're going to open up those libel laws, so that when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace, or when The Washington Post ... writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning." <br /><br /> It's true that libel law protects people like me so we can say what we want. I can criticize a public figure or get facts wrong, and courts will allow it as long as I wasn't malicious -- I didn't <em>know</em> I had facts wrong. It's a good rule; it allows media to criticize the powerful. <br /><br /> In his speech, Trump added, "With me, they're not protected because I'm not like other people." Right. <br /><br />Because Donald Trump is rich, he intimidates critics into silence by threatening to bankrupt them with lawsuits. This is not a good thing. <br /><br /> Hillary Clinton is a lawyer, so you'd think she would have a more sophisticated view of free speech. But she doesn't. <br /><br /> She once tried to ban the sale of violent video games to minors, arguing, "We need to treat violent video games the way we treat alcohol." But video games are not alcohol; video games are ideas -- speech. <br /><br /> Her argument was ridiculous anyway. Violence in video games has become even more prevalent, but crime has dropped and young people are <em>less</em> violent. <br /><br /> We'll never eliminate everything that offends or "triggers" people, whether they're Christian, Muslim, pro-Trump or so anti-Trump that they call the police when students chalk his name on a sidewalk. <br /><br /> I wish the next president were someone who understood that.</p>John Stossel2016-09-07T07:00:00ZStossel: Neither Dictator nor KingJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossel:-Neither-Dictator-nor-King/141590031632298869.html2016-08-31T07:00:00Z2016-08-31T07:00:00Z<p>It was refreshing to moderate a "town hall" with the Libertarian presidential and vice presidential candidates last week because Govs. Gary Johnson and William Weld respect limits on presidential power. <br /><br /> Sunday, when Fox's Chris Wallace challenged Johnson's plan to replace the IRS with a consumption tax, Johnson pointed out that he's "not getting elected dictator or king." <br /><br /> Wallace suggested that means, "Don't take my policies seriously because they won't get through." <br /><br /> I disagree. <br /><br /> It means that Johnson understands that America is a constitutional republic and there are (and ought to be) checks on what presidents can do. <br /><br /> In response to Wallace's comment about Johnson not taking his promises seriously, Johnson said, "Take them very seriously. Count on certainty that we're always going to support taxes going lower ... being in business being easier, rules and regulations not getting worse." <br /><br /> Johnson and Weld hold clear positions -- unlike aspiring dictators Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. <br /><br /> Clinton changes positions from year to year: praising trade deals, then condemning them; condemning gay marriage, then praising it -- then scolding anyone who doesn't share her new position. <br /><br /> Trump changes positions even faster, sometimes day to day. After saying he'll deport millions of immigrants, now he says he won't if they pay taxes and fill out paperwork -- roughly the same position Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio held when Trump trashed them. <br /><br /> Libertarians don't shift to fit the whims of the day, because we have core principles. One is: On most every issue, less government involvement is better. <br /><br /> "Government doesn't create jobs!" said Johnson when a young woman asked what Johnson and Weld would "do about jobs." The Libertarians said jobs get created when government gets out of the way, imposing only a few clear and predictable rules. <br /><br /> While Trump makes vague promises about making government "great" and Clinton about making it "fair," Johnson and Weld talk about getting rid of as much of it as they can. <br /><br /> "There are constitutional limits to that," said Johnson. "But if you were to wave a magic wand, there are a number of departments that come up: Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Education, Homeland Security." <br /><br /> Unlike Trump and Clinton, Johnson specifies cuts -- and he's willing to go after sacred cows such as defense spending: "You can't balance the federal budget -- something we're promising to do in the first 100 days -- you can't do that without cutting military spending. ... The BRAC Commission, set up by the Pentagon, says that we've got to eliminate 20 percent of those bases, but that hasn't happened." <br /><br /> Where markets thrive, people thrive. Weld understands that. <br /><br /> "When the GIs returned from World War II, they had two sets of needs, education and health care," he says.<br /><br />"Education was handled through the GI Bill, which was essentially a voucher system. You could go wherever you wanted, the most successful program in domestic political history of the 20th century. Health care was the ... opposite approach: command and control, one size fits all, the government is going to do this." <br /><br /> The GI Bill vouchers allowed soldiers to enroll at a school they chose. But for health care, they must wait in long lines at government-run veterans hospitals, sometimes dying for lack of adequate care. <br /><br /> Applying these free-market lessons across a range of policies, Johnson and Weld would roll back the drug war, decrease our involvement in foreign wars and give individuals more control over how their Social Security funds are invested.<br /><br /> When an audience member suggested that voting for a third party is a "wasted vote," Weld replied, "We're fiscally responsible. We're socially inclusive and tolerant, (but) if you agree with us and you want to go waste your vote on Trump or Clinton, be our guest. We're Libertarians." <br /><br /> Johnson and Weld don't promise they can get rid of the Washington leviathan overnight, but taking a few steps closer to liberty sounds like a good start to me. It's a lot better than the path the two major parties want us to take.</p>John Stossel2016-08-31T07:00:00ZStossel: Libertarian Town HallJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossel:-Libertarian-Town-Hall/980156738685221339.html2016-08-24T07:00:00Z2016-08-24T07:00:00Z<p>Vote for Donald Trump? No! Hillary Clinton? No! <br /><br /> They are not trustworthy. They push bad ideas. <br /><br /> Fortunately, we have another choice: Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson and his running mate, William Weld. But most Americans don't even know they exist. <br /><br /> It would be good if the two ex-governors were allowed to join next month's presidential debates, but the Commission on Presidential Debates will allow that only if Johnson reaches 15 percent in a select handful of polls. He's at about 10 percent now. He tried to get the Commission to relax its rules, but they would not. <br /><br /> You can still get a feel for what these candidates offer by watching my show Friday. I'll do a Libertarian "town hall." My studio audience will grill Johnson and Weld about ... well, whatever they want. <br /><br /> I assume marijuana prohibition will come up. "It's prohibition," says Johnson, "that kills people. ... Legalizing marijuana will lead to less overall substance abuse because (marijuana is) safer than all the other substances out there." <br /><br /> That appeals to liberals, but libertarians offer much to conservatives, too. Johnson recognizes that "government is too big. It spends too much money. It taxes too much." <br /><br /> He proposes "a 20 percent reduction in federal spending. To do that, you've got to include Medicaid, Medicare, military spending." That's responsible budgeting. <br /><br /> But some libertarians say Johnson and Weld are not libertarian enough. I'll confront the candidates with those criticisms. <br /><br /> For example, Johnson sides with judges who say government must force Christian bakers to bake cakes for gay weddings. <br /><br /> "If you discriminate on the basis of religion, that is a black hole," Johnson said. "You should be able to discriminate for stink or (if a customer is) not wearing shoes, (but) if we discriminate on the basis of religion, that's doing harm to a big class of people." <br /><br /> It might. But this is not a clear-headed way to think about the role of government. Discrimination hurts, but discrimination is part of life. We discriminate when we pick our friends, jobs, where we live. In private life, discrimination is constant. <br /><br /><em>Government</em> discrimination is wrong. Jim Crow -- segregation -- was very wrong. It is good that the Civil Rights Act ended that. But Barry Goldwater was right 52 years ago and Rand Paul right in 2013, when each said that two of the nine parts of the Civil Rights Act were wrong: the two parts that reach into <em>private</em> life. <br /><br /> I suspect Johnson defends the rules because he fears the ignorant media won't acknowledge the difference. Goldwater's comments helped end his presidential hopes, and the media bullied Rand Paul into silence. <br /><br /> But Libertarian candidates <em>should</em> explain the difference, not cave in to the anti-discrimination mob. <br /><br /> No Christian photographer should be forced to photograph a gay wedding. No Black Student Association should be forced to accept whites. No Jewish baker should be forced to put swastikas on a cake. <br /><br /> Every private business should be allowed to refuse service to whomever they want. Outlawing all discrimination <em>perpetuates</em> hatred by driving it underground. Hatred festers when people don't know who the bigots are. <br /><br /> Yes, it was cruel when lunch counters turned blacks away. But today there are many places to eat lunch or buy wedding cakes. If a restaurant refuses blacks, others will profit by serving people the racists reject. <br /><br />Many of us will boycott the racists and give money to the inclusive businesses. That's a better solution than government trying to <em>force</em> people to act against their beliefs. <br /><br /> Government should respect that difference between public and <em>private</em> life. <br /><br /> That issue notwithstanding, Johnson and Weld are much better than Clinton or Trump. They favor free trade, work visas for migrant workers and entrepreneurial innovation. The future, Johnson says, is "Uber everything -- get government out of the way." <br /><br /> Hillary Clinton, by contrast, threatened a crackdown on Uber if it didn't behave more like a regulated, unionized employer. <br /><br /> Donald Trump calls Johnson a "fringe candidate" and claims the route to prosperity is threatening trade partners with tariffs. <br /><br /> I'll grill the "fringe candidates" this week. Gary Johnson and Bill Weld understand markets, government and freedom much better than their rivals do.</p>John Stossel2016-08-24T07:00:00ZStossel: Vice Presidential ProspectsJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossel:-Vice-Presidential-Prospects/-186232759594292722.html2016-08-17T07:00:00Z2016-08-17T07:00:00Z<p>We've heard nonstop criticism of both the Democrat and Republican presidential candidates -- for good reasons. So are their running mates any better? <br /><br /> Yes. <br /><br /> Trump's vice presidential pick, Mike Pence, has some good points. He supported a guest worker program.<br /><br /> He opposed reckless spending, including Republican bills, like No Child Left Behind, George W. Bush's Medicare expansion and the Wall Street bailout. <br /><br /> Then he became one of only four governors to get an A rating from the Cato Institute for keeping government spending under control. <br /><br /> As a result, Indiana has a budget surplus and a good credit rating. Of course, that was easier for Pence because the very responsible Mitch Daniels was the previous governor. <br /><br /> On the other hand, Pence is a consistent supporter of bad wars, like the Iraq War and the toppling of Moammar Gadhafi. <br /><br /> He's also a social conservative who wants to force his beliefs on others. <br /><br /> The Indianapolis Star reported that Pence says he believes in "building a zone around your marriage" for avoiding temptation. That means never attending an event where alcohol is served or dining alone with a woman who is not his wife. <br /><br /> Fine. If he's worried about temptation, let him impose whatever rule he wants on <em>himself</em>. <br /><br /> But I object when Pence tells others how to live. He says "societal collapse was always brought about following an advent of the deterioration of marriage." He gives that as a reason for wanting to ban gay marriage, even civil unions. But gay marriage doesn't threaten heterosexual marriage; it makes marriage a bigger deal. <br /><br /> Pence also opposes legalizing marijuana, even medicinal. <br /><br /> This is not a politician who wants government <em>limited</em>.<br /> <br /> Neither is Hillary Clinton's running mate, Sen. Tim Kaine. When he was governor of Virginia, he made it the first southern state to ban smoking in bars. <br /><br /> He's also a typical political opportunist. For most of his career, he supported free trade. He backed the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement -- as did Clinton until she realized that it was unpopular with the economically ignorant majority of her party. <br /><br /> See Kaine's opportunism in this 2016 chronology: <br /> --July 11: Kaine says, "I see much in the (Trans-Pacific Partnership) draft ... that I like." <br /> --July 12: Kaine reportedly tells Clinton campaign he'd oppose TPP if he is picked to be her VP. <br /> --July 23: Clinton chooses Kaine. Kaine now says he <em>opposes</em> TPP. <br /><br /> But at least Kaine respects the Constitution more than Clinton and Pence. He joined Senators Jeff Flake and Rand Paul in arguing that President Obama should not go to war against ISIS without getting authorization from Congress. <br /><br /> Overall, the major parties' vice presidential candidates are less scary than than the presidential candidates.<br /><br /> But my favorite vice presidential candidate is running on the Libertarian ticket, former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld. <br /><br /> When he was a Republican, Weld praised F. A. Hayek and individual freedom. He said, "Democrats' taxing and spending habits remind me of that old definition of a baby: a huge appetite on one end and no sense of responsibility on the other." <br /><br /> Weld is not totally libertarian, but he's a good example of a "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" politician at a time when people seem to be desperate for alternatives to Trump and Clinton. <br /><br /> Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson says Weld "makes me better." And from what I could see when I interviewed them, that's true. They collaborate. When Weld is present, Johnson is clearer and crisper. <br /><br /> Sadly, most Americans don't pay attention to third parties. They also don't pay much attention to vice presidents. After all, most don't do much. One of Franklin Roosevelt's vice presidents said the job "wasn't worth a pitcher of warm spit." <br /><br /> But vice presidents sometimes become presidents -- 15 percent of them over the course of our history -- and 25 percent eventually became presidential nominees. <br /><br /> So vice presidents matter. <br /><br /> I respect Mike Pence and Tim Kaine, but Bill Weld (with Gary Johnson) would be better than either. And, of course, he'd be much better than Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.</p>John Stossel2016-08-17T07:00:00ZStossel: Lies Politicians TellJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossel:-Lies-Politicians-Tell/476911172488010337.html2016-08-10T07:00:00Z2016-08-10T07:00:00Z<p>I don't want Hillary Clinton to be president. She's a liar. <br /><br /> But I can't vote for Donald Trump. He lies almost as often. <br /><br /> Trump denies he ever said things, claiming he never used terms like "fat pig" to describe women, that he never was open to using nuclear weapons against ISIS, that he never mocked Jon Stewart for changing his name. Smears big and small -- Trump just denies he said them. <br /><br /> He's also a bully. He intimidates weaker people by suing them. In business deals, he refuses to pay some of what he owes and then tells creditors: Go ahead and sue me! Creditors often take partial payment because they can't afford to fight Trump in court. <br /><br /> Trump even filed a $5 million lawsuit against a Miss USA contestant who criticized his pageant. She can't afford to pay defense lawyers, so she has to shut up. <br /><br /> Trump's supporters are convinced he'll shake up the system, but they ignore the evidence that Trump is just one more manipulative member of the rich political class. Plenty of photos show Trump proudly golfing alongside George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and other political insiders whom he now mocks. <br /><br /> But all that matters less than the policies he proposes -- it's the policies that will hurt us. <br /><br /> Trump's tariffs, sold as protecting the American little guy, actually help big businesses by protecting them from overseas competition. Then they can jack up prices, making life harder for poor American customers. <br /><br /> The Obama administration tried tariffs on tires from China like the 45 percent ones Trump wants to impose, and the results were higher prices -- Americans had to spend about $1 billion more to buy tires. Favored (usually unionized) businesses got protection from competition, but other businesses died or never started because imported supplies were suddenly much more expensive. <br /><br /> Of course, we don't <em>really</em> know what Trump's positions are. He's for gun control, then against it. He was against the minimum wage but now wants to raise it. <br /><br /> Hillary Clinton flip-flops, too. She was for trade pacts, but she's now against them; against gay marriage, now for it; for the Iraq war, now against it. <br /><br /> Clinton lies even more than Trump. She lies about her emails, running from sniper fire, making $100,000 from a $1,000 investment in cattle futures, etc. This column doesn't have room for all her lies. <br /><br /> But with Clinton, too, it's not the lies that will do the most damage, it's the policies she'll push -- higher taxes, involvement in more foreign wars, endless regulation that will stop innovation. <br /><br /> Most of the time, the danger isn't politicians' personal corruption. The real cost to our prosperity and freedom comes from what the politicians do legally. <br /><br /> Though President Barack Obama is a paragon of honesty compared with Trump and Clinton, he has done sleazy things, like secretly sending $400 million in cash to Iran and lying to people about details of Obamacare. <br /><br /> But even when he tells us the truth, Obama does plenty of damage. <br /><br /> His FCC has imposed new rules that will stifle internet innovation. His overtime rules will limit employer flexibility and stunt job growth. Obama's "stimulus" spending diverted trillions of dollars from better investments the marketplace would have chosen. His limits on internships hurt business and deprive young people of opportunities. His doubling of our debt will burden us forever. <br /><br /> Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton may be more corrupt than Obama, but it's not the corruption that hurts us most. It's the political culture of buying votes by spending taxpayers' money on special interests. That culture grows when government spends $4 trillion every year and makes so many rules that any almost regulator can crush a disfavored industry or help a favored one. <br /><br /> As the old joke goes, it's not the corruption that matters. "The real crime is what's legal." How do we improve a system like that? <br /><br /> Here's one solution: Shrink government -- limit its power. Then there will be less reason for politicians' cronies to bribe them, for politicians to lie about it and for all of us to fear the State. <br /><br /> The smaller government is, the less we need to fear the bad things it will do.</p>John Stossel2016-08-10T07:00:00ZStossel: Beyond Two EvilsJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossel:-Beyond-Two-Evils/469665572233366005.html2016-08-03T07:00:00Z2016-08-03T07:00:00Z<p>Many people dislike both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton -- for good reason: Both are power-hungry threats to democracy and rule of law. <br /><br /> But what can we do? What's the alternative? <br /><br /> Fortunately, one political party wants government to have a little <em>less</em> power. <br /><br />Former governors Gary Johnson and William Weld, the Libertarian Party's presidential and vice presidential nominee, don't have to be smarter or more moral than Clinton and Trump (though they are) because they want to <em>reduce</em> the power that government has over your life. <br /><br /> "I want government out of your pocketbook and out of your bedroom," says Weld in a recent Johnson/Weld campaign ad. <br /><br /> Sadly, the betting sites give the Johnson/Weld ticket practically no chance of winning. <br /><br /> Why? Most conservatives fear libertarians will weaken our defense and legalize drugs. <br /><br /> But Johnson/Weld don't want to destroy our military; they just want to spend a little less. We already spend more on defense than the next seven countries combined. <br /><br /> Libertarians want to legalize some drugs, but drug prohibition hasn't worked. Kids find it easier to get marijuana than alcohol. And prohibition creates vicious criminal gangs. <br /><br /> The left fears that libertarians will destroy the welfare state and allow rich people to get even richer. We would. But so what if some rich people get richer? Private charity will help the needy far better than clumsy government has. Since people hate politicians, why not elect ones who promise to leave you alone? <br /><br /> Clinton wants to raise taxes and increase regulations. Trump wants to start a trade war and give loyalty tests to Muslim Americans who are already citizens. <br /><br /> Clinton and Trump are so eager to do bad things that they even steal bad ideas from the other party. <br /><br />Hillary Clinton wants to criminalize flag-burning. Donald Trump wants to increase the minimum wage. <br /><br /> Democrats and Republicans each talk as if they want to protect your freedom -- from the other party. They don't show much interest in protecting you from their own parties' failed schemes. <br /><br /> Johnson will get a chance to tell Americans more about the libertarian option -- if he can make it into the televised presidential debates that start in September. But the private company that runs the debates, the Commission on Presidential Debates, has ruled that to qualify, a candidate must get at least 15 percent support in national polls conducted by five polling firms. <br /><br /> Johnson's reached 13 percent in a CNN poll, but his RealClearPolitics.com average is closer to 8 percent. Audiences might not get to hear the alternative he offers to big government. <br /><br /> Gary Johnson wants the government to spend less, snoop less into people's private lives and fight fewer wars overseas. I think many Americans want that. <br /><br /> I understand that the Libertarian Party probably won't win. So, libertarians aren't waiting for an electoral victory to lead the freest lives they can. <br /><br /> I recently paid a visit to an annual libertarian gathering in New Hampshire called PorcFest. Porc refers not to politicians' wasteful and self-serving pork-barrel spending, but to porcupines, a libertarian mascot. <br /><br />Porcupines leave you alone, unless you attack them -- and they have sharp quills for self-defense.<br /><br /> The people at PorcFest don't believe in waiting for good politicians to come along. They know that rarely happens. They try to live their lives as much as possible as if government doesn't exist. <br /><br /> Many carry guns for self-defense, enjoy weed without checking local laws and use digital currency instead of government-printed dollars. For the most part, local authorities tolerate it, knowing the PorcFest participants behave well and clean up after themselves. <br /><br /> Maybe the ultimate solution to our political mess isn't to fight forever to make government better. That's probably hopeless. Maybe it's smarter to make a new beginning -- just walk away from most of government. The less government there is to abuse us, the less it matters which authoritarian wins the next election.</p>John Stossel2016-08-03T07:00:00ZStossel on Clinton CashJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossel-on-Clinton-Cash/-3662190716077529.html2016-07-27T22:39:00Z2016-07-27T22:39:00Z<p>This week, as Democrats fawn over Hillary Clinton, I'm struck by how both Clintons continue to thrive despite their remarkable record of sleazy dealings. <br /><br /> The just released documentary "Clinton Cash," based on a book by Peter Schweizer, explains how they make big money by selling access to themselves. <br /><br /> In a conversation, Schweizer told me how the Clintons use "speaking fees" to get around bribery laws. <br /> "If somebody gave a politician or family member money for a favor, that's breaking the law. But if you say it's a speaking fee, and you pay double or triple the normal rate, that seems to be legal." <br /><br /> Since Bill Clinton left office, he's earned more than $126 million giving speeches. Nothing wrong with that.<br /><br /> Bill likes to talk, and if people want to pay big bucks to hear him or just to say they were near him, so be it. It's their own money. <br /><br /> But what suggests influence peddling, says Schweizer, is that before Hillary became secretary of state, Bill's usual fee was less than $200,000. But after Hillary became secretary of state, he made as much as $750,000 per speech. <br /><br /> That's "evidence that people paying him expect to get something in return," says Schweizer. "She becomes appointed secretary of state, a friend of the president of Nigeria suddenly offers (Bill) $700,000 apiece for two speeches. An investment firm in Moscow that's tied to the Kremlin who had never paid for him to speak before suddenly gave him $500,000." <br /><br /> Those are just two of many examples cited in "Clinton Cash." <br /><br /> Sometimes the Clintons launder the money through the Clinton Foundation. It's collected more than $2 billion to "improve global health and wellness." <br /><br /> But Sean Davis of The Federalist examined Clinton Foundation records and concluded only about 15 percent of the money goes to actual charity work to help needy people.<br /><br /> Most is spent paying Clinton cronies and other well-connected people to schmooze with governments and charities, which supposedly helps those governments and charities help people. I doubt it helps much. <br /><br /> Even the earthquake in Haiti became a moneymaking opportunity for the Clintons. <br /><br /> After the earthquake, the Clinton Foundation announced that it would work with governments and businesses to help rebuild Haiti. Actual rebuilding has been meager. <br /><br /> A Clinton Foundation press release promised an industrial park that would create "up to 60,000 jobs." Just 7,000 jobs have been created. <br /><br /> What the Foundation <em>has</em> managed to do is help Clinton "friends." One, Irish billionaire Denis O'Brien, runs Digicel, a company that wanted a grant to build Haiti's cellphone network. <br /><br /> "Four weeks after their application," says Schweizer, Digicel sponsored a speech for Bill Clinton in Jamaica and "paid him $225,000. Within four months of that speech, Digicel would receive the first installment of that grant money." <br /><br /> Hillary Clinton's brother, Tony Rodham, even managed to cash in. The Haitian government awarded an exclusive gold mining contract to a company called VCS mining. VCS, says Schweizer, "has no experience in mining, very little experience in Haiti, and it raises the question, of all the companies out there, why did the Haitian government pick this one company?" <br /><br /> The Clintons will tell you that it had nothing to do with the facts that Hillary's brother got a job with VCS and the chairman happens to be a Democratic donor. <br /><br /> The worst example in "Clinton Cash," says Schweizer, is the Ericsson telecom deal. The Swedish company Ericsson was in trouble with the State Department because it sold telecom equipment to repressive regimes. <br /><br /> Says Schweizer, "WikiLeaks cables show the State Department sort of busting up the Swedish foreign minister, saying you need to get Ericsson into line. Ericsson decides that this would be a great time to sponsor a speech by Bill Clinton. They had never done so before. They decided to go big, $750,000 for a 20-minute speech. Bill gives the speech and literally seven days later, the State Department comes out with a statement saying we're not going to take further action against Ericsson. We're going to ask them to police themselves." <br /><br /> Hillary Clinton would like you to believe that electing a woman (Electionbettingodds.com shows she is favored 67 percent to 32 percent) means you've picked an "outsider" who will put a stop to Washington favoritism. Don't believe it. <br /><br /> I hope "Clinton Cash" gets the attention it deserves.</p>John Stossel2016-07-27T22:39:00ZStossel on Ignoring PoliticiansJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossel-on-Ignoring-Politicians/-305112854393134923.html2016-07-20T15:57:00Z2016-07-20T15:57:00Z<p>My Fox colleagues are in Cleveland, diligently interviewing Republicans. Next week, they'll interview Democrats. I'm glad <em>they</em> do it -- because I despise most politicians. <br /><br /> There are exceptions, of course, but after years of reporting, I've concluded that most politicians have little to say that's interesting, and many are craven opportunists, desperate to rule over others. <br /><br /> A few stand out, like former Congressman Anthony Weiner. Like many politicians, he's never held a real job. He's run for office or worked for politicians all his life. <br /><br /> Weiner married one of Hillary Clinton's closest advisers, passionately pushed leftists' bad ideas and was a member of Congress. <br /><br /> Then a photo of an anonymous man's bulging underwear was tweeted from his account. He ended up having to resign from Congress. <br /><br /> That embarrassment alone would send most mortals into hiding, but not Weiner. He decided to campaign for mayor of New York City, and New York's Democrats even forgave him. Polls showed he was the front-runner. <br /><br /> Then came more sleazy stuff. He sent out naked pictures under the name "Carlos Danger." <br /><br /> A new documentary, "Weiner," chronicles these events. "This really is a great movie," says Reason.com's Anthony Fisher. It illustrates "how sick this drive for elective office can be." <br /><br /> In the movie, NBC's Lawrence O'Donnell asks Weiner, "What's <em>wrong</em> with you?" Weiner doesn't even understand the question. O'Donnell elaborates, "you cannot seem to imagine a life without elective office?" Weiner still doesn't get it. <br /><br /> Maybe one needs to be sick to run for office. Weiner is a disciple of New York senator Chuck Schumer. <br /><br /> Schumer famously said, "I was born to legislate." This goes to the heart of the political sickness -- the need to tell others how to live. As economist Walter Williams puts it, "I respect ordinary thieves more than I respect politicians. Ordinary thieves take my money without pretense. (They don't) insult my intelligence by proclaiming that they'll use the money that they steal from me to make my life better." <br /><br /> In the next weeks, as cameras record every utterance burped up by politicians at the political conventions, I'll take comfort knowing that when politicians can't <em>force</em> us to do things, people often ignore them (remember, government is <em>force</em>; this is why politicians are important, and dangerous). <br /><br /> Here's another happy story about people ignoring them. <br /><br /> After Anthony Weiner sleazed himself into oblivion, another clueless socialist, Bill de Blasio, was elected mayor of New York. De Blasio embraces every leftist cause. After the restaurant chain Chick-fil-A was attacked by Democratic interest groups because its CEO opposes gay marriage, de Blasio told New Yorkers not to eat there. He said Chick-fil-A spreads a "message of hate" and "wouldn't urge any other New Yorkers to patronize them." <br /><br /> Now, there's nothing wrong with a boycott. Boycotts are free speech, a way to voice disapproval without getting government involved. <br /><br /> Some craven politicians misunderstand that concept. Boston's mayor declared that Chick-fil-A was "not welcome" in his town, and some Chicago politicians said they would deny Chick-fil-A the necessary permits. <br /><br />After the politicians were told that they don't have a legal right to ban businesses because of things the owners say, they backed down. They just pushed the boycott. <br /><br /> When politicians support boycotts <em>without</em> using the power of their office to boycott by force, we get to see whether the public really cares what politicians think. <br /><br /> So at lunchtime recently, I walked around to see if (mostly pro-gay marriage) New Yorkers were honoring our mayor's request. <br /><br /> Nope. <br /><br /> In fact, at two Chick-fil-A outlets close to my office, customers <em>lined up</em> to get sandwiches. At one restaurant, the line was so long that it extended <em>outside</em> the store and onto the sidewalk. <br /><br /> I asked waiting customers why they went to Chick-fil-A, since our mayor says the company is anti-gay. <br /><br /> "I didn't think that had anything to do with the sandwich," said one. Another made me smile by saying, "Too bad. I don't care about what the mayor says." <br /><br /> When we have a choice, Americans ignore politicians. That's usually a good thing.</p>John Stossel2016-07-20T15:57:00ZStossel on Cops, Blacks and CrimeJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossel-on-Cops-Blacks-and-Crime/842245702350853612.html2016-07-13T07:00:00Z2016-07-13T07:00:00Z<p>Claims about racist cops from groups like Black Lives Matter lead more people to fear and hate the police. <br /> That's bad news for cops. It's also bad for black people who live in crime-ridden neighborhoods, says Heather Mac Donald, author of "The War on Cops." <br /><br /> She points out that activist policing is what people in those neighborhoods need and want, because they are much <em>less</em> safe if fearful cops (or cops who just want to avoid a hateful experience -- like being screamed at and called racist) stay in the car instead of questioning the young men hanging out on the corner. <br /><br /> Yes, says Mac Donald, it's true that police disproportionately stop blacks, but "violent crimes are disproportionately committed by blacks." <br /><br /> That's something you probably won't hear at a Black Lives Matter rally. <br /><br /> But Black Lives protesters also have a point: Some cops are sadistic, racist bullies. <br /><br /> Not many are, but with 765,000 police officers in America, if just 1 percent were racist, that would still leave 7,650 bullies with guns. For years, when officers said, "I <em>had</em> to use force; I <em>had</em> to shoot," Americans usually believed them. Now videos show that, in many cases, officers lied. <br /><br /> In addition, DNA evidence reveals that cops and prosecutors have locked up lots of innocent people -- disproportionately poor people and blacks. <br /><br /> So there are good reasons for blacks to be angry. <br /><br /> The "<em>war</em> on cops" narrative is overblown, too. "War" means killing. The attack on officers in Dallas was despicable, but, even including those five deaths, it is still safer to be a cop today than in years past. <br /><br />According to FBI records, 2015 was one of the safest years ever recorded. <br /><br /> Crime is down, too. The media mislead us by dwelling on increases in cities like Chicago, but overall, crime continues to drop. <br /><br /> There was much more violence in the 1920s and '80s, when government stepped up its wars on liquor and drugs. That drove those businesses into the hands of criminals and increased confrontations with police.<br /><br /> The number of police officers killed in 1930, the worst year of Prohibition, was nearly triple the number of police officers killed in 2014. <br /><br /> Prohibition is a bigger threat than Black Lives Matter. <br /><br /> Of course, it's possible that crime will rise again. Few agree about why it dropped in the first place. <br /><br /> Maybe it's the increase in video cameras and cellphones that allow people to see and report crime. Some even credit the smoking bans that put smokers on the street where they keep an eye on things. Or looser gun laws -- criminals now don't know whether a victim might be armed. And so on. <br /><br /> Heather Mac Donald says crime fell after computer-directed policing sent more cops to high-crime neighborhoods and officers started arresting people for "quality of life" crimes like public urination. Crime continued to fall because "tough on crime" laws put more criminals in jail and kept them there longer. Bad guys don't commit new crimes if they're in jail. <br /><br /> But how many people is it right to lock up? America now jails more than <em>any</em> other country. Almost 700 out of every 100,000 Americans are now in jail. In Germany, just 78 people out of 100,000 are. Are Americans so much more criminal? <br /><br /> "Yes," says Mac Donald, and America should jail <em>more</em> people. "We have a crime problem, not a prison problem. Only 3 percent of all people who commit a violent victimization or property crime end up in prison. You have to work very hard to end up in prison." <br /><br /> That may be true. But when 17 states cut imprisonment rates over the past decade, they experienced a <em>decline</em> in crime. <br /><br /> A big irony here is that despite the crime rate dropping -- and indicators of racial accord such as intermarriage improving -- more cops are being armed, armored and trained as if they are at war -- with drugs and with protesters -- and told they are victims of a "war on cops." <br /><br /> We should mourn both people killed by criminals and those unnecessarily killed by cops. But beware of people who claim to have simple answers to America's race problems and crime problems. And beware of the media, which make it seem like life is getting worse. <br /><br /> It isn't.</p>John Stossel2016-07-13T07:00:00ZStossel: Libertarianism for BeginnersJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossel:-Libertarianism-for-Beginners/75825925709951870.html2016-07-06T07:00:00Z2016-07-06T07:00:00Z<p>It took me years to figure out that markets work better than government. <br /><br /> I started out as a typical Ralph Nader-influenced consumer reporter, convinced that companies constantly rip us off. To me and most of my fellow left-leaning reporters, the answer was always: more regulation. <br /><br /> Gradually, I figured out that regulation causes many more problems than the occasional rip-off artist does. Companies that served customers well prospered, while market competition meant cheaters seldom got away with cheating for long. <br /><br /> Regulation, by contrast, lasted forever. It punished innovation, making it harder for good people to offer better alternatives. <br /><br /> How do I spare people the long learning process I went through? <br /><br /> A former producer of mine, Todd Seavey, has written a book called "Libertarianism for Beginners." It lays down a few basic principles that make it easier to understand what a free market is -- and how everything government does interferes with that market. <br /><br /> "Your body, like all your property, should be yours to do with as you please so long as you do not harm the body or property of others without their permission," writes Seavey. That means government can't tell people what to do unless those people threaten harm. <br /><br /> Seavey didn't come up with that idea himself, of course. In the book, he describes the history of philosophers and economists who've urged people to follow that rule for some 200 years. <br /><br /> That rule helped make America the most prosperous and productive country in the world. <br /><br /> Unfortunately, while those libertarian ideas allowed innovation to flourish, government and regulation grew even faster. <br /><br /> A century ago in the U.S., government at all levels took up about 8 percent of the economy. Now it takes up about 40 percent. It regulates everything from the size of beverage containers to what questions must not be asked in job interviews. <br /><br /> How can people be expected to keep up with it all? <br /><br /> Seavey points out that it's backwards to expect them to try. Instead of just looking at the complicated mess government makes, we need to review the basic rules that got us here. <br /><br /> Instead of the rule being "government knows best" or "vote for the best leader," says Seavey, what if the basic legal rules were just: no assault, no theft, no fraud? Then most waste and bureaucracy that we fight about year after year wouldn't exist in the first place. <br /><br /> To most people, it sounds easier to leave big policy decisions -- about complex things like wages, food production and roads -- to government. Having to make our own decisions about everything and trade for everything in the marketplace sounds complicated. <br /><br /> But Seavey argues that the "hands off other people's stuff" rule would feel like second-nature if we were more consistent about enforcing it. "Even chimpanzees are capable of being outraged if other chimpanzees take their food so the basic impulses to defend property and to resist assault," he writes, "no doubt predate human history." <br /><br /> It's when politicians convince people that those simple rules aren't enough that voters decide to let bureaucrats, lawyers and politicians make the decisions instead. Then the public loses track of the complicated rules. Even the full-time media can't keep up with all the trickery. <br /><br /> We can -- and should -- keep reporting on government's broken promises and endless scandals. But to teach people they shouldn't count on government to produce good things in the first place, they need some basic philosophy. <br /><br /> Seavey's book may help, which is why I wrote the foreword to it. I like that the book has cartoons, making it more fun than dull economics textbooks. I hope it provides a model for looking at the world to people confused by stupid things government does. <br /><br /> But Seavey is too much the open-minded intellectual. He writes, "It may turn out that the system of control and redistribution that we thought was working to solve our problems was the real problem all along." <br /><br /> No. There's no "may turn out" about it. Forty-five years of watching government "solutions" go bad has taught me that state control rarely works, and it usually makes problems worse. Government control and redistribution is <em>definitely</em> the real problem.</p>John Stossel2016-07-06T07:00:00ZStossel: Convicted and UnemployedJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossel:-Convicted-and-Unemployed/833778955117683576.html2016-06-29T07:00:00Z2016-06-29T07:00:00Z<p>Just got out of jail? Odds are that within five years, you'll get caught doing something illegal and go back to jail. <br /><br /> This is bad for ex-cons, their victims, their families and America. <br /><br /> Some of these people, of course, are career criminals who ought to stay in jail. But most are people who deserve another chance. They are more likely to stay straight if they find work. Work gives people purpose. It fills the idle hours that get many people into trouble. <br /><br /> But America makes it extra hard for ex-cons to find work. Some states make it illegal. <br /><br /> Illinois bans ex-convicts from more than 118 professions. <br /><br /> I understand why people might not want ex-cons to be bank security guards or cops, but in many states (Illinois isn't unusual) the list of forbidden jobs goes way beyond that. <br /><br /> The Illinois Policy Institute, a free-market group that tries to get these laws tossed out, reports that ex-cons must give up on trying to become a nurse, architect, interior designer, dancehall operator, teacher, dietician, acupuncturist, cosmetologist, buyer of slaughtered livestock, geologist, etc. <br /><br /> Why? Who cares if a livestock buyer or geologist once served time? If employers want to hire him, why tell them, "No"? <br /><br /> When Lisa Creason was 19, she tried to steal from a cash register at a Subway sandwich shop. She says she only stole because she needed food for her baby. Creason was caught and arrested, and she served a year in jail. <br /><br /> Twenty years later, Creason graduated from nursing school. But when she went to take the test that would allow her to get a nursing license, she learned that because she was once convicted of a "forcible felony," her career path was impossible. <br /><br /> She said it felt as if the bureaucrats had told her: "I was meant to be in the 'hood, meant to be on government assistance." <br /><br /> This is not a good message. <br /><br /> "Lisa is a great example of someone who has changed her life," said the Institute's Kristina Rasmussen this week. "She is reformed. She wants to be a productive member of society." It has been 20 years since Lisa committed her crime, "but government gets in the way of her pursuing her profession." <br /><br /> The good news is "this year we got a bill passed and it will go to the governor. So there is hope for Lisa Creason." <br /><br /> It's hard to get rid of bad laws. It happens one reform at a time.<br /><br /> No one says that crimes these convicts committed don't matter, but punishing them forever doesn't help. Rasmussen said, "You went to jail, you paid your debt to society. Coming out, how are we going to treat you? Are we going to deny you work that keeps you and your family out of trouble ... deny you that opportunity, and you turn either to a life of crime again or dependency?" <br /><br /> Why do states have so many restrictions? "There are two forces at work," said Rasmussen. "One, government bureaucrats like being busybodies, deciding who gets to do what." They think that makes the world safer. <br /><br /> But there's another factor. "You have people who don't welcome competition," said Rasmussen. Existing businesses and unions don't like newcomers on their turf. "Who's easier to kick out of the pool of potential competitors than people just emerging out of the criminal justice system?" <br /><br /> Existing businesses -- the insiders -- fund politicians who pass rules that make it hard for newcomers to compete with them. The politicians convince themselves that their rules protect customers. But mostly, their rules protect the insiders. <br /><br /> But some competing businesses <em>want</em> to hire ex-cons, and when that works out, it's good for the businesses, their customers and the ex-cons. A Chicago suburb diner called Felony Franks hires <em>only </em>ex-felons, its policy being "that once a person has paid their debt to society after being convicted of a crime, that he or she should have the same rights and opportunities as others." <br /><br /> Of course, some ex-cons can be trusted while others cannot. But it's important to let employers and customers make those calls -- not a controlling, insider-protecting one-size-fits-all government.</p>John Stossel2016-06-29T07:00:00ZStossel on Dumb Warning LabelsJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossel-on-Dumb-Warning-Labels/739449790697229333.html2016-06-22T07:00:00Z2016-06-22T07:00:00Z<p>When you use a coffeepot, do you need a warning label to tell you: "Do not hold over people"? <br /><br /> Must a bicycle bell be sold with the warning: "Should be installed and serviced by a professional mechanic"? Of course not. Yet that bell also carries the warning: "Failure to heed any of these warnings may result in serious injury or death." <br /><br /> This is nuts. It's a <em>bell</em>. <br /><br /> The blizzard of warning labels means we often won't read ones we should, like the Clorox label that warns, do not use bleach "with other product ... hazardous gasses may result." No kidding. Mixing bleach and ammonia creates gasses that can kill people. <br /><br /> But I rarely bother to read warning labels anymore, because manufacturers put them on <em>everything</em>. <br /><br /> A utility knife bears the warning: "Blades are sharp." <br /><br /> I know about such dumb labels because Bob Dorigo Jones, author of "Remove Child Before Folding," asks his readers and radio listeners to send in ridiculous labels for his "Wacky Warning Label" contest. <br /><br /> "We do this to point out how the rules that legislatures and Congress make favor litigation," says Dorigo Jones. "We are the most litigious society on Earth. If the level of litigation in the United States was simply at the level of countries that we compete with for jobs in Asia and in Europe, we could save $589 billion a year." <br /><br /> America has more silly warnings mainly because, unlike the rest of the world, we don't have the "loser pays" rule in courts. That rule means that whoever wins a court battle is compensated by the loser. It creates an incentive not to bring frivolous cases. <br /><br /> In the U.S., the incentive is to try even dubious legal arguments and hope you'll hit the jackpot. Or maybe your enemy will pay you to avoid the bigger cost of hiring lawyers to continue the fight. <br /><br /> More lawsuits mean more frightened corporate lawyers smearing labels on everything, just in case "lack of warning" is an issue in a lawsuit. <br /><br /> That's probably why a toy Star Wars lightsaber comes with the label, "Not to Be Used as a Battle Device." Why would they bother to say that? Did someone sue, claiming they thought a lightsaber would do what it does in Star Wars movies? I don't know. The company never responded to our questions. <br /><br /> Some dumb labels are brought to us by dumb politicians. California requires warnings that something may be "toxic" or cause cancer on everything from foods to theme parks: "Disneyland Resort contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm." <br /><br />Gee thanks, California, but it would probably be better to warn kids about alligators over in Florida. <br /><br /> Dorigo Jones offers a prize to whomever submits the wackiest label. The lightsaber label won this year, earning Susannah Peat of Carmel, Indiana, a thousand dollars. You can submit your choices to try to win next year's prize. <br /><br /> Please do. It's important to make fun of lawyer-driven stupidity that distracts us from more important risks.<br /> <br /> I suppose I shouldn't really blame companies. They've been sued successfully so many times for not having labels that they feel they must try to protect themselves. Injuries aren't the real danger here. <br /><br />Lawyers and politicians are. <br /><br /> When companies get sued, they end up charging higher prices to cover the cost of the lawyers. So those warning labels not only distract us but also are part of a process that makes us all poorer. <br /><br /> I worry that they also make us stupider. <br /><br /> Economists say that when people assume that government protects us from all possible harm, we acquire a false sense of security. We stop looking out for ourselves. <br /><br /> Those warning labels give us the impression that the law has assessed every possible risk -- if something were seriously dangerous, government wouldn't allow it. <br /><br /> Lawyers and legislators' insistence that most every action be bound by written rules makes many of us forget to use own own brains.</p>John Stossel2016-06-22T07:00:00ZStossel's Lunch with Hillary: 'She was very friendly -- for a while.'John Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossels-Lunch-with-Hillary:-She-was-very-friendly----for-a-while./-540797709277666035.html2016-06-15T17:03:00Z2016-06-15T17:03:00Z<p>I had lunch with Hillary Clinton. <br /><br /> Really. <br /><br /> I was on vacation on the Caribbean island of Anguilla, at a hotel that's a mixture of villas-for-rent that stand right next to big houses owned by rich Americans. <br /><br /> One day, several black SUVs arrived -- men in suits wearing earpieces got out. I asked another tourist, "What's that about?" <br /><br /> "Bill and Hillary Clinton may stay here," he said. <br /><br /> Another tourist said, "That's just a rumor." But a few days later, Secret Service men surrounded a big house owned by Black Entertainment Television billionaire Bob Johnson. He's a big Clinton supporter. It was clear that the former president had arrived. <br /><br /> We then wondered, "Are <em>both</em> Bill and Hillary here?" <br /><br /> This was 2006, five years after Bill left office, 10 years after his affairs with Monica Lewinsky and others had been revealed. Pundits said the Clintons had a "political marriage" -- that they didn't actually live together. <br /><br /> So we tourists asked, "Is it Bill with someone else?" <br /><br /> We got our answer quickly. There were the former president and first lady, strolling down our beach. <br /><br />"Holding hands!" gasped a tourist. "Is it just for show?" Who knows? But they certainly acted as if they liked each other. <br /><br /> So my brother-in-law invited them to lunch. <br /><br /> Why did he think they might accept? Because he's a successful investor who, years before, squandered money on a group called the Democratic Leadership Council. Its goal was to bring Democrats back to centrist economics. <br /><br /> The Clintons had convinced him that they were "responsible" Democrats (sometimes Bill was). So, by donating money, my brother-in-law helped Bill Clinton become president. <br /><br /> Donating money: That gets the Clintons' attention. Our lunch invitation was quickly accepted. Of course, they didn't know that I would be there. <br /><br /> I sat next to Hillary Clinton. She was very friendly -- for a while. <br /><br /> Being a provocateur, I brought up a local controversy: Some Chinese workers were sleeping in old shipping containers, four to a container. They had moved to Anguilla to help build hotels. <br /><br /> "This is why we need regulation!" she told me. <br /><br /> I pointed out that the workers weren't slaves. They'd come to Anguilla only because their alternatives in China must have been significantly worse. <br /><br /> Of course, the housing the Chinese workers inhabited wasn't up to American standards, but the standards Clinton wants would raise costs. That would eliminate opportunities. Some of those workers might never have gotten the chance to leave China and better their lives. Our well-intended rules often create nasty, unintended consequences. <br /><br /> For example, after Western media complained that Bangladeshi workers were abused in "sweatshops," many of those businesses closed. "Good!" said the media. "We stopped the abuse!" But then Oxfam researchers discovered that many of those now unemployed workers were begging for food on the streets.<br /><br /> Some became prostitutes. <br /><br /> Clinton replied, "I heard about that study, but most regulation <em>improves</em> living conditions: zoning rules, affirmative action, licensing, minimum wage ... " <br /><br /> I responded, "Well, I'm a libertarian and ... " <br /><br /> "I know who you are!" she interrupted. We were off. I give her credit: She argued with me for half an hour. Finally, she'd had enough. She just ignored me for the rest of the meal. <br /><br /> Clinton's wish to regulate workers' sleeping arrangements is a symptom of "lawyers' disease." Like most politicians, she assumes problems are best solved with new rules. She doesn't notice that most new rules create new problems. Worse problems. Problems that often take away opportunity altogether. <br /><br /> I don't want to live in a shipping container. But when politicians say "no one" may, they prevent desperate people from improving their lives. <br /><br /> America's settlers lived in one-room homes made of sticks and mud. Should that have been banned? <br /><br /> In China, millions try to live on a buck or two a day. Because Anguilla did not have Clinton-level housing regulation, some moved to Anguilla, where they can live cheaply and start businesses. Many now run grocery stores. Their lives are immeasurably better. <br /><br /> This is how life progresses, if politicians don't constantly interfere. <br /><br /> Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton is eager to interfere.</p>John Stossel2016-06-15T17:03:00ZStossel: "Clinton and Trump are Punishments We Don't Deserve"John Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossel:-Clinton-and-Trump-are-Punishments-We-Dont-Deserve/499798650432826904.html2016-06-09T19:16:00Z2016-06-09T19:16:00Z<p>Finally! Voters have another choice. The Libertarian Party nominated two socially tolerant but fiscally conservative former governors, Gary Johnson and Bill Weld. <br /><br /> Weld? Isn't the former Massachusetts governor just another Republican? <br /><br /> He didn't act like one when he and Johnson sat for an interview. <br /><br /> "This is the dream ticket for me," began Johnson. <br /><br /> "He doesn't look like a dream," I responded rudely. "He's not thought of by us libertarians as Libertarian."<br /> <br /> "Weld got the A from Cato Institute," said Johnson, referring to the libertarian think tank. "Weld was declared the fiscally most conservative governor in the country ... First day in office, Bill Weld furloughs 8,000 employees." <br /><br /> I hadn't known that. <br /><br /> "Nine percent of the state workforce," said Weld, "and I never received a single postcard asking, 'Where are those essential 8,000 employees?' I cut the budget 14 percent my first two months. Piece o' cake ... I'd love to see the federal government receive cuts like that." <br /><br /> Me, too. <br /><br /> Johnson added that his running mate was "pro-gay, pro-choice and pro-medical marijuana at a time nobody else was talking about this stuff." <br /><br /> But Weld also supported the Iraq War, saying that George W. Bush had "grown in office." As Massachusetts' governor, he backed the drug war and restrictions on gun ownership. <br /><br /> Today, about Iraq, he said, "I wasn't exactly waving flags when the invasion occurred ... That Iraq thing has turned out to be one of the worst mistakes ever." <br /><br /> Why did he push gun regulation? "There are a lot of bills kicking around in Massachusetts. I've been a hunter my entire life, a gun owner my entire life. I really consider myself a Second Amendment guy." <br /><br /> Today, Weld says he's ready to legalize marijuana. Johnson goes further, "I'm not advocating legalization of other drugs, but if we legalized all drugs tomorrow, the world would be a better place. Ninety percent of the drug problem is prohibition-related." <br /><br /> Both candidates sounded pretty libertarian to me. <br /><br /> "We don't buy the dog food that either party is selling," said Weld. "We don't buy government making decisions for people in their private lives, part of the Republican Party platform, and we don't buy the Democrats' penchant for spending money that we don't have." <br /><br /> Do Libertarians have a chance? Early polls show Johnson getting 10 percent of the vote, even though most Americans don't know who he is. Once people get to hear him, that number will grow. Lots of people want to elect someone other than Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. <br /><br /> "If Mickey Mouse were the third name, Mickey would get 30 percent," said Johnson, "but Mickey's not on the ballot in all 50 states." <br /><br /> Good point. Libertarians are the only third party likely to be on the ballot in all the states. <br /><br /> Trump calls Libertarians and Johnson "a fringe deal." <br /><br /> "Spot on!" replied Johnson. "Totally fringe! Small government, fiscally conservative, socially liberal." <br /><br /> What else do Libertarians stand for? Speeches at the nominating convention offer a sample: <br /> "A conservative will fight to live free. A Libertarian fights for everybody to live free." <br /><br /> "There exist in America more laws than an average reader could read -- reading 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for 600 years." <br /><br /> "The alcohol, tobacco and firearms industry ought to be a store, not a government agency." <br /><br /> Are Libertarians "isolationists?" No. They want to intervene in foreign countries. "We just believe in intervening by dropping philanthropy, tourism, free speech and free trade on other countries instead of bombs," said one convention speaker. <br /><br /> "When Donald Trump talks about deporting 11 million illegal immigrants, that's just wrong," says Gov. Johnson. "When he talks about building a fence across the border, that is just wrong. When he talks about killing families of Muslim terrorists, that is just wrong." <br /><br /> Johnson has a long list of disagreements with Trump: "When he talks about free market but he's going to force Apple to make their iPads and iPhones in the United States, that's just wrong! When he talks about a 35 percent tariff, that's just wrong! When he says he's going to bring back waterboarding or torture or whatever, that's just wrong!" <br /><br /> He can level just as many complaints about Hillary Clinton. <br /><br /> The trial comes in November, and voters are the jury. I hope they decide to grant Americans liberty in both the personal and economic realms. <br /><br /> Clinton and Trump are punishments we don't deserve.</p>John Stossel2016-06-09T19:16:00ZStossel's Latest: Taught Not to TryJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossels-Latest:-Taught-Not-to-Try/555920064506021285.html2016-06-01T07:00:00Z2016-06-01T07:00:00Z<p>The first step in inventing something shouldn't be waiting for government approval. What would ever get done?<br /><br /> "Regulators like to see new types of law and regulation imposed upon the internet and emerging technologies," warns Adam Thierer, author of "Permissionless Innovation."<br /><br /> "From drones to driverless cars to the 'internet of things' ... they want to put the genie back in the bottle of all this wonderful innovation that's out there."<br /><br /> "Think about 20 years ago. If Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, if Steve Jobs of Apple or anybody from Google had to come to the government, say, the Federal Communications Commission and get their blessing or a license to operate, you have to wonder how many of them would even exist today," said Thierer.<br /><br /> I assume that most would not exist, or if they did, they would be much less useful than they are now. All Silicon Valley innovation would have been slower and dumber had they been forced to apply for FCC permission each step of the way.<br /><br /> Luckily, in the '90s, a Republican Congress and President Bill Clinton gave entrepreneurs a green light. <br /><br />Shrinking regulation was a popular idea then. As a result, American innovation pulled ahead of the rest of the world. We got iPhones, Google and Facebook because competing private businesses ran the show.<br /><br /> In Europe, politicians took control. French bureaucrats created a computer network called Minitel and spent a fortune giving free computers to millions of people. The Minitel computers replaced paper phone books. People also used them to chat, book train reservations, etc.<br /><br /> Lots of people celebrated the "forward-thinking" French bureaucrats, but by 2012, Minitel was dead -- replaced by unplanned innovation from America.<br /><br /> Europe treated innovation as something that could be run by centralized industrial policy. Today, many in the U.S. want to follow that example.<br /><br /> Try anything with a drone that involves making money, and government says you have to wait for permission from the Federal Aviation Administration.<br /><br /> "That's not the way innovation happens," says Thierer. "It's a bottom-up spontaneous kind of thing. Create the right environment and innovators innovate."<br /><br /> Government worries about irresponsible things you might do with your drone, like fly it into an airplane. But drones weighs less than seagulls, which hit planes all the time.<br /><br /> "If you base all public policy on hypothetical worst-case scenarios, then <em>best </em>case scenarios never come about," says Thierer. "We'll never get life-saving or life-enriching innovations."<br /><br /> Fortunately, not everyone listens to regulators. At one hospital, volunteers use 3-D printers to create prosthetic hands for kids with missing limbs. It's illegal to make such a device without FDA approval, but they do it anyway.<br /><br /> Things can go wrong. But we have mechanisms for dealing with mistakes other than requiring licensing that prevents new things from ever being. Parasitic lawyers will sue you if you injure someone. Property rights and common law can be used to punish those who violate the rights of others.<br /><br /> Says Thierer, "There are always risks in the world. But we have ways of solving that without preemptive, precautionary, permission-based controls."<br /><br /> When we consumers see a new invention or new way of doing business, we ask whether we might benefit from it. Politicians and bureaucrats ask whether the innovator got their permission. Can we tax it? Is it fair? Is it safe? Government errs on the side of saying no.<br /><br /> When we assume that everything new must be approved by the state, innovation heads to other countries. Drone-makers now are moving to Canada and Australia, warns Thierer. Driverless car companies are going to the U.K.<br /><br /> It might seem prudent to have a rule that says: Don't try anything new unless we're sure it's safe. It's actually called "the precautionary principle," and that's basically the law in Europe. But reasonable as that sounds, "make sure it's safe" also means: Don't do anything for the first time.<br /><br /> This is a recipe for stagnation. Think of all the innovation that came out of Europe lately. I can't think of much either -- Ikea, the wireless heart rate monitor. Of course, they were invented years ago, before regulation grew and European innovation died.<br /><br /> Let's not let it happen here.</p>John Stossel2016-06-01T07:00:00ZPrivate Is BetterJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Private-Is-Better/-282655695613924104.html2016-05-25T07:00:00Z2016-05-25T07:00:00Z<p>Our next president will almost certainly be Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. <br /><br /> But I take heart knowing that America's founders imposed checks and balances, so there will be limits on what bad things the next president can do. <br /><br /> Most of what government does is expensive and useless, no matter who is president. Or governor. Or mayor. <br /><br /> Politicians say there are so many things only government should do -- explore outer space, provide airport security, supply utilities, etc. But even those things work better when the private sector does them. <br /><br /> NASA put rockets into space. But the private company SpaceX found a way to bring those same rockets safely back to earth. SpaceX now puts satellites in orbit for much less than NASA thought possible. <br /><br /> Private, competitive enterprises routinely find ways to do things more efficiently than lazy bureaucracies. <br /><br />After all, government can keep screwing up forever and just tax you more. But private companies <em>must</em> make a profit or die. <br /><br /> "Everybody loves the space program," says Lori Garver on my TV show this week. Garver was President Obama's former No. 2 at NASA, but now she admits, "It's a government bureaucracy. Their incentives are not to do things more efficiently." <br /><br /> Obama actually tried to privatize more of it. "NASA uses test stands that cost $300 million to refurbish, says Garver. "When I went to (Amazon's) Jeff Bezos's facility, Blue Origins, they were building the same quality test stand for $30 million. ...That is crazy." <br /><br /> Airport security also works better when government doesn't run it. <br /><br /> After 9/11, politicians wanted to show they were making airport security tougher. Republicans at least vowed that TSA workers would not be unionized. But a few years later, Democrats won, and TSA became unionized. Now, lines are extra long, and the union whines that it needs more resources. That would be more money wasted. <br /><br /> Fortunately, Congress allows airports to beg for the right to opt out of the government-run system. Security lines move faster at airports that have. At San Francisco International Airport, the largest to privatize, travelers even told us the screeners were nicer. <br /><br /> They're also better at finding stuff. The TSA tested them and found them twice as good at finding contraband as TSA screeners. <br /><br /> Private companies try harder. San Francisco's company has screeners practice racing to find mock contraband. The fastest wins $2,000. <br /><br /> More airports are asking the Department of Homeland Security to allow them to use private screeners. <br /><br />DHS stalls, because governments rarely relinquish power voluntarily. <br /><br /> In quiet ways, privatization keeps improving our lives. A thousand American cities have now switched from government-run to private water systems. <br /><br /> When the government-run system in Flint, Michigan, poisoned people, pundits made it sound like cold-hearted Republican politicians created the problem. But government at all levels, both parties, failed in Flint. <br /><br /> Government water departments routinely neglect basic maintenance. In Jersey City, New Jersey, they let the pipes rust. The water didn't taste good, failed government's own tests -- and kept getting more expensive. <br /><br /> City workers said there wasn't anything they could do. <br /><br /> "It can't be done" is an answer heard in bureaucracies everywhere. So the mayor put the water contract out for bid. A for-profit company won. Within months, the private company fixed pipes the government couldn't fix. <br /><br /> But the private company hired the same government workers. I asked some: Are you working harder now?<br /><br /> "Yes. You're always on the go," one said. <br /><br /> "Were you goofing off before?" I asked. "Sitting around?" <br /><br /> "Well, occasionally, yes," one worker admitted. <br /><br /> "What if the private company screws up?" I asked the man who privatized the system back when he was mayor, Bret Schundler. <br /><br /> "They're fired. They're toast. If they blow it, we're going to give the contract to somebody else," said Schundler. "There's nothing like the prospect of a hanging to concentrate the mind." <br /><br /> Right. Private companies must do better because they get fired if they don't. Government never fires itself. <br /><br /> Most of what makes our lives better -- flush toilets, air-conditioning, Google, Facebook, cellphones, pacemakers, vegetables in winter, etc. -- comes from the private sector. <br /><br /> There's nothing stopping people everywhere from enjoying improvements like the ones in Jersey City, in San Francisco's airport and at SpaceX -- nothing except government bureaucracy and our outdated belief that many jobs just belong in government's clumsy hands.</p>John Stossel2016-05-25T07:00:00ZNasty PoliticsJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Nasty-Politics/-577123872377952986.html2016-05-18T07:00:00Z2016-05-18T07:00:00Z<p>This presidential election is like no other. <br /><br /> Most election years around this time, I do a TV show on nasty political commercials. Pundits explain which ads worked, which didn't, and who won because he raised more money and spent more on negative ads. <br /><br /> Among Republicans this year, says Ad Age, Jeb Bush's campaign and supporters spent the most, $80 million, followed by Marco Rubio at $70 million. It didn't seem to help. <br /><br /> Democrats spent even more. Clinton's campaign and backers spent $153 million and Sanders' $76 million. <br /><br /> Donald Trump, of course, was the brunt of much of that negative advertising. Clinton, Sanders, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Bush, the Club for Growth, Our Principles, New Day for America, Correct the Record and Keep the Promise super PACs ran commercials that I thought would devastate the Trump campaign. <br /><br /> Some replayed flip-flops. After Trump complained about China "stealing our jobs," David Letterman asked Trump where his ties came from. "China," admitted Trump. <br /><br /> "Where are your shirts made?" asked Letterman. <br /><br /> "We employ people in Bangladesh," said Trump. And in a debate, he said, "We're doing many, many deals outside of the United States." <br /><br /> Political commercials showed that Trump once pushed for forms of Obamacare that most Republicans hate. In one ad, a reporter asked Trump about health care: <br /><br /> Reporter: Universal health care?<br /><br /> Trump: I am going to take care of everybody.<br /><br /> Reporter: Who pays for it?<br /><br /> Trump: The government is going to pay for it. <br /><br /> Other ads played a sound bite of Trump saying, "I probably identify more as a Democrat." <br /><br /> Trump's opponents spent millions to reveal Trump in his own words, caught contradicting himself on TV. <br /><br />Pundits called the ads "devastating." Most Republican primary voters didn't care.<br /> <br /> Soon, the ads may get still nastier. <br /><br /> Every election season pundits complain about "negative campaigning." When President Obama last ran, he said, "It can seem like a return to civility is not possible." Four years before, reporters claimed "candidates have taken dirty to a whole new level." <br /><br /> People say they long for a return to politeness in politics -- but politics was never polite. <br /><br /> Thomas Jefferson's supporters printed handbills that said: "John Adams is a blind, bald, crippled, toothless man who secretly wants to start a war with France. When he is not busy importing mistresses from Europe, he's trying to marry one of his sons to a daughter of King George III." <br /><br /> Adams supporters came back with: "If Thomas Jefferson wins, murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest will be openly taught and practiced. Are you prepared to see your dwellings in flames? Female chastity violated? Children writhing on the pike?" <br /><br /> Had TV existed then, those would have been powerful commercials. <br /><br /> One hundred sixty-eight years later, when Barry Goldwater ran against Lyndon Johnson, Johnson supporters claimed Goldwater was a John Birch Society member and a schizophrenic. A magazine called "Fact" got a thousand psychiatrists to sign a statement that said Goldwater was insane. None of it was true, and Goldwater later won a defamation suit against Fact. But by then, the election was over. <br /><br /> Despite such deceit, we're probably better off with negative ads. <br /><br /> Every year some candidates say, "I will run a positive campaign." <br /><br /> Part of my brain says, "That would be nice; maybe we'll learn more about their plans." But research shows that's rarely true. Fluffy "positive" ads don't tell us much. <br /><br /> This year Bernie Sanders ran ads showing him hugging people while cheering crowds surrounded him and singers sang "All come to look for America." <br /><br /> What does that even mean? <br /><br /> The beauty of negative ads is that the accusations at least purport to be facts. Vanderbilt University political scientist John Geer found that three-quarters of negative political ads from 1960 to 2004 attacked real statements of policy from the opposing candidate. Such policy statements can be checked. <br /><br /> Even if those statements turn out to be based on lies, those lies force the other side to reply with facts. <br /><br />Voters actually <em>learn</em> something. And usually, eventually, the truth comes out. <br /><br /> So two cheers for negative ads -- something good comes from nasty. I'll play some of the worst ads on my show this week. The messages are mean, but truth often is.</p>John Stossel2016-05-18T07:00:00ZFree-Market MedicineJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Free-Market-Medicine/5576404959276726.html2016-05-11T07:00:00Z2016-05-11T07:00:00Z<p>President Obama's proudest accomplishment is increasing the number of Americans with health insurance.<br /><br /> A better idea would be to help people escape government care altogether. <br /><br /> As I wrote after my recent surgery, hospital bureaucracy is toxic for patients. Unfortunately, calls for reform usually come from people who want more of the same -- more health insurance coverage, more Medicaid, more layers of government oversight. <br /><br /> Our likely next president will push for more government-run health care. <br /><br /> "Single payer would have lower costs," she claimed when pushing HillaryCare. <br /><br /> Progressives love that phrase, "single payer." It suggests that medical costs will be covered not by you but by some benign other, without the nastiness of profit. <br /><br /> "Get profit out, get the private health insurance company out," says filmmaker Michael Moore. <br /><br /> I reminded him that under Canada's government-run system, patients wait in line for care, often for months. He replied, "That's the line where they live three years longer than we do! That's the line I want to be in!" <br /><br /> It's true -- Canadians and Europeans live longer. Progressives cite that to plug single payer. But it's deceitful. Canadians live longer not because their health care system is better, but because they <em>behave</em> differently. They drive less often and so have fewer accidents. They murder each other less often. They're less likely to be fat, or as I said to Moore, to "look like you." <br /><br /> I give him credit for laughing, but then he claimed Canadians live longer "because they never have to worry about paying to go see the doctor." <br /><br /> Give me a break. It's nice not to worry, but it won't save your life. Some Canadians worry so much about <em>not</em> getting treatment that they travel to the U.S. to see doctors. <br /><br /> In Canada, we do find one pocket of free-market medicine: clinics that offer cutting-edge, life-saving technology without waiting lines. <br /><br /> But you need four legs to get that treatment. If Canadians want a CT scan, the waiting list is a month. But a private veterinary clinic will scan your dog today. <br /><br /> When government is in charge, you get long lines and someone else deciding if you <em>get</em> treatment. <br /><br /> I don't claim that America's partly private system is great. I wrote about bureaucracy and indifferent customer service. Some of you mocked my "whining": "What a jerk. They save his life and he complains."<br /> <br /> You have a point. I'm now back at work, and playing beach volleyball, less than four weeks later. I'm grateful that I got good medical care. <br /><br /> But I'm a consumer reporter. I don't see why the rest of the experience can't be good, too. <br /><br /> On my TV show this week, my guests describe real reform: free-market medicine. <br /><br /> David Goldhill, author of "Catastrophic Care: Why Everything We Think We Know About Health Care Is Wrong," points out that, "Unfortunately, the customer of the hospital isn't the patient, it's the insurer, it's Medicare, it's Medicaid ... (T)hat difference explains a lot of the things that we are dissatisfied with in American health care." <br /><br /> But Goldhill points to one favorable trend. "Increasingly, people have high deductible (insurance) plans ... (I)t's the most promising thing in health care." <br /><br /> Many patients hate high deductibles. But they are useful because they make us realize that care is not "free." <br /><br /> Patients with high deductibles and Health Savings Accounts ask important questions: "Doc, do I really need that test? What does it cost?" They shop around. <br /><br /> Suddenly, there's the beginning of an actual market. When patients shop, doctors strive to please patients rather than distant bureaucrats. More doctors give out their email addresses and cellphone numbers, and shorten waiting times. Their bills are easier to read because the providers want customers to pay them! <br /><br /> Government and insurance companies don't make health care free. Such third-party payments just hide the cost, which increases the costs and makes payment more complicated. <br /><br /> Even the fact that medical mistakes are now the third leading cause of death barely makes the bureaucracy sit up and take notice. All politicians care about is that you vote for them before you expire.</p>John Stossel2016-05-11T07:00:00ZMoney Down a HoleJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Money-Down-a-Hole/798446309416591989.html2016-05-04T07:00:00Z2016-05-04T07:00:00Z<p>The Republican and Democratic presidential nominees have been chosen. Ignore the deluded supporters of Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz. It's over. The odds at ElectionBettingOdds.com make it clear: It will be Donald vs. Hillary. <br /><br /> A closer contest would be: Who will bankrupt America first, Trump or Clinton? <br /><br /> Trump's a contender because he promises a trade war. That's what gave us the Great Depression. Trump claims that China is "raping" America. No, Donald, rape is <em>force</em>. Your proposed tariffs are also force. Trade is <em>voluntary</em> and good. Big difference. <br /><br /> Clinton might bankrupt America first, however, because Democrats promise more regulation and handouts -- free college, free pre-K, higher minimum wage, etc. Similar activist government spending just destroyed Puerto Rico. <br /><br /> This week, Puerto Rico defaulted on $370 million worth of bonds. <br /><br /> The territory's "generous" government squandered the island's resources. Decades of leftist governors hired their friends. In Puerto Rico and Greece, about one in four workers works for government, compared to 14.6 percent in the mainland U.S. <br /><br /> Puerto Rico's current governor points out that Puerto Ricans enjoy 30 days of paid vacation every year, 18 sick days and 14 paid holidays. That's about two months paid leave every year. No wonder businesses wither. <br /><br /> The government gives "free" energy to government-owned enterprises. This encouraged "investments" like the government-owned ice rink. Yes, ice skating was what bureaucrats thought the tropical island needed. Maybe they saw that movie, "Cool Runnings," and thought winter sports in the tropics sounded fun. <br /><br /> Puerto Rico's long reliance on handouts and welfare created a culture of helplessness and entitlement. A U.S. inspector general found that some Puerto Ricans got Social Security disability payments because of their "inability to communicate in English." Really. They live on a Spanish-speaking island. <br /><br /> After years of decline, one Puerto Rican governor tried to do the right thing. Luis Fortuno, a free market guy who admired Ronald Reagan, froze government salaries, cut spending by 20 percent, eliminated some stupid regulations and fired 17,000 government workers. At the time, 250 policemen did nothing but approve liquor licenses. <br /><br /> Fortuno's policies might have helped the economy, but voters didn't like the cuts. Thousands of union protesters held demonstrations outside his house, calling him a Nazi. Fortuno was defeated in the 2012 election by a leftist, Garcia Padilla. <br /><br /> Padilla pledged to "create 50,000 jobs." But governments don't create real jobs. Padilla destroyed jobs by doing things like raising corporate taxes. As the island went broke, he promised to "cut down on tax evasion," "create two working groups to find ways to boost liquidity," and so on.<br /><br /> Give me a break. <br /><br /> This week, former governor Fortuno emailed me, "The territory's government increased expenses by almost 10 percent in 2013. That move commenced a downward spiral." <br /><br /> Now, more than a thousand Puerto Ricans leave the island every week for places with slightly less-bad politicians. But this will make life even tougher for Puerto Ricans left behind. Government having fewer suckers to tax makes it even harder to pay the bills. <br /><br /> Puerto Rico's debt has risen in the past 15 years from 60 percent to 100 percent of its gross domestic product. If it were a country, its fiscal situation would be about as bad as that of Greece. Like Greece, Puerto Rico is discovering that, eventually, other people get tired of bailing you out. <br /><br /> A group of hedge funds issued a report recommending going farther down the free market path Fortuno started on. They call for further simplification of labor regulations, cutting the number of government workers and privatizing government-run firms. <br /><br /> But some in Congress, warning of a "humanitarian crisis," want to bail the island out instead. Fortuno says that's a terrible idea. "That would reward irresponsible behavior." <br /><br /> It would. The real solution is to build a future in which bailouts aren't necessary, in which growing businesses, not government spending projects, flourish. <br /><br /> I hope Clinton and Trump learn something by watching other economies fail before the entire U.S. ends up like Puerto Rico and Greece.</p>John Stossel2016-05-04T07:00:00ZHospital IIJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Hospital-II/870814372815042108.html2016-04-27T07:00:00Z2016-04-27T07:00:00Z<p>Last week's column on my lung surgery struck a nerve. Many of you wished me well. Others said I deserve to die. <br /><br /> "He likes free markets?" sneered one Internet commenter. "In a truly free market, society wouldn't subsidize the cost of his smoking. In a truly free market, he'd be dead." <br /><br /> No, I wouldn't be dead. In a real free market, I would pay for my own care and that care would be cheaper and better because that's what market competition <em>does</em>. <br /><br /> Also, I've never smoked cigarettes. Some people who don't smoke get lung cancer, too. <br /><br /> The angriest comments were in The Washington Post: "Stossel should ask for his money back and the doctors should put cancer back into his lungs. That's what happens in a consumer-driven market, right?" <br /><br /> People can get very unhinged when libertarians argue that markets work better. <br /><br /> "HOW would that work? WHO would pay the nurses and the staff that keep a hospital running?"?<br /><br /> Who do they think pays <em>now</em>? Government and insurance companies paying doesn't make care "free." Government has no money of its own; it takes it from us. Such third-party payments just hide the cost. <br /><br /> "Is John Stossel's life worth more than the guy who collects my trash? ... turn health care over to his jackboot crew, only the rich will live to old age." <br /><br /> But it's the shopping around -- including shopping by the rich -- that fuels the innovation and discounting that extends <em>everyone's </em>lives, not just the rich. Charity will help the very poor. <br /><br /> "Let's see him negotiate the price of chemo vs. surgery when he's in the ambulance on way to hospital. ... Medical care is not amenable to usual market forces."<br /><br /> But it is. Patients wouldn't need to negotiate from the ambulance because such decisions would have already been made for them by thousands of previous patients, especially the 2 percent who pay the closest attention. Word would get around that hospital X is a rip-off but hospital Y gives better treatment for less. <br /><br />Doctors would advertise prices. Rating agencies would evaluate them for quality. Everyone will know more.<br /><br /> A hospital worker complained about this "customer mentality. A hospital is NOT a restaurant. It is not Burger King. You don't get to have it your way." <br /><br /> Why not? Must we just passively take what we're handed when it comes to medicine, even though we'd never accept that with hamburgers? <br /><br /> Medical patients tolerate indifferent service the way people tolerate waiting at the post office. The Postal Service, we were told, can't possibly make a profit, get it there overnight, etc. Then came UPS and FedEx. <br /><br />Competition showed what is possible. <br /><br /> "Stossel may think he's getting 'excellent medical care'," writes Cato Institute health care analyst Michael Cannon. <br /><br /> "But he doesn't know it, and neither do his doctors, because there is no market system to show how much better it could be. ... In a market system, competition would push providers to strive to keep patients from falling through these cracks. ... In our system, there is no such pressure on providers ... because the real customer is government. As a result, few patients know how unsafe American medicine is." <br /><br /> Cannon warns, "Without that information, patients -- even when they are smart, skeptical and wealthy like Stossel -- are constantly consenting to inferior care." <br /><br /> A few extra-savvy consumers might be aware that my hospital got a "B" rating on The Leapfrog Group's Hospital Safety Score, and, says Cannon, it rates NewYork-Presbyterian "below average" in nine categories, including collapsed lungs and surgical site infections. "Did Stossel know about these safety measures before he chose NewYork-Presbyterian?" <br /><br /> No, I didn't. <br /><br /> I am grateful for my hospital's lifesaving technology and the skills of some of my caregivers. But it would be better if hospitals were as efficient as FedEx and most of what's offered by the private sector. <br /><br /> My local supermarket is open 24/7. They rarely make me wait, prices are low, there's plenty of choice, and they rarely poison me. <br /><br /> That's what competition brings -- if people pay with their own money.</p>John Stossel2016-04-27T07:00:00ZHospitalJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Hospital/143529193480657968.html2016-04-20T07:00:00Z2016-04-20T07:00:00Z<p>I write this from the hospital. Seems I have lung cancer.<br /><br /> My doctors tell me my growth was caught early and I'll be fine. Soon I will barely notice that a fifth of my lung is gone. I believe them. After all, I'm at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital. U.S. News & World Report ranked it No. 1 in New York. I get excellent medical care here.<br /><br /> But as a consumer reporter, I have to say, the hospital's customer service stinks. Doctors keep me waiting for hours, and no one bothers to call or email to say, "I'm running late." Few doctors give out their email address. Patients can't communicate using modern technology.<br /><br /> I get X-rays, EKG tests, echocardiograms, blood tests. Are all needed? I doubt it. But no one discusses that with me or mentions the cost. Why would they? The patient rarely pays directly. Government or insurance companies pay.<br /><br /> I fill out long medical history forms by hand and, in the next office, do it again. Same wording: name, address, insurance, etc. <br /><br /> I shouldn't be surprised that hospitals are lousy at customer service. The Detroit Medical Center once bragged that it was one of America's first hospitals to track medication with barcodes. Good! But wait -- ordinary supermarkets did that <em>decades</em> before.<br /><br /> Customer service is sclerotic because hospitals are largely socialist bureaucracies. Instead of answering to consumers, which forces businesses to be nimble, hospitals report to government, lawyers and insurance companies.<br /><br /> Whenever there's a mistake, politicians impose new rules: the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act paperwork, patient rights regulations, new layers of bureaucracy...<br /><br /> Nurses must follow state regulations that stipulate things like, "Notwithstanding subparagraph (i) of paragraph (a) of this subdivision, a nurse practitioner, certified under section sixty-nine hundred ten of this article and practicing for more than three thousand six hundred hours may comply with this paragraph in lieu of complying with the requirements of paragraph (a)..."<br /><br /> Try running a business with rules like that.<br /><br /> Adding to that is a fear of lawsuits. Nervous hospital lawyers pretend mistakes can be prevented with paper and procedure. Stressed hospital workers ignore common sense and follow rigid rules.<br /><br /> In the intensive care unit, night after night, machines beep, but often no one responds. Nurses say things like "old machines," "bad batteries," "we know it's not an emergency." Bureaucrats don't care if you sleep. No one sues because he can't sleep.<br /><br /> Some of my nurses were great -- concerned about my comfort and stress -- but other hospital workers were indifferent. When the customer doesn't pay, customer service rarely matters.<br /><br /> The hospital does have "patient representatives" who tell me about "patient rights." But it feels unnatural, like grafting wings onto a pig.<br /><br /> I'm as happy as the next guy to have government or my insurance company pay, but the result is that there's practically no free market. Markets work when buyer and seller deal directly with each other. That doesn't happen in hospitals.<br /><br /> You may ask, "How could it? Patients don't know which treatments are needed or which seller is best. Medicine is too complex for consumers to negotiate."<br /><br /> But cars, computers and airplane flights are complex, too, and the market still incentivizes sellers to discount and compete on service. It happens in medicine, too, when you get plastic surgery or Lasik surgery. Those doctors give patients their personal email addresses and cellphone numbers. They compete to <em>please</em> patients.<br /><br /> What's different about those specialties? The patient pays the bill.<br /><br /> Leftists say the solution to such problems is government health care. But did they not notice what happened at Veterans Affairs? Bureaucrats let veterans die, waiting for care. When the scandal was exposed, they didn't stop. USA Today reports that the abuse continues. Sometimes the VA's suicide hotline goes to voicemail.<br /><br /> Patients will have a better experience only when more of us spend our own money for care. That's what makes markets work.</p>John Stossel2016-04-20T07:00:00ZAnother Libertarian Moment?John Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Another-Libertarian-Moment/382501577636108617.html2016-04-13T07:00:00Z2016-04-13T07:00:00Z<p>The Libertarian Party might get more votes this year. <br /><br /> Before the primaries, Time Magazine, frequent pusher of trends that do not exist, put Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ken.) on its cover and called him the "most interesting man in politics." Then Paul fizzled, and pundits said the "libertarian moment," if there ever was one, had ended. <br /><br /> But Sen. Paul never ran as a libertarian. He ran as a libertarian-ish Republican, and he wasn't particularly convincing when he got to speak in debates. Americans were unimpressed. <br /><br /> But now that, according to ElectionBettingOdds.com, the presidential race will be a choice between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, Americans may give libertarianism a second look. <br /><br /> My TV show recently held a debate between the Libertarian Party's three leading presidential candidates. Compared to the Republican and Democratic contenders, the Libertarians sounded so reasonable to me.<br /> <br />Take immigration. <br /><br /> While Democrats pretend they will carefully vet refugees from Muslim parts of the world, Republicans talk about deporting 11 million people. By contrast, the Libertarians on my show talked about reducing border problems by simplifying our complicated immigration laws. <br /><br /> Immigrants often break our current laws because the alternative is waiting years while trying to wade through our immigration bureaucracy. According to some estimates, that wait could last forever -- up to 100 years. <br /><br /> "Incentivize <em>legal</em> immigration so that we can cut down on illegal immigration," said Libertarian candidate Austin Petersen. "If we make a simpler path to citizenship, then people will not break the law, if they know that there's a chance that they can come here." <br /><br /> Republicans like Trump talk about illegal immigrants as if they're bad people who are bound to break other laws because they climbed over border fences. But as Petersen asked, "If you were living in a Third World country and your family was starving to death, who would not cross that wall?" <br /><br /> My parents came here from Germany in 1930. They wanted to get away from European stagnation. Who can blame them? I wouldn't be embarrassed if they had come here illegally. <br /><br /> Donald Trump shouts about bad effects of global trade, but his destructive bans and tariffs would do much more harm. <br /><br /> Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson asked during the debate, "Who benefits from free trade but you and I as consumers? If China wants to subsidize goods and services that they send to the United States, who benefits? We do!" <br /><br /> He's absolutely right. Cheaper goods from abroad mean Americans have more money to spend on other things, and cheaper ingredients for products we manufacture. Yes, some Americans lose jobs, but more gain work, and better work, because free trade helps Americans expand businesses -- in America. <br /><br /> Republicans and Democrats also engage in foolish talk about "creating jobs." Donald Trump promises, "I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created!" <br /><br /> God has yet to speak up, but Hillary Clinton says not only will she create jobs, she'll create " <em>good</em>-paying jobs"! <br /><br /> That's why Johnson was so refreshing in the debate. He said that in eight years as New Mexico's governor, "I didn't create a single job! <em>Government</em> doesn't create jobs. The private sector does." <br /><br /> Right. But government sure can get in the way.<br /><br /> "To start a business, I have to fill out a thousand forms and report to OSHA," the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, said candidate John McAfee during the debate. "This is the fundamental problem. If we remove these barriers, industry will take care of itself and jobs will improve." <br /><br /> The Libertarian candidates were also skeptical about government imposition on drug users, on cellphone owners who don't want their phones hacked into and on people trying to accomplish things without first begging for approval from bureaucrats. <br /><br /> I liked how McAfee put it: "Some fundamental principles are all that we need to live together in a sane and harmonious fashion. We cannot hit one another. We cannot take each other's stuff. We must keep our word, our agreements and our contracts." <br /><br /> That's right. And that's enough. Government should enforce those contracts but otherwise stay out of our lives. I nodded in agreement when McAfee said, "Personal privacy and personal freedom are paramount to any society in which I would want to live."</p>John Stossel2016-04-13T07:00:00ZFreedom to DisagreeJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Freedom-to-Disagree/620078431568237782.html2016-04-06T07:00:00Z2016-04-06T07:00:00Z<p>"Should a Jewish baker be <em>forced</em> to bake a cake for a Nazi wedding?" <br /><br /> I asked that strange but important question during last week's debate between three Libertarian presidential candidates. You can see the second hour of that debate Friday, on my Fox Business Network TV show. <br /><br /> If you're disappointed by Democrats' and Republicans' eagerness to limit your freedom, I urge you to check out the libertarians. <br /><br /> Presidential candidate Austin Petersen, founder of LibertarianRepublic.com, says individuals should be free to discriminate -- for example, refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple if gay marriage violates their beliefs. <br /><br /> Libertarian presidential candidate, and former New Mexico governor, Gary Johnson, wasn't willing to go that far. It's a reminder libertarians don't always see eye to eye. <br /><br /> "If we discriminate on the basis of religion," said Johnson, "you're going to find a whole class of people discriminated against. ... So it's harm to others." <br /><br /> Many people agree, but the debate over the Nazi wedding cake is a reminder that laws with good intentions often have bad consequences. If sellers can't decide to whom they will sell, they may be forced to participate in activities they consider immoral. <br /><br /> Without freedom, people can't reveal their true preferences and show us where they stand. I'd like to know which businesses bigots run. <br /><br /> Petersen was quick to add that he would never buy anything from a shop that refused to serve gays. "I would stand outside these people's store and I would encourage a boycott." <br /><br /> Most libertarians argue that it isn't government's job to tell people how to conduct private business. As Petersen put it, "Government is not supposed to make us into better people. That's not what the United States was founded on. The United States was founded so that we could be whatever we wanted." <br /><br /> Some of us may want to be jerks. As long as we do it with our own bodies and our own property, that's part of freedom, say most libertarians. <br /><br /> The other candidate in the forum, software entrepreneur John McAfee, found a middle ground. He pointed out that whether we allow a business to discriminate may depend on whether consumers have options, as consumers usually do. <br /><br /> "If you're the only baker in town, it may be a problem," he said, but normally, "no one is forcing you to buy anything." <br /><br /> The free market gives people choices. There are lots of bakers, but just one government. That's why government must never discriminate, but if private businesses cannot, does "private" have real meaning? What about freedom of association? <br /><br /> Most businesses eagerly take money from gay customers -- or Muslims or transgender people or people of a different race. A few won't. That's part of the diversity of a free country, and a beauty of a free market is that customers punish bigoted businesses. <br /><br /> All three Libertarian Party candidates understand that. But tune in and see what you think. <br /> Petersen was the only candidate of the three to call himself "pro-life." But on abortion, as with cakes, he wants people to find solutions without involving government. <br /><br /> "The president has no authority to enact laws on abortion," he said. If Petersen were president, he said he would "try and find every non-coercive measure that we can to end abortion. And there are options. <br />Ending the federal war on drugs would allow women to purchase birth control over the counter." <br /><br /> But like his libertarian opponents, he would not send government in to make these decisions. Gov. Johnson said, "I do not think it is the federal government's job or the state government's job to interfere in this process." McAfee said, "A woman's right to her own body is one of the fundamental issues in this country." <br /><br /> Sometimes libertarians sound like conservatives, sometimes like liberals. Unlike conservatives and liberals, however, libertarians stick to the idea of keeping government out of our business. Government is <em>force</em>, and life is better when people are left free to make their own choices. <br /><br /> If we didn't try to use government to boss each other around, think how much more pleasant, and <em>free</em>, life would be.</p>John Stossel2016-04-06T07:00:00ZA Better ChoiceJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-Better-Choice/-701597355422789774.html2016-03-30T07:00:00Z2016-03-30T07:00:00Z<p>Trump! Clinton! Is that all there is? No. Fortunately, we have other choices. <br /><br /> A recent poll shows that if the election were held today, 11 percent of Americans would vote for a Libertarian, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson. That's surprising, since last election Johnson got just 1 percent of the vote. <br /><br /> This year, he's doing better, probably because Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton hold the highest percentage of "unfavorable" reactions from voters in more than 30 years. I assume the Libertarian total will go higher, since most poll respondents had <em>no</em> opinion about Johnson. They probably don't know who he is. <br /><br /> They can learn more by watching my Fox Business Network show April 1 and April 8. On those days, I'll air a debate among the three leading Libertarian candidates. They are Johnson, software businessman John McAfee and The Libertarian Republic founder Austin Petersen. The Party will choose its nominee at the Libertarian convention in Orlando, Florida, over Memorial Day weekend. <br /><br /> What a relief to hear libertarian views after months of hearing Clinton and Trump talk about reducing Americans' liberties. <br /><br /> Clinton wants to raise taxes, curtail gun rights, force us all to pay for inefficient "green energy," impose new regulations on just about everything, etc. <br /><br /> Trump wants to increase spying on American citizens, put a giant wall between the U.S. and Mexico, start a ruinous trade war, etc. <br /><br /> Libertarians want <em>limited</em> government, one that doesn't mess around in your personal life or try to run the economy. <br /><br /> Gary Johnson suggests immigrants to the U.S. just first undergo a background check to make sure they aren't criminals or terrorists, and then prove they have employment and can pay their taxes. He'd get rid of the complicated quotas the U.S. has on who can come here from which countries and in which professions -- a bureaucracy that takes the best and brightest immigrants years to navigate.<br /><br /> Johnson has a track record. The governor cut red tape and the number of government workers in New Mexico. He vetoed 750 bills and used a line-item veto to cut thousands of other items. He lowered New Mexico's taxes and balanced the budget while remaining popular with voters. Running as a Republican, he was elected to a second term in that Democratic state. <br /><br /> Now, as a Libertarian presidential candidate, he warns "the idea that we can somehow balance the federal budget without cutting military spending and reforming entitlements is fantasy." <br /><br /> John McAfee calls government "corrupt" and "technologically illiterate." He says he'll push a policy of "privacy, freedom and technology." <br /><br /> McAfee says, "Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make." He's had a few brushes with the law himself, including an arrest for driving under the influence, so he knows what it's like to be in the government's crosshairs. <br /><br /> Like economist Milton Friedman, he says that we can't have open borders and a big welfare state -- so McAfee says get rid of the welfare state and open the borders, so long as immigrants submit to being documented. <br /><br /> He wants to reduce government's domestic role to policing disputes and otherwise let people engage in trade, including drug sales. He says our military role overseas should be reduced so that we interfere less in the affairs of other nations. <br /><br /> Austin Petersen, like many libertarians, describes himself as "fiscally conservative and socially tolerant." He proposes a 1 percent spending reduction in all government programs and a simple flat tax, and he would let young people opt out of Social Security. <br /><br /> Like Johnson and McAfee, he wants to reduce immigration bureaucracy, the drug war and military interventions. Unlike some Libertarians, Petersen says he is pro-life. <br /><br /> You might be surprised to hear that there is division among Libertarians on issues like abortion. This Friday and next you can watch how these candidates handle the differences. <br /><br /> On Facebook and Twitter, viewers told me they want to know how Libertarians would reduce the welfare state, defeat terrorism and help workers cope with changes caused by global trade. <br /><br /> I'm sure the Libertarians' answers will make more sense than those we hear from Trump and Clinton.</p>John Stossel2016-03-30T07:00:00ZThe Art of TrumpJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Art-of-Trump/-429385556029196222.html2016-03-23T07:00:00Z2016-03-23T07:00:00Z<p>Hooray for Donald Trump! <br /><br /> I can ice skate in Central Park because Trump got the skating rink fixed after New York City couldn't. <br /><br /> Couldn't, you ask? Really? How is that possible? New York City government couldn't fix an ice rink? <br /><br /> Sad, but true. Despite six years of effort and fiddling with 13 million taxpayer dollars, government's bureaucracy was unable to fix an ice rink. At one point, they left one side of the rink 6 inches lower than the rest. That's government work for you. <br /><br /> Then, Donald Trump got it done. And done right. He likes to remind us he makes deals happen. Getting things done in New York often means you butter up whoever needs convincing, or you bully them. Trump's good at that. <br /><br /> Is that what we want in a president? Maybe. Probably not. <br /><br /> What bothers me about Donald Trump is that most of his pronouncements are little more than magical thinking. Elect me and "I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created!" "We're going to have win after win after win! You people are going to get sick and tired of winning!" <br /><br /> This is just nonsense. No president, no matter how competent, can make everything good. It's time people stop thinking that political leaders are the answer to our problems. <br /><br /> A Trump rally resembles Barack Obama's "Yes, we can!" speeches from eight years ago. Delirious fans acted as if Obama's election would fix everything about America that they didn't like. <br /><br /> It's why I wrote the book "No, They Can't! Why Government Fails -- But <em>Individuals</em> Succeed." Government can't fix most things, but free individuals can -- and do! Trump fixed the skating rink when government couldn't.<br /><br /> Free people, acting without government coercion, accomplished almost all the things that have made America great. That's why Trump really ticks me off when he says, "We're gonna make America great again!" <br /><br /> His fans love that. But what does it mean? When exactly was America great? When we won World War II? Yes, that was great. <br /><br /> But it wasn't great that at the time many Japanese-Americans were locked up in internment camps; blacks weren't always allowed to vote or drink from public fountains; gay people were beaten by police simply for being gay; and women were basically owned by their husbands and not allowed to have credit cards without their husband's or father's permission. <br /><br /> Was America great then? <br /><br /> It's true that by the end of World War II, America had the strongest military and biggest economy in the world. That was great. But we <em>still</em> have the strongest military and economy. "Make America great again" sounds like everything went bad. <br /><br /> Trump is not the only candidate saying that. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders shout, "The rich get richer, the poor and middle class are getting poorer!" <br /><br /> This is just a lie. The rich got richer, but poor people didn't get poorer. They got richer too, just not as much. Everyone won! <br /><br /> Politicians and the media spread so much false, bad news that for the first time in history, most Americans say that they believe their children will be worse off than they were. <br /> But that's bunk. <br /><br /> Warren Buffet got this one right when he wrote, "The babies being born in America today are the luckiest crop in history. (They) will live far better than their parents did." <br /><br /> If they do, it will be because of free markets and global trade -- two things most Democrats and Donald Trump want to smother. <br /><br /> "Make America great again!" is a bad slogan. Let's start a new one: "Get out of our way!" Don't impose your destructive tariffs, immigration limits, tougher libel laws, endless mandates and property grabs. Just enforce the Constitution. Then, get out of our way. <br /><br /> A better life comes from individuals striving toward their own goals, not from politicians. If our future continues to improve, it will be <em>in spite</em> of politicians like Trump and magical promises.</p>John Stossel2016-03-23T07:00:00ZPolitical PromisesJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Political-Promises/-410578422337155631.html2016-03-16T16:15:00Z2016-03-16T16:15:00Z<p>Democrats trash businesses. But if businesses promised things the way politicians do, the owners would be jailed for fraud. It's not legal to promise more than you can deliver.<br /><br /> I don't suggest that prosecutors should go after politicians who lie. Voters can do that. Political speech should be free.<br /><br /> But politicians' promises are routinely repulsive. I'm thankful that most of their promises will be broken.<br /> For my TV show, I listed this presidential season's <em>worst</em> promises. Here are a few.<br /><br /> --Donald Trump says he'll impose a 45 percent tariff on goods from China and 35 percent on any Ford car imports from Mexico.<br /><br /> This wins Trump votes because so many Americans believe that trade "takes away" American jobs. Trade does actually take away <em>some</em>. Some autoworkers lose work when plants move overseas. That's the "seen" loss. But the unseen <em>benefit</em> is that when trade is allowed, <em>more</em> Americans gain jobs. We get better and cheaper products, too.<br /><br /> The historical evidence is clear. When countries close borders, stagnation and poverty follow. When trade is allowed, there are winners and losers, but most people prosper. The gains are harder to see because they are spread throughout the economy, but they are very real nevertheless. The chance that President Donald Trump would start a trade war scares me a lot.<br /><br /> --Bernie Sanders promises free college and Hillary Clinton offers "high-quality preschool."<br /><br /> But government has no money of its own. "Free" isn't free. Taxpayers and, later, other students pay tuition bloated by college loans. Taxpayers also pay for preschool that <em>won't</em> be "high quality" -- or at least won't stay high quality. Oklahoma and Georgia already tried universal preschool. By third grade, student gains disappeared. Of course, the extra spending -- that continued.<br /><br /> --Sanders and Clinton also want the national minimum wage raised -- Clinton to $12 and Sanders to $15.<br /><br /> Do people think that means Sanders is more generous than Clinton? If we could just pass a law and increase people's pay without harming businesses and making them less likely to hire in the first place, why not raise the minimum to $22? Or $83? Businesses pay according to value they get in return, like everyone else. No law can make you worth more to an employer. It just makes you more likely to get laid off. Or never hired.<br /><br /> --All current Republican candidates promise to increase military spending. They always do.<br /><br /> Republicans say our military has been "gutted." But in inflation-adjusted dollars, we spend as much as we did during the Cold War. It's true that America has fewer planes and fewer ships than we once did. But we have <em>better</em> and deadlier planes and ships. America is going broke but still spends $600 billion on defense, more than the next seven nations combined. That's not "gutting" the military.<br /><br /> If we didn't intervene in so many foreign countries, we could focus on actual defense, rather than nation building. Since conservatives are the ones who say they want to spend less, here's a great place to start.<br /><br /> --Donald Trump promises "a mandatory death sentence" to anyone who kills a police officer.<br /><br /> But the president cannot issue any criminal penalties. Does Trump care about the Constitution? Despite media hype about a "war on cops," the last few years have been the safest for cops -- ever. It's terrible when anyone gets killed, but we do not have a violent crime crisis on our hands. And what about the poor guy whose house is raided by mistake -- who thinks it's a home invasion and shoots in self-defense? Will he be executed, too?<br /><br /> Not every political promise was bad this year. Donald Trump was smart to change his mind and say America should admit more skilled immigrants. Bernie Sanders wants to "rethink" the war on drugs. Ted Cruz promises to eliminate the departments of Education, Energy, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development and more.<br /><br /> If only there were more good promises to praise.</p>John Stossel2016-03-16T16:15:00ZLibertarian LiteJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Libertarian-Lite/-404503684545870034.html2016-03-09T08:00:00Z2016-03-09T08:00:00Z<p>In this year's Republican presidential primaries, Sen. Rand Paul got little traction. In 2012, his father failed. <br /><br />That year, the Libertarian Party candidate, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, got just 1 percent of the vote.<br /><br /> We libertarians must be doing something wrong. Maybe our anti-government message is too radical, says Jerry Taylor. Maybe we should soften our approach.<br /><br /> "Libertarians need to be more realistic," Taylor told 500 young people at a taping of my TV show at last week's International Students for Liberty conference. In electoral politics, he said, finding libertarians is "like trying to find a daisy in Hiroshima" after the nuclear blast.<br /><br /> Taylor, a smart libertarian who runs a think tank called the Niskanen Center, says to become more popular, we libertarians ought to change our views. He criticized Rand Paul for saying that in 1964 he would've voted against the Civil Rights Act.<br /><br /> Actually, Rand didn't say that. He supported the act's ban on <em>government</em> racism, like Jim Crow laws. He objected only to the act's ban on <em>private</em> discrimination. Rand was right to object. If owners of a private business want to serve only gays, basketball players or bald men, that should be their right.<br /><br /> Market competition will punish bigots for their narrow-mindedness, because some people will avoid that store. There's no need for government force.<br /><br /> "Right," said Taylor, but "5 percent of the American public says yes to that, and 95 percent say no. ... They're not going to embrace a candidate who says, tough, people should just suffer under the teeth of bigotry because white people have that right."<br /><br /> I suppose Taylor is correct. Voters prefer simple answers ("Mexico will pay for a wall!"). They don't want constitutional lectures about property rights or free association.<br /><br /> Taylor is fine with welfare spending, too. He points out, "Even people like Milton Friedman and F.A. Hayek supported a safety net to help the indigent."<br /><br /> Taylor and some other libertarians sound like "reform Republicans" who want free-market advocates to embrace the welfare state. They think they're being practical, realistic.<br /><br /> But we free-market supporters know what <em>really</em> creates prosperity and opportunity: economic freedom! We saw it work in America when America was young. We see it now in Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Switzerland, Australia and other countries that today offer more economic freedom than the United States. Government that governs least governs best.<br /><br /> I said to Taylor, rudely, "Your plan for victory is to surrender?"<br /><br /> "No," replied Taylor. "I don't think it's surrender to say that the rights and freedoms of people in this country can be secured by government."<br /><br /> I don't either. But America's government has gone well past "securing rights and freedom." Today's welfare state provides much more than a safety net. It's become a giant hammock that encourages dependency. Government today takes half our money and micromanages the workplace.<br /><br /> But Taylor criticizes libertarians who complain about that and "reflexively" talk about "taxes and spending and regulation. Other things are important too, like war! War is the engine of the growth of the state. Hundreds of thousands of people die."<br /><br /> All true. We libertarians should probably talk less about taxes and more about what we'd do about ISIS and how to help poor people without using government force.<br /><br /> But I won't "soften" my arguments. I know they are right. After years watching liberal and conservative "solutions" fail, I know that limited government is the better way. We haven't convinced today's voters, but people aren't endlessly foolish. If we keep fighting, maybe they will see the truth.<br /><br /> To help us understand more about these ideas, the "Stossel" TV show will host a Libertarian presidential forum. Three leading Libertarian presidential candidates -- "leading" because they placed top three in a poll done by the Libertarian Party -- will debate. They are former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, software entrepreneur John McAfee and Libertarian Republic founder Austin Petersen.<br /><br /> The forum will air, unfortunately, on April 1. But this is no April Fools' Day joke. Our future is a stake.</p>John Stossel2016-03-09T08:00:00ZRegulating the FutureJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Regulating-the-Future/137479333381047480.html2016-03-02T08:00:00Z2016-03-02T08:00:00Z<p>Government pretends it's the cause of progress. Then it strangles innovation. <br /><br /> We know government understands that new technologies are important. The military invests in robots and traffic cops use radar guns. But when the rest of us use robots or fly drones, government gets eager to put rules in place before things get "out of control." <br /><br /> When it's hard to innovate in the U.S., innovation happens elsewhere. The Japanese already offer largely automated hotels. At the Henn-na (or "Weird") Hotel, the front desk clerk is a robot dinosaur -- popular with the kids. Another robot stores your luggage, and another takes you to your room. <br /><br /> This may sound like an expensive stunt, but the robot hotel is cheaper than others nearby -- partly because it employs fewer people. <br /><br /> That alarms politicians who fear change. Whenever there's been innovation, experts predict massive unemployment. They react to what they <em>see</em>. Fewer receptionists work at that Japanese hotel. Military robots will replace soldiers, and self-driving cars will take away delivery people's jobs. Often politicians pass rules to stop this "job destruction." <br /><br /> But the more efficiently we can do things, the more human energy is free to be turned toward the <em>unseen</em>, tasks we haven't even thought of yet but which may be more pleasant to do, and these jobs will create new opportunities. <br /><br /> If we crushed every machine that did things humans used to do, we'd still be living in caves and hunting tigers with spears. Every time there's a new invention, some people lose jobs, and there's a period of adjustment. <br /><br /> But we come out ahead. <br /><br /> You don't believe employment recovers? Remember that 200 years ago, 90 percent of Americans worked on farms. Now fewer than 2 percent do. But that doesn't mean that 90 percent of the population has been left unemployed. <br /><br /> "We saw the car displacing horses, buggies and buggy whips, but we don't lament that passage, do we?" says Max Borders, author of "Superwealth." <br /><br /> "The blacksmiths of old had to figure out something else to do," observes Borders. "They all found jobs. The economy evolves. It's an evolving ecosystem." <br /><br /> Some don't want it to evolve. Cab drivers and their unions demand that government protect their jobs from competition by ride-hailing services such as Uber. <br /><br /> But if government stepped in to protect jobs, we'd be stuck with the jobs and industries of the past, millions of buggy-whip makers and all those extra farmers. <br /><br /> I think we're better off celebrating new ways of doing things -- and the inventors and entrepreneurs who keep thinking them up. That gives us choices that are "better, faster, cheaper and cooler," says Borders. <br /> But today, with America's ever-increasing regulation, it's often tougher to create new things. Uber offers <em>obviously</em> better and safer service, but to succeed it has to overcome protests and break government rules. <br /><br /> "It was legally questionable," says Borders, "but people did it anyway." Uber thrived only because it grew popular and rich before the politicians and regulators noticed. By then, Uber had millions of customers and billions of dollars, so they could bully politicians back. <br /><br /> In New York City, Uber defeated my anti-progress mayor by telling its customers: Waiting too long for a car? Blame the politicians. <br /><br /> We are better off because Uber won, but the battles continue. Some airports, to protect their taxi monopolies, recently banned Uber. <br /><br /> Uber is fortunate that its most important innovation is just an app on phones. It didn't need to first get government permission to create that. <br /><br /> More traditional innovators, however, ones who want to build big, visible things like a better nuclear plant or chemical plant or invent a lifesaving new drug, are often crushed by today's byzantine rules -- crushed before they can make our lives better. <br /><br /> When that happens, we may never know what good things we miss. "The future is going to be full of surprises, full of awesome things that almost fall from the sky," says Borders. "We can't even imagine it today." <br /><br /> It's easier to imagine if government stays out of the way.</p>John Stossel2016-03-02T08:00:00ZJoy and Bad LawJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Joy-and-Bad-Law/-787644183621188274.html2016-02-24T08:00:00Z2016-02-24T08:00:00Z<p>According to Betfair.com, Jennifer Lawrence probably won't win best actress at the Oscars Sunday. I'm rooting for her, though -- not because of her acting, but because the movie she stars in, "Joy," celebrates the difficulty of entrepreneurship. <br /><br /> Lawrence's character is based on real-life entrepreneur Joy Mangano, who invented the self-wringing Miracle Mop and other "Ingenious Designs," as her company is known. Now she hawks them and other products on the Home Shopping Network.<br /><br /> The film accurately depicts struggles businesses face. Joy goes deep into debt to finance her idea, overcomes manufacturing problems, persuades skeptical marketers and deals with such menaces as patent trolls. <br /><br /> Patent trolls are usually lawyers/parasites who don't even come up with working prototypes for inventions they later claim as their own. They just grab someone else's idea, or buy a bunch of them, register patents with the government and wait. When someone with real technological and business skill creates something useful that's similar, the troll threatens to sue. <br /><br /> Often the inventor pays just to keep the business alive. It's extortion. But when lawyers do it, it's legal extortion.<br /><br /> In Joy's case, a lazy rival claims to have come up with her idea first; Joy risks a physical confrontation to defend her invention. I won't spoil the details of the movie -- but since the real Joy Mangano went on to make millions, you can guess that it has a happy ending. <br /><br /> Writer/director David O. Russell, like many in Hollywood, has made movies critical of capitalism and businesspeople, so I'm glad he saw a spark in Joy Mangano, the driven businesswoman. <br /><br /> Hollywood may not understand economics or government regulation, but there are things Hollywood often gets right. Hollywood celebrates heroic individuals who fight injustice and corrupt establishments. Hollywood also has a healthy suspicion of the power of covert government activities. <br /><br /> Sure, the "Mission Impossible" crew and plenty of other Hollywood heroes are secret agents -- and Hollywood consults with real cops, secret agents and military advisers to capture details more accurately. That helps the government shape messages to its liking. But plenty of Hollywood government agents end up being villains anyway. <br /><br /> The film "Sicario," nominated for three Oscars, shows an ordinary cop, played by Emily Blunt, lured into the dark world of the CIA's cross-border drug war. She thought she was just going to be stopping bad guys a little farther from home but discovers that she might be part of an elaborate assassination plot. <br /><br /> I'm biased in favor of Emily Blunt movies because we both are stutterers, but I'd appreciate "Sicario" without that connection, too. <br /><br /> "Sicario" is informative because throughout the movie, even the cops aren't sure who the good guys are, and almost no one has any idea what the rest of the government is up to. It makes it clear that average citizens don't stand a chance of finding out. This is a realistic picture of the drug war. <br /><br /> Corruption and lack of transparency are inevitable when government takes on a mission as hopeless as a war on a substance that lots of people want. When there's demand, customers tend to get what they want, even if other people don't approve. <br /><br /> Hollywood writers and producers, who have also made plenty of movies about our failed attempt at alcohol Prohibition and the gangsters who rose to power in that period, sometimes understand that the drug war is unwinnable, too. <br /><br /> The U.S. can send helicopters to destroy coca plants in Colombia -- or even build a wall between Mexico and America -- but that just increases profit margins, so drug-sellers take even greater risks to get their product to customers. <br /><br /> The climax of "Sicario" involves underground tunnels used by Mexican cartels to move drugs (and illegal immigrants) across the border. None of the characters even consider the possibility of shutting down all the tunnels. They know they'd never find them all, and that if they did, the cartels would just build more. Even if they closed all the tunnels, the smugglers would use boats. And planes. <br /><br /> Things don't work out as well for the characters in "Sicario" as they did for Joy Mangano. In real life, government efforts don't bring as much joy as entrepreneurship.</p>John Stossel2016-02-24T08:00:00ZRobot CarsJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Robot-Cars/-426856745743436588.html2016-02-17T08:00:00Z2016-02-17T08:00:00Z<p>The Tesla S is the closest thing to a totally driverless car available now. I had to leave my state to test-drive it. New York's archaic laws forbid taking both hands off the wheel. <br /><br /> Once outside New York, the Tesla representative in the passenger seat had me turn on the autopilot. <br /> Suddenly, I was doing nothing. The car drove itself. <br /><br /> Actually, I didn't do <em>nothing</em>. I hyperventilated. It's not natural to sit passively while "driving" at 65 mph. <br /><br /> Then came my accident! In a narrow tunnel, the car drifted left, and a tire banged against the side of the tunnel. If I hadn't quickly grabbed the steering wheel, we would have crashed. <br /><br /> Was the computer-guided car unable to handle a narrow tunnel? No, it turned out the mistake, as usual, was human error -- my error. I had nervously touched the steering wheel when we entered the tunnel, and that disengaged the autopilot. The Tesla guy didn't warn me. Or maybe he did, but I forgot. <br /><br /> Once I learned how the car works, I found the driverless car pretty wonderful, although weird. It's counterintuitive to trust a computer to handle a car's sharp turns or stop-and-go traffic. <br /><br /> But it does work. That's the big point -- driverless cars are safer than we drivers are. Ninety-four percent of people killed in car crashes are killed because of human error. <br /><br /> The car's sensors see when I'm approaching another car. They see better than we do. They are our future, says economist James Miller. <br /><br /> I asked him why drivers should trust the computer. After all, computers crash! <br /><br /> "People know that machines are better than people at a lot of tasks," was his smart answer. "Our brains are basically machines -- but not machines optimized for going 65 miles an hour." As for "crashing," he points out that computer buyers aren't willing to spend extra money for a backup system, but drivers definitely will. <br /><br /> Robot cars may soon save 30,000 lives a year, <em>if </em>bureaucrats let them. It will be a battle. The technology is way ahead of our laws. <br /><br /> Soon after my car was driving itself, I got bored. So I picked up a newspaper. <br /><br /> "Not a good idea, John!" scolded my Tesla copilot. He reminded me that state laws say a human driver must always be "in control." <br /><br /> It would also be against the law if I had gone to sleep. But someday, that will be an option. Commuting will be much less stressful. <br /><br /> Because robot cars are safer, insurance rates will drop. Some people will still want to drive themselves, and those people will pay a little more. That's fine, but then our authoritarian government will probably switch gears and ban "dangerous <em>human</em> driving." <br /><br /> Maybe that will be the libertarian controversy in 2021. <br /><br /> Freedom doesn't mean doing anything you want. It means, in part, deciding when to give up control and when to retain it. It also means doing nothing that directly harms others. Giving up some control to machines has been a benefit for centuries. <br /><br /> Robot cars will take away jobs from some taxi drivers, truck drivers, delivery men, etc. Unions, The New York Times and maybe Donald Trump will demand laws to "protect" those jobs. But that's a mistake. <br /><br /> "Experts" always say automation will create unemployment. In 1930, a New York Times headline said: "Economists predict number of men employed will decline." But the opposite has happened. Forty-six million Americans had jobs when that headline ran; now 150 million do. <br /><br /> Technology did destroy some jobs. Ninety percent of Americans once worked on farms. Now just 2 percent do. Somehow, today those 2 percent grow more food for less money. A hundred million Americans found other jobs. <br /><br /> This is a great thing. <br /><br /> Farm work was grueling, dangerous and time-consuming. Better agricultural technology frees people up to do safer, more interesting jobs. It also allows people more leisure. Think how many things we're free to do now that we grow food with the help of tractors. <br /><br /> Maybe someday we will look at driving cars the way we now look at farming with a mule.</p>John Stossel2016-02-17T08:00:00ZHigh-Tech TedJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/High-Tech-Ted/841119460917864637.html2016-02-10T08:00:00Z2016-02-10T08:00:00Z<p>Politicians tailor their messages to different audiences. Facing New Hampshire's primary, Ted Cruz talked more about "free-market principles" and a "commitment to the Constitution" and said "no one personality can right the wrongs done by Washington." Politico ran the headline "Ted Cruz, born-again libertarian." <br /><br /> I'm skeptical. Campaigning in Iowa, Cruz had emphasized religion and social conservatism. <br /><br /> But politicians no longer just target voters state-by-state -- they target by person. <br /><br /> Last election, President Obama beat Mitt Romney partly by doing just that. Obama had 50 people working in data analytics. Romney had four. <br /><br /> "The campaign manager for the Obama campaign said the biggest institutional advantage they had was its use of data," observes Cato Institute fellow Emily Ekins. <br /><br /> Conservatives had data too, she says, but "Republican insiders tended to be a little bit closed-minded when it came to new methodologies." <br /><br /> Not Cruz. He told my producers recently, "I bought a copy of David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager's book, 'The Audacity to Win,' gave it to our senior team (and told them) we are going to nakedly and shamelessly emulate this." <br /><br /> The Obama campaigns kept detailed computer records on individuals likely to vote for Obama. On Election Day, volunteers concentrated on getting just <em>those</em> voters to vote. <br /><br /> Likewise, this year the Cruz campaign didn't send volunteers to every single door to ask people for their vote. They saved precious time by knocking only on doors of likely Cruz voters who might need a nudge to go to the polls. <br /><br /> Cruz technology manager Chris Wilson told us that the campaign will then do "whatever it takes. We go to their house. We'll bug them until they either turn out to vote or get a restraining order against us." <br /><br /> "Restraining order" is a joke, but his volunteers do carry phone apps that even tell them what questions to ask occupants depending on whether a man or a woman answers the door. <br /><br /> Today, all campaigns buy data from marketers. Ekins explains that "companies amass enormous amounts of data based on transactions that you and I make -- whether we opened a store loyalty card, whether we subscribed to a magazine." <br /><br /> That data tells them something about how you think. Wilson told me, "Someone who buys arugula, we've found that they tend to be a little bit more Democratic -- someone who buys iceberg lettuce tends to be more Republican." <br /><br /> There is truth in data. Outside Minneapolis, according to The New York Times, a manager of a Target store fielded an angry call from a father who was furious because Target sent his teenage daughter ads for baby products. You're encouraging my daughter to get pregnant, he complained. <br /><br /> The manager apologized and later called back to apologize again. But this time the<em> father</em> apologized, saying she<em> is</em> pregnant! Target knew before Dad did. <br /><br /> Now politicians use similar data. Wilson says he can track where individual voters stand "on moral issues, immigration, national security, on gun rights." <br /><br /> Ted Cruz adds that they then go beyond "where" people stand to target voters based on "why." <br /><br /> "If you're a single mom, if you're carrying a revolver in your purse 'cause you don't want to get mugged, a duck-hunting ad is not going to do a thing to connect with you," Cruz told us. "Just on the Second Amendment, we have a dozen different messages." <br /><br /> This offended some people who watched my recent TV special about this. pathgirl888 tweeted: "Watching @JohnStossel re Tech Revolution. #Orwellian manipulation of IA voters ... creepy." Others complained, "Cruz Camp is monitoring everything" and "INVASION OF PRIVACY!" <br /><br /> But it's not just Cruz who does this. The Obama campaign reached into its supporters' Facebook accounts and asked them to persuade their friends to support Obama. Facebook then changed its policies to give "friends" more privacy protection, but it's safe to assume all future presidents will be elected with help from this sort of technology. <br /><br /> We asked an Iowa voter if he minded being targeted by Cruz. He said, "No, I think it's excellent. Use every tool we can, because we have to defeat those people. They're using them." <br /><br /> The tech revolution is changing almost everything.</p>John Stossel2016-02-10T08:00:00ZPolitical ArroganceJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Political-Arrogance/-608104148887951067.html2016-02-03T08:00:00Z2016-02-03T08:00:00Z<p>After the Iowa caucus results, it looks like Hillary Clinton vs. Marco Rubio in November! <br /><br /> They lead the betting at ElectionBettingOdds.com. <br /><br /> This scares me. Neither candidate shows any interest in limited government. They scoff at anyone who suggests that their grand schemes do more harm than good. But big government <em>does</em> do more harm than good. <br /><br /> I shouldn't single out Rubio or Clinton, or even Donald Trump. Almost everyone running for office today declares himself a "leader" who "gets things done." There's no modesty, little acknowledgement that so much of what government does is costly attempts to fix problems that government created at home and abroad. <br /><br /> In the book "The Fatal Conceit," Frederick Hayek wrote, "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design." <br /><br /> I wish politicians understood that. Chris Christie clearly doesn't. <br /><br /> He wins my vote for <em>worst</em> presidential candidate this week because of what he's doing to New Jersey's taxpayers in the name of "fixing" Atlantic City. <br /><br /> Six years ago, Christie promised to "reform" and "rebuild" Atlantic City "without government money." <br /> Without government money? Good! It sounds as if the governor respects small government principles and would protect taxpayers.<br /><br /> Nope.<br /><br /> Christie had a few options. Washington Post reporter David Fahrenthold points out that the governor could have done "nothing and let the free market drive out the weaker casinos, hope that the city government and the big casino corporations would innovate their way out of the problem." <br /><br /> That was the small-government option. There would have been upheaval. Some bills wouldn't get paid in full. But heck, Atlantic City "had been rendered fat and inefficient" by casino taxes. It paid "$1 million a year in pensions for long-retired city lifeguards who only ever worked four months a year," wrote Fahrenthold. <br /><br /> Time to cut fat. Instead, Christie partnered with Democrats to embrace a big-government option. <br /><br /> His advisers wanted to take over the entire city. Christie's concession to limited government was that he took over only half -- mostly the fun part: all 11 casinos. <br /><br /> Christie put them under the oversight of a state agency. He said those bureaucrats would restore Atlantic City and again vowed, "You have my word that it's going to be done without any government money." <br /><br /> Dream on. The agency used eminent domain to grab properties for development. Bureaucrats spent millions on public art projects, like a statue of a nude woman holding a dead deer. Somehow that didn't inspire tourists to rush to Atlantic City. <br /><br /> The state spent on TV ads and came up with a slogan: "Do AC." <br /><br /> It didn't help. Casinos kept going bankrupt, as did a giant unfinished hotel/casino, the Revel. Christie decided that the state should finish it. He got the legislature to promise $261 million in tax incentives and a $2 million grant. <br /><br /> That "no tax money" pledge? Gone. Now taxpayers were "investing." "We are going to make the type of investment," said Christie, "to make sure that we bring this city to a new renaissance." <br /><br /> The renaissance never came. <br /><br /> The Revel opened, lost money and filed for bankruptcy just one year later. It's now a 47-story hulk with 1,000 empty rooms. Its new owner considered naming it the Tower of Geniuses. <br /><br /> That would be a good name for Obamacare, "temporary" farm subsidies, Alaska's "bridge to nowhere" and lots of other boondoggles designed by politicians. <br /><br /> So is Christie apologetic after spending millions of taxpayer dollars on failure? No, of course not. Recently he was asked whether, in hindsight, he would have done anything differently. "Nothing," Christie replied. <br /><br /> Politicians never apologize. They charge forward. Their solution to failed government investment is <em>more</em> government. Last week Christie announced that the state would take over <em>all</em> of Atlantic City, claiming, "Greater state involvement makes sense." <br /><br /> He says the new Atlantic City will "be delivered at an affordable cost to the taxpayers." <br /><br /> Sure. And Mexico will pay for a giant wall, stimulus spending will revive the economy and arming Syrian rebels will bring peace. <br /><br /> The arrogance of the political class is endless.</p>John Stossel2016-02-03T08:00:00ZRunning on EmptyJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Running-on-Empty/38235430391189236.html2016-01-27T08:00:00Z2016-01-27T08:00:00Z<p>Cars run on fuel. Politicians run on votes, and they'll do almost anything to get them. That includes supporting mandates that force us to use ethanol, a fuel made from corn that Iowa farmers grow. <br /><br /> They support ethanol because Iowa is the first state to vote on presidential candidates. Candidates want to look strong at the start of the race, so every four years they become enthusiastic ethanol supporters. Even those who claim they believe in markets pander to Iowa's special interests. <br /><br /> Donald Trump, who doesn't seem to have a consistent political philosophy aside from bashing critics and foreigners, now has joined the ethanol-praising club. In fact, Trump says regulators should force gas stations to <em>increase</em> the amount of ethanol they use. It's a convenient way to attack his Iowa rival, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex., who courageously says the mandate should be phased out. <br /><br /> Cruz is right. Legally mandating that a certain percentage of fuel used be ethanol is a bad idea for several reasons: <br /><br /> First, mandating ethanol means more land must be plowed to grow corn for fuel. The Department of Energy estimates that if corn ethanol replaced gasoline completely, we'd need to turn <em>all</em> cropland to corn -- plus 20 percent more land on top of that. <br /><br /> Second, requiring ethanol fuel raises the price of corn -- bad news for consumers who must pay more for food. <br /><br /> Third, although ethanol's supporters claim burning corn is "better for the environment," that's not true. Once you add the emissions from growing, shipping and processing the corn, ethanol creates more pollution than oil. Environmental groups such as Friends of the Earth, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Clean Air Task Force now oppose its use. <br /><br /> Finally, because corn is grown in America, promoters said ethanol would make us more energy independent. Even if the "independence" argument were valid, fracking accomplishes much more. (Anyway, it isn't a valid argument. Trade with Mexico and Canada is just fine. We don't need total independence.) <br /><br /> Since Trump is a businessman, I assume he realizes that ethanol is an expensive boondoggle that wouldn't survive in a competitive market. But in Iowa Trump says, "Ethanol is terrific." <br /><br /> Dr. Ben Carson didn't go that far but according to the Washington Examiner said that it would be wrong to end the subsidies. "People have made plans based on those kind of things," he says. "You can't just pull out the rug out from under people." <br /><br /> It sounds like most politicians want to get rid of subsidies in principle, but never right now -- certainly not in the middle of their campaigns. Sen. Marco Rubio says he'd support ending the mandate -- after another seven years. <br /><br /> At the Iowa Agriculture Summit, Chris Christie sounded annoyed that President Obama hasn't been <em>more</em> supportive of ethanol subsidies, saying, "Certainly anybody who's a competent president would get that done!" <br /><br /> Bernie Sanders, I-Ver., criticized subsidies in the past, but on Iowa public radio he sounded as if he loves the boondoggle: "We have to be supportive of that effort -- and take every step that we could, and in every way we can, including the growth of the biofuels industry." <br /><br /> Of course, big-government Democrats always want to subsidize <em>more</em>. Hillary Clinton says ethanol "holds the promise for not only more fuel for automobiles but for aviation ... and for military aircraft; we could be fueling so much air traffic with biofuels. We have just begun to explore what we can do." <br /><br /> Sure. Explore away! That's what market competition does. Entrepreneurs constantly explore options in search of profit. But that's very different from government forcing taxpayers to fund one particular fuel. <br /><br /> Only Cruz and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ken.) have consistently said that the market, not politicians, should choose fuels. Unfortunately, that principled stance hasn't brought them much support. Presidential-race betting at ElectionBettingOdds.com has Cruz dropping and Paul tied for last. <br /><br /> Energy expert Jerry Taylor is right to say that running for office in Iowa not only means you must praise Christianity; it means being "willing to sacrifice children to the corn god."</p>John Stossel2016-01-27T08:00:00ZOptimism and ObamaJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Optimism-and-Obama/801978417424386489.html2016-01-13T08:00:00Z2016-01-13T08:00:00Z<p>In the commercial that President Obama released prior to his final State of the Union address, Obama said he would tell Congress how "optimistic" he is about America's future. <br /><br /> Good. Politicians and the media are at their most dangerous when they try to scare us, telling us disaster is on the way unless we follow, and pay for, their latest schemes to "protect" us. <br /><br /> I'm cautiously optimistic about the future, too, if only because our last 200 years have shown that despite politicians' attacks on open markets and individual freedom, people keep getting richer and living longer. <br /><br /> When Obama talks about the America we are creating together, it would be more honest if he congratulated Americans for all the progress we make <em>despite</em> government fighting us at every turn -- with taxes and regulations and booming debt that lowers the value of each dollar. <br /><br /> Of course, presidents want to be remembered positively, and Obama's cheerleaders are eager to put a happy spin on things in his final year in office. <br /><br /> Michael Grunwald at Politico decided to help with a piece about Obama's policy accomplishments, describing America as "the nation he built." Obama once told us that if you have a business, "you didn't build that," so I guess now we know who does the building. <br /><br /> Grunwald praises Obamacare for expanding the number of Americans with health insurance and points out that, at the same time, the administration also sneaked through a government takeover of student loan debt. John Boehner was correct to complain that "the president will sign not one, but <em>two</em> job-killing government takeovers." <br /><br /> But Grunwald says that sticking taxpayers with billions of dollars of student debt was part of the "relentless government activism" needed to give America "a profound course correction" that also changed "the way we produce and consume energy, the way doctors and hospitals treat us, the academic standards in our schools and the long-term fiscal trajectory of the nation." <br /><br /> All that is true, if by changing how we consume energy he means shutting down pipelines while ignoring private industry's wonderful fracking revolution. <br /><br /> If by changing the way doctors treat us he means locking still more people into bureaucracies instead of letting a true health market flourish. <br /><br /> If academic standards mean imposing weird testing regimens and teaching methods like Common Core. <br /> And if "long-term fiscal trajectory" means nearly doubling our federal debt, now almost $19 trillion, and doing nothing to slow America's coming entitlements bankruptcy. <br /><br /> Leftists can credit Obama with policy successes because Obama often outmaneuvered Republicans and got bills he wanted. Unfortunately, the left rarely looks closely at whether those bills really made Americans better off. <br /><br /> Grunwald says Obama's $800 billion stimulus package crammed in a whole administration's worth of programs in one go -- but Grunwald adds only in passing that economists don't agree on whether the stimulus accomplished anything good. <br /><br /> That's the whole problem. Politicians unleash programs -- the more complicated the better -- and then take credit later for anything good that happens, blaming the bad things on their political opponents. <br /><br /> It usually takes years to figure out what the programs' real impacts were, if we ever do. People still argue -- 80 years later -- about whether the New Deal prolonged or helped end the Great Depression. <br /><br /> We don't know if the country is better or worse off because of "relentless government activism." We libertarians argue that government helps us by keeping the peace and providing a level playing field but that beyond that, most government intervention does harm. That's why we're better off if individuals can pick and choose which things work for us. <br /><br /> In a real marketplace, individuals go to the schools we choose, buy health care we want and pay our own debts. <br /><br /> I'm optimistic about America, too -- but not because we "come together" and function as a single union. I'm optimistic because in most areas of life, we're still free to make our own decisions.</p>John Stossel2016-01-13T08:00:00ZBettors Know Better Than PunditsJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Bettors-Know-Better-Than-Pundits/290106825337129948.html2016-01-06T08:00:00Z2016-01-06T08:00:00Z<p>Want to know who the next president will be? <br /><br /> Don't trust polls or pundits. Betting odds at ElectionBettingOdds.com are the best predictor of who will win any election. <br /><br /> Pundits have a terrible track record. Last election, Newt Gingrich and Dick Morris forecast a Romney "landslide." Rush Limbaugh said, "All my thinking says Romney big. ... It's not even close." <br /><br /> Polls are better, but not much. That's because <em>you</em> are not normal. Since you read this column, you are different from most voters. You think a lot about politics. Most Americans don't. <br /><br /> People think about food, sex, money, friends, jobs, success, family, health, religion, sports, fashion, video games, money, sex, food (I know I repeated those last three, but that's where most people's heads are). Presidential nominees are not yet taking up space in most people's minds. <br /><br /> When a polling company reaches the rare person willing to talk to a stranger on the phone, chances are that person is not well-informed about politics. "Who do I support for the nomination? Uh, who's running? I'm embarrassed! Oh, yes, Donald Trump!" <br /><br /> Polls reveal only a snapshot of current opinion. In 2011, Rick Perry led the polls for the GOP nomination with Trump-like 31 percent support. By October, Herman Cain was ahead. By December, Newt Gingrich. <br /><br /> But people who bet knew better. They picked Romney. Likewise, bettors anticipated the Obama victory that many polls and pundits missed. <br /><br /> Despite bettors' good track record, few people know about the odds or how they're created. Here's how: computers average bets made on "prediction markets," where traders buy and sell shares -- like stocks -- on each candidate. As I write, a share of Donald Trump winning the GOP nomination effectively costs 23 cents. If Trump wins, everyone who owns that share gets $1. That implies Trump has a 23 percent chance of winning the nomination. <br /><br /> Unfortunately, American politicians banned political prediction markets, with a few exceptions, like PredictIt.com. But candidates' odds are somewhat off on that site because bettors may not trade more than $850 per candidate. <br /><br /> The odds on the big unrestricted market in England, Betfair.com, are much more informative. Betfair posts those odds in arcane gambling formulas, so producer Maxim Lott and I created the website ElectionBettingOdds.com. It shows the odds more clearly and will automatically update them every five minutes. <br /><br /> Right now, bettors know that Trump, even though he is ahead in polls, is unlikely to be the nominee. Marco Rubio is the favorite. Ted Cruz comes in second. Trump and Jeb Bush are third and fourth. <br /><br /> Sadly, Hillary Clinton is a 95 percent favorite to win the Democratic nomination and has a 55 percent chance of becoming our next president. Yikes! <br /><br /> Think the odds are wrong? Put your money where your mouth is! You could win money. <br /><br /> Prediction markets have a long track record. University of North Carolina researchers found that from 1868 to 1940, prediction markets "did a remarkable job forecasting elections." More than $100 million was bet, sometimes exceeding the value of shares changing hands on Wall Street. Newspapers ran headlines like "Betting Odds on Roosevelt Rise to 7 to 1." <br /><br /> But the markets disappeared because America's elites don't like the idea of ordinary folks betting on important events. <br /><br /> Economist Robin Hanson says, "All our familiar financial institutions were once banned as illegal gambling. Stock markets, commodity markets, insurance was banned." <br /><br /> That's dumb, because nothing is better at predicting the future. European prediction markets are good at predicting Oscar winners, weather disasters, even "American Idol" winners. They're not perfect, of course, but they're better than everything else. <br /><br /> That's why the Department of Defense once asked Hanson to create a market to predict things like wars and terrorism. But when it was publicized, outraged Sens. Ron Wyden and Byron Dorgan held a news conference to say "encouraging people to bet on and make money from atrocities ... needs to be stopped immediately." <br /><br /> It was. <br /><br /> A few years later, politicians killed a prediction market that would merely have let people bet on the success of Hollywood films. Sens. Patrick Leahy and Orrin Hatch complained the Hollywood stock exchange would lead to "speculation that is even more risky than the typical financial product." <br /><br /> It might. But so what? In a free country, adults ought to be allowed to speculate.<br /><br /> Fortunately, American politicians don't control the entire world, so I offer you the <em>most</em> accurate presidential race odds: ElectionBettingOdds.com.</p>John Stossel2016-01-06T08:00:00Z2015John Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/2015/-61297897764471346.html2015-12-30T08:00:00Z2015-12-30T08:00:00Z<p>Terrorism! Crime! Deadly storms! Hillary Clinton! <br /><br /> We reporters focus on bad news, but at year's end, let's remember what went right. 2015 was a better time to be alive than most any prior point in history. <br /><br /> The rich got richer. Some people think that's a problem, but why? Do rich people sit on their piles of money and cackle about how rich they are? Do they build giant houses that damage the environment? Well, they sometimes do. <br /><br /> But mostly they invest, hoping to get richer still. Those investments create jobs and better products and make most everyone else richer. Even if the rich leave money in banks, banks lend it to people who put it to productive use. <br /><br /> Sure, income <em>inequality</em> has grown -- but so what? The rich don't get richer at the <em>expense</em> of the poor. Poor people's income grew 48 percent over the past 35 years. Bernie Sanders says that "the middle class is disappearing!" But that's mainly because many middle-class people moved into the upper class. Middle class incomes grew 40 percent over the past 30 years. <br /><br /> This year we heard more horror stories about bad schools and students who don't learn. But take heart: Seven more states passed education choice legislation. <br /><br /> That means more students can opt out of bad schools and pick better ones, and over the long haul competing schools will have to get better at what they do. That will lead to a brighter future for all students -- and for society, which will benefit from their improved skills. <br /><br /> In 2015, two more states and Washington, D.C., legalized marijuana. Authorities are always reluctant to give up control, but gradually the end of the expensive, destructive and futile drug war will come. <br /><br /> Meanwhile, real crime -- violence and thefts -- continue to fall. We cover horrible mass shootings and spikes in crime in cities like Baltimore and St. Louis, but overall, crime is down -- over the past 20 years, down by about half. <br /><br /> Unfortunately, terrorism has increased -- mainly because of ISIS in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. Nevertheless, there are far <em>fewer</em> deaths from war and terror than there were 30 years ago, and in America, the odds of you or your family being killed by a terrorist are infinitesimal compared to disease, accidents and a thousand more-ordinary threats.<br /><br /> Marriage is good for civilization. This year the Supreme Court declared that gay people may get married. Government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all, since marriage is a contract between individuals, but if it's going to wade into that issue, it's better to have one clear rule instead of ugly ongoing fights about it. <br /><br /> Ending the political squabble means we can all go back to minding our own business and worrying about our own marriages. <br /><br /> In 2015, women in Saudi Arabia got to vote. <br /><br /> More countries elected leaders, rather than inheriting them. <br /><br /> The picture isn't all rosy. As I mentioned, terrorism is up. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are on track to lead America into bankruptcy. We have eternal problems like hunger and disease. <br /><br /> But even those "eternal" problems are closer to being solved than they used to be. <br /><br /> Thanks to better vaccines, 6 million fewer children under the age of 5 die each year compared to 30 years ago. <br /><br /> Twenty-five years ago, 2 billion people lived in extreme poverty -- that meant surviving on about a dollar a day, often with little access to basic needs like water and food. "Experts" predicted that number would rise as the population grew. Happily, thanks to the power of free markets, they were wrong. In the space of a generation, half the people most in need in the world were rescued. <br /><br /> Ten percent of the world's people still live in dire poverty, but the trend is clear: Where there is rule of law and individual freedom, humanity is better off. As Marian Tupy of HumanProgress.org puts it, "Away from the front pages of our newspapers and television, billions of people go about their lives unmolested, enjoying incremental improvements that make each year better than the last."<br /><br /> So enjoy it. Happy New Year!</p>John Stossel2015-12-30T08:00:00ZPoliticians Without BordersJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Politicians-Without-Borders/328539212784888611.html2015-12-23T08:00:00Z2015-12-23T08:00:00Z<p>When driving on treacherous roads, guardrails are useful. If you fall asleep or maybe you're just a bad driver, guardrails may prevent you from going off a cliff.<br /><br /> Recently, The Wall Street Journal's Kimberley Strassel used the phrase "no <em>political</em> guardrails" to point out how many of today's politicians seem to lack any constraints, any safeguards against their use of power. She's onto something.<br /><br /> "Mr. Obama wants what he wants. If ObamaCare is problematic, he unilaterally alters the law," Strassel writes. "If the nation won't support laws to fight climate change, he creates one with regulation. If the Senate won't confirm his nominees, he declares it in recess and installs them anyway."<br /><br /> Hillary Clinton does it too. In fact, she promises that once she becomes president, that is how she will govern. If Congress won't give her gun control laws she wants, she says she'll unilaterally impose them. Likewise, if Congress rejects her proposed new tax on corporations, "then I will ask the Treasury Department, when I'm there, to use its regulatory authority, if that's what it takes."<br /><br /> Whatever it takes. So far, the public doesn't seem to mind.<br /><br /> Donald Trump's poll numbers go up after he promises "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States," says that "there's nobody bigger or better at the military than I am," says that he'll make Mexico "pay for that wall" and so on.<br /><br /> Apparently lots of people like the idea of a big, strong mommy or daddy who will take control of life and make everything better. Constitutional restraints? They're for sissies. We want "leadership" -- someone "strong" to run America.<br /><br /> I don't. I'm an adult. I don't want to be "led." I will run my own life. Also, a president doesn't "run America." The president presides over just one of three branches of government, and there are strict limits on what he can and should do.<br /><br /> The Constitution was written to <em>limit</em> political authority. Those limits left individual Americans mostly to our own devices, which helped create the freest and most prosperous country in the history of the world.<br /><br /> Now, advocates for both parties are off the rails. Some Republicans demand that the IRS audit the Clinton Foundation. Part of me wishes that it would. I suspect their foundation is largely a scam, a pretend charity that props up the Clintons' egos and pays Hillary's political flunkies. Heck, in 2013, it raised $144 million but spent only $8.8 million on charity!<br /><br /> Shut it down! But where are the guardrails here? As Strassel put it, "When did conservatives go from wanting to abolish the IRS to wanting to use it against rivals?"<br /><br /> Today, politicians act as if guardrails are just an annoyance. And they get rewarded for that.<br /><br /> Strassel writes, "The more outrageous Mr. Trump is, the more his numbers soar. The more Mrs. Clinton promises to cram an agenda down the throats of her 'enemies,' the more enthusiastic her base. The more unrestrained the idea, the more press coverage; the more ratings soar, the more unrestrained the idea."<br /><br /> By contrast, humble candidates, quieter ones with modest plans -- constitutional ones -- get lost in the noise.<br /> So does important government reform. While people argued whether Trump dislikes immigrants, Congress quietly reauthorized the Export-Import Bank, a huge and immoral subsidy for corporations.<br /><br /> A coalition of free-market and anti-corporate-welfare activists fought to get Ex-Im Bank funding eliminated and finally won -- but then their work was quietly undone in a massive spending bill.<br /><br /> I once had lunch with Paul Ryan, R-Wis. He talked about reading Ayn Rand, and he emphasized the need to cut government spending. Now he's the speaker of the House who just oversaw a record-sized spending bill that doles out money to both parties' pet projects.<br /><br /> Little of that is authorized in the Constitution, which was intended to leave to the people or the states everything not explicitly mentioned in the document.<br /><br /> Today, we get a depressing combination of big, showy violations of constitutional rules -- which distract us from the tiny, routine violations of constitutional rules.<br /><br /> Individual freedom, and limited government, is better.</p>John Stossel2015-12-23T08:00:00ZPretend Answers on TerrorJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Pretend-Answers-on-Terror/864712784448627940.html2015-12-16T08:00:00Z2015-12-16T08:00:00Z<p>I wish I were as confident as many politicians and news commentators. They <em>know</em> what America should do about ISIS and terrorism. <br /><br /> Donald Trump, who says he can feel terrorism "like I feel a good location ... I have an instinct for this kind of thing," says he would "bomb the s---" out of ISIS strongholds, ban Muslim immigration and shutter American mosques. <br /><br /> America should "stop pussy-footing around!" according to Fox News host Jeanine Pirro. "Bomb them. Keep bombing them. Bomb them again and again. And I don't care how long it takes!" <br /><br /> Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex., agrees. If he's elected, he says, "We will utterly destroy them. We will carpet bomb them into oblivion." <br /><br /> Cruz is at least skeptical about nation-building and sending in American soldiers, but Hillary Clinton and some of Cruz's fellow Republicans are not. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., says there's "no middle ground" because "radical terrorists want to kill us, because we let women drive, because we let girls go to school!" <br /><br /> This is reckless. There probably is, as the Cato Institute's Ted Galen Carpenter puts it, "a jihadist somewhere who is so unhinged that he would want to slaughter Americans simply because of a virulent hatred of Western culture. But even the bipartisan commission that investigated the 9/11 attacks conceded that the primary driving force for Islamist terrorism was anger at U.S.-led foreign policy in the Middle East." <br /><br /> In other words, terrorists don't come here because we let girls attend school but mainly because we meddle in their countries. <br /><br /> Osama bin Laden <em>said</em> he attacked the World Trade Center because our forces are "too near to Mecca" and "occupy our countries." <br /><br /> A University of Chicago study concluded the central objective of 95 percent of terrorist incidents was to compel a Western state to withdraw from territory the terrorists view as theirs. It's not just to make a religious point. <br /><br /> Even Iraq War proponent Paul Wolfowitz admitted that America's presence in the Middle East was "a huge recruiting device for al-Qaida." <br /><br /> Now Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio want to do <em>more</em> of that? We will create <em>new</em> terrorists while killing current ones (plus innocent people). I don't see how that makes us safer. <br /><br /> Commentator Mark Steyn says letting in immigrants without somehow screening out radical Muslims "will cost you your world and everything you love." He wrote an article titled "The Barbarians Are Inside, and There Are No Gates." <br /><br /> Well, I worry about those immigrants, too, but there are more than 2 million Muslims in the U.S. already and have been for decades. Terrorist incidents are rare (so far). Even if we include the horrible attack on the World Trade Center, many more Americans die riding bikes, swimming or driving. <br /><br /> When there is terrorism, most has been committed by non-Muslims. In 2012 alone, non-Muslim mass shootings caused "twice as many fatalities as from Muslim-American terrorism in all 11 years since 9/11," says Charles Kurzman, writing for the Triangle Center on Terrorism and National Security. Kurzman's researchers report that Islamic terrorism "doesn't even count for 1 percent" of 180,000 murders in the U.S. since 9/11. <br /><br /> Of course, that could change tomorrow. But even then, there's no guarantee that keeping desperate Syrian refugees out of America will make much difference. <br /><br /> On my TV show, Steyn pointed out that there are many authoritarians among Muslims, so libertarians like me should worry about that. I do worry about that, but I still don't think he or the current crop of loud politicians have answers. Most not only want to undo America's tradition of immigration but also increase military interventions. These are not actions with good track records. <br /><br /> Every subset of the U.S. population brings benefits and risks. It's much easier to talk about banning less familiar ones, like newcomers. But until we can reliably tell the innocent from the guilty, I side with Keith, a viewer who in response to my question about security versus liberty tweeted, "If there's a choice to be made, liberty needs to win."</p>John Stossel2015-12-16T08:00:00ZLiberty, Fraternity, SecurityJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Liberty-Fraternity-Security/591928735759425086.html2015-12-09T08:00:00Z2015-12-09T08:00:00Z<p>What should we do about terrorism?<br /><br /> After the attacks on Paris, the French government passed a law that allows anyone suspected of being a security threat to be placed under house arrest and searches to be conducted without warrants.<br /> Reason's Anthony Fisher reports that this can lead to nasty experiences for anyone who associates with people from the Middle East.<br /><br /> A Halal-Mexican restaurant near Paris "was raided by upwards of forty police armed with rifles and clad in body armor, helmets, and riot shields. After terrifying diners, who were ordered to sit still and not touch their phones, officers proceeded to the basement, where they smashed several doors with battering rams, reportedly in search of a 'hidden prayer room.'"<br /><br /> The restaurant owner asked them not to break down doors because he would simply unlock them, but he was ordered to "lay on the floor and stay silent." The raid did not find weapons or anything "linked to terrorist activities."<br /><br /> France also decided that it now has a right to copy data from anyone government deems of interest. By "anyone," though, the politicians didn't mean politicians. They exempted themselves -- and journalists, lawyers and diplomats. Insiders protect their own. Of course, this will inspire terrorists to pose as -- or become -- politicians, journalists, lawyers and diplomats.<br /><br /> France also claims the right to control TV, radio and theater content that might incite violence. France has long had "hate speech" laws that make it a crime to encourage hatred against a specific minority. Actress and animal-rights activist Brigitte Bardot was fined $23,000 for "provoking racial hatred" after she criticized Muslims for being cruel to sheep. Somehow this hasn't stopped hatred or terrorism in France. More likely, it drives hate underground and chills speech that might eventually resolve differences.<br /><br /> In the U.S., despite Attorney General Loretta Lynch's ambiguous and poorly timed comments the day after the San Bernardino attack about the need to punish anti-Muslim hate speech, it remains legal to say hateful things so long as you do not incite imminent violence, such as by telling a crowd, "Go kill that guy." Good.<br /><br /> Politicians' tendency when people are scared is to keep expanding government. The Department of Homeland Security is now nearly twice the size it was when it was created in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.<br /><br /> Panic can cause bad spending and management decisions even in our private lives, but the problem is far worse in government, where it's other people's money being spent. Almost any waste can be justified by calling it necessary for "national security."<br /><br /> Homeland Security spent billions on grants to tiny local police departments to help them purchase military equipment and vehicles -- and put covert listening devices in public places.<br /><br /> The agency also assigns itself tasks that appear to have little or nothing to do with what most people consider "homeland security."<br /><br /> An elderly man in a theater in Columbus, Ohio, was subjected to a terrifying hour-long interrogation by a DHS official because he wore Google Glass and the theater thought he might be illegally taping the film. They didn't believe him when he explained that the glasses were prescription glasses.<br /><br /> The man told the Gadgeteer, "a guy comes near my seat, shoves a badge that had some sort of a shield on it, yanks the Google Glass off my face and says, 'Follow me outside immediately.'" After an hour, they let the man go.<br /><br /> It turns out DHS considers fighting movie piracy to be part of its responsibility. DHS agents also investigate pickpocketing, expose counterfeit NBA merchandise and teach nightclub strippers about sex-traffickers. Meanwhile, the TSA confiscates shampoo and tweezers but fails test after test using dummy bombs smuggled through airport security.<br /><br /> Your tax dollars at work. Yet now, after the latest terror attacks, Republicans and Democrats both claim Homeland Security still needs more money. <br /><br /> Keeping Americans safe from terrorism is an important, basic function of government. But government doesn't stick to its basic functions. <br /><br /> Terrorists are a real threat. So is government with a blank check.</p>John Stossel2015-12-09T08:00:00ZThe SmearJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Smear/-277968891678347926.html2015-12-02T08:00:00Z2015-12-02T08:00:00Z<p>This week my TV show is on gun control. I interviewed activist Leah Barrett, who wants stricter gun laws.<br /> I pointed out that after most states <em>loosened</em> gun laws to let people carry guns, 29 peer-reviewed studies examined the effect. Eighteen found less crime, 10 found no difference and only one found an increase.<br /><br /> "Which studies?" Barrett snapped. "John Lott's? His research has been <em>totally</em> discredited."<br /><br /> "Discredited" is a word the anti-gun activists use a lot. It's as if they speak from the same playbook.<br /> "Lott is a widely discredited ideologue," said a spokeswoman for Everytown -- a Bloomberg-funded gun control group.<br /><br /> "Completely discredited" is how the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy described Lott's research.<br /><br /> The left-wing site Salon says Lott "was discredited in the early 2000s."<br /><br /> Media Matters for America called Lott "discredited" at least 40 times.<br /><br /> So how is Lott "discredited"? Barrett says, "He claims his data was lost on his hard drive. Well, go re-create it! He hasn't been able to!" But that's false. Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" study has been replicated often, including by the National Research Council and even by some critics.<br /><br /> After a hard-drive crash, Lott did lose data that supported a lesser point: 98 percent of the time, people only need to point a gun at a criminal for him to back down. But Lott did replicate that survey (he got 95 percent, close results for statistical purposes). That data is posted on his group's website and available to anyone who wants it.<br /><br /> Barrett continued her smear: Lott "actually impersonated a student ... to say what a great professor he is."<br /><br /> That's actually true. On the Internet, Lott once posed as a student to praise his own course. Dumb, yes. Deceitful, too. But it doesn't "discredit" all his research.<br /><br /> I may be biased here. One of Lott's kids works for me. But when I look at the facts, I conclude that Lott is right. His critics, instead of arguing facts, smear.<br /><br /> Sometimes it reaches comical levels. Jonah Peretti, founder of BuzzFeed, impersonated Lott on a website he set up called "Ask John Lott." When people emailed the site, Peretti wrote back pretending to be Lott and saying that he didn't support certain gun controls.<br /><br /> After legal action, Peretti took down the site and apologized. But BuzzFeed recently ran an article claiming that Lott pressured a stalking victim into talking to the media about why she wanted a gun. BuzzFeed ignored screen shots Lott sent them of text exchanges showing that the woman said she wanted to talk to the media.<br /><br /> Lott isn't the only smear victim. Many academics who don't toe the leftist line get attacked.<br /><br /> Climatologist Judith Curry was popular in academic circles when she assumed that global warming was a big problem. But then she looked deeper into the research and expressed some doubts.<br /><br /> Suddenly Curry was a "climate misinformer" who made "assertions unsupported by evidence" with "an irresponsible level of sloppiness." Climate Progress founder Joe Romm wrote that Curry "abandons science." Congressmen demanded that her university investigate her funding.<br /><br /> Curry told me that she only dared speak out against the leftist mob because she has tenure and is near retirement. Professors without tenure often lose jobs.<br /><br /> Lott was pushed out of Yale, Wharton and the University of Chicago. Now he runs a group called the Crime Prevention Research Center. To fend off smears, he refuses all funding from gun-makers.<br /><br /> I grew up assuming that more guns meant more crime and that gun control would save lives. Lott showed that the facts don't support that assumption. Now even some leftists admit that.<br /><br /> A New York Times op-ed said, "Even gun control advocates acknowledge a larger truth: the law that barred the sale of assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 made little difference."<br /><br /> It's also a myth that gun owners are more likely to hurt themselves than protect themselves. There were 505 accidental gun deaths in 2013, but surveys estimate that guns are used for self-defense somewhere between 100,000 and 2 million times a year.<br /><br /> It's counterintuitive, but it's true: More guns lead to less crime.</p>John Stossel2015-12-02T08:00:00ZAnti-Liberty PoliticiansJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Anti-Liberty-Politicians/442764811700852457.html2015-11-18T08:00:00Z2015-11-18T08:00:00Z<p>After a terrorist attack, it's natural to ask: What can politicians do to keep us safe? <br /><br /> One thing they could do is actually focus on keeping us safe rather than devoting so much time, energy and hot air to the many things government does <em>instead</em> of protecting lives and property. <br /><br /> My state's politicians are particularly bad. New York's legislators regularly go to jail for taking bribes to pass, or not pass, special regulations. <br /><br /> One recent governor, Eliot Spitzer, perhaps because his rich father gave him money, didn't take bribes (to my knowledge). Instead, he had sex with prostitutes, meanwhile publicly declaring that sex work was "modern-day slavery." He then signed a law that increased penalties for people caught doing it. When Spitzer was caught, he resigned. He's a felon, but he managed to avoid jail. <br /><br /> Today, New Yorkers suffer under a new anti-liberty politician, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. He hasn't been jailed yet, but the public would be better served if he were. Schneiderman pushes "pro-consumer" laws that win media attention while depriving consumers of good choices. <br /><br /> Schneiderman has sought to limit wonderful "sharing economy" innovations like Uber and Airbnb. Home-sharing companies let people rent out their apartments while they're away. Ride-hailing companies efficiently bring together customers and products that might have just sat around unused. <br /><br /> But to Schneiderman (and economically clueless autocrats in some other states), these innovations are dangerous "unregulated" services. Politicians want politicians to decide what you use your property for. <br /> After Airbnb delighted tourists by giving them better and cheaper vacation experiences, Schneiderman issued a press release announcing that he was "aggressively tackling this growing problem." <br /><br /> I suspect his real motive was tackling campaign contributions from hotels and their Democrat-supporting unions. Politicians are also eager to collect hotel taxes, which in New York City, add 15 percent to your bill. <br /> Schneiderman launched his lawyers at Uber, claiming that the company's "surge" pricing violates price-gouging laws. Calling price increases "gouging" is a way politicians mislead consumers into thinking that government must protect us. But <em>competition</em> protects us from unfair prices better than government ever can. <br /><br /> Uber's ever-changing prices ensure cars are available when consumers most want them. No one is tricked into paying a higher price. It's clearly marked on your phone and passengers are given every chance to decline it. <br /><br /> Attorney General Schneiderman also continued his predecessors' ban on "mixed martial arts" contests. When MMA first became visible, some politicians called it "barbaric" and "unregulated." Several states banned it, a move some politicians make against most anything new and different. <br /><br /> But while states were busy banning it, it became one of the most popular and lucrative sports in America. Smarter states got rid of their bans, but not New York. MMA supporters and the Ultimate Fighting Championship are fighting the ban. May the best man win -- and the regulators lose. <br /><br /> And now, after taking campaign contributions from the casino industry, my ambitious attorney general has ordered fantasy football betting companies DraftKings and FanDuel to stop taking bets from New Yorkers. He pompously announced, "Today we have sent a clear message: not in New York and not on my watch." <br /><br /> Schneiderman says that fantasy football involves no skill and thus is gambling -- illegal under New York law. His argument is nonsense. The games obviously involve skill -- people constantly argue about how wise their picks were. <br /><br /> Either way, who cares? Let people take chances if they want to. New York's own government runs a much worse gambling operation -- a state lottery. It <em>clearly</em> involves no skill, preys on poor people and has odds worse than illegal bookies offer. <br /><br /> New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie got it right when he yelled at an unctuous CNBC moderator during the second Republican presidential debate: "We have ISIS and al-Qaida attacking us, and we're talking about <em>fantasy football</em>?" Exactly. <br /><br /> I dream of a world with fewer regulators.</p>John Stossel2015-11-18T08:00:00ZMy Trump ProblemJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/My-Trump-Problem/685366648128426670.html2015-11-11T08:00:00Z2015-11-11T08:00:00Z<p>Sometimes I like Donald Trump. He makes me laugh when he mocks reporters' stupid questions. <br /><br /> Sometimes he's smart. When Maryland's lefty governor said a tax on rich people would "raise revenue," Trump told me why it wouldn't. The taxpayers would just flee: "I know these people! They're international people! Whether they live here or in a place like Switzerland, it doesn't really matter to them!" <br /><br /> Perfect TV sound bite. And accurate. Maryland's tax on the rich brought in<em> less </em>revenue. <br /><br /> When Trump makes billions by giving people things they want in voluntary exchanges -- via casinos or real estate or the chance to watch him "fire" people on TV shows -- I applaud him. Free trade is <em>mutually beneficial</em>. Everybody wins. <br /><br /> That's why it's appalling when Trump calls trade agreements a "disaster" and says he'd "punish" Mexico with higher tariffs (tariffs <em>really</em> punish Americans). <br /><br /> And it's appalling when Trump uses connections with government to<em> take</em> things from others. I confronted him about that once. <br /><br /> In Atlantic City, an elderly woman named Vera Coking owned a home near Trump's casino. Trump wanted to take down her house so he could expand his casino parking lot. <br /><br /> People had offered to buy Vera's house, but she said no. In America, property rights mean you get to tell people, "You can't use my things without my permission." <br /><br /> But Trump wouldn't take no for an answer. He got some New Jersey politicians to grant him the right to <em>take</em> Vera's house. Politicians can do that under a law called "eminent domain." Trump recently called eminent domain "wonderful!" <br /><br /> Eminent domain can be wonderful if it's put to important public use, say, claiming land for highways, railroads or a pipeline. But Trump got New Jersey pols to use it so he'd have a better space for limousines to park. <br /><br /> Also, under eminent domain, the state is supposed to pay the property owner "just compensation." But Vera had turned down a million-dollar offer. Instead of raising the bid, Trump got politicians to force Vera to sell for even less. Trump would have to pay just $251,000, a fourth what she'd been offered. <br /><br /> That made Trump a manipulative bully. So I told him that. <br /><br /> "In the old days, developers came in with thugs with clubs. Now you use lawyers!" <br /><br /> "Excuse me! Other people maybe use thugs today. I don't!" was Trump's angry answer. "For you to use the word 'bully,' John, is very unfair. ... It's a pretty sick assumption, and I think it's pretty jaded for you to make it." <br /><br /> Vintage Trump. <br /><br /> He is right. I'm pretty jaded. Watching big shots violate people's property rights tends to do that. <br /><br /> Fortunately, after a long legal battle, an appeals court ruled that Trump could not take Vera's property. That worked best for everyone since it turned out that Trump didn't need a bigger parking lot. Trump and New Jersey pols hadn't predicted the future. His casino, like others in Atlantic City, went bankrupt. <br /><br /> Bankruptcy happens in business all the time, and only investors lose. But when business "partners" with government, innocent people get trampled. <br /><br /> Trump also tried to use his "get politicians to grab someone's land" scheme in Bridgeport, Connecticut, where he promised a "world-class" development that never happened. <br /><br /> This is "a powerful, politically influential person using his power to steal, essentially, somebody else's private property for his own private profit," says Tim Sandefur of the Pacific Legal Foundation. <br /><br /> But Trump said that his development might bring the city extra tax money, making it "public" use. <br /><br /> "By that logic," says Sandefur, "you can use the power of eminent domain to kick all poor people out of your city. ... The whole purpose of protections against eminent domain in our Constitution -- in fact, the very purpose of a Constitution -- is to protect people who don't have political influence and can't persuade politicians to do their bidding." <br /><br /> I wish Trump understood that. He isn't the only one whose ego is huge. So is government's -- always thinking it knows best. <br /><br /> Let property owners decide, not the bullies.</p>John Stossel2015-11-11T08:00:00ZBeat the EliteJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Beat-the-Elite/-279983144674287834.html2015-11-05T08:00:00Z2015-11-05T08:00:00Z<p>We love to complain about elites, people who seem to have a special advantage, privileges in life. <br /><br /> I get annoyed by the Kardashians and other spoiled rich kids. They didn't work for their wealth. They don't contribute. <br /><br /> Still, those elites are mostly harmless.<br /><br /> But there's one group of truly dangerous elites: politicians. Spoiled party kids may have stupid ideas, but they can't impose them on the rest of us. Politicians can, and do. It's an important distinction to remember.<br /><br /> In Thomas Sowell's book "The Vision of the Anointed" (which should have been titled "<em>Conceit</em> of the <em>Self</em>-Anointed", Sowell points out that politicians use "the word 'ask' -- as in 'We are just asking everyone to pay their fair share.' But of course governments do not ask, they tell. The IRS does not 'ask' for contributions." <br /><br /> A rare presidential candidate who understands the importance of that difference is Sen. Rand Paul, who will appear on my TV show Friday. Paul points out that free markets get people to create things without force, and markets are much more efficient than governments. <br /><br /> "The Soviet Union was brought down because they couldn't determine one simple thing -- the price of bread," says Paul. "They had all these planners, but nobody can determine the price of bread. Only the market can." <br /><br /> Sadly, Paul hasn't inspired voters with that message, while his fellow senator, self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders, draws huge, cheering crowds. Front-runner Hillary Clinton doesn't call herself a socialist -- but she often acts like one. <br /><br /> "There's an irony here," says Paul, "because many of these people say, I'm pro-choice. No -- they're very anti-choice when it comes to market decisions. Producing stuff, buying stuff, selling stuff -- you're not allowed to do it. They're the <em>anti</em>-choice party. That's what socialism is." <br /><br /> People defend government spending out of concern for the poor, but what we get from government often has little to do with helping those at the bottom. "We just discovered," says Paul, "that they spent $800,000 developing a televised cricket league for Afghanistan ... and they spent $150,000 for yoga classes for federal employees." <br /><br /> This habit of taking money and power from citizens all over America and letting Washington elites decide how to use it doesn't exist just among Democrats. Paul sees it among Republican supporters of Donald Trump, too. Their attitude, says Paul, is "nobody quite knows exactly what economic system that celebrity is for, but trust him because he's smart and all-powerful -- give him more power and he'll fix everything." <br /><br /> By contrast, Paul says, "I'm not running to run the economy or the country." <br /><br /> I worry that, to most people, that sounds like a politician not "doing his job." People do seem eager to vote for a politician who will "lead," and "take charge." <br /><br /> But I don't want to be led. I'm not a child. I don't need elites in Washington, D.C., to boss me around and then tax me for it. <br /><br /> I wish voters would read Matt Ridley's new book, "The Evolution of Everything." He points out that when it comes to the innovations that make the most difference in our lives -- medicine, smartphones, search engines, even language -- it's not the elite planners who bring progress. <br /><br /> "It comes from the bottom up," says Ridley. "What happens in technology or morality or culture or any other aspect of human life is that ordinary people interacting with each other is the source of most innovation, most change in the world." <br /><br /> These good things happen in a decentralized, unplanned way all around us -- and it's been that way since humans first evolved. <br /><br /> Ridley says, "We give far too much credit to the people who are in charge, the people who seem to be on top of things and running things. They're just taking the credit." <br /><br /> Politicians should admit that more often. But that would require them to be humble. Loudly pretending to be in charge is their specialty.</p>John Stossel2015-11-05T08:00:00ZFearJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Fear/-511683431339172709.html2015-10-28T07:00:00Z2015-10-28T07:00:00Z<p>This Halloween, what do you fear?<br /><br /> I fear fear itself because when we are afraid, we willingly give away our freedoms.<br /><br /> Global warning? More power to the EPA! <br /><br /> 9/11? Vote 100 to 0 to create a TSA!<br /><br /> Kids don't learn? Common Core!<br /><br /> Crime up? Spend on police! (Or for leftists: increase welfare!)<br /><br /> Immigrants? Seal the border!<br /><br /> Ebola? More money and power for public health programs!<br /><br /> Government thrives on our fears. When we're scared, politicians are always there, promising to protect us if we just give them more money and power. We usually do.<br /><br /> I got into an argument about that with the hosts of the Fox show "Outnumbered," which pits one man against four women in debate. The "Outnumbered" hosts are not the usual silly socialist media alarmists. They often report on the harm big government does. But last summer, with government warning about Ebola being an "incredibly transmissible" disease and media shrieking, "Are hospitals ready?" all four women were <em>alarmed</em>.<br /><br /> They wanted government to<em> do</em> something. Quarantine? Ban flights from Africa? Hire more doctors? Government must do something!<br /><br /> I pushed back, saying, "You women get too scared; you exaggerate the risk." I know that was sexist. But I also think it's true -- women fear more. Am I wrong? I'm open to counter-argument.<br /><br /> I told the TV hosts that I believed more Americans would be killed by<em> deer</em> than Ebola. They laughed at me, but I was serious, and in fact, that year only one American died from Ebola, but almost 200 were killed by deer (most from their cars colliding with deer). <br /><br /> But we don't fear deer. This Saturday, no one will wear scary deer costumes. No Halloween party will feature scary replicas of cars. We're accustomed to cars and deer. New threats frighten us -- and threats that seem new.<br /><br /> Like school shootings. After the last horrible mass shooting, Hillary Clinton implied that school has become more dangerous. She demanded new gun controls, asking, "How many people have to die before we actually <em>act</em>?"<br /><br /> Every shooting is terrible, and governments often respond by hiring increased security and running "lockdown drills" that terrify kids. Politicians say these steps are needed because mass shootings are up.<br /><br /> But they are not. School violence is actually down. There were almost four times as many deaths back in 1994.<br /><br /> People fear today's resurgence of violent crime. The head of the FBI says he thinks the "War on Cops" led some officers to be less aggressive, and that's why crime has risen a little in some cities. <br /><br /> But he had no hard evidence to back up what he said.<br /><br /> Crime is up in a few cities, but the percentage increase is dramatic only because the crime rates in those cities had fallen very low. "Take New York City. Homicides up 8 percent this year," says Northeastern University criminology professor James Alan Fox, "but it's 35 percent lower than five years ago."<br /> Overall, crime continues to fall. Really. The FBI just released the most recent data, which says violent crime is down. Again.<br /><br /> But what about that "War on Cops"? It's true that in some neighborhoods, police making arrests often face an angry crowd screaming "racism," and 32 officers have been killed with guns this year. That's tragic, but it's not an increase. Actually, today is an especially safe time to be a police officer. Adjusted for the change in population, 2013 saw fewer police deaths than any year since 1887, and if this year's trend continues, 2015 will have the lowest number of police killings in decades.<br /><br /> Fear is a friend of the state. When people are frightened, they willingly give money and power to politicians and bureaucrats.<br /><br /> That's what I fear this Halloween.<br /><br /> John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on Fox News and author of "No, They Can't! Why Government Fails -- But <em>Individuals</em> Succeed."</p>John Stossel2015-10-28T07:00:00ZForced SilenceJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Forced-Silence/581104534077554595.html2015-10-21T07:00:00Z2015-10-21T07:00:00Z<p>In a democracy, citizens must be able to criticize their leaders. It's a reason America's founders put free speech in the Bill of Rights. I assumed that right is safe in the United States. So I was shocked to learn what happened in Wisconsin. <br /><br /> Before dawn, Deborah Jordahl was awakened by the sound of cops banging on her front door. She rushed downstairs before police used their battering ram to break the door down. The officers then said her household was under criminal investigation. <br /><br /> They ordered Deborah and her son Adam to step aside while they took her family's computers, cellphones and files. They also told her, don't talk to anyone about this investigation! If you do, you may be jailed! <br /> They wouldn't tell her why. <br /><br /> School buses drove by. Neighbors wondered what was going on at the Jordahl house. <br /><br /> Deborah's son told me, "People came up to me at school and said, 'Hey, what happened at your house this morning?'" He couldn't legally answer.<br /><br /> No one in the family was allowed to explain that Deborah works as a political consultant, that she supported Gov. Scott Walker and <em>limited</em> government. Now, political incumbents who like big government were investigating her for possible violation of Wisconsin's campaign finance rules. <br /><br /> Modern campaign rules are so complex no one is certain what is legal. Yet one misstep is enough to get accused not just of bad political arguments, but also of "collusion" and racketeering. Raise money for a cause you believe in and get close to politicians you favor, and you may be accused of funneling illicit money to their campaigns. <br /><br /> In Wisconsin, prosecutors may also impose what's called the "John Doe" rule: Don't tell anyone that you're being investigated, not even your kids, your spouse and definitely not the media.<br /><br /> Prosecutors claim secrecy is needed to "protect privacy" of people under investigation -- if charges are dropped, no one need know that you had been accused. But in truth, says Eric O'Keefe, another limited-government activist who Wisconsin prosecutors investigated, "This is about shutting us up. That's all it is. It is a speech suppression play." <br /><br /> It's also a way for political insiders to punish their opponents. O'Keefe is a Republican, and the lead prosecutor, Milwaukee District Attorney John Chisholm, is a Democrat, but two Republican insiders signed off on the raids, too. "I take cold comfort in having my constitutional rights trampled by both parties," says O'Keefe.<br /><br /> We who support smaller government expect retaliation from incumbent politicians. But children shouldn't be punished. Sixteen year-old Noah Johnson was home alone when cops banged on his family's door at dawn. His parents left early that morning. <br /><br /> Noah was scared because he had no idea what was going on. "I'm looking around outside. There are flashlights everywhere." <br /><br /> He wanted to call his parents, which sounds responsible, but, "They didn't let me call anyone -- I was not able to call a lawyer." <br /><br /> Hours later, they allowed him to leave for school, but again warned him not to tell anyone about the police!<br /> "I was two hours late for school," he told me, but "there's no way you can explain it to anyone." When his teacher asked why he was late, all he could say was, "I cannot say." <br /><br /> Every John Doe suspect had to live the nightmare of knowing that the state was investigating them or their family members but that they were forbidden by the government to say what the family had done that might be forbidden by the government. <br /><br /> This forced silence lasted five years, until Wisconsin's Supreme Court finally ordered the Joe Doe investigations stopped, saying prosecutors used "theories of law that do not exist." <br /><br /> But political incumbents didn't have to win convictions to achieve what I assume was one of their goals: silencing opponents during political campaigns. <br /><br /> We like to think speech is free, but when government can investigate you for possibly violating countless little rules, and then order you to shut up, it censors without the public even knowing. <br /><br /> Campaign finance rules -- and the political incumbents and prosecutor-bullies who manipulate them -- are a major threat to our freedom.</p>John Stossel2015-10-21T07:00:00ZCensorship in AmericaJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Censorship-in-America/988043126295409318.html2015-10-14T07:00:00Z2015-10-14T07:00:00Z<span>Support for the idea that it's good to hear all opinions, even offensive ones, is thin. A plurality of Americans now support laws against "hate speech." <br /></span><br /><span>Conservatives once wanted to ban Playboy magazine, violent rap lyrics and offensive depictions of Jesus. Leftists then were right to fight such bans, but today leftists encourage censorship in the name of "tolerance." <br /></span><br /><span>Scientist Matt Taylor helped land a probe on a comet for the first time in history. But because he explained his achievement while wearing a T-shirt that had cartoons of sexy women on it (designed by a female friend of his), writer Rose Eveleth of The Atlantic tweeted that Taylor "ruined" the comet landing. The public outcry against him was so great that he cried at an apologetic press conference. <br /></span><br /><span>Silicon Valley entrepreneur Brendan Eich created JavaScript and helped start Mozilla Firefox. But when activists discovered that he'd once donated $1,000 to support California's Proposition 8 banning gay marriage, they attacked him as "a hater." A year and a half later, Eich still can't find a job. <br /></span><br /><span>When Eich donated the money, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton opposed gay marriage, too. But in just five years, such opinions have become so "unacceptable" that a tech genius is ostracized by his own industry.<br /></span><br /><span>As long as the leftist mobs don't use law or violence, they're still engaged in free speech. Private employers can impose most any speech rule they choose. The First Amendment applies<em> only</em> to government. But now some government officials are as eager to censor as the leftist mobs. <br /></span><br /><span>After the owners of Chick-fil-A said they oppose gay marriage, the mayors of Chicago, San Francisco and Boston said Chick-fil-A is "not welcome" in their cities. San Francisco's mayor said, "The closest Chick-fil-A is 40 miles away and I strongly recommend they not try to come any closer." <br /></span><br /><span>Since mayors may influence permits and zoning, their threats aren't idle. And no new Chick-fil-A outlets have opened in those cities. This is a clear violation of the First Amendment, although the politicians seem oblivious to that. <br /></span><br /><span>Of course, much worse than today's left are those who censor through violence. Al Qaeda's magazine names people who should be killed, chirping, "A bullet a day keeps the infidel away." <br /></span><br /><span>Writers and artists heed the threats. CNN, NBC and the New York Times will no longer show Mohammed cartoons.<br /></span><br /><span>I was surprised that liberal commentators were so eager to cave in to the terrorists' threats. Chris Matthews said, "Wanting to pick a fight with Islam is insane." <br /></span><br /><span>Such cowardice just invites more censorship. <br /></span><br /><span>When the TV series "South Park" was censored by its own network for depicting Mohammed, a fan of the show, liberal cartoonist Molly Norris, showed her support by drawing her own cartoons of Mohammed. For doing so, she received death threats. Fearing for her safety, she went into hiding. <br /></span><br /><span>Columnist Mark Steyn was appalled that "Her liberal newspaper -- the way they put it in announcing that she'd gone, <em>ceased to exist</em>, was: 'There is no more Molly.'" She hasn't been heard from in five years. <br /></span><br /><span>"The only way we're going to move to a real sense of freedom is if every time somebody puts a bullet in a cartoonist for drawing a cartoon of Mohammed," says Steyn, "every newspaper ... displays that picture." <br /></span><br /><span>Steyn argues that societies that censor create more violence by driving hate speech underground. <br /></span><br /><span>"You can have a society with free speech where I call you names, and you do rude drawings of me, and I say you're a hater, and we hatey-hatey-hate each other," said Steyn on my TV special, "Censorship in America," but "the alternative is the Muslim world where there's no open debate, and so there's nothing left to do but kill and bomb and shoot." <br /></span><br /><span>Free speech matters. If we give in to those who would shut us up, the censors will push and push until we have no freedom left. If we're going to sort out which ideas are good and which are bad, everyone must be allowed to speak.</span>John Stossel2015-10-14T07:00:00ZEscaping TyrannyJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Escaping-Tyranny/-117970807750929863.html2015-10-07T07:00:00Z2015-10-07T07:00:00Z<p>North Korea is called the "worst place on earth" for good reason. Thousands of people are tortured. Some North Koreans eat rodents to try to survive, and many starve anyway. In winter, they freeze. No one but the dictator has any true freedom, and no one is allowed to leave. </p>
<p>One person who understands that is Yeonmi Park. Now she's 22. But for 16 years, she did amazing things "In Order to Live." That is the title of her new book. <br /><br />"We didn't have enough food. I had to see dead bodies in the streets," she says. Still, she and other North Koreans worshipped the late "Dear Leader," Kim Jong Il, and his son, current leader and "Brilliant Comrade," Kim Jong Un. Yeonmi told my TV studio audience that she believed Kim "could read my mind."</p>
<p>When she was allowed to attend school, Yeonmi was taught to hate Americans. "We have to call all Americans 'bastards'. My math problem was 'you had four American bastards and you could choke two, how many American bastards are left to kill'? North Korea educates people that our suffering is because of these bad American bastards. Because of them, we are starving." </p>
<p>But tiny bits of freedom can undermine a regime's monopoly on thought. For Yeonmi, a black-market DVD of a Western film made a difference. </p>
<p>"I watched the movie 'Titanic' and I was shocked. Like, how could this kind of ridiculous film exist? I'd never seen people dying for love, except dying for the regime and the party." </p>
<p>When Yeonmi was thirteen, she and her mother escaped into China, where they were kidnapped and sold into slavery: "Chinese government, if they catch us, will sell us back to North Korea, so we are very vulnerable in China. Chinese people, they know that." </p>
<p>Sex traffickers took advantage of that vulnerability. "That's what happened to both of us, my mother and me." At the time, she didn't know what sex was. "I didn't even know what kissing was." </p>
<p>For two years, she was an abused captive. Then a Protestant mission helped her escape to South Korea by walking across the Gobi Desert. </p>
<p>South Korea "was another shock," because she realized that freedom meant more than just having food -- it meant making her own decisions. </p>
<p>"I thought freedom meant wearing jeans or watching movies without worrying about getting arrested or executed," says Yeonmi, "but what freedom meant in South Korea was you've got to think for yourself. They were asking me, 'What do you think about this? What do you want to do with your life? What do you like to eat?' I was so upset, like, 'Tell me what to do, tell me what to wear!'" </p>
<p>South Koreans sneered at North Korean escapees. "Everybody told me I was a loser, because I am from communism country. I don't have any knowledge of Western culture." </p>
<p>Books became the next step in her journey. "I devoured books," she says. "One day, I picked up a book called 'Animal Farm.' That changed my life. In that book, I saw myself. I saw my grandmother." </p>
<p>The George Orwell allegory about how noble-sounding revolutions can turn into tyranny resonated with Yeonmi. "I could understand what really had happened to me and what really had happened to North Korea." </p>
<p>Today she fears for family members who have been unable to escape: "My relatives, they're back in North Korea, and now Kim Jung Un, that fat guy doesn't like me, so he's using my relatives and denouncing me as a human rights propaganda puppet of the CIA. I'm hoping for the best -- that they are safe and one day I can see them again."</p>
<p>Since today so many Americans call themselves "victims," I asked Yeomni if she was a victim.</p>
<p>She said absolutely not. "I am not a victim. I am grateful I was born in North Korea and escaped ... I would go through the same journey to be free." </p>
<p>I pushed back, asking, "Starving and being sold into sex slavery, you would do it again?"</p>
<p>"Yes," she answered. "I would do that again to be free."</p>John Stossel2015-10-07T07:00:00ZThe Cult of VictimsJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Cult-of-Victims/393681341969266075.html2015-09-30T07:00:00Z2015-09-30T07:00:00Z<p>The world has enough real problems without declaring everyone a "victim." <br /><br /> Bill Clinton says Hillary is a victim of a right-wing conspiracy.<br /><br /> Lindsay Lohan, when jailed for driving drunk and breaking parole, says she's a victim of cruel and unusual punishment. <br /><br /> Michael Sam says his NFL career would have gone better had he not come out as gay. <br /><br /> A Philadelphia dentist caught groping his patients' breasts said he is a victim of frotteurism, a disease that compels you to fondle breasts. Really. <br /><br /> People benefit by playing the victim.<br /><br /> Activists look for people they can declare victims, to bring attention to their causes. <br /><br /> The New York Times once called the Super Bowl the "Abuse Bowl," claiming that during the game many more women are abused than usual because their men get crazed watching violence. CBS called Super Bowl Sunday a "day of dread." The Boston Globe claimed a study showed calls to anti-violence emergency lines go up 40 percent during the game. <br /><br /> Then Ken Ringle of the Washington Post tried to trace those claims. <br /><br /> The Globe reporter admitted she never saw the study in question but got the numbers from the left-wing group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. FAIR said they got them from a psychiatrist on "Good Morning America." That psychiatrist referred callers to another psychiatrist, who said, "I haven't been any more successful than you in tracking down any of this." <br /><br /> The "Super Bowl victim" claim was bunk.<br /><br /> Sometimes I feel like a victim. I stutter. Had today's disability laws existed when I began work, would I have fought to overcome my stuttering? Maybe not. I might have sued my employer, demanding they "accommodate my disability" by giving me a non-speaking job. Maybe I would have just stopped working and collected a disability check.<br /><br /> I also felt like a victim the day I taped a TV report on how pro wrestling is fake, and a wrestler beat me up, hitting me on both ears.<br /><br /> Weeks afterward, loud noises hurt my ears. Someone then said that that the wrestler's boss, Vince McMahon,<em> told</em> him to hit me, so I sued McMahon. <br /><br /> As part of the lawsuit, McMahon's lawyers demanded I see a certain doctor, who told me, "Your ear pain is a <em>jurosomatic</em> illness." <br /><br /> "What's that?" I said.<br /><br /> He answered, "Jurosomatic ... like psychosomatic. You hold onto your ear pain because you're involved in a lawsuit." <br /><br /> I was <em>furious</em>. I screamed at him, "You haven't even examined me, and you make this accusation?"<br /><br /> But guess what? After the World Wrestling Federation settled the lawsuit and paid me, my ear pain slowly went away. Was I holding onto pain because litigation kept reminding me that I was a victim? <br /><br /> Maybe.<br /><br /> It makes me wonder about those well-intended government programs meant to help the disabled. Social Security disability money used to go to blind people, people in wheelchairs, people clearly disabled. <br /> But now billions go to people who say they're disabled by things like headaches and back pain. Disability payments have increased so much that the program will soon go broke. <br /><br /> But the increase in payments makes no sense. <br /><br /> Medicine <em>improved</em> since 1990. People do <em>less</em> hard manual labor. There should be <em>fewer</em> disabled people. Why are there <em>more</em>?<br /><br /> Perhaps it's jurosomatic pain? Or government-handout-omatic pain? <br /><br /> Some people are just inclined to complain, and the modern welfare state encourages that. Lawyers made it worse by encouraging people to sue, rather than <em>strive</em>. That changed America. <br /><br /> When you reward something, you get more of it. <br /><br /> We change people's character by teaching them that "victimhood" is a way to get attention and moral status. <br /> Our ancestors never would have accomplished much if they'd labeled themselves victims. They crossed oceans and the prairie knowing that many people on the journey would die. <br /><br /> Some of them really did end up being victims. But they were proud of striving, not proud of being victimized. They accomplished far more because of it. </p>John Stossel2015-09-30T07:00:00ZGovernment: Here to Help!John Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Government:-Here-to-Help!/-211969501099505715.html2015-09-23T17:32:00Z2015-09-23T17:32:00Z<p>Government wants you to think it helps you at every turn. Every time you make a decision, a purchase, government wants to be there, looking essential. </p>
<p>But it's a trick. Most government "help" creates new problems. <br /><br /> Students once went to private banks to get college loans. Banks, since they had their own money on the line, tried to lend only to students who were likely to succeed and then pay them back. Politicians then said, "Banks don't lend enough, so we'll guarantee loans or make loans ourselves! After all, college is essential for success." <br /><br /> Colleges responded by raising tuition at seven times the rate of inflation. It's a spiral in which taxpayers are forced to give money to colleges -- which then charge high tuition, so students graduate deep in debt, and then politicians demand that taxpayers forgive that debt. <br /><br /> President Obama said, sure, just pay back 10 percent or, after 20 years, nothing! Taxpayers will pay the rest, which goes to schools that employ professors who demand more government programs. It's a spiral that makes government bigger. <br /><br /> The same thing happened with housing. People once borrowed from private banks, which applied market discipline. If they thought you wanted to borrow more than you would likely repay, banks wouldn't lend you the money. <br /><br /> But now government -- Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration -- guarantee nearly every loan. That helped create the last housing bubble. After it burst, and taxpayers were charged nearly $2 billion to bail out the FHA, the politicians assured the public they would fix this to make sure it never happened again.<br /><br /> But they didn't. Today, once again, more than 90 percent of home loans are backed by taxpayers, and after briefly raising down-payment requirements, the FHA will again make loans to people who make down payments of as little as 3 percent. <br /><br /> A sensible solution would be to get government out of the home loan business, but even Republicans claim government support for homebuilding is needed. It isn't. Canada has no Fannie, Freddie or FHA, and no housing bubble. In Canada, lenders and homeowners risk their <em>own</em> money, yet just as many people are able to buy homes. <br /><br /> Finally, Obamacare makes the same arrogant assumption about healthcare: Without government, people can't afford health care and won't make good decisions. But healthcare is bureaucratic and costly <em>because</em> of government. <br /><br /> For decades, government encouraged us to pay for health care -- even routine procedures -- with insurance. But insurance is designed for large, rare expenditures, like your house catching fire or a heart attack. <br /> When everything from head colds to backaches is paid for through insurance, neither the customer nor service provider pays much attention to what anything costs. I'm on Medicare now. I'm amazed that when I go to a doctor, no one even <em>mentions</em> price.<br /><br /> If we paid for everything that way -- clothing, groceries, computers -- everything would cost much more. No one would know when to shop around, when they were getting a great deal, or when to say: enough. <br /> The more we enshrine the idea that "everyone must have health insurance," the more big insurance companies can raise prices without worrying about customers fleeing. Forced government insurance steers everyone into a few big plans instead of letting individuals make decisions that foster competition. Hospitals and insurance companies are the ones really being helped. <br /><br /> President Eisenhower addressed a similar problem when he complained about a "military-industrial complex." Today we have a broader "government-industrial complex." <br /><br /> It shouldn't surprise us when big companies start out opposing regulation but then announce that they wholeheartedly support government's latest "reform." <br /><br /> By the time legislation is passed, the major players in the industry have had a role in writing the laws, ensuring that they are guaranteed a profit.<br /><br /> I don't think government makes my life easier by being around me all the time. Instead, it makes it harder and harder to imagine life without government. Perhaps that was their goal. <br /><br /><br /></p>John Stossel2015-09-23T17:32:00ZLaw and BorderJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Law-and-Border/642867532531167887.html2015-09-16T04:00:00Z2015-09-16T04:00:00Z<p>How many wars can we fight?</p>
<p>Our presidential candidates demand "stronger action" against both illegal immigration and illegal drugs. But those goals conflict. The War on Drugs makes border enforcement much harder!</p>
<p>America's 44-year-long Drug War hasn't made a dent in American drug use or the supply of illegal drugs. If it had some positive effect, prices of drugs would have increased, but they haven't. American authorities say drugs are more available than ever.</p>
<p>Drug prohibition, like alcohol prohibition, creates fat profits that invite law-breaking.</p>
<p>Cato's Ted Galen Carpenter says, "Economists estimate that about 90 percent of the retail price of illicit drugs is due to this black market premium." Ninety-percent profits inspire lots of criminal risk-taking.</p>
<p>"Washington's policy empowers the most ruthless traffickers -- those willing to use violence, intimidation and exploitation of the vulnerable to gain market share." Continues Carpenter: "When drugs are outlawed, only outlaws will sell drugs."</p>
<p>Since the drug gangs can't settle disputes in court, they settle them with guns. In Latin America, they've killed thousands of people. </p>
<p>"Honduras has been living in an emergency," says Honduran President Juan Hernandez. "The root cause is that the United States and Colombia carried out big operations in the fight against drugs."</p>
<p>Mexico's former president, Vicente Fox, now supports legalization. Leaders of Guatemala, Colombia, Costa Rica and Bolivia have begun to object to the militaristic anti-drug tactics pushed by the United States.</p>
<p>Yet Hillary Clinton called taxpayer money spent on counter-narcotics efforts in Central America "money well spent."</p>
<p>She's closed-minded and wrong. Our Drug War creates the carnage that drives poor Latin Americans to abandon their villages and move north. That increases resentment against immigrants, as expressed by Donald Trump, who said, "They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime." Some do bring drugs, but most wouldn't bring crime if they could legally do business with us.</p>
<p>Our crazy, failed policy turns our neighbors to the south into a deadly menace.</p>
<p>"Coyotes," who help impoverished refugees escape, often require even the children to become drug mules -- to smuggle small amounts of drugs. The children obey, since many fled places where they'd be shot at or tortured by gangs. They know the drug gangs and coyotes are their only hope for reaching a better life.</p>
<p>Drug profits give smugglers the money to do what poverty-stricken immigrants can't: dig long, high-tech tunnels with lighting and ventilation systems. A border fence doesn't secure the border when immigrants -- and criminals -- can tunnel underneath it.</p>
<p>U.S. Attorney Laura Duffy recently bragged to reporters about "the fifth super-tunnel we've intercepted."</p>
<p>Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agent Derek Benner claimed that the interception dealt "a stunning blow to the Mexican cartel who built it."</p>
<p>But that's absurd. Benner admitted they'd done the same thing two years before "in virtually the same scenario." They found five of how many? Hundreds? With a border almost 2,000 miles long, they're unlikely to find them all.</p>
<p>Drug prohibition, by making drug cartels rich, enables them to build a literal underground railroad to the north. The whole process -- dig, build, raid, destroy, repeat -- is just one more pointless activity that happens when government tries to suppress popular activities such as drug use.</p>
<p>Other countries are wising up. Argentina, Peru, Mexico and Portugal decriminalized small amounts of drugs. Uruguay legalized marijuana entirely, as have Colorado and Washington State.</p>
<p>The Center for Investigative Reporting says 90 percent of the drugs seized on the U.S.-Mexico border are some form of marijuana, meaning almost every time the Border Patrol makes a drug bust, it confiscates a drug that's legal in Colorado.</p>
<p>This is crazy.</p>
<p>We keep trying to do things the hard way -- spending over $1 trillion on the Drug War. If there were a clear benefit, you might say it was worth it. Instead, it yields death, dislocation of populations and enrichment of murderous cartels, without reducing drug abuse. Why do we put up with this?</p>
<p>Government's attempts to prohibit what people want tend to fail. The wars on immigration and drugs are two more wars we won't win.</p>John Stossel2015-09-16T04:00:00ZCutting Red TapeJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Cutting-Red-Tape/-24564083335154256.html2015-09-09T16:15:00Z2015-09-09T16:15:00ZI'm upset that the presidential candidates, all of them, rarely mention a huge problem: the quiet cancer that kills opportunity -- regulation. The accumulated burden of it is the reason that America is stuck in the slowest economic recovery since the Depression. <br /><br />I understand why candidates don't talk about it: Regulation is boring. But it's important.<br /><br />The founders of this republic were willing to die rather than be subject to other people's rules. Today we are so accustomed to bureaucracy that we've forgotten what it means to be free.<br /><br />We now have a million rules -- many so complex that even legal specialists can't understand them. Yet bureaucrats keep writing more. And 22 million people work for government!<br /><br />Okay, that wasn't fair. Many of those 22 million deliver mail, build roads and do things we consider useful. But at least a million are bureaucrats. And if you are a rule-maker and you <em>don't</em> create new rules, you think you're not doing your job. <br /><br />On his "Grumpy Economist" blog, the Hoover Institution's John Cochrane points out that most of these rule-makers were never even elected, and legislatures rarely vote on their new rules. Yet "Regulators can ruin your life, and your business, very quickly, and you have very little recourse." <br /><br />Regulators have vast power to oppress. <br /><br />Their power not only hurts the economy, it threatens our <em>political</em> freedom, says Cochran. "What banker dares to speak out against the Fed? ... What hospital or health insurer dares to speak out against HHS or ObamaCare? ... What real estate developer needing zoning approval dares to speak out against the local zoning board? The agencies demand political support for themselves first of all."<br /><br />Speaking up will bring unwanted attention to your project, extra delays, maybe retaliation. It's safer to keep your mouth shut. We learn to be passive and put up with more layers of red tape. <br /><br />Fortunately, a few Americans resist. At Boston's Children's Hospital, head cardiologist Dr. Robert Gross dismissed Dr. Helen Taussig's new idea for a surgical cure for "blue-baby syndrome." He wanted to do things by the book. So she took the technique to Johns Hopkins Hospital instead. It worked. You don't hear much about blue-baby syndrome anymore. The embarrassed Gross went on to tell the story many times to teach medical students to listen to new ideas. Breaking the rules saved lives. <br /><br />But that happened years ago. Few doctors break the rules today. The consequences are too severe. <br /><br />American entrepreneurs took advantage of a "permissionless economy" to create Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc., but they could accomplish that only because Washington's bureaucrats didn't know enough about what they were doing to slow them down. <br /><br />Now regulators have their claws in every cranny of the Internet. Innovation will be much more difficult.<br /><br />Today's regulations are often vague. A typical edict: "The firm shall not engage in abusive practices." That sounds reasonable, but what is "abusive"? The regulator decides. Compliance is your problem. <br /><br />If you have the misfortune to be noticed by the bureaucracy, or maybe a business rival complains about you, your idea dies and you go broke paying lawyers. <br /><br />European regulators have adopted something even worse, called "the Precautionary Principle." It states that you may not sell something until it has been "proven safe." That too sounds reasonable, unless you realize that it also means: "Don't try anything for the first time." <br /><br />Since we don't know all the rules, we're never quite sure if we're breaking any. Better to keep your head down. <br /><br />And sometimes the rule-makers really are out to get you. Nixon used the IRS against political enemies. So did Obama IRS appointee Lois Lerner. <br /><br />It's time for Americans to fight back. As Gen. Douglas MacArthur said, "You are remembered by the rules you break." <br /><br />America became the most innovative and prosperous nation in history because many Americans were adventurous, individualistic people willing to take big risks to discover things that might make life better. <br /><br />Every day, bureaucrats do more to kill those opportunities. We'll never know what good things we might have today had some bureaucrat not said "no." <br /><br />Presidential candidates ought to scream about that.John Stossel2015-09-09T16:15:00ZMarket MagicJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Market-Magic/442336655163045383.html2015-09-02T01:00:00Z2015-09-02T01:00:00ZPeople have long lists of things they think the market can't possibly do -- from building subways to fighting wars. Sometimes, the market does them anyway. <br /><br />War, for example. Even conservatives, who often praise markets, assume that only government can fight terrorists. Tell that to Matthew VanDyke. <br /><br />VanDyke and his group, Sons of Liberty International, spent the past months in Iraq training the Nineveh Plains Protection Unit, several thousand Christians willing to risk their lives fighting against ISIS's brutal forces there. <br /><br />I don't know if Sons of Liberty are as competent (or more competent) than the U.S. military, but they're not using taxpayer dollars or getting the U.S. involved in a wider war. <br /><br />My TV show on "market magic" this week looks at other things markets do that we're always told only government can do -- like run courts. <br /><br />People frustrated by legal bureaucracy and tired of waiting endlessly for government courts to make decisions now have alternatives. They can go to private arbitration companies and have their day in court without ever entering a government courtroom. An ABA survey of lawyers found 78 percent said arbitration was more efficient than government.<br /><br />"But maybe the for-profit arbitrator is not fair or your opponent bribes the judge!" say market skeptics. That can happen. But if an arbitration firm gets a reputation for making flaky decisions or taking bribes, customers just don't use it. It goes out of business. That's how the free market works. <br /><br />By contrast, badly run government courts, like other government agencies, <em>never</em> go away. When they fail, they just claim to be "underfunded" and demand more money. Congress usually gives it to them. <br /><br />Our air and most of our water are of course public property. It's good that we have an EPA (though we could use a less oppressive one) to protect such resources. But that also leads people to think we need more government force to handle problems like California's drought. <br /><br />Economist Zachary Donohew points out that California's water shortage isn't just caused by drought, though. It's caused by government refusing to allow the price of water to be set by market forces. <br /><br />"Water shortages are manmade," says Donohew. "We don't send the right signal to indicate how valuable it is, and we don't make it easy to move water from one use to the other." <br /><br />In most of America, taxpayers pay for reservoirs and aqueducts, but water sent to consumers, farmers, etc., is practically "free." So people waste it. But if the price were allowed to rise to reflect its scarcity, everyone would economize. You might decide you need to cook but not wash your car. Important activities like agriculture would continue, but farmers might grow grapes instead of oranges, because oranges need so much water. <br /><br />Decisions like that happen naturally when markets set prices. A price is more than money -- it's <em>information</em>. It tells people what is valuable. Then people adjust. <br /><br />When we forget that, we panic needlessly. Even The Wall Street Journal, which generally understands markets, recently reported on a "looming shortage" of airline pilots. <br /><br />But if there really is a shortage of pilots, pilot salaries will rise. More people will train to become pilots and any shortage will be brief.<br /><br />The market steers people and resources to where they're most valued. That happens even faster if government doesn't interfere with markets by offering its own, poorly run versions of the services people want. <br /><br />My fellow New York City subway riders believe government had to dig the subway tunnels and run the trains because "there's no profit in mass transit -- it loses money!" But in fact, most of New York's subways <em id="tinymce" class="mceContentBody " dir="ltr">were</em> built by private businesses. <br /><br />They only turned them over to government because politicians forced them to. A mayor claimed a proposed fare increase to 5 cents was "too much." Now a subway ride costs $2.75. <br /><br />I used the phrase "market magic," but the market is actually better than magic, because there's nothing mysterious about it -- it's all logical. <br /><br />The mystery is why we keep letting government get in the way.John Stossel2015-09-02T01:00:00ZStossel Ranks the CandidatesJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossel-Ranks-the-Candidates/-526772003822097292.html2015-08-27T18:37:00Z2015-08-27T18:37:00Z<p>My list of best to worst possible presidents:</p>
<ul>
<li> Rand Paul (R)</li>
<li> Gary Johnson (Libertarian)</li>
<li> Carly Fiorina (R)</li>
<li> Jeb Bush (R)</li>
<li> Ted Cruz (R)</li>
<li> Scott Walker (R)</li>
<li> Rick Perry (R)</li>
<li> Marco Rubio (R)</li>
<li> John Kasich (R)</li>
<li> Ben Carson (R)</li>
<li> Bobby Jindal (R)</li>
<li> Jim Webb (D)</li>
<li> George Pataki (R)</li>
<li> Donald Trump (R)</li>
<li> Lawrence Lessig (D)</li>
<li> Chris Christie (R)</li>
<li> Martin O'Malley (D)</li>
<li> Lindsey Graham (R)</li>
<li> Lincoln Chafee (D)</li>
<li> Rick Santorum (R)</li>
<li> Jim Gilmore (R)</li>
<li> Bernie Sanders (Ind./D/socialist)</li>
<li> Joe Biden (D)</li>
<li> Hillary Clinton (D)</li>
<li> Mike Huckabee (R)</li>
<li> Jill Stein (Green)</li>
</ul>
<p>OK, my list isn't very scientific. It's also probably unfair that I give demerits to candidates such as Huckabee, Christie and others who explicitly and cluelessly denounce libertarians. </p>
<p>But basically, I rank presidential candidates on how much they want to micro-manage our lives, or involve us in dubious foreign wars. Those who recognize the harm done by state control and government overreach gain points. </p>
<p>One candidate got bonus points just for not being politically correct (you know which one).</p>
<p>And yes, <em>all </em>26 people above really are running -- or are probably about to run.</p>
<p>What do you think of my ranking? Tell me why I'm wrong or why I'm right!</p>
<p>I love Donald Trump's willingness to speak his mind. But it's absurd to think that Mexico will fund construction of a giant wall between the U.S. and Mexico. Whatever Trump is doing, it isn't "outreach." One poll has Hispanic voters favoring Clinton over Trump by 70 to 13. </p>
<p>What I'd like to hear from presidential candidates is the message that liberty is good for everyone, not something that divides people. I like Marco Rubio's speech about his parents leaving Cuba to seek opportunity in the U.S. </p>
<p>I want an America that trades with the world and brings the message of free markets and liberty to every subset of the population, not just angry white guys. </p>
<p>For a change, I'd like to see a president who's humble, something Trump and Clinton are definitely not. </p>
<p>Sen. Rand Paul and ex-governor Gary Johnson lead my list because they are the only candidates who consistently talk about what I consider the most important issue: limiting the destructive power of the state. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, in the big Fox News debate, Sen. Paul didn't appear very likable, and since then he's fallen in the polls. I hope we'll hear more about his good ideas, like limiting government spying, limiting the drug war, cutting spending and reaching out to minority voters. But I fear that talking about limits on government power is too subtle for a press and public that is excited by building giant walls.</p>
<p>I assume that former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson will soon announce that he'll run on the Libertarian Party ticket. Maybe his campaign will catch fire. I doubt it, but it's possible! He and Sen. Paul understand that giant walls, more war and bigger government are not what we need. Johnson says he believes in "making government actually do less." </p>
<p>I wish more politicians believed in that. </p>
<p>Luckily, politicians don't really determine most of what goes on in our lives. The foolish media talk about them "running the country," but fortunately, politicians don't. They just run government. </p>
<p>The important stuff in life -- friendships we form, products that fill our homes, the books, videos and music we consume, the languages we use -- all go on happening thanks to free markets and individual initiative, independent of who is president. </p>
<p> </p>John Stossel2015-08-27T18:37:00ZBreaking the RulesJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Breaking-the-Rules/979167259523173142.html2015-08-20T21:17:00Z2015-08-20T21:17:00Z<p>Humans need rules. Rules make life more predictable. But when the rules multiply, the world needs some rule-breakers. </p>
<p>The creator of the underground website Silk Road, Ross Ulbricht, was sentenced to life in prison for creating an online space that allowed people to use bitcoins to buy and sell things. Some used Silk Road (named after Marco Polo's trading route from China) to sell illegal drugs. People do that anyway, even without Silk Road; since the site's closing, numerous similar websites have taken its place.</p>
<p>The prosecution implied (but never really argued) that Ulbricht planned murders. That would certainly be breaking a basic rule of civilization, but Ulbricht claims that wasn't what he was up to -- he just wanted to let other people engage in peaceful transactions. </p>
<p>If Ulbricht was telling the truth, then the world that rule-breakers like him envision is less creepy and dangerous than the government-run world in which we live now. Government enforces its rules with guns, and government force keeps increasing. </p>
<p>So I'm glad that today there are Rule Breaker Awards, sponsored by sponsored by Sage, Nextiva and Infusionsoft, given to entrepreneurs who make the world a better place by breaking rules. </p>
<p>Mike Michalowicz co-hosted the awards. Inspired by a pumpkin farmer who dedicated his life solely to growing giant pumpkins, Mike wrote a book called "The Pumpkin Plan" in which he discourages people from assuming that the way everyone else does something must be the best way. </p>
<p>One of this year's Rule Breaker Award recipients is Alex Esposito, whose Free Ride shuttle service offers exactly that -- free rides in New York State, Florida, San Diego and elsewhere, made possible by the low operating cost of Esposito's little electric buses and by local businesses advertising on the vehicles. </p>
<p>I assumed offering free rides would not be a sustainable business, but I guess I just think in conventional terms. Apparently, the opportunity to advertise makes all sorts of neat services profitable -- including TV, of course. </p>
<p>Esposito's Free Ride idea seems so simple in retrospect it's hard to believe no one else was doing it. It takes a rule-breaker to notice a different way to do things. </p>
<p>Government, with its recourse to guns and jails, imposes the worst rules. But corporate culture can be dumb, too. Ricardo Semler is a CEO who decided to break the usual rules of corporate decorum. </p>
<p>At age 21, he took over Semco, a family business in Brazil. Semler promptly threw out all sorts of rules. </p>
<p>There would be no dress code. No one would check expenses. "Spend what you need to, and the company trusts you." There would be no storeroom padlocks or audits of petty-cash accounts for veteran employees -- people who'd grown to be trusted by Semco. Workers would come and go according to their own schedules. They would even choose their salaries and their own supervisors! </p>
<p>This makes no sense to me, and I'm sure control freaks in human resources departments (Semco has no HR department) had heart attacks. Ricardo's ideas sounded absurd by normal business standards, but it was a big boost to morale, and the company has done well. Even during Brazil's recession, profits increased 500 percent. Sales grew from a few million dollars per year to more than a billion dollars. </p>
<p>Business people and government regulators often make the mistake of assuming that the world we live in is one in which the best practices have been pretty much figured out. Better not rock the boat -- or it might all fall apart. </p>
<p>Then, along come some totally new ways of doing things. FedEx turned out to be much better than the U.S. Postal Service, teens ignore Hollywood and become rich and famous on YouTube, people skip hotels and find rooms via Airbnb and so on. Who knows what discoveries await if we don't let tired old rules get in the way? </p>
<p> </p>John Stossel2015-08-20T21:17:00ZImmigration Is GreatJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Immigration-Is-Great/811380747997050884.html2015-08-11T22:48:00Z2015-08-11T22:48:00Z<p>Yikes, you really hate me! </p>
<p>Many of you, anyway, based on Twitter and Facebook comments posted after I argued immigration with Ann Coulter on my TV show. </p>
<p>"Move into an illegal-heavy neighborhood and get back to us!" </p>
<p>"Another libertarian who believes illegal invaders are good for our country. Madness." </p>
<p>Madness? </p>
<p>Clearly, lots of Americans are mad about immigration. But we libertarians believe that people trapped in horrible countries deserve a chance at a better life and that free trade in labor, not just products, is a good thing. </p>
<p>Why would I think that when my Facebook "fans" tell me things like: "Most immigrants, legal & illegal, get food stamps & welfare"? </p>
<p>Because that's not true. </p>
<p>"Almost all welfare programs in the U.S. are limited to legal immigrants living here at least five years," points out Cato Institute policy analyst Alex Nowrasteh. </p>
<p>Of course, some immigrants cheat, many hospitals lose money treating undocumented people and immigrants' kids get free public schooling. On average, the lifetime fiscal impact of the average immigrant is negative $3,000, says the National Research Council. </p>
<p>But the NRC goes on to say that <em>descendants</em> of the immigrant make a <em>positive</em> fiscal contribution of $83,000. </p>
<p>That's a big win for America. </p>
<p>Even <em>illegal</em> immigration helps delay the bankruptcy of Social Security and Medicare. Young illegal workers pay into the system -- but most don't collect. "Medicare and Social Security -- the biggest welfare programs," says Nowrasteh. "Immigrants subsidize those programs massively." </p>
<p>Health policy journal <em>Health Affairs</em> says in 2009 immigrants contributed $13.8 billion more to the Medicare Trust Fund than they collected in benefits. In the same year, native-born Americans took out $30.9 billion more than they paid in. </p>
<p>Beyond the financial arguments, let's not forget that immigrants bring us new ideas. They invent more things than native-born Americans. Immigrants gave us Google, YouTube, blenders, ATMs, basketball, shopping malls, blue jeans, hot dogs and more.</p>
<p>Ann Coulter told me, "that was then, those were <em>European</em> immigrants." But now we admit "brown people" who are turning America into "a Third World hellhole." </p>
<p>Coulter says that the new immigrants don't assimilate the way Europeans did. Maybe that's true, but I pointed out that immigrants from Nigeria, Jamaica and Ghana are <em>more</em> likely to be employed than native-born Americans and twice as likely to get a college degree. "I don't believe it," answered Coulter. </p>
<p>She also argues that America admits too many immigrants, but how many is too many? Thirteen percent of America's population is now foreign born (down from 15 percent in 1915). Immigrants make up 27 percent of the population in Switzerland and Australia. </p>
<p>Of course, it would be good if all immigrants came here legally. But America makes that difficult.</p>
<p>The government awards 50,000 green cards by lottery, but in 2014, 11 million people applied, so the vast majority never get them. <br /> <em>Forbes</em> says a computer programmer from India who wants to work in America legally must wait an average of 35 years. A Mexican teenager would have to wait 131 years. No wonder people give up on the legal approach and sneak in. </p>
<p>Donald Trump calls immigrants "criminals," and some are. We don't know how many because America doesn't know how many illegals are here. But a count of prisoners shows that more Americans are jailed than immigrants. <em>Social Science Quarterly</em> found "cities with greater growth in immigrant ... populations ... have steeper decreases in homicide and robbery rates." </p>
<p>Hard-core libertarians dominated my studio audience that day, and some booed Coulter (gently). </p>
<p>On Twitter, MissJitter responded: "White guilt is apparently alive & well in his audience." </p>
<p>Betty Orvis complained that I invited "a stacked audience of open border supporters. Real fair ... not! ... The elites in this country do not care one bit about the dire effects of illegal immigration. ... I guess facts are 'racist.'"</p>
<p>But libertarian support for immigration is not about "elites" or "guilt." The facts show that immigration is mostly good. </p>John Stossel2015-08-11T22:48:00ZGun LiesJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Gun-Lies/-684964900427952883.html2015-08-06T18:46:00Z2015-08-06T18:46:00ZMy town, New York City, enforces rigid gun laws. Police refused to assign me a gun permit. The law doesn't even let me hold a fake gun on TV to demonstrate something. <br /><br />But New York politicians are so eager to vilify gun ownership that they granted an exception to the anti-gun group States United to Prevent Gun Violence. New York allowed States United to set up a fake gun store, where cameras filmed potential gun customers being spoofed by an actor pretending to be a gun-seller. <br /><br />"This a nine-millimeter semi-automatic. It's a very handy gun. It's easy to use," he says. "You can carry it in a purse like that gal from Wal-Mart. Her two-year-old son reaches into her pocketbook, pulls it out, shoots her. Dead, gone, no Mom!"<br /><br />States United then made that footage into an anti-gun public service announcement. "Over 60 percent of Americans think owning a gun will make them safer. In fact, owning a gun increases the risk of homicide, suicide and unintentional death," says the video.<br /><br />It's a powerful message. But it's a lie, says John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center. He says that gun control advocates lie all the time.<br /><br />Lott acknowledges the tragedies. Sometimes a gun in the home is used in a homicide or suicide, or leads to accidental death, but he adds, "It also makes it easier for people to defend themselves -- women and the elderly in particular."<br /><br />Lott says, "Every place in the world that's tried to ban guns ... has seen big increases in murder rates. You'd think at least one time, some place, when they banned guns, murder rates would go down. But that hasn't been the case."<br /><br />I pushed back: what about people harming themselves?<br /><br />"There are lots of different ways for people to commit suicide," Lott said, and researchers have looked at how those tragedies are affected by access to guns. "We find that people commit suicide in other ways if they don't have guns."<br /><br />What about accidents? Lott replies that accidental shooting deaths are relatively rare: "about 500 a year." That sounds bad, but about 400 Americans are killed by overdosing on acetaminophen each year (most of them suicides), and almost as many Americans drown in swimming pools. <br /><br />"It would be nice if it was zero (but) consider that 120 million Americans own guns," Lott says. <br /><br />Often those guns are used to prevent crime. The homeowner pulls out the gun and the attacker flees. No one knows how often this happens because these prevented crimes don't become news and don't get reported to the government, but an estimate from the Violence Policy Center suggests crimes may be prevented by guns tens of thousands of times per year.<br /><br />Add politics to the mix and the anti-gun statistics get even more misleading. Gang members in their late teens or early adulthood killing each other get called "children." Fights between gangs near schools get called school "mass shootings."<br /><br />The number of mass shootings in America has been roughly level over the past 40 years, but the New York Times still runs headlines like, "FBI Confirms a Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000." That headline is absolutely true, but only because they deceitfully picked the year 2000 as their start point, and that was a year with unusually few mass shootings. It's as if the paper wants to make it seem as if mass shootings are always on the rise, even as crime keeps going down.<br /><br />It all helps stoke paranoia about guns. Some people respond by calling for more controls. Others, fearing the government may ban gun sales, respond by buying more weapons. The number of people holding permits to carry concealed weapons has skyrocketed to 12.8 million, up from 4.6 million just before President Obama took office. Since 40 percent of American households now own guns, anyone who wants to take them away will have a fight on his hands. <br /><br />Has the increased gun ownership and carrying of guns led to more violence? Not at all. "Violent crime across the board has plummeted," says Lott. "In 1991, the murder rate was about 9.8 (people) per 100,000. (Now) it's down to about 4.2."<br /><br />I can't convince my friends in New York City, but it's just a fact: More guns -- less crime.John Stossel2015-08-06T18:46:00ZEPA Governed by ZealotsJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/EPA-Governed-by-Zealots/157476052923328048.html2015-07-29T21:42:00Z2015-07-29T21:42:00ZThe government's environmental rules defeat even environmentalists. <br /><br />Thomas Collier is a Democrat who managed environmental policy for Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Then he noticed a mining opportunity in Alaska, one he calls "the single largest deposit of gold and silver that is not being developed in the entire world." <br /><br />Tom's company hired hundreds of people to study the Pebble Mine's potential environmental impact, a first step before asking the Environmental Protection Agency for permission to dig. Usually, the EPA analyzes a company's study, then does its own research, then rules. But in this case, the EPA did something odd -- it rejected the mine before Pebble even got its application in. <br /><br />That's never happened before, says Collier.<br /><br />So why would the EPA do that? It's simple: the agency has been captured by environmental zealots. <br /><br />One of the world's biggest environmental groups, the Natural Resources Defense Council, opposed the mine. The NRDC doesn't do science well -- it employs mostly lawyers, not scientists -- but the lawyers are good at raising money by scaring people about supposed environmental "disasters" like mines. <br /><br />"The things that NRDC is talking about are from an age far in the past," says Tom Collier. "Now you can build a safe mine." <br /><br />He points out that two big mines "sit right on the edge of the Fraser River ... the second largest sockeye salmon fishery in the world. ...No problem with the salmon." <br /><br />To arouse public opposition to the Pebble Mine, the NRDC funded TV ads that claim the mine will mean a "natural paradise (is) destroyed by a 2,000-foot gaping hole." The mining company will build "huge earthen dams up to 50 stories tall, holding back billions of tons of mining waste." That sounds frightening, because the NRDC doesn't mention that the "waste" is sand -- not some poisonous chemical. <br /><br />Actor Robert Redford lent his voice to the ad, claiming, "The EPA has confirmed that the Pebble Mine, a massive gold and copper mine, would devastate Bristol Bay." After watching that ad, I thought the proposed mine must be right next to Bristol Bay, but it turns out that the Bay is (SET ITAL) 90 miles (END ITAL) away. <br /><br />It also turns out that some NRDC activists now work for the EPA, and although activists aren't supposed to get involved in issues pushed by the agency, they do it anyway. The NRDC's Nancy Stoner became an EPA regulator. Then she wrote her former colleagues, "I am not supposed to set up meetings with NRDC staff," referring to a pledge she signed not to participate in any matters directly involving her former employer. Then she got around these restrictions by qualifying that she could attend such a meeting if "there are enough others in attendance." <br /><br />Isn't that revealing? It's the evil private-public "revolving door" that activists usually complain about. Stoner later left the EPA to work for still another environmental group. <br /><br />She didn't respond to my questions, so I asked NRDC spokesman Bob Deans about his group "colluding with regulators" to shut down a mine. He smoothly replied, "NRDC is a source of expertise, and sometimes government takes advantage of that." <br /><br />It sure does. <br /><br />I asked Deans, "Are there <em>some</em> mines you <em>don</em>'t complain about?" <br /><br />He said, "Sure." But when I asked him to name "any mines" that NRDC "doesn't oppose," he failed to come up with any. <br /><br />"NIMBY" used to be the anti-economic-growth refrain. Luddites shouted, "Not in my backyard!" Now, watching bureaucrats stop projects such as the Keystone oil pipeline and the Pebble Mine, it's clear that the phrase has become "BANANA": "Build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone!" <br /><br />I wish activists would personally experience the economic devastation that occurs when they block every project that might have a slight impact on nature. <br /><br />Alaskans who still live near the Pebble Mine site say the activists killed their dreams. "The environmental groups," said Lisa Reimers, "made people believe on TV that everything was going to die." <br /><br />When Pebble ramped up, Reimers' company employed 215 people. Only six remain. "You see your people struggling and you have to let them go," Reimers told us. "There are no jobs here, and they're angry at you because they think it's your fault." <br /><br />Propaganda is what the NRDC produces. It shouldn't be the basis for EPA policy. These days, too often, it is -- because activists and regulators collude.John Stossel2015-07-29T21:42:00ZThe War on UberJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-War-on-Uber/-3258643664790428.html2015-07-21T18:19:00Z2015-07-21T18:19:00ZHillary Clinton gave a speech warning that the new "sharing economy" of businesses such as the rideshare company Uber is "raising hard questions about workplace protections." <br /><br />Democrats hate what labor unions hate, and a taxi drivers' union hates Uber, too. Its NYC website proclaims, "Uber has the money. But we are the PEOPLE!" <br /><br />The taxi cartels, which provide inferior service and are micromanaged by government, don't like getting competition from efficient companies like Uber.<br /><br />Clinton didn't mention Uber by name, but we don't have to wonder which company she meant. The New York Times reports that Clinton contacted Uber and told them her speech would threaten to "crack down" on companies that don't treat independent contractors as full employees. Apparently, Democrats think something's wrong if people are independent contractors.<br /><br />But no driver is forced to work for Uber. People volunteer. They like the flexibility. They like getting more use out of their cars. It's win-win-win. Drivers earn money, customers save money while gaining convenience and Uber makes money. Why does Clinton insist on interfering with that? <br /><br />Clinton's "social democrat" pal, New York's Mayor Bill de Blasio, wants to crack down on Uber by limiting how many drivers they may hire. Uber cleverly responded with an app -- a "de Blasio option" -- that shows people how much longer they'd have to wait if de Blasio gets his way. <br /><br />Good for Uber for fighting back. I wish more companies did. <br /><br />Federal Express didn't. <br /><br />FedEx classified drivers as independent contractors. Again, drivers were willing to drive, FedEx was willing to pay, and customers got packages faster and more reliably than they did from the U.S. Postal Service. <br /><br />But lawyers built a class action suit on behalf of FedEx drivers, saying they (SET ITAL) should (END ITAL) be treated as employees, paying payroll tax, getting workman's compensation, receiving benefits. FedEx settled the case for $228 million and began abandoning its independent contractor system. <br /><br />Uber's use of independent drivers -- who use their own cars -- is now called analogous to FedEx's use of delivery drivers. <br /><br />That means Uber may soon have to treat its drivers as employees. Business analysts at ZenPayroll estimate that the changes will cost $209 million. We customers will pay for that, and we'll have fewer ride-share choices, too.<br /><br />Lawsuits and politicians' attacks against one company have a chilling effect on others. The "independent contractor" assault will destroy all sorts of companies we'll never even know about because now they won't come into existence. <br /><br />Some of the entrepreneurs who dreamed of starting them will look at the additional costs, crunch the numbers and decide there's not enough profit potential to risk investing their money.<br /><br />Who knows what odd but popular sharing-economy innovations aren't happening even now -- ones we'd use and love -- because businesspeople with great ideas are frightened by the Clintons, deBlasios and lawyers? <br /><br />In France, the old-fashioned cabbies rioted against Uber, blocking Uber cars and dropping rocks on them from a bridge. Instead of arresting rioters, the French government threatened to arrest Uber executives for breaking taxi rules. Once again, without even a new law directed specifically at Uber, the enemies of free choice got their way. Paris police have been ordered to forbid use of the Uber app. <br /><br />I disagree with Jeb Bush about many things, but he was right to praise Uber for "disrupting the old order" of business. <br /><br />The New York Times responded with a sarcastic piece pointing out that when Bush used an Uber car, the driver, Munir Algazaly, didn't recognize Bush. He said he plans to vote for Clinton, though Bush seemed like a "nice guy." Another site mocked Bush because he talked about "hailing" an Uber, not "hiring" one. Another pointed out that the car Bush rode in had a license plate holder that said "Fresh as F---" on it. Ha, ha.<br /><br />But it's the sneering media who miss the point. Bush is smart to see serious benefits from "reputation" businesses like Uber. Politicians and lawyers who threaten to destroy such companies threaten us all. <br /><br />John Stossel2015-07-21T18:19:00ZStossel Opines on Bernie Sanders & the Wealth GapJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossel-Opines-on-Bernie-Sanders--the-Wealth-Gap/467955531973150324.html2015-07-08T21:30:00Z2015-07-08T21:30:00Z<p><span>Nearly 10,000 people turned out to hear Bernie Sanders in Wisconsin. Why? Apparently, many Democrats want socialism.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Sanders is the Vermont senator who is running for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Sanders calls himself a "democratic socialist," not to be confused with New York City mayor Bill de Blasio's preferred label, "social democrat," but both believe that more power and wealth in the hands of government (less in the hands of free people and the free market) is a good thing. They just don't want you to think they're dictators like Stalin. They may institute terrible economic policies, but they'll have the backing of voters.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />More Democrats say they plan to vote for Hillary Clinton, but she's already sounding more socialist to ward off the Sanders challenge, slamming "corporations making record profits."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />In crucial early-voting state New Hampshire, next door to Sanders' home state, Sanders polls at 35 percent to Clinton's 43.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />A big reason for Sanders' appeal is his relentless criticism of America's wealth gap. His "solutions" include raising the federal minimum wage to $15, completing the government takeover of healthcare, mandating paid maternity leave, punishing bankers, expanding Social Security and spending more on job training.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />We must do these things, he says, because "wealth is centered in the hands of a very few." He accuses Republicans of preferring it that way.</span><br /><span><br />That's a common refrain on the left, and it appeals to many voters. Some poor people think they'll be helped by "redistribution," and rich people who don't understand the process that made them rich want more rules to "level the playing field."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I wish someone would educate them and ask Clinton, "What's wrong with 'record profits'? What do you think happens to that money? Greedy executives just sit on it? No! Profit is reinvested in ways that make all of us better off!"</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Libertarians and real free-marketers agree that too few people are rich but understand that</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT308_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span><span> </span><span>it's largely because of government.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The minimum wage laws that Sanders likes decrease the odds that people on the bottom rung will get hired and learn the basics of being a good employee. Other laws make it harder for them to move up.</span><span> </span><br /><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT310_com_zimbra_date" class="Object"><br />Today</span><span>'s thicket of regulations means entrepreneurs must hire lawyers and "fixers" to get anything done, and those middlemen cost money. Not a big problem if you're already rich, but a big obstacle if you're just starting out, or trying to expand a small business.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Requiring paid maternity leave makes companies even more wary of hiring young women. The law forbids such discrimination, of course, but bosses just give some other reason for not choosing female applicants.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />That same unintended consequence happened with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the well-intended law supported by Democrats and Republicans meant to help more disabled people enter the workforce. But (SET ITAL) fewer (END ITAL) disabled people work now that the law is in effect. Fifty-one percent held jobs when the law passed; now only 32 percent do.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Greece "protects" workers by banning part-time work and banning working more than five days a week. You'd think American socialists would learn something watching Greece fail. But, no, they never learn.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Government interventions in health care -- such as Obamacare -- haven't made health care cheaper, but they sure helped rich insurance companies. By writing the companies' roles directly into the law, Obamacare makes it harder for others, such as the new fee-for-service health stores, to compete.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Complex financial regulations mean that rich investors who are already cozy with big law firms, big banks and the Fed are better at understanding and manipulating the rules than a small "angel investor" who wants to back a new invention or interesting start-up.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />For 200 years, poor Americans pulled themselves out of poverty by finding new and better ways to do things, or just by working hard.</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT312_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">Today</span><span>, fewer lift themselves up. One big reason is that rules meant to help poor people end up favoring the well-connected rich while keeping poor people dependent.</span><br /><span><br />Sen. Sanders and his fellow socialists should stop callously ignoring how government makes life harder for poor people.</span><span> </span></p>John Stossel2015-07-08T21:30:00ZMankiller Money?John Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Mankiller-Money/571927139502932830.html2015-06-24T23:51:00Z2015-06-24T23:51:00Z<p><span>A woman will be on the new $10 bill, bumping Alexander Hamilton aside. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew says he will choose the woman by year's end, based on "input from the public."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />In one survey of the "public," the first female chief of the Cherokee Nation, Wilma Mankiller, placed fourth. I understand the wish to counter sexism prevalent in early America, but "Mankiller?" The name alone probably reveals something about the attitude of some of those voters.</span><br /><span><br />Fortunately, more voted for Harriet Tubman. Tubman escaped slavery to become a leader of the Underground Railroad, then repeatedly returned to slave territory to help others escape. Tubman would be a good choice. What's more libertarian than helping people escape slavery and resist being governed without their consent?</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But I feel bad about Alexander Hamilton.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />He was courageous in the American Revolution, co-wrote the Federalist Papers that defended the new Constitution and helped put the new republic on a sound financial footing when it was deep in debt. He was a poor immigrant with an absent father who rose to advise George Washington and become one of the most important men in the nation.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Hamilton was also decent and fair-minded enough to singlehandedly stop a mob when it threatened to harm an unarmed Tory. In his spare time, he founded the newspaper New York Post, now headquartered a few floors below my office.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Hamilton biographer Ron Chernow, who opposes demoting Hamilton, argues that "Hamilton was undeniably the most influential person in our history who never attained the presidency."</span><br /><span><br />Before the talk of replacing Hamilton, the movement to put a woman on U.S. currency targeted the $20 bill. That would be a better choice. Andrew Jackson was a violent man who ignored a Supreme Court ruling and killed thousands of Indians by forcing them off their land. But the government says it's not ready to replace the $20 bill.</span><br /><span><br />Jackson opposed central banking, founded in the U.S. by Hamilton. So maybe there's poetic justice in Hamilton getting pushed aside by the central currency-printing bureaucracy he helped create.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But none of us would have to fight about whom to put on currency if it weren't all created and printed by a central government. Bitcoin is private currency that comes in many forms. People who prefer dogs as the symbol of their money can even use the digital currency Dogecoin.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Private currencies aren't just a 21st-century novelty. Numerous banks used to print their own competing currencies. Contrary to the claims of John Kenneth Galbraith and other left-wing economists, private competition tended to prevent runaway inflation and deep depressions.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Economist Thomas Hogan writes, "There were 1,600 private corporations issuing banknotes and an estimated 8,370 varieties of notes" in the 19th century, while the U.S. economy "grew at an average rate of 4.4 percent per year [and] the price level remained roughly constant."</span><br /><span><br />The central bank known as the Federal Reserve was supposed to provide greater stability, but it didn't. Just 16 years after the U.S. created the Fed, the Great Depression began. And since then, the U.S. dollar lost 96 percent of its value.</span><br /><span><br />Since government can't run the rest of the economy wisely, why let it be in charge of money itself?</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The money printing that central banks love -- to pay government's bills and try to trick, er, stimulate the economy into greater activity -- isn't real wealth creation. It just means more pieces of paper float around representing the same amount of wealth. It distorts markets, creating things like housing bubbles, and eventually it will mean inflation. It also lets politicians think they can ignore our debt ($18 trillion and counting) and keep spending.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Let private currencies compete and not only will we be on firmer ground financially, but also everybody will be free to choose whether they want to use Tubmans, Hamiltons or Mankillers to pay their bills.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Some people want Eleanor Roosevelt. Some want Ayn Rand. A movement on Twitter wants Caitlyn Jenner on their money.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Great! Go for it. If we had private, competing currencies, all these options could coexist. Choice is always better than the government's one-size-fits-all solution.</span></p>John Stossel2015-06-24T23:51:00ZGreen LiesJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Green-Lies/416602153532525704.html2015-06-10T17:43:00Z2015-06-10T17:43:00Z<p>Millions go to SeaWorld to learn more about sea life and get closer to killer whales. But fewer go now because the documentary "Blackfish" exposed what one reporter called "the darker side" of SeaWorld. </p>
<p>The movie, which CNN bought and ran over and over, tells how greedy businessmen take baby whales from their mothers and imprison them in small aquariums, where the frustrated animals are a threat to each other and their trainers.</p>
<p>“All whales in captivity have a bad life," says a biologist in the film. "They're all psychologically traumatized."</p>
<p>"Blackfish" is persuasive. Watching it made me agree with the protesters who shout, "SeaWorld is synonymous with cruelty!" </p>
<p>SeaWorld wouldn't talk to CNN, but they did talk to me. I will be showing their responses on Fox News this weekend. </p>
<p>I asked SeaWorld why they separate whales from their mothers. </p>
<p>"We haven't done that in 35 years," says Kelly Flaherty Clark, SeaWorld head trainer. "We have no plans to do it again, and the film implies that we're doing it yesterday."</p>
<p>SeaWorld says much of "Blackfish" is deceitful. "The things they describe just didn't happen."</p>
<p>"Eighty percent of the whales that we care for were born right here," says head veterinarian Chris Dold. "The key difference between what our whales experience and what killer whales in the wild experience is the fact that ... our trainers work with them every day."</p>
<p>I was most disturbed by a "Blackfish" scene that plays the mournful cry of a mother whale whose baby was taken from her. But it turns out the "baby" was an adult with kids of her own. "Blackfish" faked the scene by adding "sound effects that aren't even appropriate to a killer whale." </p>
<p>Blackfish also claims captive whales' droopy dorsal fins indicate that the whales are miserable. But whale expert Ingrid Visser says killer whales in the wild have collapsed dorsal fins, too. </p>
<p>The director of "Blackfish" and others who appear in the film would not talk to me, but biologist Lori Marino, who'd said that "all whales in captivity have a bad life," did. </p>
<p>I pointed out that life in the wild is rough, too -- there's competition for food, sex, life itself. She answered, "these animals evolved over millions of years to be adapted to the challenges of the wild, not with living in a concrete tank. ... They need space ... and a social life."</p>
<p>SeaWorld claims its whales are "happy." But as "Blackfish" points out, "we can't ask the whales." </p>
<p>Dold replied, "While I may not know what my dog is thinking, I certainly know that he's happy and that we have a good relationship." </p>
<p>There have been moments when that human-whale relationship wasn't good. One whale drowned a SeaWorld trainer. But Clark says there's no evidence that the whale's behavior meant that he was frustrated because he lives in a tank.</p>
<p>Finally, "Blackfish" claims that captive whales die young. But Dold points out, "We have a 50-year-old whale living at SeaWorld. ... (O)ur whales' life parameters are the same as whales in the wild." Government research confirms this. </p>
<p>It's romantic to fantasize about freeing whales so that they can frolic in the ocean. That probably wouldn't work out very well. After the movie "Free Willy" ran, the whale depicted in the film <em>was</em> set free. But wild whales wouldn't accept him in their pods. Willy kept returning to shore to be near people. He let children ride on his back. Willy died not long after he was set free. </p>
<p>It's hard to think rationally when animals tug at our heartstrings.</p>
<p>Lori Marino says it's cruel to imprison whales in tanks where they "have to do stupid pet tricks." I see her point, but marine parks and zoos are often the only way people learn about nature, and ticket sales pay for education and conservation efforts. SeaWorld alone has helped rescue 25,000 animals.</p>
<p>I don't presume to know if it's moral to keep animals in captivity. But I do know that the activists distort the truth. I'll give more examples in my "Green Tyranny" TV special Sunday on Fox News at 9 p.m. (EDT).<br /> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>John Stossel2015-06-10T17:43:00ZSocialist 'Justice'John Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Socialist-Justice/237486127148401394.html2015-06-02T23:13:00Z2015-06-02T23:13:00Z<p><br />Protestors demand "social justice." I hate their chant. If I oppose their cause, then I'm for social "injustice"? Nonsense.</p>
<p>The protesters usually want to punish capitalism. "Spread those resources," says Hillary Clinton.</p>
<p>Even capitalists often make the mistake of talking about "social justice" as if it's the opposite of free markets or a reason to rein in markets with more regulations or redistribution of wealth. But there's nothing "just" about the leftist protesters' claimed solution: more big government.</p>
<p>Oliver Stone, Sean Penn and Harry Belafonte praised Venezuela's Hugo Chavez for his socialist revolution. Chavez then proceeded to destroy much of his country.</p>
<p>Even after his death, his portrait remains on walls everywhere and his policies live on. They haven't produced social justice, unless your idea of "justice" is privileges for government officials and shortages of basics like food and toilet paper for ordinary people.</p>
<p>Only socialism could take an oil-rich nation and turn it into one where people wait in line for hours for survival rations.</p>
<p>The left-wing Guardian newspaper quotes a Venezuelan farmer saying that Chavez's policies left Venezuela with "no one to explain why a rich country has no food."</p>
<p>Not many people in Venezuela give such explanations -- the government censors its critics -- but free-market economists can explain.</p>
<p>Goods don't get matched to consumer needs by anyone's burning desire for justice. The amazing coordination of the marketplace happens because sellers and buyers are free. Sellers can sell whatever they choose at prices they choose. Buyers decide whether to pay. That flexibility -- and chance to make a profit -- is what persuades people to create what customers want and risk their own money and safety to stock it in a store.</p>
<p>Without the free market setting prices and allocating resources, all the cries of "justice" in the world don't help anyone. You can't eat justice. You can't use it as toilet paper.</p>
<p>Intellectuals, activists and government alike love it when politicians take "tough," decisive action -- usually meaning sudden interference in the marketplace. A year and a half ago, Venezuelan government used the military to seize control of Daka, one of the country's largest retailers, in order to force the chain to charge "fair" prices. Punish those rich, greedy store-owners!</p>
<p>Surprise! That didn't work. The chain is now collapsing as looters take what they want.</p>
<p>Socialists say capitalists just want to make a quick buck, but it's government that can't plan for the long haul.</p>
<p>Instead of thinking in terms of returns on investment and sustainable business models, socialists think only of today: They see people who need stuff and stores full of stuff. Take the stuff and give it to people, and then tomorrow -- well, those capitalists will always bring in more stuff, I guess.</p>
<p>Calling it "social justice" doesn't make it work.</p>
<p>Sometimes activists admit they aren't very interested in economics. What they really want is a more "tolerant" world with less sexism and racism. They act as if capitalism is an obstacle to that.</p>
<p>But it isn't. Capitalist societies are less racist and less sexist than non-capitalist ones.</p>
<p>In America, white people often take for granted the advantages that being white sometimes provides. But compare America to China, where one ethnic group, the Han, dominates politics and openly looks down on minorities -- and where even scientists have tried to show that the Han are a distinctive race that does not trace its ancestry to Africa like the rest of us.</p>
<p>The autocratic nation of Saudi Arabia doesn't let women drive cars or open their own bank accounts.</p>
<p>Markets, in which individuals, not just rulers, have property rights, give people options. Businesses have an incentive to serve as many people as possible, regardless of gender or ethnic group. They also have an incentive to be nice -- customers are more likely to trade with people who treat them fairly. Everyone gets to choose his own path. That's what I call justice.</p>
<p>Injustice is telling people that they must wait to see what their rulers decide is fair.</p>
<span style="color: #000000; font-family: monospace; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px; display: inline ! important; float: none; background-color: #ffffff;"><span class="Apple-converted-space"><br /></span></span>John Stossel2015-06-02T23:13:00ZGraduation time! Have we learned much? No.John Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Graduation-time!-Have-we-learned-much-No./388351056756458619.html2015-05-27T03:41:00Z2015-05-27T03:41:00Z<p><span>It's graduation time! Have we learned much? No.</span><br /><span><br />College has become a scam.</span><br /><span><br />Some students benefit: those with full scholarships and/or rich parents so they don't go deep into debt, those who love learning for its own sake and land jobs in academia and those who get jobs that require a college credential.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But that's not most students.</span><br /><span><br />Half</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT2216_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span><span>'s recent grads work in jobs that don't require degrees. Eighty thousand of America's bartenders have bachelor's degrees.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Politicians such as Hillary Clinton promote college by claiming that over a lifetime, college graduates "earn $1 million more." That statistic is true but utterly misleading. People who go to college are different. They're more likely to have been raised by two parents. They did better in high school. They'd make more money even if they never went go to college.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Economist Bryan Caplan argues that there isn't much evidence that college grads are paid more because they learned anything at college that is valuable to their jobs.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Getting into elite universities and graduating from them is mostly a "signaling" device, he says. It tells employers you're a smart person, so employers can begin teaching you things you really need to know. Employers, not the colleges, turn out to be the ones making students valuable contributors.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />This suggests college is more like a hurdle than an investment. It would be better if companies found cheaper ways to screen for talent than four years of college.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Most of America's prestigious universities started out as training centers for the priesthood and ways of confirming your status as part of the upper crust. In many cases, that's still true</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT2218_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span><span>. Taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize that. But we are.</span><br /><span><br />Now President Obama proposes spending more of your money on "free community college." Senator and presidential candidate Bernie Sanders goes further, proposing "free tuition" at four-year public colleges.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Of course, "free" just means taxpayers are forced to pay.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />This is nuts. When government subsidizes services, people supplying those services get wasteful. Colleges now spend millions on manicured lawns and fancy gyms.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />A University of Missouri admissions officer bragged to my TV show crew about the university's "day spa" and said when it comes to recruiting students, "more important than reading, writing and arithmetic" is giving "our Tigers spring break every time they step into the student recreation complex."</span><br /><span><br />I'm happy that Missouri's students like their luxurious gym, but I don't want to help pay for it. If the school thinks its "day spa" is crucial for recruiting, let them sucker their own alumni into making <em>voluntary</em> contributions for it. Leave taxpayers alone.</span><br /><span><br />Government subsidies encourage students who don't belong in college to go anyway. Many don't graduate, feel bad about themselves and end up deep in debt. The subsidies also invite schools to increase the cost of tuition.</span><br /><span><br />Democrats complained we need Obamacare because health care costs "were skyrocketing." But while the cost of health care rose 296 percent over the past 30 years, college tuition rose 553 percent. College is now a grotesque spending bubble, funded by government, that's about to burst.</span><br /><span><br />Law professor Glenn Reynolds, author of "The Education Apocalypse," writes, "The rapid increase in college tuition began just about exactly the time the federal government started helping to subsidize college ... (Y)ou don't want to engage in subsidies that make universities more bloated and more inefficient."</span><br /><span><br />But that's what Obama and Sanders propose to do.</span><br /><span><br />A more compassionate move would be to warn people that college is not as valuable as colleges advertise themselves to be.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel encourages students to escape the college trap by paying them $100,000 <em>not</em> to go to college and instead to found their own capitalist ventures.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />If we really want to build a better future and not just keep going through the same old motions, experiments like that are a much smarter idea than throwing more money at the college bubble.</span><span> </span></p>John Stossel2015-05-27T03:41:00ZDr. CapitalismJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Dr.-Capitalism/597765216778811060.html2015-05-20T18:03:00Z2015-05-20T18:03:00Z<p><span>For years, my scientist brother Tom was the nonpolitical Stossel.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I defended free markets on TV, and he studied blood at Harvard and Brigham and Women's Hospital. Mom asked me when I'd get a "real job" like his.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Then the crusade against capitalism reached his world.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Medical "journalists" demanded that corporations distance themselves from medical research. They'll bias the results, "put profits before people" and sell dangerous goods.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Tom didn't notice this "conflict of interest crusade" until he joined the scientific advisory board of a biotech company and learned how difficult it is to bring medical innovation to market. Now he's furious about what he calls "pharma-phobia."</span><br /><span><br />He says criticism of medical-industry cooperation "is a mixture of moralistic bullying, opinion unsupported by empirical evidence, speculation, simplistic and distorted interpretations ..."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />You get the idea. At dinner, we tell him, "You're probably right, but shut up now."</span><br /><span><br />But he shouldn't shut up. Trying to take money out of medicine will deprive us of the very innovation we want. Drug companies are the ones with the resources to create cures. It's insane to limit their access to medical research.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Tom just wrote a book about this titled "Pharmaphobia: How the Conflict of Interest Myth Undermines American Medical Innovation."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />One way that the anti-capitalists want to purify medicine is by urging people not to trust scientists who consult for industry and to ban them from government advisory panels and scientific studies. But it's usually the smartest researchers who are hired by industry. Banning them means banning the most qualified scientists.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />While activists denounce industry for "exploiting" sick people, industry keeps helping us live healthier lives.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />"Over the nearly 50 years I've been a physician, health care has improved," writes Tom. "Our lifespan has increased by 10 years, we're half as likely to die of a heart attack or stroke, and suffer a lot less from arthritis as we age." If that's what happens when capitalists get involved in medicine, I say: Let's have more of it!</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The activists take new treatments for granted but resent paying for them and resent the profit motive that brought them about. So do many patients.</span><br /><span><br />Tom's brother-in-law Patrick was dying of cancer until he was given a new drug that's kept him alive for 15 years. Patrick was grateful but angry that the drug costs so much: $123,000 per year (his insurance company pays the bill).</span><br /><span><br />That cost -- $123,000 -- seems outrageous, especially because activists claim government funds all-important scientific research. But that's a lie. Eighty-seven percent of new drugs are discovered by private industry, only 13 percent come from public-sector research.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Then there's the average 16 years of required government testing before it will allow you to sell anything. Only vilified industry has the patience and<em> self-interest</em> to wade through that process, knowing they may lose money because 9 out of 10 promising new drugs will never be approved.</span><br /><span><br />You start to suspect that the activists aren't really concerned about what's best for patients. Some are purists, argues Tom, who just want profit removed from life. But many have self-serving agendas: Insurers benefit from drug price controls, and a demonized industry is easier prey for prosecutors and tort lawyers.</span><br /><span><br />New rules imposed on universities and hospitals forbid doctors to educate other doctors about new drugs, or learn FDA-approved drug information from company representatives.</span><br /><span><br />Even tiny gifts from companies, like a pen with a corporate logo, are regarded as potentially corrupting. Part of Obamacare called the "Sunshine Law" demands that companies report to the U.S. Department of Health any payment of as little as $10 to a doctor.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />This is useless. Few doctors are corrupted by a box of donuts, and no one reads thousands of pages of disclosure forms. Much worse is that it diverts billions of dollars from drug research to bureaucrats working pointlessly in companies' new "compliance" departments.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />In a free market, medical practitioners and medical companies earn more money if they make their patients and customers happy and keep them healthy. That's the best incentive. I trust that competition more than I'll ever trust the activists who want to shut it down.</span><span> </span></p>John Stossel2015-05-20T18:03:00ZDisobey!John Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Disobey!/206627617225992313.html2015-05-14T00:36:00Z2015-05-14T00:36:00Z<p><span>Charles Murray, already controversial for writing books on how welfare hurts the poor, on ethnic differences in IQ and on (less controversial, but my favorite) happiness and good government, has written a new book that argues that it's time for civil disobedience. Government has become so oppressive, constantly restricting us with new regulations, that our only hope is for some of us to refuse to cooperate.</span><br /><span><br />Murray's suggestion -- laid out in "By the People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission," will make some people nervous. He argues that citizens and companies should start openly defying all but the most useful regulations, essentially ones that forbid assault, theft and fraud.</span><br /><span><br />He writes, "America is no longer the land of the free. We are still free in the sense that Norwegians, Germans and Italians are free. But that's not what Americans used to mean by freedom."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />He quotes Thomas Jefferson's observation that a good government is one "which shall restrain men from injuring one another (and) shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But our government</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT145_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span><span> </span><span>tries to do much more.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />While we try to invent new things, government constantly seeks new ways to control us. The number of federal crimes on the books is now 50 percent larger than back in 1980 -- a time when many people mistakenly thought the U.S. would <em>cut</em> the size of government.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Murray says, correctly, that no ordinary human being -- not even a team of lawyers -- can ever be sure how to obey the 810 pages of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 1,024 pages of the Affordable Care Act or 2,300 pages of Dodd-Frank.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />What if we all stopped trying? The government can't put <em>everyone</em> in jail. Maybe by disobeying enough stupid laws, we can persuade judges that only rules that prevent clear, real harm to individuals should be enforced: "no harm, no foul."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Law is not always the best indication of what is good behavior. Riots in places such as Ferguson and Baltimore remind us that even cops sometimes behave badly.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />No one wants to see law break down so completely that people get hurt, but historian Thaddeus Russell reminds us that many freedoms we take for granted exist not because the government graciously granted liberties to us but because of lawbreakers.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Bootleggers, "robber barons" who did things like transporting ferry passengers in defiance of state-granted monopolies and tea-dumping American revolutionaries ignored laws they opposed. Sometimes these scofflaws loved liberty <em>more</em> than our revered Founders did. George Washington led troops against whiskey makers to enforce taxes.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />More recently, Uber decided it would ignore some cab regulations. It's good that they did because Uber usually offers better and safer service.</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT147_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">Today</span><span>, Uber is probably too popular for government to stamp out.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Edward Snowden knew the legal consequences he'd face for revealing NSA spying on American citizens but did it anyway. I'm not yet sure if he did the right thing, but conservatives and leftists alike should admit that sometimes laws ought to be bent or broken.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Instead, each political party defends civil disobedience unless the people doing it are people that faction doesn't like. The right loves ranchers who resist federal land managers but doesn't like people who flout immigrations laws. The left likes pot smokers but whines about corporations ignoring ridiculously complicated environmental regulations.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Maybe most of these laws should be ignored by most of us.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Politicians themselves don't always play by the rules. My last column was about how the Clintons get away with breaking rules. But I made a mistake that I must correct: I said the Clinton Foundation donated only 9 percent of its money to charity. Sorry, that was wrong. The Clintons and their flunkies were worse than that.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />In 2013, the Foundation collected $144 million but spent only $8.8 million on charity. That's only <em>6 percent</em>.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />When Bill and Hillary say they want to "help people," they're talking about themselves. I don't want to be forced to obey such people.</span></p>John Stossel2015-05-14T00:36:00ZHillary's ArmorJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Hillarys-Armor/609482204104726059.html2015-05-06T07:00:00Z2015-05-06T07:00:00Z<p><span>"This vast right-wing conspiracy," Hillary Clinton said, "has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced." That was the "feminist" first lady's response when her husband was accused of having sex with a 21-year-old.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Bill was more lawyerly. He said things like, "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The Wall Street Journal's Kim Strassel suggests that the Clintons must have a Scandal Manual: "The standard operating procedure never changes."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Forty years ago, Hillary would have us believe that she wasn't just the wife of a man running for Arkansas governor -- she was a lucky or brilliant investor who in less than three weeks doubled her money. No, tripled! No, wait -- quadrupled ... no, actually, much more!</span><br /><span><br />"Clinton made almost $100,000 in the cattle futures market," reported Tom Brokaw, and "many wondered whether that was a sweetheart deal arranged for the governor's wife."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Of course it was.</span><br /><span><br />In less than three weeks, Hillary turned $1,000 into $16,427. "I don't understand how that could have possibly occurred," she said. "My husband and I missed the fact that we had actually made some money."</span><br /><span><br />A hundred thousand dollars -- twice what her husband made as governor. Who remembers trivia like that?</span><br /><span><br />That was around the time of the Whitewater scandal, in which friends of the Clintons got sweetheart land deals. Seven people went to jail, but not the Clintons. (SET ITAL) Their (END ITAL) records disappeared.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Hillary came on "20/20." Barbara Walters asked her, "How did you get into this mess where your whole credibility is being questioned?"</span><br /><span><br />Hillary answered sweetly, "I ask myself that every day, Barbara, because it's very surprising and confusing to me."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />It is confusing to me, too.</span><br /><span><br />Travelgate and Fostergate were also confusing, as is the Democrats' sudden indifference to a president getting oral sex from an intern, deaths in Benghazi and, most recently, violation of State Department email rules.</span><br /><span><br />"It would've been better for me to use two separate phones and two email accounts," Hillary testified. "I thought using one device would be simpler."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Except it turned out she (SET ITAL) did (END ITAL) use two devices: "iPhone, OK, in full disclosure, and a Blackberry."</span><br /><span><br />She also said, "I took the unprecedented step of asking that the State Department make all my work-related emails public."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Except that wasn't true either. She turned over only emails she claimed were relevant. The rest were wiped clean from her home server -- a private server government officials aren't supposed to use. Then she refused to give that server to a third party for an independent review.</span><br /><span><br />Consequences? Punishment? No.</span><br /><span><br />New revelations in the book "Clinton Cash" about the Clinton Foundation accepting billions from foreign governments and people doing business with our government brought out the same "Aw, shucks" replies from the Scandal Manual.</span><br /><span><br />Bill told a reporter, "I asked Hillary about this, and she said, 'No one's ever tried to influence me.'"</span><br /><span><br />Anyway, the Foundation money went to charity. Hillary said, "I am very proud of the work the Foundation does."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But what "work"? In 2013, a measly 9 percent of the money went to charity! Charity Navigator, the biggest charity rating service, won't even list the Clinton Foundation in its rankings. This is repulsive. If a Republican candidate ran a charity that did that, it would be a scandal. But the Clintons must be immune.</span><br /><span><br />Brian Williams "misremembers" his helicopter coming under hostile fire and loses his job. But Hillary says, "I remember landing under sniper fire ... we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles." That was total fabrication, but when Hillary was caught, she just told reporters it was a "minor blip."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />"I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Misstatement? I call it a self-promoting lie. But the Clintons are Teflon. In the presidential race, Betfair lists Hillary as the overwhelming favorite.</span><br /><span><br /></span><span>"Political language," George Orwell wrote, "is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."</span><span> </span></p>John Stossel2015-05-06T07:00:00ZWhat Creates JobsJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/What-Creates-Jobs/699519762922004922.html2015-04-29T07:00:00Z2015-04-29T07:00:00Z<p><span>I took a camera to Times Square this week and asked people, "What creates jobs?" Most had no answer.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />One said, "stimulus!" What? Government creates jobs? No!</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I suppose it's natural that people think government creates jobs because politicians always say that.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />"We've now created more than 10 million," said President Obama. But that just meant that he took office at the start of the recession, and finally job creation resumed.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />He didn't cause that. In fact, his taxes and complex regulation <em>slowed</em> job creation.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />His 2012 presidential election rival, Mitt Romney, was a little more free-market-oriented, but he sounded like Obama when he talked about jobs. He had "a plan" to add 12 million. Don't assume his plan was just to get government out of the way of the private sector -- Romney said it's a bad idea to cut government spending during a recession.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />FDR's New Deal was the dawn of belief that jobs flow from government. FDR didn't seem to care whether jobs people did were productive or sustainable. He just wanted something done about the "armies" of unemployed. If they weren't given jobs, they might become a real army and revolt.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Now that government has lots of power, people look to it to create jobs. Communist countries had five-year plans. They didn't work.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />That's because jobs come from government getting out of the way and letting employers produce goods.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Every new layer of regulations sounds nice -- protecting the environment, providing more health care, forbidding discrimination against disabled people -- but most rules do more harm than good.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Humans have needs and desires. Entrepreneurs see those needs as opportunity. They hire people not out of generosity or because government told them to -- but because it's profitable to employ people if they produce valuable goods.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />If it's not profitable, that means those people would be better employed doing something else. The prices customers are willing to pay and the wages workers accept are the best indication of which jobs can be done profitably and therefore ought to be done.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But politicians don't trust business owners to make those decisions. Some also resent it if entrepreneurs succeed without kissing the politicians' ring.</span><br /><span><br />President Obama famously said, "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."</span><br /><span><br />I'd think Hillary Clinton would have learned from the outcry that followed, but no -- she then said, "Don't let anybody tell you that it's corporations and businesses that create jobs! That old theory, trickle-down economics, has been tried. That has failed."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But it hasn't failed. Free markets lifted a billion people out of poverty during Hillary's career. She just won't acknowledge it. Lawyer-politicians aren't comfortable with creative destruction they don't control. They prefer central planning.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />That's why Hillary also said, "I voted to raise the minimum wage. And guess what? Millions of jobs were created."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />This, too, is absurd. Politicians act as if they can wave a magic wand and grant everyone more money. But minimum wage laws don't create jobs. They just make lower-paying jobs illegal. Some of those jobs go away. That's basic economics.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The effect on the economy is small because 95 percent of American workers earn more than the minimum. But the more employers are forced to pay, the fewer people they'll hire. McDonald's responded to recent demands for higher wages by making plans to replace cashiers with automated services. Once more, political "solutions" create new problems.</span><br /><span><br />People need jobs, and millions find dignity in work, but not from jobs that others are forced to provide. People want to be genuinely useful. They don't just want to go through the motions.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />More and more, Americans want jobs that have meaning and "purpose," says John Havens, author of "Hacking Happiness." "Purpose" usually means creating actual wealth.</span><br /><span><br />Governments talk about five-year plans and false guarantees of stability, but truly futuristic thinking happens when governments leave people free to explore, innovate and profit. If the politicians don't screw that up, that process will create jobs we haven't even imagined yet.</span><span> </span></p>John Stossel2015-04-29T07:00:00ZThe Next PresidentJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Next-President/162680417191721420.html2015-04-22T21:50:00Z2015-04-22T21:50:00Z<p><span>It's not smart to get too enthusiastic about any politician. I've been disappointed often. I believed Bill Clinton when he said, "the era of big government is over." I thought George W. Bush was a "small government guy." And Barack Obama ...</span><br /><span><br />Well, never mind.</span><br /><span><br />If I want limited government and individual freedom, to whom do I turn?</span><br /><span><br />Ted Cruz? I want to like him. He's smart. He's read economists Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, etc. He confronted Obama's attorney general about constitutional limits on killing Americans with drones. He fought hard against Obamacare.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But he also seems so eager to go to war. It also bothers me that he praises states' independence but then criticizes President Obama for giving states a tiny bit of free rein to set drug policy.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I like Jeb Bush personally. I like Govs. Walker, Kasich and Perry. But they also seem eager to go to war in the Middle East and continue the destructive drug war in America.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />So I plan to vote for Rand Paul.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Sen. Paul confuses people. Some Ron Paul fans say Rand is not as committed to liberty as his father. But some of their complaints seem ambiguous. Yes, Rand avoids alienating conservatives because he wants the Republican nomination. But has he violated his principles?</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />He doesn't call for drug legalization but wants to decrease penalties, and he doesn't rule out legalization.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />He voted for sanctions on Iran, which bothers hardcore libertarians, but of the policies under consideration, sanctions were better than war.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />And Rand wants the Senate to fulfill its constitutional role by approving any war. That's libertarian.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />He supported increases in defense spending, but at least he said they should be offset by reductions in other spending.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Paul disappoints me by opposing gay marriage and saying a "moral crisis allows people to think there would be some other sort of marriage." What? If anything, there are fewer "moral crises" in America: Crime, teen pregnancy, teen sexual activity and use of marijuana are all trending down. I wish politicians would get off their "moral crisis" pedestal.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />At least Rand did not ask the government to ban gay marriage. It's a relief when a politician draws a line between what his religion tells him and what <em>government</em> ought to do.<br /><br /></span><span>Where Rand Paul shines is in the clarity of his plans to shrink government. When elected to the Senate, he said his big priorities were "the debt, the debt and the debt."</span><br /><span><br />Good. With the federal government $18 trillion in the hole, we can't afford another big-government president.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Paul presented budget proposals (visible online) that left-wing critics like Vox say are "the most radical vision of limited government ever presented by a major American presidential candidate (apart, perhaps, from Paul's father, Ron Paul)."</span><br /><span><br />He wants to eliminate the Department of Education, Amtrak subsidies, the Department of Energy, foreign aid and other programs that do more harm than good. He would privatize Medicare and partially privatize Social Security.</span><br /><span><br />Paul criticizes crony capitalist subsidies, and, unlike most politicians who suck up to Midwestern farmers by offering ethanol subsidies, he proposes merely <em>eliminating</em> <em>regulations that inhibit</em> ethanol production. That's libertarian.</span><br /><span><br />Paul's practicing politics, but it's still pretty libertarian politics. In fact, he seems to lean over backward to stick to libertarian principles -- even while trying to sound like a mainstream politician.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Most politicians just change their "principles" to fit the needs of their campaign. And maybe keeping things vague is the way to win. Hillary Clinton's website doesn't even give <em>any</em> specific policy positions.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Liberals should consider voting for this Republican. Paul's been more vocal than any Democrat in his warnings about civil liberties violations by police, the Dept. of Homeland Security and the NSA. His criticism of policies that disproportionately harm minorities let him reach out to groups that Republicans have often ignored. A recent poll of swing states found Paul would beat Hillary Clinton in Colorado and Iowa.</span><br /><span><br />Rand Paul is not perfectly libertarian, but of those who might be president, he's the best thing we've got.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />In 2012, I voted for Gary Johnson. Next year: Rand Paul.</span></p>John Stossel2015-04-22T21:50:00ZFreedom of and from ReligionJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Freedom-of-and-from-Religion/-115394674307636896.html2015-04-15T07:00:00Z2015-04-15T07:00:00Z<p><span>Religious oppression was one reason many of our ancestors came to America. They wanted to escape rulers who demanded that everyone worship their way. In Ireland, Catholics couldn't vote or own a gun.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I assumed that because many of America's founders came here to escape such repression, they were eager to allow religious freedom in America. After all, the very First Amendment in the Bill of Rights says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But I was wrong. On my TV show this week, Chapman University economist Larry Iannaccone explains that many American settlers were just as tyrannical about insisting that everyone follow <em>their</em> religion: "In the Northeast, it was Puritanism or Calvinism. In New York and Virginia, Anglicanism, the Church of England. Elsewhere, it was Catholicism."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Only when colonists tried to form a nation, and met with others who practiced different religions (or none, like Thomas Jefferson), did they put freedom of religion in the Bill of Rights.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />So what does that mean</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT800_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span><span>? President Obama tells religious people that he supports "the right to practice our faith how we choose."</span><br /><span><br />But Obamacare functionaries ordered Christian groups to fund employees' purchase of birth control and the morning-after abortion pill. Some religious people believe both pills are a form of murder. Would their president <em>force</em> them to pay for what they consider <em>murder</em>? You betcha.</span><br /><span><br />The Green family, which owns Hobby Lobby, sued, and the Supremes ruled that some faith-based corporations can get an exemption from Obamacare. But it was a pathetically narrow victory, applying only to small, privately-held companies, and they still must hire lawyers to beg for an exemption. Non-profits and bigger groups such as Notre Dame still must fund what they consider to be murder.</span><br /><span><br />Leftists still assailed the court for granting even this tiny exemption. Sen. Elizabeth Warren said she "can't believe we live in a world where we'd even consider letting big corps deny women access to basic care."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Harry Reid said, "If the Supreme Court will not protect women's access to health care, then Democrats will."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />What utter nonsense! No one was "denied access" to anything. Anyone with a prescription can buy birth control pills at Wal-Mart for $9. Are leftists so in love with big government that they think government <em>not</em> funding something is akin to banning it? Apparently they do.</span><br /><span><br />Hobby Lobby's owners were represented in court by a group called the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Becket's director, Kristina Arriaga, says Hobby Lobby isn't stingy or cruel: "The Green family pays twice the minimum wage, closes on Sundays, gives very generous benefits to their employees, and they did not object to 16 out of the 20 drugs (for which coverage was mandated)."</span><br /><span><br />I say it shouldn't matter whether the Green family is good to its employees. No one is forced to work for them or any company. If business owners don't want to fund birth control, alcohol rehab, haircuts or anything, that should be their right.</span><br /><span><br />They created the company (or paid to buy it), and as long as they don't collude with competitors, they should be allowed to impose whatever rules they want. Employees aren't trapped. Anyone can quit. Companies that give more generous benefits will attract better employees. That competition protects workers better than government mandates ever will.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Letting government make so many one-size-fits-all decisions creates new problems. Iannaccone argues that religion is more vibrant in the U.S. because the American government has mostly left religion alone. In Europe, governments subsidized religion or set the rules. The state promised protection for all but ended up becoming an enforcer of orthodoxy. That made religion more homogeneous and less appealing. Forty percent of Americans say they go to church every week. In England and France, only 10 percent do. In Denmark, only 3 percent attend.</span><br /><span><br />"Religion is a market phenomenon like other ones," Iannaccone says, "and when you make the government the arbiter, the funder, (religion) operates like a typical lazy monopoly. Incentives are lost. The clergy get focused on pleasing politicians rather than the people."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Government ought to leave us alone so we can do as we please, in collaboration with whatever God we believe in.</span><span> </span></p>John Stossel2015-04-15T07:00:00ZThe Right to DiscriminateJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Right-to-Discriminate/-19126346300497062.html2015-04-08T20:39:00Z2015-04-08T20:39:00Z<p><span><span>Bake me a cake, or go to jail!</span><br /><span><br />Sadly, that is the new message from "inclusive" America. If you don't want to cater, photograph, preside over, sell pizza at, sell flowers to or otherwise participate in a gay wedding, you will be punished. If you don't want your business to pay for a kind of birth control that you consider murder, you will pay fines until your business is bankrupt.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Personally, I think both birth control and homosexuality are just fine, and gay marriage is as valid as straight marriage. But <em>forcing</em> everyone to act as if they think that way is just wrong. We have moved from "inclusion" to totalitarianism.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The list of people you must treat carefully keeps getting longer. Protected classes now include sex, race, age, disability, nationality, citizenship status, pregnancy, family status and more. I'm in two of those groups. You better treat me well!</span><br /><span><br />Why <em>force</em> someone who disapproves of your actions to bake you a cake? Lots of other bakers would love the business. This debate has moved from inclusion to demanding that everyone adopt your values.</span><br /><span><br />In a free country, bigots should have the right to be bigots. Americans should also have freedom of association.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />American lawyers talk about special protection for <em>religious</em> freedom, and in the Hobby Lobby case the Supreme Court said you could escape onerous parts of Obamacare by paying lawyers a fortune and convincing judges that you are a closely held corporation with religious objections. But why must you be religious to practice what you believe? This should be about individual freedom.</span><br /><span><br />Of course, <em>government</em> must not discriminate. The worst of American racism and homophobia -- slavery, segregation enforced by Jim Crow laws, bans on interracial marriage, anti-sodomy laws, etc. -- was government-enforced discrimination. That was wrong, and it was right for the federal government to intervene.</span><br /><span><br />But p<em>rivate</em> actions are different. If I start a business with my own money, I ought to be allowed to serve only libertarians, people who wear blue shirts, whatever. It's my business!</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />My customers have choices. If I am racist or anti-gay, the free market will punish me. Enough people would boycott my business that I would probably lose money quickly.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />It would actually be useful to see which businesses refuse to serve one group or another. Tolerance is revealed by how people behave when they are free. American law fosters the illusion that everyone is unbiased, while their real feelings remain hidden, making them harder to boycott, shame or debate.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Punishment from the market is enough. The heavy hand of law is not needed here.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />However, given America's history, I accept that there are a few exceptions. In the South, people banned from a lunch counter had few other choices. The Civil Rights Act's intrusion into private behavior was probably necessary to counter the damage done by Jim Crow laws.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT4364_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span><span> </span><span>such coercion is no longer needed. Even in the difficult days of Reconstruction, after the Civil War, business began to bring together whites and blacks who might not always have liked each other but who wanted the best deals. It took several years for racists to get Jim Crow passed so they could put a stop to that erosion of the old racist ways. Government helped keep racism going for several more decades.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Individuals should be allowed to discriminate. I discriminate all the time. I favor people over others when I choose my friends, jobs, hobbies, clubs, religion, etc. So do you.</span><br /><span><br />Elizabeth Taylor married nine times. Had she married again, should the EEOC have ordered her to marry someone from an ethnic minority?</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />A homophobic baker shouldn't stop a same-sex couple from getting married. Likewise, a gay couple shouldn't force a baker to make them a wedding cake. No one should ever force anyone to bake them a cake.</span></span></p>John Stossel2015-04-08T20:39:00ZThe Next BubbleJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Next-Bubble/787447363487461360.html2015-04-01T18:52:00Z2015-04-01T18:52:00Z<p><span>They're doing it again!</span><br /><span><br />When the last housing bubble burst, politicians blamed "greedy banks." They said mortgage companies lent money recklessly, making loans to people with dubious credit, for down payments as low as 3 percent.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />"It will work out," said the optimistic bankers. Regulators didn't disagree. Everyone said, "Home prices will keep going up." And home prices did -- until they didn't.</span><br /><span><br />The bubble popped in 2007. Lots of people were hurt, and politicians took more of your tax money to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac along with reckless banks. They also gave the Federal Housing Administration a $2 billion bailout.</span><br /><span><br />Then the politicians said, "We'll fix this so it doesn't happen again." Congress passed Dodd-Frank and a thousand new regulations. The complex rules slowed lending, all right. It's one reason this post-recession recovery has been abnormally slow.</span><br /><span><br />But -- April Fools'! -- the new rules didn't solve the problem of reckless lending, and it's happening again.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Because our government subsidizes home purchases, recklessness is invited. Somehow, Americans buy cars, clothing, computers, etc. without government guarantees, but politicians think housing is different.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Both parties support the subsidies.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The left wants government to help struggling families, and the right thinks home ownership sends a wholesome cultural message. Both parties have cozy connections to home-builders and lenders.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />At the time of the housing crash, most high-risk loans were guaranteed by the government. Those banks wouldn't have been as reckless if they had their own money on the line.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But they knew they could grant a mortgage to most anyone and the FHA would back it or government-sponsored companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would buy it. That fueled the frenzy of lending.</span><br /><span><br />After the bubble popped, I assumed the political class would learn a lesson, but they haven't.</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT449_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">Today</span><span>, even more American mortgages are guaranteed by government. More than 90 percent of new loans are backed by taxpayers. After the crash, Fannie and Freddie did raise their minimum down payment -- to a measly 5 percent -- but a few months ago, they lowered it again to 3 percent!</span><br /><span><br />Are they crazy? A sensible congressman, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), tried to get an answer from the administration's new mortgage regulator, asking in a hearing, "All things being equal, is a 3 percent down riskier to the taxpayer than a 10 percent down loan?"</span><br /><span><br />A pretty basic question -- but one that director Mel Watt still dodged, responding, "Mr. Chairman, that is generally true. But when you pair the down payment with compensating factors ... look at other considerations ... you can ensure that a 3 percent loan is just as safe."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />What? That's nonsense. This is what happens when pandering politicians get to dispense your money. Watt is among the worst. When he was a congressman, he pushed for mortgage subsidies for welfare recipients who made down payments as low as $1,000.</span><br /><span><br />Edward Pinto, who studies housing risk for the American Enterprise Institute, says policies like this put us on the way to another bubble: "The government is once again ... saying, let's loosen credit, give loans to people that potentially can't afford them, and everything will be fine because house prices will go up."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />On my show, former FHA commissioner David Stevens, who did improve lending standards a bit after the crash (before Watt and his cronies weakened them), responded that this time the government has new regulations that will prevent things falling apart: "I think in the effort, post-recession, to make sure we never go down this path again, we have created more rules than ever existed in the history of this country."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But more rules aren't a solution. Government's regulators didn't foresee the problems last time. Fannie and Freddie got a clean bill of health right up until the collapse.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The solution is <em>less</em> government involvement. Canada doesn't have a Fannie, Freddie or FHA. Canada didn't have the trauma of a housing bubble. In Canada, lenders and homeowners risk their <em>own</em> money.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Does that mean Canadians cannot afford homes? No! Without all that government help, Canada's homeownership rate is <em>higher</em> than ours.</span><span> </span><br /><span> </span><span><br /></span></p>John Stossel2015-04-01T18:52:00ZGentrify!John Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Gentrify!/748424292611446355.html2015-03-26T19:18:00Z2015-03-26T19:18:00Z<p><span>No matter what you do, modern liberals will tell you you're wrong.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />For decades, liberals complained that American society is segregated because rich, white people don't want to live in ethnically mixed neighborhoods. Sometimes, liberals had a point.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />From the 1930s to 1960s, as rich white people moved into New York City, urban planner Robert Moses got city bureaucrats to condemn and destroy busy black neighborhoods. The city called the neighborhoods "blighted" and moved many of the poor into rent-subsidized apartment complexes called "projects." Many quickly became slums.</span><br /><span><br />Now times have changed. Some rich, white people want to move into poorer, non-white neighborhoods because they <em>like</em> diversity (and cheaper real estate). So</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT798_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span><span> </span><span>the newcomers are attacked by liberals because they cause "gentrification."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Movie director Spike Lee, who lives in Brooklyn, said gentrifiers behave almost like "Columbus and kill off the Native Americans." Of course, the new gentrifiers don't actually kill anyone, but because their arrival often leads to rising real estate values, critics complain that they drive poor people out of the neighborhood.</span><br /><span><br />Two women in Brooklyn got so angry about it, they pulled out a gun, forced two white people out of an apartment and moved in (they were later arrested).</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Columbia urban planning professor Stacey Sutton calls gentrification a "manifestation of inequality" that may "fundamentally alter the culture and character of the neighborhood" in ways that hurt the poor.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Yet her own school did something worse. Columbia colluded with politicians to use eminent domain law to <em>take</em> pieces of the Harlem neighborhood that surrounds Columbia. In court, the school argued that it had the right to take neighbors' land because it would "benefit West Harlem."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Who owns the land is something that ought to be decided not by government but by free people making their own decisions about where they wish to live. When gentrification happens that way, spontaneously, price rises are often accompanied by drops in crime, new job opportunities and better connections to the rest of the culture. What the left calls "gentrification" is often called "improvement" by people who live there.</span><br /><span><br />Another Columbia urban planning professor, Lance Freeman, found to his surprise that gentrification didn't even mean significant displacement of the previous population. In his book "There Goes the 'Hood," Freeman writes, "poor residents and those without a college education were actually less likely to move if they resided in gentrifying neighborhoods."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />That's because gentrification often means the neighborhood gets safer and more interesting. That's something the old residents enjoy as much as new ones.</span><span> <br /><br /></span><span>The Economist reports that a 2008 study of census data found "no evidence of displacement of low-income non-white households in gentrifying neighborhoods" and found that black incomes "soared" in gentrifying neighborhoods.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />That doesn't stop some people -- often rich, white liberals -- from complaining that gentrification destroys the quaintness of the neighborhood. They sound almost like the people who think that the developing world should never be sullied by modern technology. Actually, sometimes the same people make both arguments.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />In San Francisco, some longtime residents got so angry about Google employees moving in that they surrounded Google employee shuttle buses, waving protest signs.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />It's a fight between hippies and tech geeks, with the hippies calling for regulations to prevent change. Such regulations have perverse effects, however. They lead to long waits for building permits and subsidies for housing that end up getting used by the well-connected and rich.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />When regulation makes it harder to build or to alter old buildings, the effect is higher costs and reduced choices, which only makes things harder for the poor. Regulation saves some old things people like, but those people will never even know what new things they missed out on.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />If nothing like gentrification ever happened in the world, we all still would be living in the same caves our ancestors lived in thousands of years ago. I say, let free people keep transforming the neighborhood.</span><br /><span> </span></p>John Stossel2015-03-26T19:18:00ZChicago is the next DetroitJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Chicago-is-the-next-Detroit/118921322006152825.html2015-03-19T18:32:00Z2015-03-19T18:32:00Z<p><span>Rahm Emanuel, current mayor of my old hometown, Chicago, is not a gentle soul. But he's smarter than his big-spending predecessor, Richard M. Daley, and the union pawn, Jesus "Chuy" Garcia, who becomes the new mayor if he beats Emanuel in a run-off election</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT214_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">April 7</span><span>.</span><br /><span><br />Emanuel was the tough Obama chief of staff who reportedly stabbed a table with a steak knife as he listed political enemies.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />He relishes conflict and famously said that in politics, "You never let a serious crisis go to waste." That comment scared libertarians and conservatives, who know that government usually uses crises as excuses to increase its power.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But here's the surprise: Emanuel has been in crisis mode for four years now, and sometimes he made the right decisions as a result.</span><br /><span><br />"Crisis" is not just political rhetoric. Mayor Daley and his predecessors pandered to a shallow public and gullible media by spending, borrowing and refinancing. Borrowing helped Daley stay in office for 12 years, but cities can't keep borrowing the way Chicago has.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Moody's downgraded Chicago's credit rating almost to junk-bond level last year because the city promised to pay billions of dollars in pensions to city workers but doesn't have the money.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Chicago is the next Detroit.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Emanuel tried to do some sensible things. He privatized some jobs, giving private contractors a chance to prove that they do city work better than city workers do it. He closed 50 of the city's worst schools. But he made little progress in addressing the immense pension liability.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Maybe it would have been politically impossible. The pensions are owed mostly to union teachers, cops and firemen, and none will give an inch. Teachers union protests roused the public against Emanuel's school closings.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />"That school was the center of our neighborhood!" goes the refrain from the anti-Emanuel voters. "It provided good jobs."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />That's probably why Emanuel was forced into a run-off election.</span><br /><span><br />But bad schools should close. And some union schools were really bad.</span><br /><span><br />Emanuel's opponent in the run-off, Garcia, vocally supports the unions and joins them in opposing both pension reform and competition from charter schools at all costs.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Garcia also wants a "moratorium on charter schools." But charters are a rare bright spot in the failing city.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I suppose union manipulators like Garcia worry that if more parents see how much better schools get without unions in charge, they might get other dangerous ideas. They might demand flexibility and market-based solutions in other areas.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />One of my favorite things about Chicago is the so-called "Chicago school" of economics -- free market advocates such as the late Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman.</span><span> </span></p>
<p><span>Friedman said, "a major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they (SET ITAL) ought (END ITAL) to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Chicago's corrupt political culture has little interest in letting ordinary people experience real freedom.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Have you heard of "pay to play"? It's when politicians award contracts to businesses that pay bribes. Bribery is illegal, but clever political manipulators reframe it in ways their lawyers can call legal. It happens everywhere, but Chicago has been famous for it. Emanuel continued the tradition -- one of the things he hasn't gotten right.</span><br /><span><br />Somehow, investment firms that give money to Emanuel's campaign win fees to manage the city's money. Somehow, lawyers who give the right politicians money get lucrative contracts from the city. What a coincidence!</span><br /><span><br />It's as if Chicago voters face a painful choice: waste or corruption. Day by day, the political class milks taxpayers dry.</span><br /><span><br />Once Chicago goes bankrupt, though, a judge will presumably force the city to stop throwing money to cronies, whether unions or businessmen. Pensions will have to be trimmed so that they are sustainable.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Then the rest of America will learn from Chicago's and Detroit's failures. Maybe.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I'm doubtful, though, because so far, the political class didn't learn much from Detroit, Stockton, Greece, Cuba, Venezuela or the Soviet Union.</span><br /><span><br />Maybe these are people who will never learn.</span></p>John Stossel2015-03-19T18:32:00ZWhat's Fair?John Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Whats-Fair/-288328490617054048.html2015-03-11T22:23:00Z2015-03-11T22:23:00Z<p>Donald Trump's kids and Paris Hilton's siblings were born rich. That gave them a big advantage in life. Unfair!</p>
<p>Inequality in wealth has grown. Today the richest 1 percent of Americans own a third of the assets. That's not fair!</p>
<p>But wherever people are free, that's what happens. </p>
<p>Some people are luckier, smarter or just better at making money. Often they marry other wealthy, well-connected people. Over time, these advantages compound. Globalization increases the effect. This month's issue of Forbes says the world now has 1,826 billionaires, and some struggle to find enough parking places for their jets. </p>
<p>President Obama calls inequality "the defining issue of our time." Really? Not our unsustainable debt? Not ISIS? The president also said, "No challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change!"</p>
<p>Politicians constantly find crises they will solve by increasing government power. But why is inequality a crisis?</p>
<p>Alexis Goldstein, of a group called The Other 98%, complains that corporations got richer but workers' wages "are lower than they've been in 65 years."</p>
<p>That's a common refrain, but it's wrong. Over the past 30 years, CBO data shows that the average income of the poorest fifth of Americans is <em>up</em> by 49 percent. That doesn't include all the innovations that have dramatically improved everyone's life. Today even the poorest Americans have comforts and lifespans that kings didn't have a century ago. </p>
<p>George Mason University economist Garett Jones says, "If I was going to be in the bottom fifth in the America of today versus the bottom fifth of America in 1970 or 1960, it's hard to imagine that anybody would take that time machine into the past." </p>
<p>And despite America's lousy government schools and regulations that make it tough to start a business, there is still economic <em>mobility</em>. Poor people don't have to stay poor. Sixty-four percent of those born in the poorest fifth of the U.S. population move out of that quintile. Eleven percent of them rise all the way to the top, according to economists at Harvard and Berkeley. Most of the billionaires atop the Forbes richest list weren't <em>born</em> rich. They got rich by innovating.</p>
<p>Rich people aren't guaranteed their place at the top, either. Sixty-six percent fell from the top quintile, and eight percent fell all the way to the bottom. </p>
<p>That mobility is a reason most of us are better off than we would have been in a more rigid society, controlled by central economic planners. </p>
<p>Life will always be unfair. I want to play pro basketball. It's unfair that LeBron James is bigger and more talented! It's also unfair that George Clooney is better looking! It's unfair that my brother is smarter than me. </p>
<p>Jones points out, "I was born with an advantage, too. Being born in the United States ... totally unfair." He also has two married parents -- another huge advantage.</p>
<p>The question is not whether people start out life in homogeneous circumstances, he adds. "The question is whether government policies that try to fix this actually make things better or worse." </p>
<p>Worse, in most cases. Government "help" encourages poor people to be dependent and passive. Dependent, people stay poor. Also, most government handouts don't even go to the poor. They go to the middle class (college loans, big mortgage tax deductions, Medicare) and the rich (corporate welfare, bailouts to banks "too big to fail"). </p>
<p>Instead of making government more powerful, let's get rid of those handouts. Left and right ought to agree on that.</p>
<p>America has prosperity and innovation because we have relatively free markets.</p>
<p>Progressives say, "Keep the innovation but have government make us more equal." But that doesn't work. It's been tried. Government-enforced equality -- socialism -- leaves everybody poor.</p>
<p>Equality is less important than <em>opportunity. </em>Opportunity requires allowing people to spend their own money and take their own risks. </p>
<p>Instead of talking about "fairness," it would be better to talk about justice: respecting other people, respecting their freedom and their property rights. </p>
<p>Real fairness requires limiting government power. </p>
<p> </p>John Stossel2015-03-11T22:23:00ZDoes "Rape Culture" Exist?John Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Does-Rape-Culture-Exist/126874243140172123.html2015-03-04T20:41:00Z2015-03-04T20:41:00Z<p>A new documentary calls colleges like Harvard and Notre Dame "The Hunting Ground," where rapists prey on women. A bipartisan group of senators demand new rules to "curb campus sexual assaults."</p>
<p>Apparently, new laws are needed because at colleges, sexual assault is "epidemic." Rape is so common that there is a "rape culture."</p>
<p>I hear that a lot.</p>
<p>It is utter exaggeration. Fortunately, AEI scholar Christina Hoff Sommers is around to reveal the truth.</p>
<p>"This idea of a rape culture was built on false statistics and twisted theories about toxic masculinity," she says.</p>
<p>No one denies that some men, especially when drunk, get violent and abusive. I saw nasty behavior when I was in college, and I assume there are places worse than Princeton.</p>
<p>Sommers says, "I always make clear, rape is a very serious problem, (but) if you look at the best data ... it is not an epidemic. And we do not have a rape culture."</p>
<p>The difference is not just numbers, she says. "Rape culture means everything in society is reinforcing (rape) and making it seem a legitimate thing to do. Of course that's not true."</p>
<p>The media love crisis, and hyping sexual assault is a good way to get attention.</p>
<p>Recently, a Rolling Stone article said that men routinely assault women at the University of Virginia. It told a frightening story, based on one witness, of gang rape in a frat house that left the victim's friends completely uninterested, since assault is so routine.</p>
<p>The article got lots of attention. Then completely fell apart.</p>
<p>"It proved to be a sort of gothic fantasy, a male-demonizing fantasy," says Sommers. "It was absurd."</p>
<p>In much American media, a rape story is "too good to check." The Rolling Stone author admits she wanted to believe. She barely fact-checked the claims made by her source. Her source's story fit the reporter's own "rape culture" narrative. She interviewed students at many campuses, waiting for the rape story she wanted to hear.</p>
<p>The Rolling Stone story sounded extraordinary from the beginning. "But for several days, people in the media just believed it, and publicized it, and anguished over it," says Sommers. To doubt was taboo. "The hysteria around campus assault, the false information has been building for so long," warns Sommers, "people are willing to believe anything."</p>
<p>President Obama added to the misinformation by pandering to the feminist victim lobby, creating a "sex abuse task force" and repeating a widely quoted -- yet obviously absurd -- rape statistic: "It is estimated that one in five women on college campuses has been sexually assaulted during their time there. One in five!"</p>
<p>Yes, Mr. President, we hear that a lot.</p>
<p>But it's a lie.</p>
<p>At allegedly horrible University of Virginia, where Rolling Stone said assault was routine, 46 sexual offenses were reported per thousand students. That's 46 too many, but for "one in five" to be true, it would have to be 200.</p>
<p>Admittedly, many victims of assault fear going public, so the UVA number may be higher than 46. Nevertheless, one in five just isn't plausible.</p>
<p>"The figure is closer to one in 50," says Sommers of colleges overall.</p>
<p>Sexual assault is serious stuff. Activists trivialize it by asking survey questions like "Did you ever receive unwanted sexual contact while drunk?" and counting "yes" answers as assaults.<br />"The CDC did a study," recounts Sommers. "They called it sexual violence if you said yes (to the question) 'Has anyone ever pressured you to have sex by telling you tales, or making you feel guilty?' <em>That </em>counted as violence."</p>
<p>It's not nice to pressure someone. But people do that. That's different from violence, isn't it?<br />If we forget the difference between violent and non-violent conduct, no one is safe. If we pretend everyone is guilty instead of a few real criminals, rapists win. No longer are they a dangerous group of very bad people, they're just -- men.</p>
<p>That's no victory for women. Or anyone.</p>John Stossel2015-03-04T20:41:00ZIs Wikipedia the 'Public Restroom' of the Internet?John Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Is-Wikipedia-the-Public-Restroom-of-the-Internet/-741601184453011354.html2015-02-18T08:00:00Z2015-02-18T08:00:00Z<span>For years, people assumed encyclopedias had to be created by professionals. Then Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales attempted to create an encyclopedia without central planners.</span><br /><span><br />That sounded like a terrible idea to the old gatekeepers -- people who hired experts to carefully fact-check and edit every encyclopedia entry. When they heard that Wales would crowdsource an encyclopedia, one Encyclopedia Britannica editor sneered, "The user who visits Wikipedia is a visitor to a public restroom."</span><br /><span><br />But</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT542_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span><span> </span><span>research shows that Wikipedia is as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica. Wikipedia is now the sixth most visited website, and the hardcover Encyclopedia Britannica no longer exists.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />"It's a bit sad in a way," says Wales. "I love Britannica. But I love candles, too, and I sure wouldn't give up my electric light."</span><br /><span><br />When I say Wikipedia is crowdsourced, I mean that millions of readers edit the entries. Their power to correct things is weighted according to the <em>reputation</em> they acquire from the "crowd." Without being paid, this army of amateurs takes pride of ownership. They work hard to keep their entries accurate.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />After model/actress Anna Nicole Smith died, someone changed her Wikipedia entry to something vulgar. It was fixed within minutes.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The amateur editors specialize, says Wales. "There is a group of people who say, look, we've got all these entries about bridges, we want to make sure they're all really good, because we love bridges; we're bridge fanatics. I mean, who knew bridge fanatics exist?"</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But they do. So do fanatics who want to get things right about Roman history, bacteria, spy novels and so on.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />That this could be accurate without strict central planning is hard to grasp. Even Wales started out thinking that some kind of planner was necessary. He hired a Ph.D. in philosophy to edit a more centralized online encyclopedia, Newpedia. It failed.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But Wikipedia, without a central plan -- just a few simple ground rules -- flourished. Wales likens the lesson to economist Friedrich Hayek's insights about why decentralized, free-market decisions are wiser than centralized, socialist planning: The crowd possesses "local knowledge" that experts can't begin to replicate.</span><br /><span><br /></span><span>Many of</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT544_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span><span>'s most popular websites -- Google, Indiegogo, Facebook -- thrive because they gave more control to users than to the founders. They also help users get things done without relying on gatekeepers at publishing houses, mainstream media or colleges.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Defenders of government and central planning often say that there are some things we just can't leave to individuals, things that require government central planning, such as road building. But often that's not true either.</span><br /><span><br />In Britain, a highway was damaged by heavy rains. The local government promised to repair it. "After three weeks, they said it's going to be three months. After three months, they said a year," entrepreneur Mike Watts told me.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Mike's wife then told him <em>he</em> should build the road. Although he had no road-building experience, he agreed to try. He went to the local pub and persuaded a farmer to let part of his land be used for the project.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Government said it would take a year to rebuild the road. On TV one bureaucrat said, "you can't just do what you want ... (Everything must) conform to highway standards!"</span><br /><span><br />But Mike built his "private road" in just 12 days. He paid for it by collecting a $3 toll. Drivers cheerfully paid because Mike's road saved them so much time. (British private toll roads like this are where we got the word "turnpike." Private tollbooth operators would lift a "pike" to let the horses through.)</span><br /><span><br />After Mike started giving interviews about the success of his road, the local government got embarrassed and quickly finished work on its road. Mike had to shut down. He at least managed to break even.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Both he and Wikipedia are reminders that human beings can still do great things, big and small, when they stop waiting for permission from above.</span><span> </span>John Stossel2015-02-18T08:00:00ZPoliticians: Important People, or Parasites?John Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Politicians:-Important-People-or-Parasites/429983173289693708.html2015-02-03T08:00:00Z2015-02-03T08:00:00Z<span>Politicians and lawyers pretend that they are important people doing important work. But often they're important because they are parasites. <br /><br />They feed off others, while creating no wealth of their own.</span><br /><span><br />We all complain about businesses we don't like, but because business is voluntary, every merchant must offer us something we want in order to get our money.</span><br /><span><br />But that's not true for politicians and their businessman cronies. They get to use government force to grab our money.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Those people who <em>take</em> instead of producing things make up "the parasite economy," says Cato Institute Vice President David Boaz. It's my favorite chapter in his new book, "The Libertarian Mind."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The parasite economy, says Boaz, thrives wherever "you use the law to get something you couldn't get voluntarily in the marketplace."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />That includes much of the military-industrial complex, "green" businesses that prosper only because politicians award them subsidies, banks that can borrow cheaply because they're labeled "too big to fail" and -- unfortunately -- me.</span><br /><span><br />All of us are parasites if government granted us special deals. Some parasites (not me) lobbied for their deal. "You might use a tariff to prevent people from buying from your foreign competitors or get the government to give you a subsidy," says Boaz. "You might get the government to pass a law that makes it difficult for your competitors to compete with you."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />This quickly creates a culture where businesses conclude that the best way to prosper is not by producing superior goods, but by lobbying. Politicians then tend to view those businesses the way gangsters used to view neighborhood stores, as targets to shake down.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Says Boaz, "You have politicians and bureaucrats and lobbyists coming around to these companies and saying, hey, nice little company you've got there, too bad if something happened to it. ... They start suggesting that maybe you need to make some campaign contributions, maybe hire some lobbyists, and maybe we'll run an anti-trust investigation, and maybe we'll limit your supply of overseas engineers. And all of these things then drag these companies into Washington's lobbying culture."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />And as I mentioned, it's not just companies that get dragged in.</span><br /><span><br />I built a house on the edge of the ocean. People weigh the costs and benefits of building in risky places like that. Without government's encouragement, I would have just built someplace else. But because politicians decided that government should be in the flood insurance business, and then other politicians decided that government's insurance business should offer cheap rates, I <em>did</em> build on the beach.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Even though my property was obviously a high flood risk, my insurance premiums never exceeded $400 a year. Ten years later, my house washed away, and government's insurance plan reimbursed my costs.</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT854_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">Today</span><span>, the federal flood insurance program is $40 billion in the red.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />In other words, you helped pay for my beach house. Thanks! I never invited you there, but you paid anyway. I actually felt entitled to the money. It had been promised by a government program!</span><br /><span><br />But it was wrong, and I won't collect again. I don't want to be a parasite.</span><br /><span><br />But it's tough, because government keeps making offers. Government handouts make parasites out of many of us.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Compare politicians and politicians' cronies to tapeworms and ticks. Like parasites in nature, the ticks on the body politic don't want to kill the host organism -- meaning us. It's in politicians' and regulators' interest to keep the host alive so they can keep eating our food and sucking our blood.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />After watching members of Congress applaud President Obama during his last State of the Union address, I came to think that politicians were <em>worse</em> than tapeworms and ticks. The president bragged about American energy production being up. Domestic energy is up, but it's up because of private sector innovation, not government. In fact, it's up<em> in spite</em> of administration rules that make it harder to extract oil from public lands. Yet many in Congress applauded the president's misleading claim.</span><br /><span><br />At least tapeworms and ticks don't expect us to clap.</span><span> </span>John Stossel2015-02-03T08:00:00ZIntellectual Property and Owning Your IdeasJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Intellectual-Property-and-Owning-Your-Ideas/-162289649275845528.html2015-01-28T15:49:00Z2015-01-28T15:49:00Z<span>For most of history, people suffered in miserable poverty.</span><br /><span><br />Then, in a few hundred years, some new ideas made life hugely better for billions of us -- things like running water, the printing press, the steam engine, electricity, the Internet.</span><br /><span><br />We want people to keep coming up with new and better ideas. But there's a problem: Why would you bother to spend years inventing something if other people can just steal your idea? Who will devote years and millions of dollars to making a big movie? Or a dozen years and billions of dollars to bringing a new drug to market? Almost no one.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br /></span><span>Filmmaker Kirby Ferguson sums up problem: "Let's say a guy invents a better light bulb. His price needs to cover not just the manufacturing costs but also the costs of inventing the thing in the first place. Let's say a competitor starts manufacturing a copy. The competitor doesn't need to cover those development costs, so his version can be cheaper."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Then he profits, but the original inventor goes out of business. That's why America grants time-limited patents and copyrights to creators of songs, books, movies, paintings, drugs, etc. Fine.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT1235_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span><span> </span><span>Fox won't let me sing the song "Happy Birthday" on my TV show. That's because Warner Music bought the rights to it in 1998. People now have to pay Warner about $2 million a year to use the song in commercials and movies.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Sheesh. Why does Warner get such a long copyright? The song already existed. It's not like the composer needs protection.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Bridgeport Music, a business that makes no music but obtains copyrights and then sues people, won a lawsuit over <em>two seconds</em> of sound. When we questioned that, their lawyer wrote back: "I personally do not understand those who criticize people for protecting their intellectual property ... (We) happen to own valuable music."</span><br /><span><br />Give me a break. He's an opportunistic parasite.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I wonder about my former employer, Disney, too. It paid nothing for the Snow White story because it was in the public domain. But then Disney managed to get its version of Snow White copyrighted for 95 years. Will 95 years of protection make Disney's animators more creative? I doubt it.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />In the era of the Internet, when young people take mashups and do-it-yourself parodies for granted, maybe intellectual property in its current form has outlived its expiration date.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />David Koepsell, of the Center for Inquiry, says</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT1237_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span><span>'s rules are hostile to free speech. "Intellectual property law actually prevents me from making certain expressions, things that are allegedly other people's own."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Lawyer Stephan Kinsella, author of "Against Intellectual Property ," says copyright decreases intellectual output because it "prevents people from saying what they want to say, from copying, learning, sharing, remixing." That stops some books from being reprinted and movies from being remade.</span><br /><span><br />When Hollywood complains about "piracy," Kinsella asks, "Why call it piracy? Pirates stole. But if you copy ideas, you don't take anything away from the originator."</span><br /><span><br />Thomas Jefferson once agreed, writing, "He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper (candle) at mine, receives light without darkening me."</span><br /><span><br />Kinsella points out that movie industry income doubled even though films are now widely copied. "The danger to artists and to people who want to get their name out there is obscurity, not piracy."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I'm not sure what to think. Some of you watch my shows on YouTube. I <em>like</em> that because it means my show reaches more people. But those who post my videos do actually steal from Fox. If everyone can do that, why would Fox pay me or cover the cost of doing my show? When I see myself on YouTube, I both smile and cringe.</span><br /><span><br />So how should ideas be protected? Magicians and comedians found ways to protect their inventions <em>without</em> government -- by keeping tricks a secret or shaming people for stealing jokes.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I'll explore these ideas on my TV show in its new slot,</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT1239_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">Friday</span><span>, 9 p.m. Eastern. And if some clips from it turn up on YouTube ...</span><span> </span>John Stossel2015-01-28T15:49:00ZRestate of the UnionJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Restate-of-the-Union/-766970161779017691.html2015-01-22T00:31:00Z2015-01-22T00:31:00Z<div style="text-align: left;"><span>President Obama sure is consistent. His State of the Union address sounded like his other speeches: What I've done is great! America is in a much better position. We've created a manufacturing sector that's adding jobs. More oil is produced at home. I cut deficits in half!</span><br /><span><br />Give me a break. The deficit is lower now not because of any prudence on Obama's part but merely because the $800 billion stimulus spending blowout didn't continue. All the president does is <em>increase </em>spending: free community college, free Obamaphones, free birth control, etc. Yes, our annual deficit is lower, but it's still $488 billion! Our $18 trillion national debt increases by $3 million every minute!</span><br /><span><br />Yes, more oil is produced at home, but that's <em>in spite </em>of the administration. Oil production is <em>down</em> on public land.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Yes, the manufacturing sector added jobs, but that's mostly because of cheaper natural gas created by fracking, which Obama's cronies opposed. Also, America is <em>finally</em> recovering from recession. Obama's policies probably slowed that recovery.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Does the President delude himself when he takes credit for oil production, lower deficits, etc.? Or does he mislead on purpose? I don't know.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />More recently he bragged, "I created the lowest unemployment rate in years." <em>He</em> created it? He must know it's "low" only compared to the 10 percent reached during the recession -- and because millions have simply given up looking for work. This recovery is the slowest in 70 years.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />If Obama gave the State of the Union address I'd like to hear, he'd say this:</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I heard you, voters, in November when you took control of the Senate away from my party. I get it. I overreached. I was arrogant. I imposed Obamacare on a nation that was deeply divided about it. I ruled through executive orders instead of legislation. I threw money at "green" nonsense. I'll give up the payments to the "green energy" industry if the Republicans stop coddling defense contractors.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I've been in government for years now. I know how badly it works. The last thing I should try to do is make it bigger. In fact, with Republicans now in control of Congress, it's time I worked with them to shrink government. If we shrink it, we might even dig our way out of the debt hole we're in. Heck, if we just slow the growth of government to 2 percent a year, we'd be in better shape.</span><br /><span><br />But I didn't even try to accomplish that. I pretended taxing the rich would solve our financial problems. But there aren't enough rich people to tax. I got drunk on the idea of promising voters "free" stuff such as low down-payment mortgages and guaranteed paid family leave. I told them that all good things come from government. That's nonsense.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />We should put an end to all bailouts. Businesses that screw up should accept the consequences, just like ordinary people who spend recklessly. Main Street should never again be forced to rescue Wall Street.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Instead of expanding government control of health care, we should phase it out. That includes Medicare. I know Medicare is popular, but it is unsustainable. Let current retirees receive their benefits as promised, but younger people should pay for their own health care.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />People criticize the economic distortion created by welfare, but Medicare and Social Security are almost as bad. Both redistribute money away from the young and struggling toward those of us who have had decades to invest and save up.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />To make these challenges a little easier to deal with, let's make America richer by abolishing most regulations. They strangle opportunity.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The more I think about it, the more Congress and I could transform America for the better just by getting out of America's way. The state of our union will be truly strong if the state -- by which I mean government -- is strictly limited.</span><span> </span></div>John Stossel2015-01-22T00:31:00ZThe Better OptionJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Better-Option/715730976070644553.html2015-01-15T00:30:00Z2015-01-15T00:30:00Z<div style="text-align: left;"><span>It's easy to "fire" a business that rips you off. Just go to a different one. It's a lot easier to patronize another business than to get government to fix the problem.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But bad businesses and the politicians they own, I mean influence, often don't want you to have that choice.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I've written about how taxi companies don't like competition from ride-sharing services like Uber. Taxi companies, rightly, say it's unfair that they have to obey all kinds of rules and get complicated licenses that Uber drivers don't get.</span><br /><span><br />Rather than getting rid of the excessive regulations, many local politicians just say that new competition is "unfair" and ban ride-hailing services. They've banned Uber in places like Thailand, Spain, Nevada and Massachusetts.</span><br /><span><br />But customers <em>like</em> ride-hailing services. Uber is a multi-billion dollar business -- despite being banned and despite Uber executives doing some sleazy things.</span><br /><span><br />Government claims we need all its regulations to keep us from being ripped off. But their endless rules don't stop rip-offs. For years, Las Vegas tourists have complained that cabbies cheat them by taking them to the strip via a roundabout route. Undercover cops ran tests and found that one in three Vegas taxis break the rules.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Firefox founder Blake Ross blogged about this after a cabby ripped him off.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Government responded to this problem as governments usually do. It issued complex rules and warnings. Ross calls it a five-part plan:</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />-- Plan A: people with guns. "Uniformed cops stopped occupied cabs at random and offered to prosecute drivers who were taking inefficient routes ... slowing you down to make sure your driver isn't slowing you down."</span><br /><span><br />But that didn't work. The authorities' chief investigator said only three passengers pressed complaints: "They just wanted to get to their hotels." Duh. Tourists didn't want to spend their vacation in court over a $10 rip-off.</span><br /><span><br />-- Plan B: big signs.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />"Each sign," writes Ross, "enumerates the proper taxi fares for every conceivable trip ... using approximately twice as many words as it took Ronald Reagan to tear down the Berlin Wall."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />And more time. It took the taxicab authority two years to put up the signs. "All things take time in government," said the administrator. The signs didn't stop the cheating.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />-- So government implemented Plan C: a big online spreadsheet listing bad drivers. That didn't work either.</span><br /><span><br />-- On to Plan D: a PDF. Bureaucrats love PDF's. Las Vegas asks you to print out a witness statement for people who have been taken on an overly long route and "complete the sworn affidavit in view of a public notary."</span><br /><span><br />I like how Ross sums up plan D. Just carry "a desktop computer, a printer, envelopes, stamps, a fax machine [and] notary ... note the driver's full name, permit number and physical appearance. If you don't have this information memorized for some reason, just ask the driver while you're locked in the car with him ... explain that you're trying to have him fired."</span><br /><span><br />Ross actually bothered to try out the government's complaint system when he was ripped off, but he never heard back from any Vegas official. That's how government consumer protection typically operates.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />-- Finally, Plan E: The Nevada Taxicab Authority "convened a committee." The committee, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, will "draw up guidelines ... for a software ... package designed to let the authority track cab movements."</span><br /><span><br />Nevada estimates that this will cost about $6 million per year, writes Ross, "and you'll pay for this through an increase in your taxi fares, which are already about double the price of an UberX ride. "</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But Uber already has a solution if drivers cheat: On the Uber app, customers give that driver just one star. Within hours, Uber adjusts your fare. If the driver scams people again, he's fired.</span><br /><span><br />Simple. Better. That's the free market.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But Vegas officials kicked the company out of town.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Government is force. Government can always win, even when it's wrong.</span></div>John Stossel2015-01-15T00:30:00ZSociety Depends on TrustJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Society-Depends-on-Trust/340633973063120714.html2015-01-07T22:23:00Z2015-01-07T22:23:00Z<div style="text-align: left;"><span>Trust -- society depends on it.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />For most of history, our ancestors lived in clans with other family members, or in small villages. Everyone pretty much knew who was trustworthy. People behaved better because they wanted good relationships with family members and neighbors. It's one reason that</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT3437_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span><span> </span><span>we trust friends and family more than strangers.</span><br /><span><br />Only recently have humans interacted with lots of people.</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT3439_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">Today</span><span>, "50 percent of the population lives in cities," points out entrepreneur Julien Smith. "We're surrounded by strangers, and you end up with these systems in place that progressively get built (to determine</span><span> </span><span>'should I trust this person?'"</span><br /><span><br />Smith created the website Breather, which arranges for strangers to rent private spaces -- even living rooms -- for business meetings. For his business to work, total strangers must have a reason to trust each other. The Internet makes that possible. His customers check his clients' reputations before they agree to share a workspace.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Likewise, the website Task Rabbit blossomed by persuading people to trust total strangers to run errands for them. You post a task you want done -- fix my shed, clean my apartment, shop for Mom, etc.; you state what you're willing to pay, and Task Rabbit finds people nearby who might do the job. <br /><br />But why would you trust total strangers to enter your home? Task Rabbit says its "rabbits" are screened for professional qualifications, but so what? I wouldn't trust any company's promise.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />What I <em>do</em> trust is the reciprocal rating system that the Internet allows. Rabbits who are trustworthy get good ratings. Offices listed at Breather that are safe and pleasant get good ratings. Friendly customers who pay bills get good ratings.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />It's wonderful. Internet ratings give us more reason than ever before to interact with new people.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Before the Internet, we at least had word of mouth. It gave us some protection. When I was a consumer reporter in a single city -- Portland, Oregon, then New York City -- I could find a smalltime scam to report on every week. But when I moved to ABC News to report on national scams, I couldn't find so many.</span><br /><span><br />That's because, in a free society, the way for a business to get <em>really</em> rich is to serve customers well. When it does, customers want more of your stuff. If you rip people off, word gets out, and your business doesn't grow. There will always be scams, but they rarely fool many people for long. Bad companies lose trust and atrophy. Good ones grow.</span><br /><span><br />Even the greediest businessman knows he needs a good reputation. And now, thanks to the Internet, his reputation is easier to find than ever.</span><br /><span><br />The Internet also lets us harness the wisdom of <em>groups</em>. Feeling sick, and dissatisfied with the diagnosis you got from your doctor? List your symptoms on the website CrowdMed and a thousand medical "detectives" (mostly amateurs but also doctors and retired doctors) will try to come up with a more accurate diagnosis. A CrowdMed algorithm determines which opinions are most reputable. Would you trust a diagnosis by crowdsourcing? I might. Sixty percent of CrowdMed's customers report that "the Internet crowd" brought them closer to a cure.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Big Government's central planners sneer at crowdsourcing, calling it chaotic and unsafe, but it's not. It's better than government micromanagement. It works because people respond to incentives -- in the form of both money and effects on their reputations.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />In "The Theory of Moral Sentiments," Adam Smith wrote that the prudent man "feels horror at the very thought of exposing himself to the disgrace which attends upon the detection of falsehood." Self-interest ends up being a very good reason to keep other people happy.</span><span> </span><br /><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT3442_com_zimbra_date" class="Object"><br />Today</span><span> </span><span>I don't go to a movie without checking movie ratings at RottenTomatoes.com. People go online to check the reputations of potential girlfriends and boyfriends, songs, professors, doctors and -- almost anything.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I trust these ratings much more than any certificate of approval from the Department of Business Regulation.</span></div>John Stossel2015-01-07T22:23:00ZNo Wonder Cuba Wallows in PovertyJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/No-Wonder-Cuba-Wallows-in-Poverty/-684007453334002312.html2014-12-31T08:00:00Z2014-12-31T08:00:00Z<div style="text-align: left;"><span>No wonder Cuba wallows in poverty.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Last week, the New York Times reported that the Castro brothers opened a special business zone where foreign companies "would be given greater control over setting wages at factories. ... (P)roposals would be approved or rejected within 60 days."</span><br /><span><br />What? If I want to give someone a raise, I have to wait up to two months for government approval! That's absurd.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Yet the Times said that the zone offers "big incentives for investors."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />How clueless can their writers be? Their own article acknowledges, "A year later, the Cuban government has yet to announce a single foreign investment."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Duh.</span><br /><span><br />The article went on to say that "according to many economists, President Obama's plan to allow more interaction between the two countries may not be the lifeline Cuba is hoping for -- unless Cuba overcomes its resistance to change."</span><br /><span><br />No kidding!</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I suppose Times reporters need to consult economists to learn that entrepreneurs don't like having to beg dictators for permission to try something new. After all, back in America, Times editors demand increased regulation of almost every business.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I've learned to expect economic cluelessness from the Times, but what was different for me last week was that I was on vacation, and my hotel produced a short version of the Times every day called the TimesFax. It gave me a new reason to laugh -- and scream.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I flipped to a Fax page and read, "Firing of VA Clinic Chief Is Upheld." A judge ruled that Sharon Helman, director of the Veterans Affairs health care system in Phoenix, "could be fired for accepting more than $13,000 in airline tickets and other gifts."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />What?<em>Taking gifts</em> is the scandal? She's not fired because of her falsified waiting lists for treatment? Because thousands of veterans at her facilities were cruelly lied to and then denied medical care?</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />No, "the department had not provided sufficient evidence to justify firing Ms. Helman for the manipulation of waiting lists."</span><br /><span><br />At least the Times got the bureaucracy's rules correct. If you work for government, no matter how incompetent you are -- even if you do cruel, selfish things that may have killed people -- you can't get fired unless an "administrative judge" rules that all arcane civil service due process protections have been honored.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />You can only be fired if you step outside the bureaucracy's rules and happen to get caught, say, taking obvious bribes like eight-night stays at Disneyland from a company that wants to do business with your agency.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Nowhere does the Times article address the elephant in the room: No organization can do anything efficiently, or even reasonably, unless workers can be fired. Government workers' special "protections" are a reason taxes are high, bridges fall down, public schools decay, the CDC loses Ebola samples and so on.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But Times writers constantly call for <em>more</em> government, "job protections," etc. Few of them have ever run a business or invented something new themselves. If they had, they might understand this obvious cause of government failure. But they don't. They are oblivious.</span><br /><span><br />Finally, there was one cheerful headline, "Inroads Against Climate Change." Here I thought a writer might acknowledge that modern industrial civilization brings benefits. The reporter said, "Saving forests ... will require producing food much more intensively, on less land."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Yes, but that's already happened! Modern industrial agriculture produces more food on less land, so America now has <em>more</em> forest than a hundred years ago. Will the Times report that? No, the article was the usual leftist mix of support for "government leaders" pushing "sustainable practices."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The writer also ignored how fracking has lowered America's greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, he suggests that Americans must be guilt-tripped into giving billions more dollars to developing nations instead of "only a few billion."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I used to get angrier about such clueless reporting because when I worked at ABC News, editors based entire shows on silly ideas from the Times. Now we have more sources of news, so one newspaper doesn't matter as much. Thank goodness.</span><span> </span></div>John Stossel2014-12-31T08:00:00ZAn Up-Lyft-ing Christmas TaleJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/An-Up-Lyft-ing-Christmas-Tale/-251619711676592090.html2014-12-23T19:49:00Z2014-12-23T19:49:00Z<div style="text-align: left;"><span>This</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT671_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">Christmas Eve</span><span>, if you see a fat man in a sleigh distributing presents, tell him he is in violation of several government regulations.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The Federal Aviation Administration is upset about his secret flight path, and his gift bag violates charity tax rules.</span><br /><span><br />In real life, government barely lets people give each other rides in cars. But now the Internet has given birth to exciting businesses that challenge the rules.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Lyft and Uber offer a phone app that allows people who need a ride to connect to a driver nearby who'd like to make a few extra bucks. It's an instant taxi business -- which is why existing taxi businesses don't like it.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Uber in particular is denounced by the loud voices of the left: unions that are threatened and safety zealots who say Uber can't prove its drivers are trustworthy (despite their customer-approval ratings and the fact that plenty of bureaucratically licensed cab drivers are untrustworthy).</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Leftists also don't like the cavalier, capitalist attitude of these new companies.</span><br /><span><br />I once worked as a Lyft driver. To do that, I had to pass a criminal background check.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Once approved, I pressed a button on my phone saying I was "available." I quickly got a message from someone nearby who wanted a ride. When I dropped him off, no cash changed hands. Lyft processes the fare through credit cards based on time and distance.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />My passenger or I might have been reckless or obnoxious, but if we were, it would appear on our Lyft "rating." He'd have trouble getting another ride, and I wouldn't get new customers.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />My next passenger was a woman. She felt safe getting into a stranger's car because the rating system protects her. Lyft sent my picture to her phone.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />In the end, I made money, and my passengers saved money. Win-win. But taxi companies aren't happy about losing business to people like me, driving my own car. One told our cameraman, "We have to pay big money for licenses, get fingerprinted, have commercial insurance. [Lyft] has nothing!"</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But it's not "nothing." I had to have a drivers' license, a state-inspected car and that background check. Even more useful are the ratings. That instant feedback gives drivers and customers more reliable information than piles of licensing paperwork. (SET ITAL) Reputation (END ITAL) protects better than regulation.</span><br /><span><br />Will government crush innovations like ride-sharing or room-sharing businesses? Politicians keep banning them. Every week it seems the New York Times runs a hostile story along the lines of: "Councilman Jones says these new services don't follow the regulations!"</span><br /><span><br />But of course they don't. The regulations make it impossible to make improvements. Regulators call themselves "consumer protectors," but often their main role is to ban better options.</span><br /><span><br />A few Uber executives did say creepy and despicable things, but I still love their business model: Keep operating in defiance of regulations. By the time the lazy dinosaur that is government objects, thousands of happy customers will tell local politicians, "Don't take away a better service!"</span><br /><span><br />Luckily, technology allows capitalist innovation to move fast enough that these new businesses may stay ahead of the politicians' instinct to destroy things they think of as weird or dangerous.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />This year my favorite</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT673_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">Christmas</span><span> </span><span>gift to myself is the Internet app Waze (Spotify is my second favorite).</span><br /><span><br />GPS systems make it harder to get lost when driving. GPS was a great improvement, but Waze is even better. It tells me (SET ITAL) exactly (END ITAL) which route to take, and almost exactly when I'll arrive.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Waze computers filter real-time information from thousands of other drivers to figure out which route is fastest. I no longer obsess about whether I should get off the highway and take Third Avenue or stay on the highway or ... who knows? Now I relax, knowing that tiny person inside my phone will find the best route. I love it.</span><br /><span><br />I'd buy Waze for my friends this</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT675_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">Christmas</span><span> </span><span>except -- Waze is free. Isn't the Internet grand?</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />May the holidays bring you exciting new toys. Let's work together to keep government from crushing them.</span></div>John Stossel2014-12-23T19:49:00ZGoverning vs. GivingJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Governing-vs.-Giving/-96274836029224605.html2014-12-17T20:16:00Z2014-12-17T20:16:00Z<div style="text-align: left;"><span>It's the season for giving.</span><br /><span><br />That doesn't mean it's the season for government.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br /></span><span>Government creates loyalty in the minds of citizens by pretending to be Santa Claus, doling out gifts and favors. Politicians claim they help those unfortunates who aren't helped by coldhearted capitalism.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The truth is, government gets in the way of charity, making it harder for people to help others and for the poor to help themselves. It also gets in the way of commerce, which is what <em>really</em> makes people better off.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />When I was in college, President Lyndon Johnson declared "an all-out war on human poverty. ... For the first time in our history, it's possible to conquer poverty." I believed him. But then I watched government poverty programs fail. America spent trillions of your dollars on the poor, and the poor stayed poor.</span><br /><span><br />Actually, the poverty rate did fall after the "War on Poverty" began. But it had already been falling prior to initiation of welfare. Sadly, the poverty rate <em>stopped</em> falling about seven years <em>after</em> Johnson's programs began, mostly because government handouts encouraged people to be dependent.</span><br /><span><br />Simple capitalism does much more for poor people. On my show this week, Marian Tupy, editor of HumanProgress.org, speculates on why people don't appreciate that.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />"Our minds evolved tens of thousands of years ago when we lived in small groups of between 50-200 people," says Tupy. "We would go out, kill game, bring it back, share it." The idea of everyone getting an equal share still makes us feel warm and cozy.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />"Some of the anti-capitalist impulse goes back to that hunter-gatherer mentality and not comprehending the complexity of the market economy," says Tupy. "The complexity outpaced our ability to understand it.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br /></span><span>But even those who don't understand markets should open their eyes and acknowledge its benefits: World-wide, wherever economic freedom is allowed, millions of people have lifted themselves out of stoop labor and miserable poverty.</span><br /><span><br />Of course, not everyone can reap the benefits of markets. The sick, the mentally ill and other truly helpless people need a hand.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But why assume government must provide that help? Government doesn't do anything very well. Why not let private charity handle it?</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I once assumed there was too much poverty for private charity to make much of a difference. But now I realize there is plenty of money, and private charity would do much more if government didn't discourage it.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />When the welfare state took over poverty relief, it crowded out "mutual aid" societies that the poor ran for themselves.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />They were like a cross between private unemployment insurance and "moose" or "elks" lodges that encouraged members to help each other out. They were better at helping the poor because their members, unlike government poverty workers, were free to make judgments about who deserved help and who didn't.</span><br /><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT3975_com_zimbra_date" class="Object"><br />Today</span><span>, there are fewer mutual aid societies because people say, "Why do it myself when we already have giant welfare bureaucracies? My taxes pay for Obamacare, food stamps, housing vouchers and so on. I'll let the professionals handle it."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But those "professionals" do a poor job.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Fortunately, charities still try to do what government cannot do. I give money to the Doe Fund, an organization that helps addicts and ex-cons discover the benefits of work. I give because I can <em>see</em> the results: Doe Fund participants work as caterers, exterminators and street-cleaners, and they do it with a spring in their step.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Somehow, the charity teaches these men (they only work with men) to take pride in work. That pride changes people. Unlike other ex-cons, those who are Doe graduates rarely go back to jail.</span><br /><span><br />If government didn't discourage it, more charities would do even better work with the poor. Human beings don't sit around ignoring the suffering of their neighbors. But we are most likely to neglect these moral tasks when government insists it has everything covered.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Get government out of the way and just watch what we can do.</span><span> </span></div>John Stossel2014-12-17T20:16:00ZClimate CatastropheJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Climate-Catastrophe/-575837729277540323.html2014-12-10T19:47:00Z2014-12-10T19:47:00Z<div style="text-align: left;"><span>People argue about whether the "consensus" of scientists is that we face disaster because of global warming. Instead of debating whether man's greenhouse gasses will raise temperatures, we should argue about how we gauge disasters.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />If you take most environmentalists and climate scientists at their word, the Earth heated up about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit over the past century, not much more than it heated up the century before that. Warming may increase, but no one can be certain of that.</span><br /><span><br />Let's agree for the sake of argument that this recent warming was partly caused by humanity. Let's also agree that there are some negative effects, including more frequent coastal flooding or longer droughts.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />If we agree that those are costs, shouldn't we also look at the benefits? Much of modern civilization owes its existence to our use of the fossil fuels that produce the greenhouse gasses.</span><br /><span><br />I don't see that civilization as misfortune. I wish climate alarmists would weigh its accomplishments against the relatively small downsides of climate change. One of industry's biggest accomplishments is creating a world where far <em>fewer</em> of us are likely to die because of weather.</span><br /><span><br />Alex Epstein's book "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels" documents the rapidly shrinking number of human beings killed by storms, floods and other climate events thanks largely to ever-growing industry, fueled mainly by oil, natural gas and coal.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />On my show this week, he argues that if we compare conditions a century ago to conditions last year, we shouldn't obsess about how much carbon dioxide is in the air -- or whether earth is warming -- we should look at how much safer life became.</span><br /><span><br />In 2013, "Climate-related deaths were at a record low -- in supposedly the worst climate in history -- under 30,000," says Epstein. In 1931, bad weather killed 3 million people.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />You can argue that we get some things wrong as a civilization, but thanks to our use of fossil fuels, we get something very right.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Epstein points out that humanity owes its current ability to survive harsh winters, arid deserts and other naturally dangerous environments to the same fuels that activists now condemn: "We have the luxury of being able to absorb a certain amount of climate-related damage so we can live in all of these cool places."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />His argument is unusual because environmentalists spread the idea that, without human interference, the planet is perfect.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But by what standard?</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />"If you went to someone 300 years ago and asked them, do you have a perfect climate?" they would think you were crazy, says Epstein. "They were terrified of climate, because climate doesn't give you the resources that you need. It doesn't give you water when you need it. It doesn't give you the temperature when you need it."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />It was once common to say that humans change their environment. That shouldn't offend people</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT479_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span><span>, says Epstein. We should be thrilled that humans "create technology to master climate. ... That's why so few people</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT480_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span><span> </span><span>die from climate."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Epstein correctly says that instead of talking about "climate change" -- of which there will always be some, with or without human influence -- we should focus on "climate catastrophe," weather that actually kills people. Those catastrophes, measured in lost lives, are getting rarer.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Most of the changes humans make to our environment are (SET ITAL) desirable (END ITAL) changes that help us live longer and more comfortably. "The dogma that man is ruining the planet rather than improving it is a religion, a source of prestige and a career for too many people."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />If we regard nature as pristine and think it must never be altered, we will have big problems. We will die young and lead miserable, difficult lives.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I think of industry as something that is mostly very good for us, with a few minor side effects that aren't. Fossil fuels are a little like antibiotics, says Epstein. It's good to draw attention to minor side effects, but it would be crazy to abandon all treatment because of them.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Fossil fuels are no catastrophe. They contribute to health and a better life.</span><span> </span></div>John Stossel2014-12-10T19:47:00ZPlace Your BetsJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Place-Your-Bets/-457017147071664604.html2014-12-03T19:44:00Z2014-12-03T19:44:00Z<div style="text-align: left;"><span>Want to bet on</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT455_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">tomorrow</span><span>'s NFL game between Chicago and Dallas? I do.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Newspapers and websites all over America tell their readers that Dallas is favored by three points. That's the "spread" posted by bookies. Millions will be bet on that game, and <em>billions</em> will be bet on other games this weekend -- college football, NBA games, NHL matches, UFC events ...</span><br /><span><br />Most of these bets are illegal. This is not a good thing.</span><br /><span><br />Recently, National Basketball Association commissioner Adam Silver became the first major professional sports commissioner to endorse legalizing sports betting.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />In the New York Times, he wrote, "Gambling has increasingly become a popular and accepted form of entertainment in the United States. Most states offer lotteries."</span><br /><span><br />They do, and states give worse odds than bookies.</span><br /><span><br />Silver writes, "There is an obvious appetite among sports fans for a safe and legal way to wager."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But bills to legalize betting go nowhere in Congress. Casinos oppose them because they don't want competition. They are joined by people who consider gambling immoral.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br /> </span><span>"Bootleggers and Baptists" is what economist Bruce Yandle called these coalitions. Bootleggers got rich off Prohibition.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Just as Prohibition created Al Capone, bans on betting create crime. They also deprive Americans of useful information, such as who is likely to be the next president.</span><br /><span><br />The pundits don't know. In 2012, conservative pundits confidently predicted a Romney victory. This year, Democrats predicted they'd keep the Senate. We in the media try to rely on "scientific" polls. Except they aren't so great either.</span><span> </span><br /><span> <br /></span><span>In Maryland, most polls had the Democratic candidate for governor up by double digits, but the Republican won. On average, polls underestimated Republican performance by 4 percent.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Pollsters and pundits rarely suffer much penalty for being wrong. People figure these expert guesses are the best anyone can do.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But they aren't. When politicians allow people to put their money where their mouths are, bettors do a better job predicting future events. Bettors are better.</span><br /><span><br />Last month, I wrote about how U.S. regulators shut down Intrade, a site that allowed people to bet on all sorts of things. Before elections, Intrade's bettors consistently out-predicted the pundits.</span><br /><span><br />In 2012, Intrade gave Obama a 90 percent chance of winning, while pundits still said the race was "too close to call." Gallup predicted a Romney win.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Although American regulators killed Intrade, the British online prediction market Betfair still operates. It gave 89 percent odds that Republicans would win the Senate.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />By the way, Betfair now gives Hillary Clinton a 40 percent chance of being the next president. Prediction markets like Betfair, PredictIt.com and Predictious.com allow bettors to predict everything from the gender of England's next royal baby to the winner of the next Nobel Peace Prize.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The Iowa Electronic Markets has outperformed political polls 74 percent of the time since 1988. Why?</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />First, although individual bettors are no more enlightened than any one pundit, a large and diverse group of bettors usually is.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Second, people are more realistic when betting than when answering a survey. Polls suffer from a "self-reporting bias," where participants say what they think they should rather than what they actually feel. With money on the line, forecasts are more accurate.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />So allowing betting helps us make better predictions about the future.</span><br /><span><br />Luckily, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission recently gave New Zealand's University of Wellington permission to run a prediction market in the U.S. The site, PredictIt.com, allows users to bet on elections, court cases, regulatory decisions and more.</span><br /><span><br />Unfortunately, regulators will allow no more than 5,000 traders to make bets on a given contract (that is, a predicted outcome), and each trader can bet no more than $850. That will limit the site's prediction ability, but at least America will allow one site that will generate real predictions instead of just hot air.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Legalization efforts might get farther if we stopped thinking of betting as a vice and instead recognized that it's a useful part of rational decision-making.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />There's knowledge to be tapped in people's heads about what will happen next, and markets, as usual, are the best way to unleash that wisdom.</span><span> </span><br /><br /></div>John Stossel2014-12-03T19:44:00ZThanks, Property Rights!John Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Thanks-Property-Rights!/-866611975792974606.html2014-11-27T00:25:00Z2014-11-27T00:25:00Z<div style="text-align: left;"><span>This</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT4529_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">Thanksgiving</span><span>, I give thanks for something our forebears gave us: property rights.</span><br /><span><br />People associate property rights with greed and selfishness, but they are keys to our prosperity. Things go wrong when resources are held in common.</span><br /><span><br />Before the Pilgrims were able to hold the first</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT4531_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">Thanksgiving</span><span>, they nearly starved. Although they had inherited ideas about individualism and property from the English and Dutch trading empires, they tried communism when they arrived in the New World. They decreed that each family would get an equal share of food, no matter how much work they did.</span><br /><span><br />The results were disastrous. Gov. William Bradford wrote, "Much was stolen both by night and day." The same plan in Jamestown contributed to starvation, cannibalism and death of half the population.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />So Bradford decreed that families should instead farm <em>private</em> plots. That quickly ended the suffering. Bradford wrote that people now "went willingly into the field."</span><br /><span><br />Soon, there was so much food that the Pilgrims and Indians could celebrate</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT4533_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">Thanksgiving</span><span>.</span><br /><span><br />There's nothing like competition and self-interest to bring out the best in people.</span><br /><span><br />While property among the settlers began as an informal system, with "tomahawk rights" to land indicated by shaving off bits of surrounding trees, or "corn rights" indicated by growing corn, soon settlers were keeping track of contracts, filing deeds and, alas, hiring lawyers to sue each other. Property rights don't end all conflict, but they create a better system for settling disputes than physical combat.</span><br /><span><br />Knowing that your property is really yours makes it easier to plant, grow, invest and prosper.</span><br /><span><br />In Brazil</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT4535_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span><span>, rainforests are destroyed because no one really owns them. Loggers take as many trees as they can because they know if they don't, someone else will. No one had much reason to preserve trees or plant new ones for future harvests; although recently, some private conservation groups bought parcels of the Amazon in order to protect trees.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The oceans are treated as a commons, and they are difficult to privatize. For years, lack of ownership led to overfishing. Species will go extinct if they <em>aren't</em> treated as property. Now a few places award fishing rights to private groups of fishermen. Canada privatized its Pacific fisheries, saving the halibut from near collapse. When fishermen control fishing rights, they care about preserving fish.</span><br /><span><br /></span><span>Think about your</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT4537_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">Thanksgiving</span><span> </span><span>turkey. We eat tons of them, but no one worries that turkeys will go extinct. We know there will be more next year, since people profit from owning and raising them.</span><br /><span><br />As the 19th-century economist Henry George said, "Both humans and hawks eat chickens -- but the more hawks, the fewer chickens; while the more humans, the more chickens."</span><br /><span><br />(Sadly, even Henry George didn't completely believe in private property. He thought land should be unowned, since latecomers can't produce more of it. Had he seen how badly the commonly owned rainforest is treated, he might've changed his mind.)</span><br /><span><br />Hernando de Soto (the contemporary Peruvian economist, not the Spanish conquistador) writes about the way clearly defined property rights spur growth in the developing world. Places without clear property rights -- much of the third world -- suffer.</span><br /><span><br />"About 4 billion people in the world actually build their homes and own their businesses outside the legal system," de Soto told me. "It's all haphazard and disorganized because of the lack of rule of law, the definition of who owns what. Because they don't have (legally recognized) addresses, (they) can't get credit."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Without deeds, they can't make contracts with confidence. Economic activity that cannot be legally protected instead gets done on the black market, or on "gray markets" in a murky legal limbo in between. In places such as Tanzania, says de Soto, 90 percent of the economy operates outside the legal system.</span><br /><span><br />So, few people expand homes or businesses. Poor people stay poor.</span><br /><span><br />This holiday season, give thanks for property rights and hope that your family will never have to relearn the economic lesson that nearly killed the Pilgrims.</span></div>John Stossel2014-11-27T00:25:00ZControl FreaksJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Control-Freaks/359565923930625115.html2014-11-19T08:00:00Z2014-11-19T08:00:00Z<div style="text-align: left;"><span>Control freaks want to run your life. They call themselves "public servants."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But whether student council president, environmental bureaucrat or member of Congress, most believe they know how to run your life better than you do.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I admit I was once guilty of this kind of thinking. As a young consumer reporter, I researched what doctors said was bad for us and what products might harm us. Then I demanded that the state pass rules to protect us from those things.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The concept of (SET ITAL) individual freedom (END ITAL) was not yet on my radar screen. I apologize. I was ignorant and arrogant.</span><br /><span><br />But at least I had no real power. I couldn't force consumers to avoid unhealthy things or pay for certain kinds of health care. I couldn't force any business to stop selling something. Only government can do that. Only government can use force.</span><br /><span><br />Sadly, government is filled with people just as ignorant and arrogant as I was.</span><br /><span><br />Economist Matthew Mitchell of the Mercatus Center likes to point out that governments impose regulations without acknowledging that the new rules will have unintended consequences.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Bans on smoking in restaurants and bars is one of the control freaks' favorite campaigns. "A recent Cornell study," Mitchell says on my show this week, "found that in those areas where they introduced bans on smoking, you saw an increase in accidents related to alcohol. The theory is that people drive longer distances in order to find bars that either have outside seating or are outside the jurisdiction."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I selfishly like smoking bans. I don't like breathing others' smoke. But the majority of us shouldn't force our preferences on the minority, even if they do things that are dangerous. Smokers ought to be allowed to smoke in some bars, if the bar owners allow it. But</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT1162_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span><span> </span><span>in about half the states, no one may smoke in any bar.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />It's totalitarianism from the health police. If secondhand smoke were dangerous enough to threaten non-smokers, the control freaks would have a point, but it isn't. It barely has any detectable health effect at all.</span><br /><span><br />Rule-makers always want (SET ITAL) more (END ITAL). At first, they just asked for bans on TV's cigarette ads. Then they demanded no-smoking sections in restaurants. Then bans in airplanes, schools, workplaces, entire restaurants. Then bars, too. Now sometimes even apartments and outdoor spaces.</span><br /><span><br />Can't smokers have some places?</span><br /><span><br />So far, smokers just ... take it. But maybe that's changing. The town of Westminster, Massachusetts, recently held hearings on whether to ban the sale of tobacco products altogether, and 500 angry people showed up.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />One said, "I find smoking one of the most disgusting habits anybody could possibly do. On top of that, I find this proposal to be even more of a disgusting thing." Good for him.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Mitchell warns that "we are accustomed to thinking about the federal government and federal overreach. But a lot of the most intrusive regulations happen at the local level," as in Westminster.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />In Fort Lauderdale, Florida, police charged two pastors and a 90-year-old volunteer with giving food to poor people in public. Florida law declares it illegal to give away food in an outdoor location without providing public toilets. The restrictions were instated in the name of "public health and safety."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />In New Jersey, churches were forced to stop offering</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT1164_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">Thanksgiving</span><span> </span><span>dinners to poor people because they didn't have "properly licensed commercial kitchens."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />A court threw out a soft drink ban imposed on my city, New York, by then-mayor Bloomberg, but my new control-freak mayor, Bill de Blasio, plans to reinstate the ban.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The rules keep coming. Another New York regulation, banning trans fats in restaurants, led to stringent bans on which foods people were allowed to donate to the hungry. I'd think the poor have bigger problems than trans fats.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Their biggest problem is the same one we all have: too much government.</span><span> </span></div>John Stossel2014-11-19T08:00:00ZDemocracy DelusionsJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Democracy-Delusions/692898721000556688.html2014-11-13T22:31:00Z2014-11-13T22:31:00Z<div style="text-align: left;"><span>When the Berlin Wall came down 25 years ago this week, people in the Soviet Bloc gained something even more valuable than a right to vote: a free market.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;"><span><br />Democracy is definitely better than taking orders from Communist dictators. But real freedom means doing what you choose as an individual, not waiting for the rest of society to vote on whether you can.</span><span> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;"><span><br />In politics, winners get to tell the losers what to do.</span><span> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;"><span><br />In the marketplace, you buy what you want. I buy what I want. If some people want to buy movie tickets while others prefer to buy clothes for their dogs, neither side needs to worry it will lose a struggle over which option is best.</span><span> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;"><span><br />This election, as usual, there was a big push to get people to go out and vote. Yet most didn't (more vote in presidential elections, but still less than half the population).</span><span> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;"><span><br />After elections, pundits say, "the people have spoken." But we haven't. Often, we just chose politicians we hated less than others.</span><span> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;"><span><br />I'm glad big-spending Democrats lost Congress. But In the grand scheme of things, was that vote such a sweeping endorsement of anyone's political philosophy? The vote, as usual, was pretty close. Often it feels like America flips a coin.</span><span> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;"><span><br />That sounds cynical, but it's not just cynics who have doubts about the democratic process.</span><span> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;"><span><br />Economist and law professor Gordon Tullock passed away the day before the election. But had he lived another day, he still wouldn't have voted last week. He refused to vote, in part because the branch of economics he helped create -- "public choice" -- helped convince him that people behave just as selfishly and foolishly when they vote as when they make any other kind of decisions, but with more devastating effects on other people.</span><span> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;"><span><br />At the Cafe Hayek blog, economist Don Boudreaux writes that it's good if people don't vote because by avoiding politics they "come to depend more on personal initiative and less on untrustworthy, power-craving strangers."</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;"><span><br />Well said.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;"><span><br />We don't suddenly become wiser and nobler when we step into the voting booth. If anything, the decisions we make there are more ignorant and reckless than the ones we make when buying a car.</span><span> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;"><span><br />You probably know more about what kind of car you want than about what sort of laws to impose on your neighbors. It's another reason why most of life is best left to free individuals.</span><span> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;"><span><br />The left treats markets with contempt and political processes as if they're sacred. Then, to explain why politics disappoints, they pretend that money sullies politics.</span><span> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;"><span><br />They're upset because the Supreme Court said money can be spent on ads that inform voters of different factions' views. It turned out that Democrats were the biggest spenders, but that doesn't stop them from complaining that evil Republican tycoons used money to manipulate voters who would otherwise have chosen the candidates decent Democrats want them to.</span><span> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;"><span><br />Republicans, meanwhile, get upset if money is used to bet on things. There once was a wonderful online predictions-market called Intrade. It allowed people to bet on future events, including elections.</span><span> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;"><span><br />Intrade's odds were much more accurate predictions than those made by pundits and pollsters. That's because there is wisdom in large numbers, and because Intrade bettors put real money at risk (unlike pundits and water-cooler prognosticators).</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;"><span><br />But American regulators threatened Intrade with litigation, and the site closed. There's still another prediction market, based in England, called Betfair, but it's confusing and not as useful to Americans. Shutting down Intrade leaves us all less informed and more dependent on the political elite.</span><span> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;"><span><br />I get the creepy feeling that's the way the elite likes it. They want us to think of our grubby little individual lives -- full of buying and selling, of self-expression and risk-taking -- as something inferior to the exalted political process.</span><span> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;"><span><br />I think our individual lives matter, not just those few moments we spend in the voting booth picking the lesser of two evils to run other people's lives.</span><span> </span></div>John Stossel2014-11-13T22:31:00ZElecting LibertyJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Electing-Liberty/167434728859348361.html2014-11-07T21:16:00Z2014-11-07T21:16:00Z<span>I watch election results to gauge whether America has become freer or more tyrannical. It's hard to know whether</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT107_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">Tuesday</span><span>'s results will make much difference. Often, individual liberty erodes in ways that neither major political party much cares about.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Last weekend, I suffered through the New York Marathon. I suffered not because I ran 26.2 miles but because I live near Central Park, and at Marathon time, officials turn my neighborhood into a little police state. Four thousand police officers, 20 boats and four blimps "guarded" the Marathon. Barricades, bomb-sniffing dogs and surveillance cameras were everywhere.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />This is new. Marathons used to be fun, people-friendly events. Athletes and spectators mingled freely. No more. New York's authorities now treat marathon spectators as annoyances, if not threats. Even runners must pass through magnetometers before they may race.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />This happened, of course, because of the horrible bombing in Boston. That shut down parts of Boston for nine days. But other countries' response to terrorism is less extreme. Fifty-two people were killed in the London Underground bombing of 2005. By 4 p.m. that same day, bus service resumed.</span><br /><span><br />In my neighborhood, concrete blocks and parked garbage trucks (manned by a union driver) prevent civilian vehicles from entering or leaving (in case terrorists drive a car over Central Park's wall and then through the trees to kill runners?). We were allowed to <em>walk</em> home, but only if we showed ID's that proved we lived on that street. The ground was covered in litter, since authorities remove every trash can, lest a terrorist hide a bomb in one.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I can't imagine what all this costs.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Police barricades are everywhere these days. If you want to watch the Fourth of July fireworks in New York City, you may no longer just gather with friends and have a picnic. Police herd spectators into barricaded pens, and if people try to climb out to use a bathroom, cops yell: "Stop! Once you're in, you're in."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I doubt that such "security theater" makes us safer. If terrorists want to make a statement, they will find other locations.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Government always grows. Police departments are no exception. The incentive is always: do <em>more</em>. Politicians reason, "If anything goes wrong, I'll be blamed. Someone else pays for prevention, though, so I'll take every precaution."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I once asked New York City's police commissioner if there was now "too much security." He replied, "people want to <em>feel </em>safe."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Yes, most people will give up liberty for security.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But when we change society this way, we let the terrorists win.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />That's one reason I fight with Ann Coulter. She wrote, "If you are considering voting for the Libertarian candidate in any Senate election, please send me your name and address so I can track you down and drown you ... (because) nothing matters more to the country than Republicans taking a majority in the Senate."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />That mindset distracts us from defending something far more important than either party: individual liberty. Neither Republicans nor Democrats consistently protect it.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />When I told Coulter that I often vote Libertarian, she replied: "Influence the Republican Party. ... Do not be the spoiler to hand the government over to Democrats, who I promise do not share a single principle with you."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Democrats do want government control of the economy and more regulation of speech, innovation, medicine, school and all kinds of things that ought to be fun. But I feel threatened by Republicans, too. Some want to control our personal lives and fight constant wars abroad.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I don't want government to regulate every inch of my life. That's why I'm a libertarian.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Most Republicans and Democrats don't love liberty enough to remove those barricades near Central Park, or countless other impediments to doing what we want. They impose a million boring, bureaucratic intrusions on daily life.</span><br /><span><br />It's time America obsessed less about Republicans vs. Democrats and more about liberty, in all its forms.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Still, I'm delighted that Republicans won the Senate</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT109_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">yesterday</span><span>, finally taking power from the destructive Harry Reid. They did, didn't they? Please, tell me they did.</span>John Stossel2014-11-07T21:16:00ZIncumbents Always WinJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Incumbents-Always-Win/-933456670791019505.html2014-10-29T07:00:00Z2014-10-29T07:00:00Z<span>I'm told that the public is "angry" at</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT256_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span><span>'s politicians. Eighty-two percent disapprove of the job Congress is doing. So will</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT257_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">Tuesday</span><span>'s election bring a big shakeup?</span><span> <br /><br /></span><span>No. Congressional reelection rates never drop below 85 percent.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The last big "wave" election was 1994, when Democrats lost control of both houses. The media called it a "revolution," and the late Peter Jennings from ABC likened Americans to 2-year-olds throwing a tantrum.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Even that year, the reelection rate was 90 percent.</span><br /><span><br />Matt Kibbe of the group FreedomWorks and Hadley Heath Manning of Independent Women's Forum came on my show to say they don't believe that this will be the year voters "throw the bums out."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Incumbents have all sorts of built-in advantages, said Manning: "Once you're in office, you have network ties, usually with a big party organization, usually with other officeholders. You have ties to donors who have helped you in your previous round of fundraising."</span><br /><span><br />In the U.S., she says, "we don't have kings, (but) we still have political dynasties."</span><br /><span><br />Politicians in office game the system to make it tougher for outsiders to challenge them. They always talk about getting money out of politics. They don't mean getting taxpayer money out of their own end of politics -- all those privileges such as government mailings and websites and broadcasting facilities right in the Capitol Building. No, the money they want to limit is (SET ITAL) outsiders' (END ITAL) money.</span><br /><span><br />When Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) says "this money is suffocating the airwaves, silencing the voices of the many," she means she wants to prevent private groups funding political messages that sometimes criticize people like her. Expensive TV ads might allow unknown challengers to break through. Can't have that.</span><span> <br /><br /></span><span>Manning says Democrats who now push the idea of a Constitutional amendment to limit campaign ads "want to rig the system so that <em>their</em> donors are still able to give -- whether that's labor unions or people who typically support Democrats -- but they want to silence the opposition."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />They make it sound as if labor union donations are a natural part of the democratic process -- but money from corporations and independent interest groups, by contrast, "interferes" with elections.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) led the charge against evil "outside" money when he got what he and reporters called campaign finance "reform" passed a dozen years ago. The Supreme Court wisely threw much of that out, because it was an attack on free speech. But there are still a million rules left -- plenty to discourage "amateurs" from attempting to participate in politics.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />"The problem with campaign finance regulation is it allows for an insane amount of discretion amongst the regulators," says Kibbe. "So they can pick and choose who is punished for what. And it's really just a way to control political speech."</span><br /><span><br />A better way to get new blood into politics would be term limits on elected officials.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Several states have them, and the result has been more turnover in legislatures. That's good news for taxpayers because studies show that the longer politicians are in office, the more they spend.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Saying most incumbents will win is not saying that the election doesn't matter. It does. It would be good for America if Republicans won the Senate, taking away Sen. Harry Reid's (D., Nev.) power to pass absurd farm subsidies or fatten flood insurance while blocking votes on the things such as the Keystone oil pipeline, charter school expansion and Yucca Mountain nuclear disposal.</span><br /><span><br />Reid will probably lose his position as majority leader. But he'll remain in Washington with all the other big-spending blowhards -- from both parties -- who grow old and powerful there.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br /><strong>Update</strong>: Last week I wrote that federal prosecutor Kathryn Ruemmler, part of the team of Justice Department bullies who unfairly manipulated the legal system to jail four Merrill Lynch employees, was reportedly President Obama's choice to replace Eric Holder as U.S. attorney general. A few days later, Ruemmler asked the president to withdraw her name from consideration.</span><span> </span>John Stossel2014-10-29T07:00:00ZFederal Prosecutors Sometimes Wreck People's LivesJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Federal-Prosecutors-Sometimes-Wreck-Peoples-Lives/634585309210502882.html2014-10-22T07:00:00Z2014-10-22T07:00:00Z<span>A group of Washington overlords -- federal prosecutors -- sometimes break rules and wreck people's lives.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />President Obama may soon appoint one of them to be America's next Attorney General.</span><br /><span><br />The prosecutorial bullying is detailed in a new book by Sidney Powell, "Licensed to Lie."</span><br /><span><br />She reports that the Department of Justice's narcissistic and dishonest prosecutors destroy people by doing things like deliberately withholding evidence.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br /> </span><span>Remember the Arthur Andersen accounting firm?</span><br /><span><br />It was killed off by ambitious prosecutors who claimed the company helped Enron commit accounting fraud and then shredded the evidence.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But instead of charging people who allegedly ordered evidence destroyed, the DOJ indicted the entire company. That destroyed the accounting firm. Publicly traded companies cannot do business with companies under criminal investigation, so Andersen lost most of its clients.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The prosecutor's purpose, says Powell, was to chill resistance from other companies that might dare fight the Feds. The message: cooperate, or we will destroy you! These pressure tactics were appropriate, said one prosecutor, because shredding documents "attacks the justice system itself by impeding investigators and regulators from getting at the truth."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But who actually hid the truth?</span><br /><span><br />The prosecutors, writes Powell. In fact, Andersen had <em>saved</em> most of its documents and gave them to the government. <br /><br />The prosecutors simply lied to the court about it.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Arthur Andersen's conviction. But by then, 80,000 employees had lost their jobs -- 80,000 people who'd done nothing wrong.</span><br /><span><br />You'd think that this would teach federal prosecutors to obey the law. Paul Kamenar of the Washington Legal Foundation said, "this decision will send a strong message to the Justice Department to stop this kind of abusive prosecutorial misconduct."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />So were the prosecutors fired or jailed? No. Many were promoted. Washington's overlords protect their own.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Next, some of the same prosecutors accused four Merrill Lynch executives of falsifying Enron's books. The government lawyers told the media that Enron "conspired with Wall Street bankers to carry out a sham transaction." The Merrill Lynch executives charged with fraud got three- to four-year jail sentences.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But Powell writes that the government "failed to allege anything that actually constituted a crime by the Merrill Lynch executives. Instead it cobbled together parts of different statutes to make up some kind of new crime that didn't even make sense."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Sure enough, an appeals court tossed most of the verdict, and the Merrill executives were released. But that was after they had spent a year in jail.</span><br /><span><br />Did the prosecutors hang their heads in shame? No. Far from it. Some of them then went after Republican Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska. Stevens, the prosecutors claimed, took $250,000 in gifts from rich donors and never reported that.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But later it was revealed that the prosecutors withheld evidence that showed Stevens had not taken anything like $250,000. A judge threw out that conviction, too. But by then, Sen. Stevens had lost his Senate seat. His replacement, a Democrat, became the deciding vote for Obamacare.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />So was the lead prosecutor, Matthew Friedrich, finally punished? <br /><br />Again, no. He took a higher-paying job at a private law firm. Leslie Caldwell, who helped destroy Arthur Anderson, got promoted to assistant attorney general at the Justice Department. Andrew Weissmann, who helped prosecute the Andersen and the Merrill Lynch employees, was made deputy director of the FBI.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Finally, prosecutor Kathryn Ruemmler, who helped manipulate the system to unfairly jail four Merrill Lynch employees, was promoted to deputy attorney general, then promoted again to White House counsel. Now Bloomberg reports that she's President Obama's first choice to replace Eric Holder!</span><br /><span><br />If you find these charges as hard to believe as I did, you can read Powell's supporting documents at LicensedtoLie.com.</span><br /><span><br />We invited prosecutors Ruemmler, Friedrich, Caldwell and Weissmann to reply to the charges laid out in Powell's book and on my TV show, but they didn't respond.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Federal prosecutors always have a big advantage over anyone they attack. The U.S. government has endless time and money. Only multi-millionaires can afford to fight back. Most people accused, even those who are innocent, just settle with the prosecutors and get punished.</span><br /><span><br />Prosecutors abuse this awesome power and get promoted for it.</span>John Stossel2014-10-22T07:00:00ZCrumbling ConstitutionJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Crumbling-Constitution/344808730778792867.html2014-10-15T17:47:00Z2014-10-15T17:47:00Z<span>Does the Constitution still matter?</span><br /><span><br />When it was written, Ben Franklin said the Founders gave us a republic, "if you can keep it." Few people thought the republic would last another 227 years, but it has. The Constitution's limits on government power helped create the most free and prosperous country on earth.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But now, some Americans, right and left, give up on the Constitution whenever it gets in the way of policies they like. Some on the right defend anti-obscenity laws or want more mingling of church and state, while those on the left want endless economic regulation.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) asked President Obama's Supreme Court pick, Elena Kagan, "If I wanted to sponsor a bill and it said, Americans, you have to eat three vegetables and three fruits every day, does that violate the Commerce Clause?" Amazingly, Kagan wouldn't say, "Yes, of course!"</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />She dodged the question.</span><br /><span><br />Once on the Court, Kagan was part of the 5-4 majority who concluded the government can force us to buy something much more expensive than fruit and veggies: Obamacare can force us to buy health insurance.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Progressives have no problems with that. On my TV show, Ian Millhiser of ThinkProgress.com said government making you buy vegetables isn't so strange: "I don't know how to tell you this, but government already makes you buy things like broccoli. What do you think food stamps are? What do you think school lunches are? The government has the power to tax you and buy things with it."</span><br /><span><br />Even creepier than wanting government to have so much power is the way progressives shift their arguments to get policy outcomes they want.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />In 2009, Obama said that while Obamacare imposes a penalty on anyone who doesn't buy health insurance, "Nobody considers that a tax." The next year, when it appeared the Supreme Court would allow a tax but not a penalty, the New York Times reported, "Administration, Changing Stance, Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />How effective is the Constitution if the Supreme Court itself is willing to help the President and Congress weasel their way around the constraints on federal power that the document was intended to impose?</span><br /><span><br />Millhiser said that Congress has broad power to regulate commerce, to control things like hiring and firing, but can't pass laws against rape and murder.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I'm glad Millhiser recognizes <em>some</em> limits, although he seems to suggest that the feds can do whatever they want <em>except</em> pass laws that might actually protect people.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Tim Sandefur of the Pacific Legal Foundation came on my show to rebut Millhiser, saying the Founders didn't expect government to control everything that goes on in the economic realm any more than they expected it to control speech.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />"The Constitution is a promise about how government power is going to be used. It's a promise written by people who had experienced life under tyrannical government," says Sandefur. "The lesson they learned from that and from their knowledge of previous tyrannies was that the most important issue is to wall off government power from our private lives and to make sure that nobody -- not elected officials, not a king, not a dictator -- gets to dictate how we live our lives."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The Constitution doesn't get the respect it deserves, but it can still slow the growth of government. In 1895, Congress passed an income tax, but the Supremes said, no, the Constitution does not give you that power -- and the income tax was struck down. America at least avoided a national income tax for the next 18 years, until Congress and state legislatures approved an actual Constitutional Amendment.</span><br /><span><br />The Constitution has also limited the power of politicians to ban handguns and political campaign contributions. Each time the Supremes say "no," that may make the next crop of politicians a bit humbler.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The Constitution reversed President Harry Truman's nationalization of the steel industry. Maybe that deterred Presidents Bush and Obama from nationalizing America's banks after the collapse of the housing bubble. Maybe.</span><br /><span><br />We benefit from the Constitution's existence nearly every time it stymies politicians' ambition to control us.</span><span> </span>John Stossel2014-10-15T17:47:00ZPovertyJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Poverty/-99600248254429998.html2014-10-08T15:55:00Z2014-10-08T15:55:00Z<p><span>Fifty years ago, President Lyndon Johnson declared "War on Poverty." It sounded great to me. I was taught at Princeton, "We're a rich country. All we have to do is tax the rich, and then use that money to create programs that will lift the poor out of poverty." Government created job-training programs for the strong and expanded social security for the weak.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />It seemed to work. The poverty rate dropped from 17 percent to 12 percent in the programs' first decade. Unfortunately, few people noticed that during the half-decade <em>before</em> the "War," the rate dropped from 22 percent to 17 percent. Without big government, Americans were already lifting themselves out of poverty!</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Johnson's War brought further progress, but progress then stopped. It stopped because government is not good at making a distinction between needy and lazy. It taught moms not to marry the father of their kids because that would reduce their welfare benefits. Welfare invited people to be dependent. Some people started to say, "Entry-level jobs are for suckers." Many could live almost as well without the hassle of work.</span><br /><span><br />Despite spending an astonishing $22 trillion dollars, despite 92 different government welfare programs, poverty stopped declining. Government's answer? Spend more!</span><br /><span><br />Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), chairman of the House Budget Committee, points out that government measures "success" by the growth of programs: "based on inputs, how much money are we spending, how many programs are we creating, how many people are we putting on these programs -- not on outcomes -- how many people are we getting out of poverty? ... Many of these programs end up disincentivizing work -- telling people it pays <em>not</em> to go to work because you'll lose more in benefits than you gain in earning wages."</span><br /><span><br />That doesn't mean the poor are lazy. It means they respond to incentives. They are rational about choosing behaviors that, at least in the short term, pay off.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />It's not only welfare that makes it harder for the poor to climb the ladder of success. Well-intended laws, such as a minimum wage, hurt, too.</span><br /><span><br />But most people don't understand that. Even Republicans, according to opinion polls, support a higher minimum wage. A minimum sounds compassionate. It's hard to live on $7.25 an hour.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But setting a minimum is anything <em>but</em> compassionate because that eliminates starter jobs. The minimum wage is why kids don't work as apprentices anymore, nor clean your windshield at gas stations. They never get hired because employers reason, "If I must pay $9, I'm not taking a chance on a beginner."</span><br /><span><br />To most economists, the claim that the minimum wage kills starter jobs is not controversial. But it is among the general public. And so politicians pander.</span><br /><span><br />On my TV show this week, Rep. Jim McDermott (D., Wash.) says that people like Paul Ryan and I "just want to cut the size of government. And trust the private sector to do everything."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Well ... yes. The private sector does just about everything better.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />McDermott says, "This whole business about somehow raising the minimum wage causes a loss of jobs -- if that's true, why don't we just drop the minimum wage altogether and let people work for a dollar a day or $1 an hour?"</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />OK, let's do it! It's not as if wages are set by the minimum wage.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />That is a great conceit of the central planners: thinking that only government prevents employers from paying workers nearly nothing. But the reason Americans don't work for $1 an hour is competition, not government minimums. Competition is what forces companies to pay workers more. It doesn't much matter that the law says they can pay as low as $7.25. Only 4 percent of American workers now make that little. 95 percent make <em>more</em>.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The free market will sort this out, if politicians would just let it. Left free, the market will provide the greatest benefit to workers, employers and consumers, while allowing charity as well.</span><br /><span><br />It would all happen faster if politicians stopped imagining that they are the cause of everything.</span><span> </span></p>John Stossel2014-10-08T15:55:00ZIt's Better NowJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Its-Better-Now/-808489550558876245.html2014-10-01T21:23:00Z2014-10-01T21:23:00Z<p><span>Americans now face beheadings, gang warfare, Ebola, ISIS and a new war in Syria. It's natural to assume that the world has gotten more dangerous. But it hasn't.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />People believe that crime has gotten worse. But over the past two decades, murder and robbery in the U.S. are down by more than half, and rape by a third, even as complaints about "rape culture" grow louder.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Terrorism is a threat. But deaths from war are a fraction of what they were half a century ago, when we fought World War II and the Korean War, and Chairman Mao murdered millions. Despite</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT717_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span><span>'s wars in Iraq, Syria, etc., last decade saw the fewest deaths from war since record keeping began.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Last week's beheading in Oklahoma and other despicable acts of terrorism are frightening, but Americans are unlikely to be killed. Terrorists killed 18,000 people last year, but only 16 were American. Every death is tragic -- but even if terrorists pulled off a World Trade Center attack every few years, President Obama would still be correct when he said, "If you had to choose any moment to be born in human history, you'd choose this time. The world is less violent than it has ever been. It is healthier than it has ever been."</span><br /><span><br />He was mocked for saying that -- and much of what our president says is deceitful and <em>should</em> be mocked -- but that statement was true.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Thanks to miraculous innovation created by free markets, fewer people languish in poverty, and we live longer than ever. The average American now lives 79 years. (Much of that innovation happened <em>despite</em> attacks on markets by Obama and his cronies, but that's another story.) For most people, and most Americans, life is better.</span><br /><span><br />Of course, as big problems such as Nazis and the Soviet empire fade, the media find new things to scare us about. CBS's Bob Schieffer proclaimed, "We are in a very dangerous time right now, even more so, perhaps, than at the height of the cold war!" <em>More</em> danger than when thousands of Soviet nuclear missiles were aimed at us? Give me a break.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Since crime is down, the media find the few cities, such as Indianapolis and Bismarck, North Dakota, where crime is up. If they can't find increased crime, they focus on rare, lurid cases like mass shootings and serial killers. Even as life gets safer, people get the impression that the world is falling apart.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Then rule-makers overreact.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Bureaucrats pass "zero tolerance" policies toward guns in schools so strict that a 7-year-old boy in Maryland was suspended for chewing his Pop-Tart into the shape of a gun.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />In New Jersey, a 13-year-old was suspended for twirling his pencil in a way that reminded another student of a gun. He was ordered to undergo psychological evaluation and strip-searched by the New Jersey Department of Children and Family.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Movie stars (many of whom have armed bodyguards) make commercials that demand others not be allowed to buy guns. Some apologize for using guns in their films, and then hypocritically go on to make ever more violent films.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Movie producer Harvey Weinstein said, "I have to choose movies that aren't violent, or as violent as they used to be. I can't make one movie and say this is what I want for my kids and then just go out and be a hypocrite."</span><br /><span><br />Sure he can! His new film is "The Hateful Eight," directed by Quentin Tarantino. Even the poster shows a trail of blood. Tarantino is more honest than his producer, pointing out that there's no good evidence that entertainment creates violence: "This has gone back to Shakespeare's days ... the cry that comes: blame the play-makers."</span><br /><span><br />He's right. Movie violence is up. So is video-game violence. But violent crime is down.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />We wax nostalgic about the past, but the past was much nastier than</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT719_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span><span>. Fifty years ago, most Americans my age ... were already dead.</span><span> </span></p>John Stossel2014-10-01T21:23:00ZTwo Anti-Choice PartiesJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Two-Anti-Choice-Parties/989722821918173190.html2014-09-24T07:35:00Z2014-09-24T07:35:00Z<p><span>Democrats often call themselves "pro-choice." Republicans defend "freedom." Unfortunately, neither party really believes in letting individuals do what we want.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />When Democrats say they are "pro-choice," they are talking about abortion. Some act as if a right to legal abortion is the most important freedom in America.</span><br /><span><br />But Democrats aren't very enthusiastic about other kinds of choice. They don't want you to have the right to choose your kids' school, work without joining a union, buy a gun, pay people whatever you contract to pay them if they choose to work for you, buy things you want to buy without regulations constantly interfering and so on.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Liberals, such as my Fox colleague Alan Colmes, say individualism is not enough. "'Collective,' sounds like communism," says Colmes on my TV show this week (yes, Alan, it does), "but we do work and live in a society where there is a collective well-being."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />He thinks I should be grateful for regulations that limit access to guns and that force people to negotiate via labor unions instead of individual contracts. But if we were really grateful, it wouldn't be necessary to <em>force</em> us to abide by those rules.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I want to try doing things my own way. I should be able to. As long as I don't harm someone else's body or property.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Democrats constantly increase limits on individual choice. President Obama won't let people work in unpaid internships, and health officials in liberal cities ban trans fats from restaurants.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I like the way Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) summarized liberals' love of crushing choice: "It's light bulbs. It's toilets. It's cars. You name it. Your freedom of choice is gone. For a party that says they are the pro-choice party, this is the most anti-choice administration we've seen in a lifetime."</span><br /><span><br />Republicans have their own list of ways in which they want to control us. Many are not just anti-abortion (as is Sen. Paul); they're also anti-gay marriage, anti-drugs, anti-gambling and, in a few cases, anti-free speech.</span><br /><span><br />Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, says most of these rules are needed to protect society as a whole. When I challenge the war on drugs, asking, "Don't I own my own body?" he answers, "It is your body, John, but the consequences are paid for by the broader society."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />For example, when he was a police officer, Perkins "had to go into homes [such as in] one case where there was an infant that was on the mother's body, and the mother was dead from an overdose. I had to wait for child protection to come. And that child became a ward of the state, which we all pay for."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The neglect of that child is a terrible thing, but where does this logic lead? I asked him if he'd ban alcohol and cigarettes, since those kill far more people. He said, "We restrict who can buy cigarettes, who can use them."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But we impose those restrictions only on children. Adults are free to smoke. Adults should be free to do anything we damn well want to do -- as long as we don't directly harm others.</span><br /><span><br />Perkins worries that controlled substances can be habit-forming. I worry more about people becoming habituated to being controlled.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I wonder just how many things social conservatives would outlaw if they thought the public would accept the bans. Perkins doesn't approve of gambling, gay marriage, plural marriage, sex work or making a political statement by burning a flag.</span><br /><span><br />And some of those things harm people. But we should use law to punish those who harm others, not to micromanage their lives.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Meanwhile, liberals keep adding new things to their own list of items to control: wages, hate speech, high-interest loans, plastic shopping bags, large cars, health care, e-cigarettes, Uber, AirBnB and more.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />One choice America needs urgently is an alternative to politicians who constantly want to ban more things.</span><span> </span></p>John Stossel2014-09-24T07:35:00ZImmigration Is AmericanJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Immigration-Is-American/-766721369842473272.html2014-09-18T19:29:00Z2014-09-18T19:29:00Z<p><span>Conservatives rightly point out that America is a nation of laws. No one should be exempt. That's why many oppose amnesty and other paths to citizenship for illegal immigrants who are here now.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />"If they want to be in America," the argument goes, "they ought to return to their own countries and apply for a visa legally. America should not reward law breaking."</span><br /><span><br />That sounds sensible -- but what happens when the immigrant does that, goes to the U.S. embassy and says, I'd like to work in America legally?</span><br /><span><br />He gets paperwork to fill out and is told to go home to wait. And wait. A Forbes investigation found that a computer programmer from India must wait, on average, 11 years. A high school graduate from Mexico must wait an average 130 years!</span><br /><span><br />We tell eager workers, "Do it legally; just wait 130 years"? This makes no sense. We should make legal immigration easier, relax the rules, issue work permits. Conservatives usually understand that complex regulations make life hard for people. Immigration bureaucracy makes life harder not just for the immigrants but for the rest of us.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />America needs immigrants. Immigrants co-founded most of Silicon Valley's start-ups. The Patent Office says immigrants invent things at twice the rate of native-born Americans.</span><br /><span><br />Immigrants are special people, people with the ambition and guts to leave their home to pursue an American dream. We ought to let more of them in. And not just PhD's. Half of America's agricultural workers are here illegally, according to the Department of Agriculture. But without them, the government says food would cost much more. Milk would cost 61 percent more.</span><br /><span><br />Some people say, well, maybe immigrants in the past were a boon to America, but now there are just too many. They make up 12 percent of the population! True. But in 1915, it was 15 percent.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Others complain that immigrants once worked hard and tried to assimilate, but</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT300_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span><span>'s immigrants are different: less educated, more likely to collect welfare, less likely to adopt the American work ethic.</span><br /><span> <br /></span><span>Maybe. But I doubt it. Every new immigrant group has been derided as backward, unclean or criminal.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge (R, Mass.) called Slovaks "illiterate and ignorant in the extreme." He called Italians "the lowest type as to character and intelligence." Irish immigrants had such a bad reputation that in job advertisements businesses posted job notices: "No Irish need apply."</span><br /><span><br />Fears about newcomers weren't totally unfounded. It took them time to assimilate and accumulate wealth. But they did. The Irish, Italians and other once-vilified groups are now leaders in America.</span><br /><span><br />People say that immigrants steal "our" jobs. And yes, they do take some. But they create new jobs, too, lots. When people move to another country and encounter a different culture, they see things in new ways. Some pick the best from each culture and create useful things.</span><br /><span><br />Imagine your life without Google searches, cheap Ikea furniture, YouTube, bicycles, blenders, ATM's. All came from immigrants. New Americans also gave us blow dryers, basketball, football, the first shopping mall, comfortable jeans, even the American hot dog (that came from Germany's frankfurter).</span><br /><span><br />Immigration enriches our language. Jewish immigrants gave us the word "glitch." "Gee whiz" came from the Irish. The song "God Bless America" was written by an immigrant -- the prolific Irving Berlin, born in Russia.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The TV network on which my weekly show is broadcast exists only because an immigrant from Australia saw the need for Fox News. And I'm only here because my parents left Germany in 1930, a year when immigration rules were still pretty lax (if you weren't Chinese, since there were racist quotas).</span><span> </span><br /><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT302_com_zimbra_date" class="Object"><br />Today</span><span>, we'd solve many problems if work permits were available and legal immigration easier. If people can come here legally, fewer sneak in. It will be easier to secure the border because police can focus on actual criminals and terrorists. As Lao-tzu said, "the greater the number of laws and enactments, the more thieves and robbers there will be."</span><br /><span><br />America should say yes to immigration.</span><span> </span></p>John Stossel2014-09-18T19:29:00ZHold On, Mr. PresidentJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Hold-On-Mr.-President/-115824765361854859.html2014-09-15T21:03:00Z2014-09-15T21:03:00Z<p><span>"Do you have a strategy now, Mr. President?" asked the cover of the Daily News next to a photo of the second American journalist to be beheaded by the terrorist group ISIS.</span><br /><span><br />The impulse to "do something" to counter such evil is strong.</span><br /><span><br />But why do we assume that government doing something is always an improvement over government doing nothing?</span><br /><span><br />In domestic policy, encouraging government to act leads to nonsense like the "stimulus spending" that created boondoggles such as Cash for Clunkers.</span><br /><span><br />Our foreign policy record isn't much better, despite big successes such as stopping Hitler. Consider the unintended consequences of involving ourselves in other conflicts, such as Vietnam.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />President Carter, now derided as a weakling, wasn't about to sit around and "do nothing" when Russians invaded Afghanistan. Carter armed Islamic fighters, the mujahidin. Bold move.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But later those fighters formed the Taliban.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />President Clinton lobbed missiles at al-Qaida without doing much damage. Osama bin Laden mocked the U.S. as a "paper tiger" for such ineffectual tactics.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />When President George W. Bush chose to go to war with Saddam Hussein, Vice President Cheney assured the world we'd be hailed as "liberators." After we weren't, hawks said the invasion still made the world safer, because Saddam harbored terrorists.</span><br /><span><br />Well, Iraq is definitely a harbor for terrorists now.</span><br /><span><br />Despite our frequent military interventions from Southeast Asia to Latin America, in the Wall Street Journal, Brookings Institution foreign policy analyst Robert Kagan warns about "America's dangerous aversion to conflict."</span><br /><span><br /></span><span>Aversion to conflict?</span><br /><span><br />I too get frustrated watching evildoers abuse Americans overseas. Maybe the plan to "train and equip" certain tribes and eventually "destroy ISIS" that President Obama will speak about</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT407_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">tonight</span><span> </span><span>will be a good thing.</span><br /><span><br />But I'm skeptical.<br /></span><span>After the toppling of Saddam, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice thought it was smart to support Sunni militants who wanted to fight al-Qaida. But now it's Sunni militants who lead ISIS.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Secretary of State Hilary Clinton thought it was smart to aid Islamist militias in Syria and Libya. In Libya, "A monstrous little dictator was removed," writes Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal, but that "left an opening for people who were more monstrous still, who murdered our ambassador, burned our consulate in Benghazi and have now run us out of Tripoli."</span><br /><span><br />We may soon do an about-face and help Bashir Assad against militias we had hoped would overthrow him (a few months ago, when he was the latest in a long line of foreign leaders who hawks likened to Hitler).</span><br /><span><br />We don't know what our interventions will bring. If we remove ISIS, we remove the biggest threat to terrorist cells like Hamas. Fighting these groups is like fighting Hydra, the monster from Greek mythology. Cut off one head, two more grow back.</span><br /><span><br />The policy twists and turns come so fast that Americans may give up on following them all. I don't blame them: In Syria alone, there's conflict between Assad's government, the Free Syrian army, al-Qaida, Jabhat al-Nusra, the Islamic Front, Hezbollah, ISIS and so on.</span><br /><span><br />Remember hawkish Sen. John McCain appearing in a photo with some Syrian fighters who turned out to be terrorists? It's hard to keep track.</span><br /><span><br />One of the terrorists' goals is to get us to overreact. They understand how much it costs us. In a piece titled "The Beheadings Are Bait," Matthew Hoh from the Center for International Policy reminds readers that Osama bin Laden said, "All that we have to do is to send two mujahidin to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there and cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses."</span><br /><span><br />Maybe it's time for America to stop taking the bait. Islamic militants do monstrous things all over the world. We cannot stop it all.</span><br /><span><br />There may be actions we can take. Thousands of people in Iraq were rescued by airdrops of food and water. Air strikes stopped the ISIS advance.</span><br /><span><br />But there is a big difference between that type of action and prolonged engagement.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The urge to "do something" is understandable. But Government can't get domestic policy right. Don't assume it gets foreign policy right.</span><span> </span></p>John Stossel2014-09-15T21:03:00ZGreen MarketsJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Green-Markets/740979246099139027.html2014-09-03T19:14:00Z2014-09-03T19:14:00Z<p><span>Last week I said the Environmental Protection Agency has become a monster that does more harm than good. But logical people say, "What else we got?" It's natural to assume greedy capitalists will run amok and destroy the Earth unless stopped by regulation.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />These critics don't understand the real power of private ownership, says Terry Anderson of the Property and Environment Research Center.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br /></span><span>"Long before the EPA was a glint in anyone's eye," said Anderson on my TV show, "property rights were dealing with pollution issues."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The worst pollution often happens on land owned by "the people" -- by government. Since no one person derives direct benefit from this property, it's often treated carelessly. Some of the worst environmental damage happens on military bases and government research facilities, such as the nuclear research site in Hanford, Washington.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Worse things may happen when government indifference <em>combines</em> with the greed of unrestrained businesspeople, like when the U.S. Forest Service lets logging companies cut trees on public land. Private forest owners are careful to replant and take steps to prevent forest fires. Government-owned forests are not as well managed. They are much more likely to burn.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />When it's government land -- or any commonly held resource -- the incentive is to get in and take what you can, while you can. It's called the "tragedy of the commons."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />"No one washes a rental car," says Anderson, but "when people own things, they take care of them. And when they have private property rights that they can enforce, other people can't dump gunk onto the property."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />That's why, contrary to what environmentalists often assume, it's really property rights that encourage good stewardship. If you pollute, it's your neighbors who are most likely to complain, not lazy bureaucrats at the EPA.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />"Here in Montana, for example, the Anaconda Mining Company, a copper and mining company, ruled the state," says Anderson.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />"And yet when it was discovered that their tailings piles (the heaps left over after removing the valuable material by mining) had caused pollution on ranches that neighbored them, local property owners took them to court. (Anaconda Mining) had to cease and desist and pay for damages. ... They quickly took care of that problem." They also restored some of the land they had mined.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Property rights and a simple, honest court system -- institutions that can exist without big government -- solve problems that would be fought about for years by politicians, environmental bureaucrats and the corporations who lobby them.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />In fact, it's harder to assess the benefits and damages in environmental disputes when these decisions are taken out of the marketplace and made by bureaucracies that have few objective ways to measure costs.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Markets even solve environmental problems in places where environmentalists assume they cannot, such as oceans and other property that can't be carved up into private parcels.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Environmental bureaucrats usually say, to make sure fishermen don't overfish and destroy the stock of fish, we will set a quota for every season. That command-and-control approach has been the standard policy.</span><br /><span><br />So bureaucrats regulate the fishing season. They limit the number of boats, their size and how long they may fish. The result: fishing is now America's most dangerous job. Fishermen race out in all kinds of weather to get as many fish as they can in the narrow time window allowed by regulators. They try to game the system to make more money. Sometimes they still deplete the fish stock.</span><br /><span><br />But Anderson points out that there is an alternative. "In places like New Zealand and Iceland ... we've created individual fishing quotas, which are tradable, which are bankable, which give people an incentive to invest in their fisheries."</span><br /><span><br />Because the fisherman "owns" his fishing quota, he is careful to preserve it. He doesn't overfish because he wants "his" fish to be there next year.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The moral of the story: when possible, let markets and property protect nature. That avoids the tragedy of the commons.</span><span> </span></p>John Stossel2014-09-03T19:14:00ZMindless DronesJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Mindless-Drones/-420946077953999176.html2014-08-21T21:41:00Z2014-08-21T21:41:00Z<p><span>Libertarians warned for years that government is force, that government always grows and that America's police have become too much like an occupying army.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />We get accused of being paranoid, but we look less paranoid after heavily armed police in Ferguson, Missouri, tear gassed peaceful protesters, arrested journalists and stopped some journalists from entering the town.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />One week before the rioting began, Fox News aired my documentary on the militarization of law enforcement, "Policing America."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />That show didn't stop some left-wing commentators from making the bizarre claim that libertarians like me have been silent about Ferguson.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I can't force them to read my columns, or Sen. Rand Paul's (R, Ken.) article titled "We Must Demilitarize the Police" or libertarian Rep. Justin Amash's (R, Mich.) condemnation of the police for "escalating" tensions with "military equipment."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Although it was <em>government</em> police and <em>government</em>-supplied military equipment that provoked the conflict (plus property-rights-violating looters), leftists still found ways to blame libertarians and advocates of private gun ownership.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Tom Toles depicted a sarcastic TV viewer watching news from Ferguson and sniping that "I'm sure the NRA has an interesting solution for this" -- as if overzealous police are the fault of people who believe in individuals' right to defend themselves.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Other pro-big-government commentators just questioned the sincerity of libertarians, saying that if we were in power, we would become authoritarians and defend the police.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />It's true that once people are in power, they often grow fond of authority and less interested in liberty. But I don't see why this is an argument against libertarians -- who warn about this problem all the time -- instead of an argument against all those who are actually <em>in </em>power and shameless about wielding that power.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But since leftists are so easily confused, and since there's plenty of blame to go around, let's list who's to blame for what:</span><br /><span><br />--The police do not have the right to execute suspects, unless there is no other way of stopping them and they pose an immediate threat to the safety of others.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br /></span><span>--Michael Brown, assuming current interpretations of security footage are correct, robbed and bullied a store clerk right before he was killed by police. That may well mean he was violent and dangerous, but even violent people should be brought to trial, not gunned down.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />--Individual cops may feel threatened -- and may <em>be</em> threatened in the course of doing their jobs -- but they still do not have the right to use more force than is necessary. Too often, panicked or angry cops pump multiple rounds into already-wounded suspects, as appears to have happened to Michael Brown.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />--Yes, centuries of white people abusing the civil liberties of blacks have left many blacks resentful of police power, and in recent years, white police officers have shot, on average, two young black men every week. But none of that justifies violence and looting like that which followed Michael Brown's death. Criminals who ransack stores are always wrong to violate the rights of innocent third parties.</span><br /><span><br />--Peaceful protestors should not be lumped in with looters and subject to curfews by police. Most looters are opportunists, not people making a political statement. Police and angry citizens alike have a duty to distinguish between protesters and criminals.</span><br /><span><br />--The Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security and opportunistic politicians all pushed the idea of heavily arming local cops, even in places more rural than Ferguson. "Why would cops wear camouflage gear against a terrain patterned by convenience stores and beauty parlors?" wonders the Cato Institute's Walter Olson.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />He notes that a man identifying himself as a veteran from the Army's 82nd Airborne Division reacted to video of police in Ferguson by tweeting, "We rolled lighter than that in an actual war zone."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />If authorities arm cops like soldiers, they may begin to think like soldiers -- and see the public as the enemy. That makes violent confrontations more likely.</span><span> </span></p>John Stossel2014-08-21T21:41:00ZMindless DronesJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Mindless-Drones/-811271579298219740.html2014-08-14T07:45:00Z2014-08-14T07:45:00Z<p><span>Drones -- unmanned flying machines -- will soon fill our skies. They conjure up fears, especially among some of my fellow libertarians, of spying and death from above.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />These fears aren't groundless. President Bush approved the use of armed drones against suspected terrorists overseas, and President Obama vastly increased their use. Drones have killed thousands of people in places such as Pakistan and Yemen, countries against which we have not declared war.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Drones keep getting more sophisticated. The Air Force is now developing what it calls MAVs, Micro Air Vehicles, tiny drones that can quietly search for an individual terrorist and then kill him with explosives or even incapacitate him with chemicals.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />So far, America has killed with drones only outside America. Sen. Rand Paul (R, Kentucky) famously filibustered Obama's nomination of John Brennan to head the CIA, demanding that Americans first receive clarification on the government's policy regarding use of lethal drones within the U.S. Finally, the attorney general responded, "Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil? The answer to that question is no."</span><br /><span><br />Good for Sen. Paul. Technology itself is not evil, but what government does with it should be determined by clear rules.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The next controversy will center on the increasing use of "civilian" drones. Researching a documentary, "Policing America," I was surprised to learn that I could buy a "personal" drone for only $500. For another $700, my TV staff added a camera to it. These are terrific devices. Vacationers use them to videotape family trips, farmers to check crops, police to search for missing people.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Soon, most everyone might have one. In the six months since I began researching "Policing America," drone prices have dropped sharply. Recently we bought one -- admittedly, a flimsy one -- for just $50. That includes a camera.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Our too-big government will try to quash this innovation. This week the Wall Street Journal reported that government standards "are at least four years away" and quoted a bureaucrat who said, "The incremental approach is essential."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />So the FAA sends "cease and desist" orders to restaurants that use drones to deliver food to remote areas, realtors who show off houses, movie makers and journalists who use drones to get aerial footage of disasters, protests, celebrity weddings, etc.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />"Commercial use" is illegal, says government (regulators don't like business). Fortunately, some entrepreneurs ignore the restrictions. Martin Scorsese used a drone to videotape parts of "Wolf of Wall Street." It's great when people practice civil disobedience against idiot regulators.</span><br /><span><br />The FAA is right to worry about air safety, but that can be handled less intrusively with rules that ban drones near airports.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Of course, private drone use can get creepy. A woman in Connecticut recently attacked a drone operator at a beach because she was angry about being spied upon.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Like a good libertarian, Sen. Paul realizes that ambiguous property rights are the real problem. He jokes that his neighbor has a drone: "If I see it over my property, my shotgun's coming out."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />America already has peeping-Tom laws. I can look through my neighbor's window, but I can't legally get my stepladder and spy over his fence. State courts will work this stuff out.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />As usual, the market will probably produce the best solutions, just as algorithmic anti-spam programs proved more effective than useless anti-spam laws.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />An aerospace engineer emailed me that he's created a Drone Shield you can use to spot unwelcome intrusions.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />That will get trickier as drones become smaller and quieter -- I've seen video of new ones that resemble hummingbirds. But detection technology will improve as well. That constant feedback and competition is how all technology advances.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Technology itself is rarely a bad thing. What matters is the endless power of the market to refine and improve how we use it.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />If government will just relax its regulatory chokehold, private citizens will find safe ways to deliver food, rescue lost cats and fill the skies with happy new possibilities.</span><span> </span></p>John Stossel2014-08-14T07:45:00ZPatrolmen Without BordersJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Patrolmen-Without-Borders/262046830484841289.html2014-08-06T07:59:00Z2014-08-06T07:59:00Z<p><span>If I drive across a U.S. border, I expect to stop at a Border Patrol checkpoint. But imagine driving to the grocery store, or Mom's house, well inside America, and being stopped by the Border Patrol. Many Americans don't have to imagine it -- it's how they live.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Even as the federal government fails to control the southern border, it sends the Border Patrol farther into the interior, where Americans complain that agents harass people who are already U.S. citizens.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />It's legal. The Supreme Court ruled that the Border Patrol can set up "inland" checkpoints anywhere up to 100 miles from an external border of the United States. That's what government now considers a "reasonable distance" from the border.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But that means the zone within which you could be stopped and searched includes much of Florida and California, and all of Maine and New Hampshire. Two-thirds of America's population lives that close to the border.</span><br /><span><br />American Civil Liberties Union lawyer James Lyall argues, "Interior checkpoints fundamentally fly in the face of what it means to live in a free society, where you don't have to answer to federal agents when you're going about your daily business."</span><br /><span><br />The Supreme Court ruled that Border Patrol agents at these checkpoints can "conduct brief stops for the limited purpose of verifying residence status" but cannot "conduct searches of individuals or the interior of their vehicles." But the experience of members of my staff and videos on YouTube show that Border Patrol agents do exactly that. They often demand answers to lots of questions and search cars, too.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The reason these videos are posted on YouTube is because increasing numbers of Americans consider the searches unconstitutional. They refuse to answer the extra questions. Some refuse to roll down their windows. Then agents sometimes break the window. Sometimes they tase the driver.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Pastor Steven Anderson was stopped at a Border Patrol checkpoint 60 miles from the Mexican border.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Officers say their police dog alerted them to something in his car, but Anderson says the dog never reacted to anything. Anderson wouldn't let them search his car, so officers broke both windows and tased him.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />People in Arivaca, Arizona, 25 miles from border, told us that living there is like living in occupied territory. Apache helicopters fly overhead. Dozens of Border Patrol trucks cruise their streets. Children in Arivaca must go through checkpoints every day just to go to school.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />"Agents tell people," says Lyall, "that all residents are suspect simply by virtue of living in southern Arizona."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The Border Patrol wouldn't respond to my questions about these issues, so Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., spoke up for them: "I'm not aware of any significant abuses. I'm on the Homeland Security Committee. If anything, the complaint we get is there's not enough strict enforcement."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />He points out that "when people come into this country illegally, they don't stay on the border; they keep going."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />That's true. But that doesn't justify harassing people who just want to drive home from work.</span><br /><span><br />Rick Rynearson, an Air Force pilot who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, told me he's furious about being repeatedly stopped. Once he was detained for over half an hour when, after answering 17 questions from agents, he refused to answer more.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I asked Rynearson: "Why not? The Border Patrol agents would say, come on, Rick, this is hardly a threat to your liberty. Just tell us where you're going."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But Rynearson told me he sees himself as "a person who's having to stop in the middle of a road, who's done nothing wrong, and finds himself surrounded by armed government agents with dogs."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />As an Air Force pilot, Rynearson understands that protecting our safety and freedom sometimes requires a police presence or military action. But he offers this reminder: "Real freedom lies in the thin space that separates an American citizen from an armed member of their government."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Unfortunately, as domestic policing grows, that space gets thinner.</span><span> </span></p>John Stossel2014-08-06T07:59:00ZHealthy Profits?John Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Healthy-Profits/305750765154322394.html2014-07-30T13:41:00Z2014-07-30T13:41:00Z<p><span>I'm the underachiever in my family. My parents also produced Harvard Medical School research director Thomas</span><span> </span><span id="DWT112" class="ZmSearchResult"><span id="DWT114" class="ZmSearchResult">Stossel</span></span><span>. Mom called him the one who had "a real job."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />For years, my brother annoyed me by not embracing the libertarianism that changed my life. It bored him. He was comfortable in his Harvard cocoon.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But then he realized that the anti-capitalist activists who fight with me on my TV show are also the people who make life more difficult for doctors, and for patients who want cures.</span><br /><span><br />Lately, the anti-capitalists have become obsessed with "conflict of interest" in science -- any trace of corporate money must poison honest medical research.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Obamacare includes a rule called the Physician Payment Sunshine Act. It orders companies that make medical products to disclose even bagels they serve doctors and anything valued above $10. On my TV show this week, Tom calls that "the conflict of interest mania ... taking normal competition ... into a witch hunt."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But doesn't corporate money tempt doctors to push inferior treatments and drugs?</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />"People cheat for money," replied Tom. "But evidence that collaborations compromise clinical integrity and patient care is practically nonexistent. A voluminous 2009 Institute of Medicine report on 'Conflict of Interest in Medical Research' was unable to find evidence of a negative effect on patient outcomes."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />How much good comes from corporate/research collaboration? I assumed that most new drugs and improved medical treatments come because of government-funded research. Tom's reply: "I've lived off government-funded research my whole life. I've panhandled off your tax money. It's important. But the vast predominance of what gets products to patients comes from the private sector."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />His epiphany came when he did work for the biotech company Biogen. Its board included Nobel Prize winners. One helped develop the hepatitis vaccine.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />That probably wouldn't happen</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT115_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span><span>, says Tom, because now the stock options the Nobel winner got are forbidden at research institutions like Harvard.</span><br /><span><br />But without government regulation, what prevents greedy doctors and greedy medical device makers or drug companies from colluding?</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Market competition. Other scientists will try to replicate dramatic findings and debunk false claims and sloppy scientists. Companies worry about scandal, lawsuits, the FDA and recalls. They can't get rich unless their <em>reputation</em> is good.</span><br /><span><br />The scientific process doesn't work through activists swooping in and pretending to be the guardians of careful research. As Tom writes in a forthcoming book, "Science's credibility derives from its delivery of durable discoveries." Similarly, sustained profits require products that actually work.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Currently, the conflict of interest zealots have won the debate. Obamacare regulators are implementing the Sunshine Act. Who wins from the new regulation?</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />"The Sunshine Act is a boondoggle for accountants, compliance bureaucrats and the legions of lawyers whom companies will hire to manage the regulations," says Tom. "These parasites will muddle through endless complexities, such as which entity of a global company actually pays physicians and must report the payments. There will be the questions of how to identify which physicians are being paid for what, such as how to account for $25 worth of bagels brought into a group practice office when it's unclear who actually ate the bagels."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Who loses? Patients. Few have the competence to interpret the disclosures, and because of the new rules, they'll have fewer new drugs. Hundreds of millions of dollars once applied to innovation will shift to "Sunshine" management.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />"Do you want your doctor pilloried for eating a corporate bagel while getting useful product information that might benefit you?" asks Tom. "Do you want your hospital hiring compliance officers instead of nurses or laboratory technicians? Do you want medical researchers censured for being paid by industry for discoveries that might save your life? ... This will benefit predators: the media who want to embarrass doctors, the lawyers who sue doctors and drug companies."</span><br /><span><br />Markets do not automatically taint science. As with every other service the market provides, it is the anti-capitalist attitude that does more harm.</span><span> </span></p>John Stossel2014-07-30T13:41:00ZPolicing AmericaJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Policing-America/-31037315282447190.html2014-07-23T18:12:00Z2014-07-23T18:12:00Z<p><span>I want the police to be better armed than the bad guys, but what exactly does that mean</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT1330_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span><span>?</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Apparently it means the Pentagon and Department of Homeland Security equip even the tiniest rural police departments with massive military vehicles, body armor and grenade launchers. The equipment is surplus from the long wars we fought in Iraq and Afghanistan.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />To a hammer, everything resembles a nail. SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics) teams were once used only in emergencies such as riots or robberies where hostages were taken. But</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT1332_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span><span> </span><span>there are more than 50,000 "no-knock raids" a year.</span><br /><span><br />It's not because crime got worse. There is <em>less</em> crime</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT1334_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span><span>. Crime peaked around 1990 and is now at a 40-year low. But as politicians keep passing new criminal laws, police find new reasons to deploy their heavy equipment.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Washington Post reporter Radley Balko points out that they've used SWAT teams to raid such threatening haunts as truck stops with video poker machines, unlicensed barber shops and a frat house where underage drinking was reported.</span><br /><span><br />In New York City, these men in black raided standup comedian Joe Lipari's apartment.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />"I had bad customer service at the Apple Store," Lipari told me in an interview for my upcoming TV special "Policing America." "So I bitched about it on Facebook. I thought I was funny. I quoted 'Fight Club,'" the 1999 movie about bored yuppies who attack parts of consumer culture they hate.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />"People (on Facebook) were immediately responding that it was obviously from 'Fight Club,'" says Lipari. "It was a good time, until 90 minutes later, a SWAT team knocked on my door. Everyone's got their guns drawn."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />It took only that long for authorities to deem Lipari a threat and authorize a raid by a dozen armed men. Yet, says Lipari, "if they took 90 seconds to Google me, they would have seen I'm teaching a yoga class in an hour, that I had a comedy show."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Lipari has no police record. If he is a threat, so are you.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />SWAT raids are dangerous, and things often go wrong. People may shoot at the police if they mistake the cops for ordinary criminals and pick up guns to defend their homes against invasion. Sometimes cops kill the frightened homeowner who raises a gun.</span><br /><span><br />Because America has so many confusing laws, and also because cops sometimes make mistakes, it's harder to assume -- as conservatives often do -- that as long as you behave yourself, you have nothing to fear. The raids should also trouble libertarians who sometimes believe that government can mostly be trusted when it sticks to "legitimate" functions like running police, courts and the military.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Government always grows, and government is force. Force is always dangerous.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />It's healthy for conservatives, libertarians and liberals alike to worry about the militarization of police. Conservatives worry about a repeat of incidents like the raids on religious radicals at Ruby Ridge and Waco, Texas. Liberals condemn police brutality like the recent asphyxiation death of a suspect at the hands of police in New York.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />This is a rare issue where I agree with left-wing TV host Bill Maher. On his TV show last week, Maher ranted about no-knock raids "breaking up poker games, arresting low-level pot dealers."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Maher's right to point out that most SWAT raids are now done to arrest nonviolent drug offenders. "It's a guy who sells weed," says Maher. "You don't need to shoot his dog and crash through his window."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But they do. If cops continue to take a warlike us-versus-them approach to policing the population, they just might bring the left and right together. <br /><br />Government is reckless, whether it is intruding into our lives with byzantine regulations that destroy a fledgling business or with a flash-bang grenade like the one that critically wounded a child in a recent SWAT raid in Janesville, Georgia.</span><span> </span><br /><span> <br /></span><span>Regardless of our political leanings, we should be wary of big government in all its forms.</span><span> </span></p>John Stossel2014-07-23T18:12:00ZWho'll Build the Roads?John Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Wholl-Build-the-Roads/51778711529297448.html2014-07-16T18:05:00Z2014-07-16T18:05:00Z<p><span>"Tea party members don't think there's a federal role in transportation!" complained Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, last week, near the site of a $5.8 million highway project.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />If only most tea party members were that radical.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />While Brown and other big-government folks worry that Republicans will cut spending, Republicans debate adding another $10.5 billion to the Highway Trust Fund to keep it going another year -- without deciding how to reform it.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Now, there's no doubt some roads and bridges need work. But too little transportation money spent by government goes to building and repairing roads.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />As Cato Institute transportation analyst Randal O'Toole points out, the construction of the nation's federal highways was largely complete in 1982, but instead of reducing the gas tax that helped pay for them, Congress raised the tax and spent much of the money on things like bicycle trails and "mass" transit.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />"Building an interstate highway system," writes O'Toole, "has been replaced by a complex and often contradictory set of missions: maintaining infrastructure, enhancing mobility, reducing air pollution, discouraging driving, supporting transit, building expensive rail lines, promoting economic development, stimulating the economy, stopping climate change and ending urban sprawl, among others."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Then, when roads deteriorate, the federal government laments that it doesn't have enough money.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />We should have known that an inevitable side effect of a distant central government spending these billions is that road construction isn't determined by local supply and demand. Often "mass" transit carries few passengers, while nearby roads are congested.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Urban planners, who work closely with government and distrust markets, are convinced that people will leave comfortable suburban homes and flock to dense urban areas with walkable streets, if government just pours money into mass transit.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But even after Congress spent billions on public transportation projects, even rebuilding the downtowns of some cities to make them more pedestrian-friendly, it turned out most Americans wanted to stay in their suburban homes.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Then urban planners assumed adults would relocate to cities once their kids left for college or jobs, but a recent Fannie Mae report found baby boomers are not doing that. The planners are surprised. They shouldn't be.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />"After all," writes O'Toole, "baby boomers' parents overwhelmingly preferred to 'age in place' rather than move when their children left home; why should baby boomers be any different?"</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />It turns out that government spent your billions on urban transit based on surveys that asked people if they want to live in "walkable communities."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Of course people said yes! Who doesn't want to live in a neighborhood where you can "walk to shops"? But if they'd asked, "Are you willing to spend about four times as much per square foot to live in a city instead of a spacious suburban home?" they'd get different answers.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Now, I live the way bureaucrats want you to live. I have an apartment in New York City, one of the most densely populated places on Earth. I take the subway system to get around and sometimes ride my bicycle. I like living this way. But bureaucrats shouldn't try to force you to live the way I live.</span><br /><span><br />In fact, herding people into denser urban areas sounds suspiciously like something that makes life easier for the bureaucrats themselves. It was a popular idea with communist planners in Romania and North Korea. Mass transit and "planned spaces" appeal to the bureaucratic mind.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br /></span><span>How about going the opposite route? Let people live where they choose, let private entities build roads and mass transit (many roads and even most of New York City's subways were privately built), and let user fees from commuters pay for roads and transit.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />There is justice in that idea: People who love to drive will pay for it, and those who don't want to pay have an extra incentive to move to those urban spaces planners like so much.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />In a market, everybody wins. With government planners, it's always "My way or the highway."</span><span> </span></p>John Stossel2014-07-16T18:05:00ZImportant Slow NewsJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Important-Slow-News/-504308073529988854.html2014-07-09T21:27:00Z2014-07-09T21:27:00Z<p><span>Wars, plane crashes, mass murder -- it's easy to report news that happens suddenly. Reporters do a good job covering that. But we do a bad job telling you about what's really changing in the world, because we miss the stories that happen slowly. These are usually the more important stories.</span><br /><span><br />Recently, President Barack Obama was mocked for saying: "The world is less violent than it has ever been. It is healthier than it has ever been. It is more tolerant than it has ever been. It is better fed than it's ever been. It is more educated than it's ever been."</span><br /><span><br />Although these comments received criticism, he was absolutely right. Despite the current violence in the Middle East, the world</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT1504_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span><span> </span><span>is actually less violent than it used to be. In the 21st century, about 50,000 people a year died from war -- about a third the number who died each year during the Cold War and half the number during the 1990s, a decade thought of as a time of peace and prosperity.</span><br /><span><br />People</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT1506_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today </span><span><em>are</em> healthier. Death rates from nearly all diseases are down so much that we now live, on average, nearly twice as long as people did just over a century ago.</span><br /><span><br />People are also better fed and better educated. (Also, thanks to free markets and capitalism, people are richer. Millions lifted themselves out of poverty. Of course, Obama left that improvement out; it doesn't fit his big-government vision.)</span><br /><span><br />Let's consider the other improvement the president cited: The world is "more tolerant than it has ever been." Tolerance is harder to measure than changes in poverty or deaths from war, but there is little doubt that, in America at least, people are much more tolerant.</span><br /><span><br />In just a few decades, life has improved dramatically for blacks, gays and women. When I started reporting, women still had to get a husband's or father's permission to get a credit card. Gays were ostracized. Interracial marriage was still illegal in 16 states. Anti-sodomy laws were on the books until 2003.</span><br /><span><br />Early last century, wife beating was routine. A North Carolina newspaper from 1913 carried a front-page story titled, "For and Against Wife Beating." Most "expert" commentary was in favor of it. One doctor argued, "Beat her, she needs it," and a female advice columnist declared, "It's well known that women love most the men who are cruel."</span><span> </span><br /><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT1508_com_zimbra_date" class="Object"><br />Today</span><span>, no newspaper would do a feature story on "whether to beat your wife." Attitudes changed dramatically. But how would a reporter cover that? I suppose one might say, "</span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT1509_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">Today</span><span> </span><span>in Pittsburgh, six people changed their opinion about wife beating." But no reporter would write that. He wouldn't know who those people were. Even if he did, such gradual change is not what people consider news.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />A car crash that kills a family is terrible news. But gradual improvements in driver behavior, car and road safety, and attitudes about drunk driving should be even bigger news. Driving remains one of the riskiest things we do, but far fewer people die now.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Science that lengthens lives, innovation that enhances them, increased tolerance and fewer deaths in wars are great news. But, day by day, reporters barely cover that. Where would we point our cameras?</span><br /><span><br />The news is biased not just because reporters are politically biased but because most good news happens gradually. We instinctively perk up and take notice if someone says, "The White House made an important announcement</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT1512_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span><span>," even if that announcement is trivial compared to slower social changes.</span><br /><span><br />We use the phrase "slow news day" almost as an insult, as though important things aren't happening. This, in turn, affects the way we think about politics. While life incrementally improves, activists promoting almost any cause angrily chant: "When do we want it? Now!"</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Bad things happen in an instant. The good news usually takes time. Reporters are usually clueless about it.</span></p>John Stossel2014-07-09T21:27:00Z"Crapitalism!"John Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Crapitalism!/120584477644935043.html2014-07-02T07:36:00Z2014-07-02T07:36:00Z<p><span>There's capitalism, and then there's "crapitalism" -- crony capitalism.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Capitalism is great because it lets entrepreneurs raise money so they can scale up and get their products and services to more people. If there is free competition, innovators with the best ideas raise the most money, and the best and cheapest products spread far and wide.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But it's crapitalism when politicians give your tax money and other special privileges to businesses that are "most deserving of help." Often those businesses turn out to be run by politicians' cronies.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Many government agencies feed this crony capitalism. When there is scandal, such as when the Energy Department lost $500 million on Solyndra, we hear about it. But often we don't. You probably didn't know about the department's other fat losses on businesses like Solar One, the Triad ethanol plant, FutureGen, the Clinch River Breeder Reactor and so on.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Even the Small Business Administration is an embarrassment. They loaned $1 million to a Lamborghini dealership and $3 million to a Rolex dealer. Is this where your tax money should go? Voters assume government handouts go to people who need help. But they usually don't. Most government handouts go to the middle class and the rich.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Government has no business handing out loan guarantees to companies. Corporations can pay their own way. The Agriculture Department's Market Access Program gives millions of dollars to affluent groups like the Pet Food Institute, the Wine Institute, Sunkist and Welch Foods. In return, politicians get campaign contributions. It's disgusting crapitalism.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The biggest funder of this crony capitalism is the Export-Import Bank. The bank says its "financial products enable exporters of all sizes to ... protect against the risks of international trade and export with confidence."</span><br /><span><br />That sounds good, and it's why most politicians support it. But for the first time in my memory, there is pushback. Many Republicans want to stop this corporate welfare. The chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services, Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, points out that most of the government's export loans go to "Fortune 500 companies like G.E., like Boeing, who could easily finance these things themselves ... the Export-Import Bank claims they create American jobs, but when the Export-Import Bank helps Boeing sell a jet to Air India, it hurts Delta Air Lines."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Right. When government picks winners, it pats itself on the back -- and gains crony friends in industry. But it creates losers at the same time.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />"When Export-Import Bank helps G.E., and others build an oil refinery in Turkey, it hurts the domestic refining industry," says Hensarling. "For every job Export-Import creates in exports, they kill an American job domestically. It's not helping us."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But few of us bother to complain. Benefits of government spending go to a concentrated few -- who fight to keep the program going. When taxpayers and domestic businesses suffer because of resources transferred to the well-connected Ex-Im Bank-linked businesses, we each lose just a few bucks. We will never hire as many lobbyists to criticize the bank as the beneficiaries do to keep it going. Like every other government program, Ex-Im Bank creates a vocal constituency that never wants to see the program die.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />And that time and energy spent lobbying is time that companies might have devoted to improving their product or making their business more efficient. Gifts from government get companies to focus on lobbying instead of innovation. Government favoritism creates bad incentives.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Before he was president, Barack Obama agreed with me. He said, "I'm not a Democrat who believes that we can or should defend every government program just because it's there. There are some that don't work, like ... the Export-Import Bank that has become little more than a fund for corporate welfare."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Yes! <em>Candidate</em> Obama understood. But now, instead of getting rid of the Ex-Im Bank, he wants the bank to loan out even <em>more </em>of your money.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Does America need "export assistance," as well as "small business support," an "energy policy" and so on?</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />No! We already have a time-tested policy for deciding, without government interference, where resources should go. It's called the free market. It works much better than government does.</span><span> </span></p>John Stossel2014-07-02T07:36:00ZOmission ControlJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Omission-Control/-733300517504802063.html2014-06-25T17:37:00Z2014-06-25T17:37:00Z<p><span>Reporter Sharyl Attkisson's story sounds familiar to me: A major network got tired of her reports criticizing government. She no longer works there.</span><br /><span><br />The CBS correspondent reported on Fast and Furious, the shifting explanation for the Benghazi, Libya, attacks and the bungled rollout of the Obamacare website.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />"But as time went on, it was harder to get stories on," she says.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br /></span><span>"There are people who simply would rather just avoid the headache of going after powers that be because of the pushback that comes with it, which has become very organized and well-financed," she says on my TV show this week.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I left ABC for similar reasons. When I began consumer reporting, I assumed advertisers would censor me, since sponsors who paid my bosses wouldn't want criticism. But never in 30 years was a story killed because of advertiser pressure. Not once.</span><br /><span><br />I hear that's changed since, and big advertisers, such as car dealers, do persuade news directors to kill stories.</span><br /><span><br /></span><span>"I do a lot of reporting on corporate interests and so on, so there's pressure from that end," says Attkisson, but "there's a competing pressure on the ideological end." Right. Ideology affects more stories than "corporate interests." My ABC bosses leaned left. They liked stories about weird external threats from which government can swoop in to rescue you.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />They are much less fond of complex stories in which problems are solved subtly by the dynamism of the free market. The invisible hand, after all, is invisible. It works its magic in a million places and makes adjustments every minute. That's hard for reporters to see -- especially when they're not looking for it.</span><br /><span><br />Often, when it comes to news that happens slowly, the media get it utterly wrong. I suspect we get it wrong now about things like global warming, genetically modified foods, almost any story related to science or statistics, or, heck, basic math. Math <em>threatens </em>many reporters.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Combine all that with the news proverb "If it bleeds, it leads," and you get some very misleading, scary reporting.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />That's why it's good that there's a new media organization called Retro Report that reveals media hype of the past.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />It archives stories like the purported "crack babies" epidemic, Tawana Brawley's being "attacked by six white men," the rise of "super-predator" teenagers, and other disasters that didn't happen -- but did have big effects on public policy, as politicians rushed to fight the imaginary menaces.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I believed in many similar stories when I was a young reporter. You would have, too. We interviewed scientists who sounded alarmed. They had data that proved coffee causes pancreatic cancer and cellphones cause brain cancer.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Of course, other scientists were skeptical, but they were harder to interview than the crusading scientists. What was in it for the calm, reasonable ones? What would they gain by taking time from their own research to try to educate stupid reporters? Plus, if they were quoted, they'd make enemies. It's easier just to avoid the media.</span><br /><span><br />So we reporters talked to the activists and trusted them. They were like us. They wore blue jeans and said they wanted to protect people. The scientists who were skeptical about the latest scare, on the other hand, were often funded by <em>business</em>. They wore suits. Why trust them?</span><br /><span><br />And they were boring, the ultimate crime in media. Company lawyers had told them, "be cautious" when talking to reporters. Caution is poison to us. A scientist saying we don't really have good evidence that coffee causes cancer is just not as interesting as one saying, "Coffee may kill you!"</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Plus, politicians were always ready with some proposed regulatory "solution." That's easy to report on, too. Just go to the politician's press conference. Then we feel we've done our job.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But all we've really done is spread the hype pushed by the big-government establishment. They fool us again and again.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Attkisson and I rejected the hype. Are there others at CBS or ABC? Or at PBS, NPR or NBC? I hope so.</span></p>John Stossel2014-06-25T17:37:00ZHere Comes TomorrowJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Here-Comes-Tomorrow/-720197299607644307.html2014-06-18T07:54:00Z2014-06-18T07:54:00Z<p><span>Ray Kurzweil -- inventor of things like machines that turn text into speech -- has popularized the idea that we are rapidly approaching "the singularity," the point at which machines not only think for themselves but develop intellectually faster than we.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />At that point, maybe we no longer talk about "human history." It will be "machine progress," with us along for the ride -- if machines keep us around. Maybe they'll keep us in a zoo, like we do with our monkey ancestors.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Scientists and ethicists are beginning to wrestle with the question of how to make sure artificial intelligence, when it arrives, is nice to us.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Make sure the robots are strict libertarians? That way, they'll be forbidden to commit assault, theft or fraud -- the three legal restrictions in which libertarians believe.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Unfortunately, computer programmers won't listen to my suggestion. Those who work for video-game companies and the military make machines that kill people.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />All this is scary because scientists say that soon machines will be too smart and self-motivated for us to predict.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />"Robots absolutely can become much more dangerous," says Patrick Tucker, of The Futurist magazine. "And they become more dangerous as we ask them to do more."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Our best hope may be a future where instead of trying to control intelligent machines, we blend with them.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />In some ways, that's already happening.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Erik Brynjolfsson, author of "The Second Machine Age," says</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT905_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span><span>'s machines augment our minds the way that the industrial revolution's machines augmented muscles. This creates progress that government statistics don't measure.</span><br /><span><br />"It used to be you could just count physical objects -- tons of steel, bushels of wheat," says Brynjolfsson on my TV show this week. "As we have more of an <em>idea </em>economy, it's harder to measure the value of those ideas.</span><br /><span><br />"Wikipedia created enormous value," he adds, "but it's free, and that means that it doesn't show up in GDP statistics, which measure the value of goods and services."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Outsourcing parts of our thinking with tools like Wikipedia and Google may be how we'll keep improving our lives -- cooperating with machines instead of fighting them. In science-fiction terms, the future may be "cyborg": part machine, part human.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Instead of parents deciding where to send their kids to school, they may puzzle over which machine enhancements to give them. Already clinics offer "designer babies" by selecting embryos based on genetic quality. Soon parents will select by height, intelligence, beauty and so on.</span><br /><span><br />This future sounds unsettling, but it's not much use just hoping machines stay dumber than we. The IBM computer "Watson" lost to humans on "Jeopardy" but beat the quiz show's champion a few years later.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Leftists tell us that such computers will take our jobs, requiring welfare programs for unemployable humans. President Barack Obama expressed this static thinking when he told an interviewer that ATMs and airport ticket kiosks kill jobs.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But this is childish thinking. In the 1800s, nearly all Americans worked on farms. Now 1 percent do. Farm workers found other jobs, often better jobs. So did horseshoers, phone operators and secretaries. (</span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT907_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">Today</span><span>'s high unemployment is caused by suffocating regulation, not computerization.)</span><br /><span><br />James Miller, author of "Singularity Rising," says that a future with little hard work left for humans sounds like "an economic utopia." He says that trying to prevent progress by machines would be as destructive as if we'd outlawed the rise of cars, buses and modern trains. But Miller does fear the computer revolution will be different: "The analogy would be: 100 years ago, we breed super intelligent horses. That would have permanently destroyed a lot of jobs."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I'm more optimistic. As with so many innovations in the past, I'll bet that handing off tasks to machines will make our lives better by freeing us up to focus on activities that we enjoy more. Robots will make our future better.</span><br /><span><br />If they don't kill us.</span></p>John Stossel2014-06-18T07:54:00ZLibertarians Versus ConservativesJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Libertarians-Versus-Conservatives/128306112247484164.html2014-06-11T17:58:00Z2014-06-11T17:58:00Z<p><span>Both libertarians and conservatives want to keep America safe. We differ on how best to do that. Most libertarians believe our attempts to create or support democracy around the world have made us new enemies, and done harm as well as good. We want less military spending.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Some conservatives respond to that by calling us isolationists, but we're not. I want to participate in the world; I just don't want to run it. I'm glad Americans trade with other countries -- trade both goods and people. It's great we sell foreigners our music, movies, ideas, etc. And through dealing with them, we also learn from what they do best.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />On my TV show this week, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton will tell me why my libertarian skepticism about the importance of a "strong military presence" is "completely irrelevant to foreign policy decision-making."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Bolton thinks it's dangerous and provocative for America to appear militarily weak. He supported the Iraq War and says that if Iran were close to getting nuclear weapons, the U.S should attack. "I will go to my grave trying to prevent every new country we can find from getting nuclear weapons," because if they do, "it's going to be a very dangerous world."</span><br /><span><br />He criticizes Presidents Barack Obama's and George W. Bush's failed attempts at negotiation with Iran, "negotiation based on the delusion from the get-go that Iran was ever serious about potentially giving up its nuclear weapon program."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />That kind of talk makes Bolton sound like a hard-headed realist. Who wants to be naive like Bush or Obama? But hawks like Bolton ignore parts of reality, too.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />They are quick and correct to point out the danger of Iran going nuclear. They are not as quick to talk about the fact that Iran has a population three times the size of Iraq's -- and the Iraq War wasn't as smooth or short as then-Vice President Dick Cheney and others assured us it would be.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br /></span><span>If it's realistic to acknowledge that America has dangerous enemies, it's also realistic to acknowledge that going to war is not always worth the loss of money and lives, and that it makes <em>new</em> enemies. War, like most government plans, tends not to work out as well as planners hoped.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I asked Bolton if he thought the Vietnam War was a good intervention. "Obviously, the way it played out, it was not," he said, but, "it's always easy after the fact to second-guess."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Bolton also acknowledges that the Iraq War did not go well, but then adds, "Where mistakes were made was <em>after</em> the military campaign." The U.S. was unprepared for the civil war that broke out. The U.S. also failed to turn utilities and other state-run companies in Iraq over to the private sector, maintaining poorly run monopolies on energy production and other essential services, often squandering billions of dollars.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />It might be seen as a harsh lesson in the importance of planning for the aftermath of toppling a bad regime. But we libertarians wonder: Why assume government will do better next time?</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Occasionally government acknowledges mistakes in domestic policy -- but that doesn't mean it then becomes more efficient. It usually just spends <em>more</em> to try, and fail, to fix the problem. It's the nature of government. Politicians don't face the competitive incentives that force other people to make hard decisions.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Candidate Obama garnered support by criticizing Bush for costing money and lives through a protracted stay in Iraq. But that didn't stop Obama from putting more money and troops into Afghanistan.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />In his first term alone, Obama spent about three times as much in Afghanistan as Bush did in two terms. Did we win hearts and minds? I don't think so. The Taliban may still retake the country.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Our military should be used for defense, not to police the world.</span><span> </span></p>John Stossel2014-06-11T17:58:00ZPopular NonsenseJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Popular-Nonsense/-817788993181175398.html2014-06-10T01:29:00Z2014-06-10T01:29:00Z<p><span>"Young people are exploited!" "Income mobility is down!" "Poor people are locked into poverty!"</span><br /><span><br />Those are samples of popular nonsense peddled</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT301_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span><span>.</span><br /><span><br />Leftist economist Thomas Piketty's book "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" has been No. 1 on best-seller lists for weeks (with 400 pages of statistics, I assume "Capital" is bought more often than it is read). Piketty argues that investments grow faster than wages and so the rich get richer far faster than everyone else. He says we should impose a wealth tax and 80 percent taxes on rich people's incomes.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But Piketty's numbers mislead. It's true that</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT303_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span><span> </span><span>the rich are richer than ever. And the wealth gap between rich and poor has grown. Now the top 1 percent own more assets than the bottom 90 percent!</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But focusing on this disparity ignores the fact that over time, the rich and poor are not the same people. Oprah Winfrey once was on welfare. Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton was a farmhand. When markets are free, poor people can move out of their income group. In America, income <em>mobility</em>, which matters more than income inequality, has not really diminished.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Economists at Harvard and Berkeley crunched the numbers on 40 million tax returns from 1971-2012 and discovered that mobility is pretty much what The Pew Charitable Trusts reported it was 30 years ago.</span><span> </span><br /><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT305_com_zimbra_date" class="Object"><br />Today</span><span>, 64 percent of the people born to the poorest fifth of society rise out of that quintile -- 11 percent rise all the way into the top quintile. Meanwhile, 8 percent born to the richest fifth fall all the way to the bottom fifth. Sometimes great wealth makes kids lazy and self-indulgent, and wrecks their lives</span><br /><span><br />Also, the rich don't get rich <em>at the expense</em> of the poor (unless they steal or collude with government). The poor got richer, too. Yes, over the last 30 years, incomes of rich people grew by more than 200 percent, but according to the Congressional Budget Office, poor people gained 50 percent. That growth should matter more than the disparity. Piketty's data reveal times in our history when income inequality <em>decreased</em>: during world wars and depression. Do we want more of <em>that</em>?</span><br /><span><br />It's right to worry about the plight of the poor, but not everything done in their name really helps them -- minimum wage laws, for example.</span><br /><span><br />I've had hundreds of employees whom I paid nothing: student interns. Unpaid internships were allowed for years, because it was understood that interns learn by working. My interns learned a lot. Many went on to successful careers in journalism. One won a Pulitzer Prize. Many said they learned more working for me than at college (despite $50,000 tuition). They benefited and I benefited. Win-win.</span><br /><span><br />So for years government ignored Labor Department rules that decreed unpaid internships legal only if an employer gets "no immediate advantage" from the intern.</span><br /><span><br />Geez, who wants that? Of course I got an advantage from my interns. That's why I employed them!</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Recently, President Barack Obama's Labor Department announced it would enforce the internship rules, and some interns sued their former employers, claiming internships were "unfair." Charlie Rose forked over a quarter of a million dollars. Word spread, so now unpaid internships are vanishing.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Some people say it's good that unpaid internships are gone, because they are unfair to poor people, who can't afford volunteer work. But <em>getting rid</em> of opportunities does nothing to help anyone. Employers lose and students lose.</span><br /><span><br />Difficult as it can seem to make your own way in this world without a phony government promise that you'll be taken care of, or that every job will pay at least $15 an hour, success happens when markets are relatively free. Individual initiative creates new things, companies, job opportunities -- whole new ways of life -- that make the world better for all of us.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Government "help" ends up doing harm. Leave people free -- both as workers and employers -- to pursue opportunities they find worthwhile, and we will prosper in ways government planners could never imagine.</span><span> </span></p>John Stossel2014-06-10T01:29:00ZEat Without FearJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Eat-Without-Fear/-98819191363216505.html2014-05-28T19:38:00Z2014-05-28T19:38:00Z<p><span>It's easy to scare people about what's in their food, but the danger is almost never real. And the fear itself kills.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Take the panic over genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. Ninety percent of all corn grown in America is genetically modified now. That means it grew from a seed that scientists altered by playing with its genes. The new genes may make corn grow faster, or they may make it less appetizing to bugs so farmers can use fewer pesticides.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br /></span><span>This upsets some people. GMOs are "unnatural," they say. A scene from the movie "Seeds of Death" warns that eating GMOs "causes holes in the GI tract" and "causes multiple organ system failure."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The restaurant chain Chipotle, which prides itself on using organic ingredients, produces videos suggesting that industrial agriculture is evil, including a comedic Web series called "Farmed and Dangerous" about an evil agricultural feed company that threatens to kill its opponents and whose products cause cows to explode.</span><br /><span><br />Michael Hansen of Consumer Reports sounds almost as frightening when he talks about GMOs. On my show, he says, "It's called insertional mutagenesis ... you can't control where you're inserting that genetic information; it can have different effects depending on the location."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Jon Entine of the Genetic Literacy Project responds: "We've eaten about 7 trillion meals in the 18 years since GMOs first came on the market. There's not one documented instance of someone getting so much as a sniffle."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Given all the fear from media and activists, you might be surprised to learn that most serious scientists agree with him. "There have been about 2,000 studies," says Entine, and "there is no evidence of human harm in a major peer-reviewed journal."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />That might be enough to reassure people if they knew how widespread and familiar GMOs really are -- but as long as they think of GMOs as something strange and new, they think more tests are needed, more warnings, more precaution.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Yet people don't panic over ruby red grapefruits, which were first created in laboratories by bombarding strains of grapefruit with radiation. People don't worry about corn and other crops bred in random varieties for centuries without farmers having any idea exactly what genetic changes occurred.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />We didn't even know what genes were when we first created new strains of plants and animals. There's no reason to believe modern methods of altering genes are any more dangerous.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />In fact, because they're far more precise, they're safer.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />And since genetic modification can make crops more abundant and easier to grow, it makes food cheaper. That's especially good for the poor. Another life-changer is a new strain of vitamin A-enriched rice that has the potential to decrease the frequency of blindness that now afflicts about a half-million people a year, mostly children.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br /></span><span>But activists -- who tend to be rich and well-fed -- are pressuring countries in Asia and Africa into rejecting GMO rice.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Crusades against food are endless. First Lady Michelle Obama urges students to eat organic, even though that term has no real meaning in science besides "partly composed of carbon."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />My nonprofit for schoolteachers,</span><span> </span><span id="DWT126" class="ZmSearchResult"><span id="DWT128" class="ZmSearchResult">Stossel</span></span><span> </span><span>in the Classroom, offers free videos that introduce students to economics. This year, we ran an essay contest inviting students to write on the topic "Food Nannies: Who Decides What You Eat?"</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I was happy to see that many students understood that this debate is about more than safety. It's really about freedom. Sixteen-year-old Caroline Clausen won $1,000 for her essay, which contained this sarcastic passage: "Congress shall have the power to regulate the mixing, baking, serving, labeling, selling and consumption of food. Did James Madison's secretary forget to copy this provision into the Constitution?"</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Rising generations will have more food options than ever before. They face less risk of starvation or disease than any humans who have ever lived. Let's give them science instead of scare stories.</span><span> </span></p>John Stossel2014-05-28T19:38:00ZGood NewsJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Good-News/153587080692061812.html2014-05-21T23:12:00Z2014-05-21T23:12:00Z<p><span>Are you worried about the future?</span><br /><span><br />It's hard not to be. If you watch the news, you mostly see violence, disasters, danger. Some in my business call it "fear porn" or "pessimism porn." People like the stuff; it makes them feel alive and informed.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Of course, it's our job to tell you about problems. If a plane crashes -- or disappears -- that's news. The fact that millions of planes arrive safely is a miracle, but it's not news.</span><br /><span><br />So we soak in disasters -- and warnings about the next one: bird flu, global warming, potential terrorism. I won Emmys hyping risks but stopped winning them when I wised up and started reporting on the overhyping of risks. My colleagues didn't like that as much.</span><br /><span><br />In England, science journalist Matt Ridley also realized he had focused on the wrong things. That realization led to the more positive outlook in his book "The Rational Optimist."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Now he gives lectures about why he's an optimist. It's not just an attitude; it's an accurate assessment of how well the human race has fared over the past several hundred years.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />"I discovered that almost everything is getting better, even the things that people thought were getting worse," says Ridley.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />He was taught to think the future was bleak. "The population explosion was unstoppable. Famine was inevitable. Pesticides were going to shorten our lives. The Ice Age was coming back. Acid rain was killing forests ... All these things were going to go wrong."</span><br /><span><br />Yet time and again, humanity survived doomsday. Not just survived, we flourish. Population increases, yet famine becomes rarer. More energy is used, yet the environment gets cleaner. Innovation and trade keep improving our lives.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But the media win by selling pessimism porn.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />"People are much more interested in hearing about something that's gone wrong," says Ridley. "It sounds wiser to talk about what might go wrong than to talk about what might go right."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Or what already went right. Over the past 40 years, murder dropped by 40 percent, rape by 80 percent, and, outside of war zones, Islamic terrorism claims fewer than 400 lives a year. The last decade saw the fewest lives claimed in war since record keeping began.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />One unnecessary death is tragic, but the big picture is good news.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Our brains just aren't very good at keeping track of the good news. Evolution programmed us to pay attention to problems. Good news often happens slowly. The media miss it.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />There is, however, one big problem that threatens our future: the political class. Politicians offer us unsustainable debt and incomprehensible regulations. So far the economy has survived that because of what the Mercatus Center's Adam Thierer calls "permission-less innovation."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />No one got approval from Washington to do Google searches, create Facebook profiles, or invent apps for Apple. If we did, they probably would never have happened. It's fortunate entrepreneurs keep making things faster than worried, control-freak government can smother them.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Google now informs us about most anything within seconds for free.</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT252_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">Today</span><span> </span><span>people in the poorest countries have access to more information than the rich used to have. Email is free. So are Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Skype.</span><br /><span><br />The new "sharing economy" improves our lives. Companies like Roomorama and Airbnb let us share homes. Uber, Sidecar and Lyft let us share cars. EatWith.com lets us share a home-cooked meal.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Government regulators reflexively move to crush or control every such development, fearing that rooms rented online will be disruptive to neighbors, rides from Lyft too dangerous and meals found through EatWith unhealthy. There's always some reason to worry -- even though these same politicians don't worry too much about the risks of excessive government and its $17 trillion in debt.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Progress now depends on innovators finding customers faster than sleepy politicians can regulate. Better to beg forgiveness later than ask permission now. By the time bureaucrats wake up, entrepreneurs have lots of happy customers who lobby for the survival of those businesses.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />You might call it "entrepreneurial civil disobedience." It's what it takes to win in</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT254_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span><span>'s hyper-regulated America. It's a good thing -- and our best hope of having more good things in the future.</span><span> </span></p>John Stossel2014-05-21T23:12:00ZMarriage: It's ComplicatedJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Marriage:-Its-Complicated/194747657081439846.html2014-05-14T20:51:00Z2014-05-14T20:51:00Z<p><span>It's wedding season! More Americans get married in June than in other months. Why June? The timing seems pretty arbitrary if you look up its history.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Some claim it's because June was named after Juno, the Roman goddess of marriage.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Others say it's because in the 1500s, people took their annual bath in May, which meant they probably smelled best around this time of year. (Be thankful for modern times.)</span><br /><span><br />A third and more plausible explanation: If a bride got pregnant in June, she wouldn't be too big during summer to help with growing and harvesting food.</span><br /><span><br />Whatever the reason for choosing June, marriage is an ancient custom, and its core function of giving kids a stable home remains very important. Most kids do better if their parents are married, so it's not a good thing that fewer American parents marry these days.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />On my show, Manhattan Institute scholar Kay Hymowitz said divorce and remarriage doesn't help kids much either. She noted, "One thing we see, particularly with boys," is that after a divorce, even if there is a new father figure in the picture, "children are more likely to have trouble in school, more likely to have behavioral problems."</span><br /><span><br />Because of such data, politicians rush in with your money to "help" people stay married. But does government help? Probably not.</span><br /><span><br />Every year, government gives the group Family Expectations $100 million to teach couples how to have "healthy relationships." Family Expectations gives parents "crib cash" if they follow certain rules and advice.</span><br /><span><br />Does this preserve marriage? No. The government's own study found that couples who attended Family Expectations workshops were no more likely to stay together.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />So did politicians stop the funding? Of course not. They're politicians -- they never stop throwing your money away. This year they gave Family Expectations another $100 million.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Republicans in Oklahoma may have stumbled onto a better idea regarding government's role in marriage. They were angry after a judge ruled their state must recognize gay marriages -- so they proposed that the state stop recognizing <em>any</em> marriages.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />They may have been throwing a tantrum, but getting government out of the mix would put an end to many stupid fights.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />If private individuals are free to make whatever marriage contracts and observe whatever marriage customs they like, that leaves everyone else free to ignore those couples if they don't approve. Arrangements that work best will tend to endure.</span><br /><span><br />And despite the data showing that children do better if their parents are married, we shouldn't assume we know what works best. Even as marriage rates have decreased and divorce increased, youth violence dropped and high school graduation rates went up.</span><br /><span><br />There was a lot of worry about teen pregnancy 20 years ago. Despite the decrease in marriage, the rate of teen pregnancy fell 43 percent from 1991 to 2008. The number of arrests for violence among teens is half of what it was when it peaked in the '90s.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Society changes, and those changes aren't all bad. It's often foolish to predict what effects those changes will have.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Here's one final, happy thought: As American media hype racial conflict in America, we should celebrate the good news that intermarriage between ethnic groups continues to increase.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />When I was 11, it was illegal in many states for an interracial couple to marry. One couple, appropriately named "Loving," was sentenced to jail for violating Virginia's Racial Integrity Act. The Lovings -- he was white and she was black -- fought the sentence until the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. Since then, marriage between people from different races has steadily increased -- it's up 28 percent since the last census. There are even dating websites that specialize in "mixed" relationships.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />This is a good thing. Let people love, in ways old and new, even if we make mistakes along the way. Be very suspicious if government says it's bringing the perfect gift to the wedding.</span><span> </span></p>John Stossel2014-05-14T20:51:00ZOffensive SpeechJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Offensive-Speech/532435207473409964.html2014-05-08T01:58:00Z2014-05-08T01:58:00Z<p>Last week, when the NBA banned racist team owner Donald Sterling, some said: "What about free speech? Can't a guy say what he thinks anymore?"</p>
<p>The answer: yes, you can. But the free market may punish you. In America today, the market punishes racists aggressively.<br /><br /> This punishment is not "censorship." Censorship is something only governments can do. Writers complain that editors censor what they write. But that's not censorship; that's editing. <br /><br /> It's fine if the NBA -- or any private group -- wants to censor speech on its own property. People who attend games or work for the NBA agreed to abide by its rules. Likewise, Fox is free to fire me if they don't like what I say. That's the market in action, reflecting preferences of owners and customers. <br /><br /> But it's important that <em>government</em> not have the power to silence us. We have lots of companies, colleges and sports leagues. If one orders us to "shut up," we can go somewhere else. <br /><br /> But there is only one government, and it can take our money and our freedom. All a business can do is refuse to do business with me, causing me to work with someone else. Government can forbid me to do business with anyone at all. <br /><br /> Of course, government never admits it's doing harm. Around the world, when government gets into the censorship business, it claims to be protecting the public. But by punishing those who criticize politicians, it's protecting itself. <br /><br /> That's why it's great the Founders gave America the First Amendment, a ban on government "abridging the freedom of speech." <br /><br /> But I wonder if today's young lawyers would approve the First Amendment if it were up for ratification now. <br /><br /> There is a new commandment at colleges today: "Thou shalt not hurt others with words." Students are told not to offend. At Wake Forest University, for instance, students cannot post any flyers or messages deemed "racist, sexist, profane or derogatory." <br /><br /> The goal is noble: create a kinder environment. But who gets to decide how much "hurt" is permissible? Recently, a fourth-grade teacher in North Carolina was ordered to attend sensitivity training after teaching students the word "niggardly." When the power to censor lies with the people most easily offended, censorship never stops. <br /><br /> A few years ago, I asked law students at Seton Hall University if there should be restrictions to the First Amendment. Many were eager to ban "hate speech." <br /><br /> "No value comes out of hate speech," said a future lawyer. "We need to regulate flag burning ... and blasphemy," said another. One student wanted to ban political speech by corporations, and another was comfortable imprisoning people who make hunting videos. <br /><br /> Only when I pulled out a copy of the Bill of Rights and slowly wrote in their "exceptions" did one student finally say, "We went too far!" <br /><br /> So does free speech mean that we must endure hateful speech in the public square? No. <br /><br /> I'll fight it by publicly denouncing it, speaking against it, boycotting the speaker. That's what the NBA's employees and customers demanded, and quickly got. <br /><br /> What convinced me that almost all speech should be legal was the book "Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought" by Jonathan Rauch. He explains how knowledge increases through arguments.<br /> <br /> Rauch is gay. In an updated afterward to his book, he points out how quickly the world has changed for people like him. Twenty years ago, "gay Americans were forbidden to work for government, to obtain security clearances, serve in the military ... arrested for making love, even in their own homes ... beaten and killed on the streets, entrapped and arrested by police for sport." <br /><br /> This changed in just two decades, he says, <em>because</em> there was open debate. Gay people "had no real political power, only the force of our arguments. But in a society where free exchange is the rule, that was enough."<br /><br /> Fight bigotry with <em>more speech</em>.</p>
<p><span> </span></p>John Stossel2014-05-08T01:58:00ZAmerican DreamingJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/American-Dreaming/580496966097393583.html2014-05-01T01:47:00Z2014-05-01T01:47:00Z<p>Did you know that I started Facebook? Really! Well, sort of ... <br /> <br />When I was in college at all-male Princeton, I tried to make money by adding photos to a snarky guide to neighboring girls' schools. The guide had been a profitable publishing success, and my idea was simply to add the girls' pictures. Schools like Wellesley, Bryn Mawr, Vassar, etc., already published those pictures, so all I had to do was get permission from administrators at those schools. Surprisingly, they gave it to me. <br /> <br />Unfortunately for me and my "Face Book," there was no Internet then. So I don't own a company worth $180 billion. The book, "Who the Girls Are," was a flop. <br /> <br />Oh, well.<br /> <br />I've started other businesses since then -- and they didn't succeed either. <br /> <br />But that ability to try to succeed is a reason America has been successful. In the USA, it's OK to fail and fail and try again. In most of Europe and much of the world, the attitude is: You had your shot, you failed, and now you should just go work for someone else.<br /> But this limits the possibilities. And some of America's biggest successes came from people who failed often.<br /> <br />We know that Thomas Edison invented the light bulb, but few people know that Edison filed 1,000 patents for ideas that went nowhere. He was fired by the telegraph office. He lost money investing in a cement company and an iron business. <br /> <br />Henry Ford's first company failed completely. Dr. Seuss's first book was rejected by 27 publishers. Oprah was fired from her first job as a reporter. A TV station called her "unfit for TV." <br /><br /> But they all kept striving -- and succeeded. They were lucky to live in America, where investors and your neighbors encourage you to try and try again. We are lucky to benefit from their persistence.<br /><br /> But those happy experiments are less likely to happen today. Now there are many more rules, and regulators add hundreds of pages of new ones every week. <br /><br /> Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban left school with no money and no job prospects. He managed to become a billionaire by creating several businesses from scratch. I asked him if he could do it again today, and he said, "No ... now there's so much paperwork and regulation, so many things that you have to sign up for that you have a better chance of getting in trouble than you do of being successful."<br /><br /> That's tragic.<br /><br /> It's not just big corporations that get hassled by regulators, the way progressives might like to imagine. <br /><br /> Kids' lemonade stands -- and one I tried to open in New York City -- are sometimes shut down for not having proper business licenses. When Chloe Stirling was 11 years old, health officials shut down her home cupcake-making business. <br /><br /> The more government "protects" us, the more it puts obstacles in the way of trying new things. It does that every time it taxes, regulates and standardizes the way things are done. Simultaneously, government offers "compassion" -- welfare and unemployment benefits.<br /><br /> Faced with the choice of collecting unemployment or putting your own money at risk and hiring an army of lawyers to deal with business regulations, I understand why people don't bother trying. When that attitude is pervasive, the American dream dies. <br /><br /> On my TV show this week, economist David Goldman says, "The U.S. government has done everything possible to make it hard for people to take a new idea from inception to startup to expansion." He says that when he told a former CEO that he was going to be on my show, the ex-CEO said: "Just tell them to shut Washington down. That's all they need to do!"<br /><br /> Washington won't shut down. But couldn't regulators just chill out for a while?<br /><br /> Big government doesn't send us the message that we can make it on our own and that great things may happen if we dare to try. Government mostly hinders us, and then brags that it is waiting to take charge when we fail.</p>John Stossel2014-05-01T01:47:00ZTaxing Life AwayJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Taxing-Life-Away/-543684648531620523.html2014-04-09T23:43:00Z2014-04-09T23:43:00Z<p><span>It's tax time. I'm too scared to do my taxes. I'm sure I'll get something wrong and my enemies in government will persecute -- no, I mean prosecute -- me. So I hired Bob.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Bob's my accountant. I like Bob, but I don't like that I have to have an accountant. I don't want to spend time keeping records and talking to Bob about boring things I don't understand, and I really don't want to pay Bob. But I have to.</span><br /><span><br />What a waste. Once, I calculated what I could do with the money I give Bob. I could have a fancy dinner out 200 times. I could buy a motorcycle. I could take a cruise ship all the way from New York to Venice, Italy, and back.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Better yet, I could do some good for the world. For the same money I waste on Bob, I could pay four kids' tuition at a Catholic high school.</span><br /><span><br />The tax code is now complex enough that <em>most</em> Americans now hire Bob, or his equivalent. Instead of inventing things, doing charity work or just having fun, we waste weeks (and billions of dollars) on tax preparation.</span><br /><span><br />And we change our lives to suit the wishes of politicians.</span><br /><span><br />"What the tax code is doing is trying to choose our values for us," complains Yaron Brook from the Ayn Rand Institute. I think I choose my own values, but it's true that politicians use taxes to manipulate us. Million-dollar mortgage deductions steer us to buy bigger houses, and solar tax credits persuaded me to put solar panels on my roof. Brook objects to every manipulation in the code: "It's telling us charity is good!"</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />On my TV show, I respond: But charity <em>is</em> good! Brook retorts, "If you want to give to charity, great, (but) I might invest in a business that's more important."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />That's possible, but since a charity will probably spend the money better than government will, isn't it good that the code encourages people to give? Steve Forbes argues that if taxes were flat and simple, Americans would give <em>more</em>. "Americans don't need to be bribed to give ... In the 1980s, when the top rate got cut from 70 down to 28 percent ... charitable giving went <em>up</em>. When people have more, they give more."</span><br /><span><br />While freedom lovers complain about the byzantine complexity of the tax code, the politically connected tout their special breaks. The National Association of Realtors runs TV ads showing Uncle Sam offering first-time homebuyers an $8,000 tax break, while sleazily winking at the viewer.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The tax code oddity that may have the most destructive influence on America might be the fact that if you buy private health insurance, you pay more tax than if your employer buys you a plan.</span><br /><span><br />It's why we ended up with a sluggish health care market unresponsive to individual desires -- leading to the insistence that we need a government-managed alternative like Obamacare.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The code is incomprehensible. You can get a deduction for feeding feral cats but not for having a watchdog, for clarinet lessons if your orthodontist thinks it'll cure your overbite but not for piano lessons a psychotherapist prescribes for relaxation. It seems so arbitrary.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />In the marketplace, individuals shop around for the most efficient, low-cost way of getting services they really want. Every time tax rules nudge us in a chosen direction, they preempt the market's signals.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Government gets moralistic about it, too, placing "sin taxes" on items like cigarettes and fat, plus luxury items like yachts that some find decadent. It's gone on for centuries. American colonists seem libertarian by</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT620_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span><span>'s standards, but they put extra taxes on snuff and "conspicuous displays of clothing."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />That's one thing the Founders did that we <em>shouldn't</em> copy -- but their otherwise rebellious attitude toward taxation is one that we should emulate. America suffers when government turns taxes into a manipulative maze.</span><span> </span></p>John Stossel2014-04-09T23:43:00ZGambling and GovernmentJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Gambling-and-Government/349868491232538623.html2014-04-02T23:41:00Z2014-04-02T23:41:00Z<p><span> </span><span>Did you fill out a March Madness bracket this year? In many states, if you put money in a pool, that's illegal!</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The NCAA website warns, "Fans should enjoy ... filling out a bracket just for the fun of it, not ... the amount of money they could possibly win."</span><br /><span><br />Give me a break. Americans bet more money on March Madness this year than on the Super Bowl.</span><br /><span><br />Politicians can't quite make up their minds about gambling: They approve certain casinos and promote state lotteries but crack down on sports bets and some charity poker games. It seems that government dislikes gambling, unless government gets to be the house.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Increasingly, government is. After locking up bookies for "dangerous and criminal" activities, like running "numbers rackets," most states now offer much worse odds in state lotteries. Then they take money from taxpayers to advertise their scams.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Some states even run commercials that mock hard work, pushing the benefits of a long-shot jackpot. Poor people become poorer, because they buy most of the lottery tickets. Then politicians brag how money from the lottery helps the poor. It's disgusting hypocrisy.</span><br /><span><br />Politicians award casino permits to politically connected businessmen who make most of their money from slot machines that offer miserable odds. But when "unapproved" websites offered Internet poker, at far better odds, the federal government charged the operators with "money laundering" and shut the sites down.</span><br /><span><br />Recently, three states noticed that people like Internet gambling so much that millions of dollars leave America and go to overseas websites. So New Jersey, Delaware and Nevada begged federal officials for permission to legalize some Internet betting and got it. Now other states may do it, too.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />A group called the Coalition to Stop Internet Gambling wants to prevent legalization. It warns: "gambling will be available in every home, every bedroom, every dorm room, on every phone, tablet and computer!"</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />It's revealing that its ads are funded by casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. He doesn't mind you gambling, obviously. He just wants you to go to casinos, like those he happens to own.</span><br /><span><br />Government, just as hypocritical, invites people to buy lottery tickets while simultaneously stamping out rival forms of gambling and warning us of the damage gambling can do.</span><br /><span><br />And, yes, gambling hurts some people. Some wreck their lives and gamble away their life savings. How many gamblers? That's not clear. Maybe 2 percent, say critics of gambling.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But Patrick Basham of the Cato Institute argues that gambling is often a symptom rather than a cause.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />"It's very hard to disentangle all the things that are going wrong in that person's life," perhaps depression and other psychological problems. "The people who get into these problems tend to have difficulties."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I love gambling. But on my TV show, I gave Basham a hard time for arguing that gambling is "healthy." Fun, maybe, but I told him I don't think it's healthy.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />"You're wrong," he answered. "It's good for our emotional health ... physical health ... It provides social interaction, which has all kinds of physiological benefits. Older people who gamble have less alcoholism, less depression than older people who do not gamble."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I can't vouch for the statistics. You can read his book, "Gambling: A Healthy Bet," and judge for yourself. What I do know, and hate, is that with gambling, as with so many other activities, government tells us it knows best, and then makes matters worse by banning things. The bans drive betting into the hands of criminals. Politicians turn small problems into big ones.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I wish politicians would notice that their clumsy one-size-fits-all laws can never take into account how 300 million different Americans react to a complex experience like gambling.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The way people gamble will vary, just as the way they drink or play sports varies. Most people are careful; some are reckless. But we don't respond by forbidding drinking or sports.</span><br /><span><br />Individuals' brains, habits and tolerance for risk vary. It makes little sense for government to barge in and tell <em>people</em> how much money they can risk, or where they can do it.</span><span> </span></p>John Stossel2014-04-02T23:41:00ZBullies RuleJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Bullies-Rule/-699551185691856823.html2014-03-26T23:39:00Z2014-03-26T23:39:00Z<p><span>We're told government protects us, but protectors quickly become bullies.</span><br /><span><br />Take the Food and Drug Administration. It seems like the most helpful part of government: It supervises testing to make sure greedy drug companies don't sell us dangerous stuff.</span><br /><span><br />The FDA's first big success was stopping thalidomide, a drug that prevented the nausea of morning sickness. It was approved first in Europe, where some mothers who took it proceeded to give birth to children with no arms and legs.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The FDA didn't discover the problems with thalidomide. It was just slow. The drug application was stuck in the FDA's bureaucracy. But being slow prevented birth defects in America.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />It taught politicians and bureaucracy that slower is better.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Then the FDA grew, like a tumor.</span><br /><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT566_com_zimbra_date" class="Object"><br />Today</span><span>, it takes up to 15 years to get a new drug approved. Though most devices and drugs never are.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />What do Americans lose when regulators say "no"?</span><br /><span><br />Usually, we never find out. We don't know what vaccines or painkillers are never developed because regulation discouraged companies from trying something new.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But here's one example where we <em>do</em> know what we lost:</span><br /><span><br />Uterine prolapse is a common and nasty complication of childbearing. It causes urinary incontinence and terminates most couples' sex lives. Complicated surgery and clumsy devices didn't offer much help until device companies developed implants that often did.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />However, since biology is unpredictable, some implants fail. In 2011, the FDA abruptly demanded "more studies."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The bullies' mandate unleashed a hornets' nest of tort lawyers. They advertised, "Did your device fail? Call, and we will get you money!" They soon piled up so many suits that device manufacturers' insurers canceled liability coverage. Device companies then withdrew devices from the market.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />So now women suffering from uterine prolapse have <em>fewer</em> options. This is a price of bureaucratic "caution."</span><span> </span><br /><span> <br /></span><span>Reasonable people can debate whether the FDA assures product efficacy and safety. But the regulatory boot always presses toward delay.</span><span> </span><br /><span> <br /></span><span>Innovators don't dare make a move without saying, "Regulator, may I please?"</span><br /><span> <br /></span><span>In rare cases, when new devices are approved, there is a new obstacle: complex marketing restrictions. Say something about your product that the government doesn't like, and you may be fined. The Office of the Inspector General and federal and state prosecutors troll for rule violations, then sue and fine.</span><span> </span><br /><span> <br /></span><span>This harms patients. Most never know they were harmed, because we never know what we <em>might</em> have had.</span><span> </span><br /><span> <br /></span><span>There are only two ways to do things in life: voluntarily or by force. Government is force. Government bureaucrats, who spend their whole lives pushing the rest of us around, easily become bullies.</span><span> </span><br /><span> <br /></span><span>We need some government force. The worst places in the world are countries that don't have rule of law. Then people are afraid to build factories because mobs may steal what they make, or a dictator may take the whole factory. No one builds, so everyone stays poor.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />It's good America has rule of law. It's good we have a military to defend us from foreign attacks, police that keep the peace, courts that ensure contracts are honored, environmental rules that punish polluters.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But now our government goes way beyond that. It employs 22 million people. Not all have the power to impose force on the rest of us, but millions do. Some use it to bully us in big and petty ways.</span><br /><span><br />Twenty-two million government workers delay the Keystone XL oil pipeline, raid poker games, force us to put ethanol in cars, prohibit drugs and medical devices that might make our lives better, take about half our money, and jail more citizens than even China and Russia do.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Like frightened kids in elementary school, we learn to accept this, to think it's natural. But it's not right that government forbids people in pain to make their own choices about what might help them.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Voluntary is better than force. Free is better than coerced. We're better off when government is small and people are left to do as they please, unbullied.</span><span> </span></p>John Stossel2014-03-26T23:39:00ZSpring Clean GovernmentJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Spring-Clean-Government/827394574837223241.html2014-03-19T17:32:00Z2014-03-19T17:32:00Z<p><span>Spring cleaning is a healthy tradition. If only politicians did it!</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />They don't.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />When Barack Obama ran for president, he promised to clean house, "I'm not a Democrat who believes that we can or should defend every government program just because it's there. There are some that don't work."</span><br /><span><br />I cheered when I heard that! But politicians <em>always</em> say they'll get rid of waste. Then, once in power, they spend <em>more</em>. Obama sure has.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />"We just need to cut back!" said Obama, the candidate. He promised to end "waste at the Economic Development Agency and the Export-Import Bank that's become little more than a fund for corporate welfare." Good for him. Yet both programs thrive: The Ex-Im Bank just gave another $8 billion to Boeing, and the EDA spent $2 million to build a wine-tasting room and "culinary amphitheater."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Taxpayers were also forced to give $150,000 to promote a puppet festival on Long Island, $98,000 to build an outhouse in Alaska, and a million dollars to "study the influence of romance through novels and film."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Both the left and right denounce the other party's spending, but expensive waste is supported by both. Neither party makes much effort to cut farm subsidies or NASA -- or to end subsidies for big corporations, the people who need it least. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., is the rare conservative critic of waste who doesn't spare the military. On my show this week, he points out that the Pentagon destroyed $7 billion worth of weapons in Afghanistan and Iraq instead of shipping them home. <br /><br />"That just shows you the inefficiency," says Coburn.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Mattie Duppler, of Americans for Tax Reform, likens recipients of government handouts to ticks that suck the populace's blood.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Welfare for businesses is even more harmful than welfare for poor people, because it kills the free enterprise that creates real prosperity. "When you've got government putting its thumb on the scale," says Duppler, "saying this business deserves more attention, more money, more government support than another one, that's ... the centrally planned economy."</span><br /><span><br />Centrally planned economies bring stagnation and poverty.</span><br /><span><br />Many people concerned about big government focus on high taxes. High taxes are bad, but I worry more about the spending. Spending is a tax. Since government has no money of its own, the spending money must come from you.</span><br /><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT72_com_zimbra_date" class="Object"><br />Today</span><span> </span><span>I worry even more about the sheer <em>quantity</em> of rules. There are now 170,000 pages of federal laws and many more local rules. If you can't get a job, there's a good chance that this spider web of regulations is the reason why.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />After recessions, employment used to bounce back quickly, but not this time. What employer wants to hire when doing so requires fighting incomprehensible complexity and risking punishment for violating some obscure rule? I'd be <em>afraid</em> to build a serious business.</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT74_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">Today</span><span>'s laws are so complex even the lawyers don't understand them.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />And the clutter gets worse. Every day, regulators craft more rules. It's always <em>more</em>. If you're a regulator, and you don't add rules, you think you're not doing your job.</span><br /><span><br />So now that spring is about to arrive, let's give government that overdue cleaning. Eliminate half the 170,000 pages of federal laws, scrap useless Cabinet departments, and cut the $4 trillion in spending in half. We could move about so much more freely if our lives weren't buried in government's junk.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Laws stop me from opening my own lemonade stand, dictate where kids must attend school, and forbid voluntary interactions between consenting adults. Clean this stuff away!</span><br /><span><br />When government is big, we become smaller. When we're trapped in the web of their rules, we don't innovate; we become passive.</span><br /><span><br />To clean house, pass the Stossel Rule. It's simple: For every new regulation bureaucrats pass, they must repeal five old ones.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />It would be a start.</span></p>John Stossel2014-03-19T17:32:00ZWar on WomenJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/War-on-Women/134308238662307380.html2014-03-11T22:33:00Z2014-03-11T22:33:00Z<p><span>You've probably heard that Democratic Party leaders decided that a way to win votes this November is to shout loudly that Republicans wage "war on women." Politico calls this a "proven, persuasive argument."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Give me a break. The idea of a conservative "war on women" is as silly as propaganda I was taught in college: Aside from sex organs, genders are exactly equal, said my leftist professors, and any admission of differences between men and women is oppressive.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I was taught that the only reason boys and girls behave differently is because we're raised differently. If society and parents were to treat genders the same, behavior differences would vanish. I believed it.</span><br /><span><br />Then I had kids, and spent more time with kids, and learned what a fool I'd been.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Back in my ABC News days, I did a TV show about the differences. A typical mom said, "We gave them each trucks. She just wouldn't play with trucks. We wouldn't let him play with guns, so he pretended carrots were guns."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />There were exceptions, of course. But it turns out that there's plenty of science documenting that men and women are just programmed differently.</span><br /><span><br />Yet when I reported on that, feminist icon Gloria Steinem told me that gender differences <em>shouldn't even be studied</em>. She sneered, it's "anti-American, crazy thinking to <em>do</em> this kind of research."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />At the time, fire departments had dropped strength tests to avoid being accused of sex discrimination. When I told Steinem that one of my interviewees complained that instead of being carried during a fire, now she would be dragged downstairs, with her head hitting each stair, Steinem retorted, "It's <em>better</em> to drag them out ... there's less smoke down there."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Such mindless egalitarianism appeals to politicians, so governments push more of it. President Barack Obama and his supporters brag that Obamacare forces health insurance companies to sell men and women health insurance for the exact same price. On my TV show this week, Democratic activist Jehmu Greene asks indignantly, "Do you want to live in a country where you charge women more than men?"</span><br /><span><br /></span><span>Well, yes, I do. Insurance should account for costs. Women go to doctors much more often. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say, even if you exclude pregnancy visits, women are 33 percent more likely to visit a doctor. Insurance companies used to reflect that in prices. That isn't bigotry -- it's just math.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Insurance companies still charge <em>men</em> more for car and life insurance. A survey of car insurance companies found that the cheapest policy for a woman cost 39 percent less than for a man. A 60-year-old woman pays 20 percent less than a man for a 10-year life insurance policy. Seventy-year-old women pay <em>half</em> as much as men.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />That's just math, too, because most women live longer than men and, despite the "woman-driver" stereotype, we men get into more car accidents.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I don't hear activists complaining about <em>men</em> paying too much. The "victim" propaganda works only when <em>women</em> pay more.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The sexes are simply different. Yet government demands that colleges have gender-equal sports participation. It's fine if dance and art groups are mostly women, but if athletic teams are too male, lawsuits follow.<br /><br /></span><span>Obama even cynically repeats the misleading claim that women make 77 cents for every dollar men make, although his own Department of Labor says the difference evaporates once you control for experience and other choices.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Government once even claimed that Hooters discriminates against men because it hires big-breasted female waiters. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission only dropped its complaint after Hooters ran a commercial showing a hairy male server wearing Hooters' skimpy uniform. Good for Hooters for mocking the bureaucrats; most companies just cringe and pay.</span><br /><span><br />Liberal social engineers may dream of a society where genders are exactly equal, but that's nonsense. Men and women are different. We should celebrate that difference instead of claiming that women are victims.</span><span> </span></p>John Stossel2014-03-11T22:33:00ZBudget BaloneyJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Budget-Baloney/251635557100485737.html2014-03-06T01:22:00Z2014-03-06T01:22:00Z<p><span>This week, President Barack Obama proposed "a budget that will create new jobs in manufacturing and energy and innovation and infrastructure, and we'll pay for every dime of it by cutting unnecessary spending, closing wasteful tax loopholes!"</span><br /><span><br />What? I must have fallen asleep and woken up in 2008. That could not be something he'd claim after five years in office -- years after making similar claims and not delivering on them.</span><br /><span><br />Does he think we have no memory, or that we're just ignorant? Are these just poll-tested phrases that work because most voters are too busy to pay attention?</span><br /><span><br />This one smug sentence alone is amazing in its confidence and deceit. Let's break it down:</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />--"I will ... create new jobs ... "</span><br /><span><br />Politicians always say that, but this president says it especially often. Do voters not know that government has no money of its own, so when politicians "create" jobs, they take money from the private sector, the only group that creates (SET ITAL) real (END ITAL) jobs?</span><br /><span><br />I emphasize "real" because, of course, politicians can create jobs by funding companies like Solyndra, hiring more staff or paying people to dig holes and fill them up. But those jobs don't last or create real wealth. Politicians can't create real employment by taxing people and giving the money to others.</span><br /><span><br />This post-recession economic recovery is the slowest ever. Usually, after a recession, the cost of labor drops, and companies rush to hire so they can profit as the economy improves.</span><br /><span><br />This time, employers looked at a thousand new regulations, unknowable new rules and taxes coming from Obamacare, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, the Labor Department and so on. They decided: "I better not try."</span><br /><span><br />May I hire interns to see if I like them before offering them long-term jobs? No. It may not be legal to employ interns anymore.</span><br /><span><br /></span><span>May I build a pipeline? Maybe. But the Environmental Protection Agency must approve. And state utilities. And state environmental officials. And the State Department. And the White House. And ... who knows whom else?</span><br /><span><br />We might get permission in a year, or three years, or five, or we may never be allowed to build. Maybe instead I'll invest in a country where the rules are predictable and understandable.</span><br /><span><br />--The president says he will "create new jobs in manufacturing ... "</span><br /><span><br />Manufacturing? Don't voters know that service jobs are just as real and good? Creating software, movies and medical innovation is just as valuable as manufacturing and often more comfortable for workers. Most parents want their kids to get jobs in offices or medical centers rather than mines or factories.</span><br /><span><br />--The president also says he will "create new jobs in ... energy ... "</span><br /><span><br />Don't people remember Solar One, Solyndra, Evergreen Solar, etc., and the billions lost? That the private sector is better at developing new forms of energy than politicians? That the boom in cleaner, cheaper natural gas came in spite of politicians, not because of them?</span><br /><span><br />--The president says he will "create jobs in ... infrastructure ... "</span><br /><span><br />Did voters already forget that the last "shovel-ready" jobs didn't materialize? That billions went to politicians' cronies?</span><br /><span><br />--The president will pay for his new spending "by cutting unnecessary spending ... "</span><br /><span><br />Give me a break. The president has had five years, two of which he was supported by a Democratic Congress, to cut "unnecessary spending."</span><br /><span><br />Even</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT1473_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span><span>'s proposed shrinking of the size of the military to pre-World War II levels (which probably won't happen) isn't a cut. Obama's new budget proposes (SET ITAL) increasing (END ITAL) Pentagon funds by $28 billion.</span><br /><span><br />--The president even backed off from his earlier commitment to use more realistic cost-of-living adjustments when calculating Social Security payments.</span><br /><span><br />--Most annoying, the president brags that he has "reduced the deficit at the fastest rate in 60 years."</span><br /><span><br />But that's only if compared to his and former President George W. Bush's blowout stimulus of 2008. Much of the deficit reduction came from spending cuts (sequestration), which the president himself opposed, forced by Republicans. And his 2015 budget proposes $56 billion more spending than he and Congress had agreed to earlier.</span><br /><span><br />Our debt will soon explode because baby boomers are about to retire. On this track, we are doomed.</span></p>John Stossel2014-03-06T01:22:00ZStudents for LibertyJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Students-for-Liberty/19699649378805910.html2014-02-19T19:17:00Z2014-02-19T19:17:00Z<p><span>On</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT87_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">Saturday</span><span>, some 1,500 students from all over the world gathered to discuss freedom at the Students for Liberty Conference in Washington, D.C.</span><br /><span><br />Economist Donald Boudreaux showed the students a department store catalog from 1958 to underscore how the free market, while contributing to income inequality, also dramatically improved the lives of the poor: "The typical American worker back then had to work 30 hours to buy this vacuum cleaner.</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT89_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">Today</span><span>, a worker has to work only six hours to buy a much better vacuum cleaner. And that's true for clothing, food, all sorts of things."</span><br /><span><br />That's how free markets work: quietly, gradually improving things. That doesn't always appeal to impatient young people -- or to radical old people who fancy themselves social engineers who should shape the world.</span><br /><span><br />Such social engineering is revered on campuses. A student from Quebec complained that economists about whom his fellow students learn are "Keynesians, who believe that breaking windows is good for the economy, or neoclassicals, who believe in unrealistic assumptions like perfect competition and perfect information."</span><br /><span><br />If there were a part of America for which the American students at this conference felt a special pride, it was the Constitution. "The Constitution of the United States is a promise about how government power will be used," Timothy Sandefur, author of "The Conscience of the Constitution," told them. "A promise was left to us by a generation who lived under tyrannical government and decided they needed a framework that would preserve the blessings of liberty."</span><br /><span><br />These students appreciated that inheritance, although they said the Constitution is rarely discussed at their schools. They surprised me by knowing the correct answer to my question: How often is the word "democracy" used in the Constitution?</span><br /><span><br />Answer: never. The founders understood that democracy may bring mob rule -- tyranny of a majority. So the Constitution focuses on restricting government -- to secure <em>individual liberty</em>.</span><br /><span><br />If anything, these students were stauncher in their defense of liberty than the Founders.</span><br /><span><br />Kelly Kidwell, a sophomore from Tulane University, said, "Regardless of what its intent was, we still have the (big) government that we have now -- so the Constitution has either provided for that government, or failed to prevent it."</span><br /><span><br />That's an argument that libertarian economist Murray Rothbard used to make. He took the pessimistic view that the Constitution's "limited government" was an experiment that had already failed, since 200 years later, government was barely limited at all. He concluded that libertarians should be not just constitutionalists but anarchists -- get rid of government completely.</span><br /><span><br />That idea sounds extreme to me, and to some libertarians at the conference -- not to mention the few pro-big-government speakers, like movie director Oliver Stone. But I'm happy that students ask those sorts of questions rather than wondering which regulations to pass, what to tax and whom to censor for "insensitive" speech.</span><br /><span><br />Even in an audience filled with libertarians, there were unsettled issues and divisive questions. Some students and speakers sounded a lot like the campus leftists who complain about "privilege." Others sounded conservative and sought guidance from their religion.</span><br /><span><br />I think this diversity is a good sign for the future of libertarian ideas. There are many ways for free people to live and to accomplish their goals -- and as these students learned, the most important thing is not to assume that government has the answer to the questions.</span><br /><span><br />Students for Liberty's website says: " ... this is the most libertarian generation. The millennial generation is more social, organized and receptive to liberty, but also the most punished by the economic misconduct of older generations."</span><br /><span><br />Old politicians and old voters may never change their minds. But libertarianism grows fastest among the young, and so groups like Students for Liberty give me hope. Those young people sure know more about liberty that I did when I was their age.</span></p>John Stossel2014-02-19T19:17:00ZThe Privileged PeopleJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Privileged-People/131179580548063839.html2014-02-12T23:22:00Z2014-02-12T23:22:00Z<p><span>Politicians say, "We're all equal," and pretend that they represent everyone. But, in fact, they constantly pick winners and losers. America is now like the place described in George Orwell's book "Animal Farm": "All animals are equal," but some are "more equal than others." "Animal Farm" was about Communism, but</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT78_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span><span> </span><span>the allegory applies to our bloated democracy, too.</span><br /><span><br />During the "fiscal cliff" negotiations that Congress and the media made sound so tough -- as if every last penny were pinched -- Congress still managed to slip in plenty of special deals for cronies.<br /></span><br /><span> </span><span>--NASCAR got $70 million for new racetracks.</span><br /><span> </span><span>--Algae growers got $60 million.</span><br /><span> </span><span>--Hollywood film producers got a $430 million tax break.<br /></span><br /><span>When America's going broke, how do moviemakers get a special break? By lobbying for it. Movies are a sexy business, so 42 states offer film producers "incentives" to film there. (State legislatures are as shortsighted as Congress).</span><br /><span><br />Michigan offered the juiciest handouts until the state ran out of taxpayers' money. Now Ohio, Louisiana and Georgia (that's why the latest "Hunger Games" movie was shot in Georgia) offer the biggest handouts. The mayor of Los Angeles recently declared a "state of emergency" -- not over an earthquake or storm, but because so much moviemaking has left California for states with bigger subsidies.</span><br /><span><br />The U.S., which used to pride itself on being more free-market than Europe, is now hardly different from France, which crippled its economy by subsidizing all sorts of old industries, and even gives money to producers of <em>American</em> films that <em>mention</em> France.<br /><br /></span><span>Politicians everywhere are always eager to help out people who helped get them elected. In the U.S., labor unions were big supporters of President Barack Obama, and -- presto -- unions got 451 waivers from Obamacare.</span><br /><span><br />Congressional staff got a special exception, too. Funny how many of these laws are supposed to be great for all of us but, once passed, look ugly to the privileged class. So they exempt themselves.</span><br /><span><br />Even the crusade to save the earth is captured by the "special" people. Subsidies for "green energy" were supposed to go to the best ideas. Yet somehow your money went to companies like Solyndra, whose biggest shareholder just happened to be an Obama backer who bundled money for the president.</span><br /><span><br />And somehow Al Gore, who had a modest income when he entered politics, reaped $200 million from brilliant investments after he left office. He must just be really smart.</span><br /><span><br />On my TV show this week, progressive commentator Ellis Henican says this cronyism is "inevitable" and doesn't really bother him: "If we want roads and bridges and prisons and a military and a safety net, someone somewhere is going to benefit from that. But you can't use that as an excuse to not do important things for our society."</span><br /><span><br />I say it's one more reason to keep government small.</span><br /><span><br />Politicians doling out favors quietly shift where society's resources flow, who gets employed, what ideas are pursued.</span><br /><span><br />It distorts the economy and the culture -- and it turns us into a nation of favor-seekers instead of creators and producers.</span><br /><span><br />What about all the new businesses that would have gotten investment money but didn't have Gore on their boards? What new ideas might have thrived if old industries weren't coddled? We don't know. We will never know the greatness of what might have existed had the state not sucked the oxygen out of the incubator.</span><br /><span><br />Because of government's favor-granting, Washington, D.C., is now the place where the well-connected go to get rich. For the first time in history, six of the richest counties in the U.S. surround D.C. When a small group of people gets to dispense $3.6 trillion and set rules that can help or kill your idea, you want to suck up to them.</span><br /><span><br />As long as government has the power to grant favors, cronies and their lobbyists will seek those favors out.</span><br /><span><br />The privileged win. The people lose.</span></p>John Stossel2014-02-12T23:22:00ZReputation Versus RegulationJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Reputation-Versus-Regulation/198886668322249537.html2014-02-05T21:59:00Z2014-02-05T21:59:00Z<p><span>Do you like to cook? Throw dinner parties? Many people enjoy that, but paying for the food, plus accessories, is expensive. Would you host more often if you could get your guests to cover the costs?</span><br /><span><br />Or suppose you'd like to <em>go</em> to a dinner party to meet new people in your neighborhood. Or maybe when you travel, instead of eating at restaurants, you'd like to see how the locals live.</span></p>
<p><span>Good news!</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT121_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">Today</span><span> </span><span>both cooks and diners can get what they want. A new Internet business brings them together.</span><br /><span><br />Bad news: Bureaucrats and the media worry that the dinner parties are not regulated.</span><br /><span><br />Here's how the business works. On the website EatWith.com, people who want to throw parties post pictures of their homes and the kinds of things they like to cook. "I really reminisce back to the days when friends would get together for a dinner party and then, maybe meet new friends," said a hostess who let us watch one of her events. "Magical things happen around the table when you sit people with food and alcohol ... "</span><br /><span><br />Eight people were eager to try her hospitality. Each chipped in $39 (other hosts charge as little as $23 for a simple pizza gathering or as much as $150 for an elegant dinner with wine). All her guests said they had a wonderful time. Some exchanged phone numbers with new friends.</span><br /><span><br />EatWith.com founder Guy Michlin got the idea for this business after an experience he had on a trip to Greece.</span><br /><span><br />"After many tourist traps, I happened to be invited to a local family. It was such a profound and amazing experience. And when I'm back home, I said, OK, let's share this moment with millions around the world. And just build this platform called EatWith." Now, Michlin takes a 15 percent cut of the cost of every dinner party.</span><br /><span><br />What makes such businesses work is the power of <em>reputation</em>. Guests use the EatWith platform to rate homes and cooks. Hosts can decline guests if they don't feel comfortable with their profiles.</span><br /><span><br />Government, always slow on the uptake, barely knows services like this exist. But when it finds out, odds are it will panic and regulate them. Fools in my profession will encourage that. WCBS-TV in New York, the TV station that gave me my first consumer-reporting job, aired a breathless report on "underground" dinner parties with ominous narration about "strangers" and a meal that was "completely unregulated!"</span><br /><span><br />Oh, my goodness. Completely unregulated. Strangers in a home. The TV "investigators" brought in a hidden camera! Like this was a crime?</span><br /><span><br />"Restaurants are regulated," say the nannies. "Caterers, too."</span><br /><span><br />True. But most of the regulation is useless. It's the need to maintain one's reputation that does most to keep us safe -- especially</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT123_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span><span>, with instant feedback from the Internet. No clumsy government regulation is needed. Government (so far) doesn't micromanage private dinner parties. Charging a fee shouldn't make a difference.</span><br /><span><br />EatWith guests don't just count on reviews for their safety. The website vets each host in hopes of excluding any who might embarrass the company. Businesses like EatWith protect their investments by buying insurance in case someone sues.</span><br /><span><br />In fact, the precautions encouraged or dictated by insurance companies are usually more rational than the ones cobbled together by the political bureaucracy because private insurance companies really have to avoid losing money. They set rational rules that encourage clean kitchens and proper food handling.</span><br /><span><br />The main reason businesses must do things well is to maintain their reputations. The hope of repeat business -- for EatWith and for hosts using it -- means it's important to be hospitable and crucial not to poison your guests. Word gets out if you poison the guests.</span><br /><span><br />EatWith continues to grow. Prospective hosts from more than a hundred companies have applied for listings. It's a new and terrific part of what's called the "sharing economy."</span><br /><span><br />Government pretends it must have a place at the table, but free people ought to be able to eat without government permission.</span></p>John Stossel2014-02-05T21:59:00ZRe-state of the UnionJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Re-state-of-the-Union/-753435808929440123.html2014-01-29T21:48:00Z2014-01-29T21:48:00Z<span>President Barack Obama's State of the Union address</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT227_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">Tuesday</span><span> </span><span>wasn't what I wanted to hear. This is what the president <em>should</em> have said:</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />"I cannot imagine what I was thinking when I pushed Obamacare. I now see it is folly to entrust government, which cannot balance its books and routinely loses track of billions of dollars, with even greater power over health care.</span><br /><span><br />"If something as simple as a website is too much for government to get right, imagine what government will do to complicated medical pricing and insurance plans.</span><br /><span><br />"Foolishly, my plan destroyed many sensible insurance plans -- some offering catastrophic-only coverage for a lower price -- exactly the insurance so many people need.</span><br /><span><br />"I see my fellow Democrat, Rep. Jim Moran of Virginia, seated nearby. I take to heart his comments, which he can safely make now that he's retiring from Congress, about how Obamacare is economically doomed, with few young people signing up but sick old people taking money out. The math doesn't add up.</span><br /><span><br />"Now that I think about it, it would be better to end government involvement in health care altogether and let people shop around for the best free-market plans, including catastrophe-only plans, depending on individual needs. Let's try that. In fact, let's see if I can revise other items in my agenda so they work better for consumers ...</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />"Minimum wage laws, for example. Although a higher minimum is popular with people from both parties, minimums make no sense. The law cannot make an employee who a company values at $5 an hour become worth $10. Minimum wage laws just increase unemployment by eliminating some jobs. They don't do the poor any favors. Let's repeal them.</span><br /><span><br />"And let's get the feds out of the preschool business! Government does a bad job with K-12 education. Why would we think our central planning should (SET ITAL) expand (END ITAL)? My education department funded studies of Head Start, and we were all astounded to learn that they have no effect. It's insane to do more of something that our own research shows does not work. Education should be left to local governments and parents.</span><br /><span><br />"Immigration: It's odd that I'm seen as a friend to immigrants, given that I've deported more of them than the previous president did. But if we don't want people breaking immigration laws, the best thing to do is simplify the law. Conservatives worry that people will come here to mooch off the welfare state or commit crimes. So how about letting people in with quick and simple procedures focused on checking for crime and terrorism, but saying no immigrant is eligible for welfare? That compromise makes sense.</span><br /><span><br />"National Security Agency surveillance: After all the outrage over the Patriot Act, you must have been surprised, America, to discover that the NSA does even more snooping under my presidency. I will not abandon the basic governmental duty to keep citizens safe, but we should limit snooping to people whom we have probable cause to suspect might be terrorists.</span><br /><span><br />"Climate: I think the greenhouse effect is real, but the evidence that humanity's contribution to it will cause dire problems is debatable. Better to reduce Environmental Protection Agency micromanagement and let America get as rich as possible. This will help us cope with environmental side effects and afford the research necessary to find better sources of energy. Global warming is a <em>theoretical</em> problem. We have <em>real</em> problems, like reducing our debt and getting clean water to the world's poor.</span><br /><span><br />"Drugs: I used marijuana and cocaine, and I understand that some people are harmed by drugs. But adults should have the right to decide what to put in their own bodies. If people struggle with addiction -- as I've struggled to give up cigarettes -- putting them in prison isn't a smart way to help. Let's legalize all drugs. End the futile and violent drug war."</span><br /><span><br />After all, you own your own body and mind. If more of our policies respected that fact, our union truly would be strong.</span>John Stossel2014-01-29T21:48:00ZChill OutJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Chill-Out/175855773871378588.html2014-01-22T17:07:00Z2014-01-22T17:07:00Z<span>The Hill, the newspaper that covers Congress, says this year, there will be a major policy battle over "climate change." Why?</span><br /><span><br />We already waste billions on pointless gestures that make people think we're addressing global warming, but the earth doesn't notice or care.</span><br /><span><br />What exactly is "global warming" anyway? That's really four questions:</span><br /><span><br />1. Is the globe warming? Probably. Global temperatures have risen. Climate changes. Always has. Always will.</span><br /><span><br />2. Is the warming caused by man? Maybe. There's decent evidence that at least some of it is.</span><br /><span><br />3. But is global warming a crisis? Far from it. It's possible that it will (SET ITAL) <em>become</em> (END ITAL) a crisis. Some computer models suggest big problems, but the models aren't very accurate. Some turned out to be utterly wrong. Clueless scaremongers like Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Cal., seize on weather disasters to blame man's carbon output. After Oklahoma's tragic tornadoes last year, Boxer stood on the floor of the Senate and shrieked, "Carbon could cost us the planet!" But there were actually <em>fewer</em> tornadoes last summer.</span><br /><span><br />4. If the globe is warming, can America do anything about it? No. What we do now is pointless. I feel righteous riding my bike to work. That's just shallow. Even if all Americans replaced cars with bicycles, switched to fluorescent light bulbs, got solar water heaters, etc., it would have no discernible effect on the climate. China builds a new coal-fueled power plant almost every week; each one obliterates any carbon reduction from all our windmills and solar panels.</span><br /><span><br />Weirdly, the only thing that's reduced America's carbon output has been our increased use of natural gas (it releases less greenhouse gas than oil and coal). But many environmentalists fight the fracking that produces it.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Someday, we'll probably invent technology that could reduce man's greenhouse gas creation, but we're nowhere close to it now. Rather than punish poor people with higher taxes on carbon and award ludicrous subsidies to Al Gore's "green" investments, we should wait for the science to advance.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />If serious warming happens, we can adjust, as we've adjusted to big changes throughout history. It will be easier to adjust if America is not broke after wasting our resources on trendy gimmicks like windmills.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Environmental activists say that if we don't love their regulations, we "don't care about the earth." Bunk. We can love nature and still hate the tyranny of bureaucrats' rules.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />We do need <em>some</em> rules. It's good that government built sewage treatment plants.</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT194_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">Today</span><span>, the rivers around Manhattan are so clean that I swim in them. It's good that we forced industry to stop polluting the air. Scrubbers in smokestacks and catalytic converters on cars made our lives better. The air gets cleaner every time someone replaces an old car with a new one.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But those were measures against real pollution -- soot, particulates, sulfur, etc. What global warming hysterics want to fight is merely carbon dioxide. That's what plants breathe. CO2 may prove to be a problem, but we don't know that now.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The world has <em>real</em> problems, though: malaria, malnutrition, desperate poverty. Our own country, while relatively rich, is deep in debt. Obsessing about greenhouse gases makes it harder to address these more serious problems.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Environmentalists assume that as people get richer and use more energy, they pollute more. The opposite is true. As nations industrialize, they pay more attention to pollution. Around the world, it's the most prosperous nations that now have the cleanest air and water.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Industrialization allows people to use <em>fewer</em> resources. Instead of burning trees for power, we make electricity from natural gas. We figure out how to get more food from smaller pieces of land. And one day we'll probably even invent energy sources more efficient than oil and gas. We'll use them because they're cost-effective, not because government forces us to.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />So let's chill out about global warming. We don't need more micromanagement from government. We need less.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Then free people -- and rapidly increasing prosperity -- will create a better world.</span><span> </span>John Stossel2014-01-22T17:07:00ZBitcoin RevolutionJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Bitcoin-Revolution/156474687420086289.html2014-01-15T21:15:00Z2014-01-15T21:15:00Z<p><span>The big online retailer Overstock.com now accepts payment in Bitcoin. That's good news for lovers of liberty because Bitcoins give us an alternative to government-controlled money. Bitcoins are a currency created by anonymous, private tech nerds, not by government.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Governments don't like competition, and our government sometimes bans competing currencies. But as more of us use Bitcoins, and more businesses accept payment in Bitcoin, it becomes harder for government to dismiss the currency as illegitimate, or ban it.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />There are two advantages to Bitcoin.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />First, it's harder to trace transactions back to people who make trades. I don't particularly care about that, because at the moment, I don't hide anything from my government.</span><br /><span><br />But I do fear government destroying the value of my dollars by printing more of them, the way governments in Germany before World War II and in Zimbabwe in recent decades did, forcing people to make trades using wheelbarrows of nearly worthless bills. Given how my government spends money, and the way the Fed enables this by buying trillions in government bonds, I fear my dollars may someday be worth pennies. So I bought Bitcoins.</span><br /><span><br />Bitcoins are digitally created -- or "mined" -- at a slow, fairly predictable rate. An incomprehensible (incomprehensible to me, anyway) computer algorithm limits their number.</span><br /><span><br />"Bitcoins are not controlled by anybody," explained Mercatus Center senior research fellow Jerry Brito on my TV show. "It's a new Internet protocol, like email or the Web ... a digital, decentralized currency that allows you to exchange money with anybody in the world fast and cheaply without the use of a third party like PayPal or Visa or MasterCard."</span><br /><span><br />I bought Bitcoins even though I don't understand how Bitcoin mining works. I also worry that someone will hack into my Bitcoin account and steal my money, or maybe hack into the whole system and devalue Bitcoins by creating millions of new ones.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But risky as this new currency may be, I still trust it more than I trust politicians. When my fellow baby boomers demand our promised Medicare payments and discover that government promised trillions more in benefits than it can ever pay for, I assume politicians will print dollars until they are nearly worthless.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />So, I put my savings into Bitcoins when they sold for $140 each. I was late to buy -- smarter people bought for much less. But</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT1338_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span><span> </span><span>each Bitcoin is worth more than $800. So, yippee for me! I'm so glad I put all my savings into Bitcoins.</span><br /><span><br />OK, I didn't really. It's just <em>part</em> of my savings -- but it's good to hedge against political venality!<br /></span><br /><span>The biggest risk to private currencies may be that governments will become jealous of how well these upstart forms of money work. If people all over the world decide to trade in digital currencies, it will become more obvious than ever that government isn't what makes economic activity happen.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />It will also be harder to trace -- and tax -- people's economic activity. Government doesn't like to get sidelined. To its credit, the German government announced that it recognizes Bitcoin as a legal alternate currency.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The U.S. government flexed its muscles by warning that it has the right to regulate Bitcoin transactions. The FBI already shut down a website called Silk Road that accepted Bitcoins as pay for services both legal and illegal (like drugs). Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called Bitcoin "money laundering" and demanded a crackdown. That's not surprising, since Schumer wants to ban lots of useful things, like energy drinks, high-frequency stock trading, free-market wages and 3-D printers that can make guns.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />So I'm glad Overstock.com and other businesses are out there, reminding people that law-abiding citizens use Bitcoins to buy legal things. Last month, I used them to buy</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT1340_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">Christmas</span><span> </span><span>gifts.</span><br /><span><br />But Bitcoin's legitimacy shouldn't depend on whether people do things with it that politicians consider wholesome. When government restricts drugs, online gambling and other popular activities, it just makes anonymous, hard-to-trace currencies more popular.</span><span> </span></p>John Stossel2014-01-15T21:15:00ZEquality Versus LibertyJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Equality-Versus-Liberty/-510672132208345097.html2014-01-08T08:00:00Z2014-01-08T08:00:00Z<p><span>President Barack Obama says income inequality is "dangerous ... the defining challenge of our time." The pope is upset that capitalism causes inequality. Progressives, facing the failures of Obamacare, are eager to change the subject to America's "wealth gap."</span><br /><span><br />It's true that</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT1197_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span><span>, the richest 1 percent of Americans own a third of America's wealth. One percent owns 35 percent!</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But I say, so what? Progressives in the media claim that the rich get richer at the expense of the poor.</span><br /><span><br />But that's a lie.</span><br /><span><br />Hollywood sells the greedy-evil-capitalists-cheat-the-poor message with movies like Martin Scorsese's new film, "The Wolf of Wall Street," which portrays stock sellers as sex-crazed criminals. Years before, Oliver Stone's "Wall Street" created a creepy financier, Gordon Gekko, played by Michael Douglas, who smugly gloated, "It's a zero-sum game. Somebody wins; somebody loses."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />This is how the left sees the market: a zero-sum game. If someone makes money, he took it from everyone else. The more the rich have, the less others have. It's as if the economy is a pie that's already on the table, waiting to be carved. The bigger the piece the rich take, the less that's left for everyone else. The economy is just a fight over who gets how much.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But this is absurd. Bill Gates took a huge slice of pie, but he didn't take it from me. By starting Microsoft, he baked millions of new pies. He made the rest of the world richer, too. Entrepreneurs create things.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Over the past few decades, the difference in wealth between the rich and poor has grown. This makes people uncomfortable. But why is it a problem if the poor didn't get poorer?</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Progressives claim they did. Some cite government data that show middle class incomes remaining relatively stagnant. But this data is misleading, too. It leaves out all government handouts, like rent subsidies and food stamps. It leaves out benefits like company-funded health insurance and pensions, which make up increasing portions of people's pay.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />And it leaves out the innovation that makes life better for both the rich and poor. Even poor people</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT1199_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span><span> </span><span>have access to cars, food, health care, entertainment and technology that rich people lusted for a few decades ago. Ninety percent of Americans living "below the poverty line" have smart phones, cable TV and cars. Seventy percent own <em>two</em> cars.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But hold on, says the left. Even if the poor reap some benefits from capitalism, it's just not "fair" that rich people have so much more. I suppose this is true. But what exactly is "fair"?</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Is it fair that models are so good-looking? Why is it fair that some men are so much bigger than I, so no one will pay me to play pro sports? It's hardly fair that I was born in America, a country that offers me far greater opportunities than most other countries would. We Americans should be thankful that life is <em>not</em> fair!</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Freedom isn't fair, if fair means equal. When people are free, some will be more successful than others. Some people are smarter or just luckier. Globalization and free-market capitalism multiply the effect of smarts and luck, allowing some people to get much richer than others. So what? Inequality may seem unfair, but the alternative -- government-forced equality -- is worse. It leaves everyone poor.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Opportunity is much more important than equality, and there is still income mobility in America. People born poor don't necessarily stay poor.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Pew research shows 58 percent of the kids born to the poorest fifth of families rose to a higher income group. Six percent rose all the way from the bottom fifth to the top fifth.</span><br /><span><br />Sixty-one percent of kids born to the richest fifth of families fell from that group, and 9 percent fell all the way to the bottom.</span><br /><span><br />Opportunity requires allowing people to take risks and make changes. We won't always like the outcomes. But over the long haul, we're still better off if people are free to strive and fail, or maybe -- reap big rewards.</span><span> </span></p>John Stossel2014-01-08T08:00:00ZCommon CoreJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Common-Core/650086787867650289.html2014-01-02T00:19:00Z2014-01-02T00:19:00Z<p><span>My TV producers asked our Facebook audience to vote for a topic they'd most like to hear discussed on my year-end show. The overwhelming winner, for some reason: the education standards program Common Core.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br /></span><span>Most Americans don't even know what that is. But they should. It's the government's plan to try to bring "the same standard" to every government-run school.</span><br /><span><br />This may sound good. Often, states dumb down tests to try to "leave no child behind." How can government evaluate teachers and reward successful schools if there isn't a single national standard?</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But when the federal government imposes a single teaching plan on 15,000 school districts across the country, that's even more central planning, and central planning rarely works. It brings stagnation.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Education is a discovery process like any other human endeavor. We might be wrong about both how to teach and what to teach, but we won't realize it unless we can experiment -- compare and contrast the results of different approaches. Having "one plan" makes it harder to experiment and figure out what works.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Some people are terrified to hear "education" and "experiment" in the same sentence. Why take a risk with something as important as my child's education? Pick the best education methods and teach everyone that way!</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But we don't know what the best way to educate kids is.</span><br /><span><br />As American education has become more centralized, the rest of our lives have become increasingly diverse and tailored to individual needs. Every minute, thousands of entrepreneurs struggle to improve their products. Quality increases, and costs often drop.</span><br /><span><br />But centrally planned K-12 education doesn't improve. Per-student spending has tripled (governments now routinely spend $300,000 per classroom!), but test results are stagnant.</span><br /><span><br />"Everyone who has children knows that they're all different, right? They learn differently," observed Sabrina Schaeffer of the Independent Women's Forum on my show. "In the workplace, we're allowing people flexibility to telecommute, to have shared jobs. In entertainment, people buy and watch what they want, when they want." Having one inflexible model for education "is so old-fashioned."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />No Child Left Behind programs were an understandable reaction to atrocious literacy and graduation rates -- but since school funding was pegged to students' performance on federally approved tests, classroom instruction became largely about drilling for those tests and getting the right answers, even if kids did little to develop broader reasoning skills. So along comes Common Core to attempt to fix the problem -- and create new ones.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Common Core de-emphasizes correct answers by awarding kids points for reasoning, even when they don't quite get there.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />A video went viral online that showed a worried mom, Karen Lamoreaux -- a member of the group Arkansas Against Common Core -- complaining to the Arkansas Board of Education about complicatedly worded math problems meant for fourth-graders. She read to the Board this question: "Mr. Yamato's class has 18 students. If the class counts around by a number and ends with 90, what number did they count by?"</span><br /><span><br />Huh?</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But I could be wrong. Maybe this is a clever new way to teach math, and maybe Lamoreaux worries too much. Unfortunately, though, if Lamoreaux is right, and the federal government is wrong, government still gets to decree its universal solution to this problem.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Promoters of Common Core say, "Don't worry, Common Core is voluntary." This is technically true, but states that reject it lose big federal money. That's Big Government's version of "voluntary."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Common Core, like public school, public housing, the U.S. Postal Service, the Transportation Security Administration, etc., are all one-size-fits-all government monopolies. For consumers, this is not a good thing.</span><br /><span><br />With the future riding on young people consuming better forms of education, I'd rather leave parents and children (and educators) <em>multiple</em> choices.</span><br /><span><br />Despite Common Core, Schaeffer pointed out that this year did bring some victories for educational freedom. "We saw new education tax credit programs and expansion of tax credit programs in numerous states -- Alabama, Indiana, Iowa and others. Education Savings Accounts expanded in other states; voucher programs expanded."</span><br /><span><br />This is good news. Vouchers, Education Savings Accounts and tax credits create competition and choice.</span><span> </span></p>John Stossel2014-01-02T00:19:00ZDrive FreeJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Drive-Free/610186262428545339.html2013-12-25T00:15:00Z2013-12-25T00:15:00Z<p><span>If you saw a fat man in a sleigh distributing presents this week, he was in violation of several government regulations.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The Federal Aviation Administration has complaints about his secret flight path. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources might shoot his unauthorized reindeer the way they shot a baby deer named Giggles at an animal shelter this year. His bag of gifts definitely violates numerous charity tax rules.</span><br /><span><br />In real life, government barely lets people give each other rides in cars. But now the Internet has given birth to some exciting new businesses that challenge this conceit.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Companies called Lyft, Uber and Sidecar offer a phone app that allows people who need a ride somewhere to connect to a driver nearby who'd like to make a few extra bucks. It's like creating an instant taxi business -- which is why it makes existing taxi businesses nervous.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I became a Lyft driver. Once I passed a criminal background check and got my Lyft driver app, I pressed a button on my phone saying I was "available." I quickly got a message from someone nearby who wanted a ride.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />My passenger was easy to find -- my phone gave me directions. He wanted to go to a grocery store. After I dropped him off, I told my phone app I was "available" again. No cash changed hands. My passenger's phone suggested he give me a credit card "donation" based on time and distance. He could have stiffed me, but if he did, it would appear on his Lyft "rating," and he'd have trouble getting another ride.</span><br /><span><br />My next passenger was a woman. Why would she feel safe getting into a stranger's car? Again, the rating system protects both her and me. Her phone showed her my picture and ratings from other passengers (with me, she took a chance, as I was a new driver).</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Because of the ratings, both passengers and drivers have an incentive to behave well. The higher your rating, the easier it is to get or give rides. In the end, I made money, and my passengers saved money (Lyft rides are about 20 percent cheaper than taxis). Win-win!</span><br /><span><br />But regulators and taxi companies don't see it that way.</span><br /><span><br />Taxi companies aren't happy about losing business to people like me, driving my own car. One cabbie complained, "We have to pay big money for licenses, get fingerprinted, have commercial insurance. (Lyft) has nothing! Sidecar has nothing!"</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But it's not "nothing." I had to have a driver's license, a state-inspected car and there was that background check. But more useful than all that: the ratings. This instant feedback gives drivers and customers more reliable information than piles of licensing paperwork spewed out by regulatory agencies.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Do you pick a contractor or dentist after examining their licenses? No, you consult friends or websites like Yelp to determine the sellers'. Feedback from customers is more useful than any bureaucrat's stamp of approval. Internet apps like Lyft's make this feedback ever better.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Will government crush innovations like Lyft? Maybe. Seattle moved to limit it. Nashville declared it illegal to charge anything less than $45 for rides, so there's no way for a company like Lyft to compete by undercutting regular cabs' prices.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Regulators want their fingers in everything. A new idea gives them an excuse to draw attention to themselves as "consumer protectors." In addition, existing taxi companies request regulation. They want politicians to regulate new competition out of existence.</span><br /><span><br />Luckily, technology and capitalist innovation sometimes move faster than the lazy dinosaur that is government. Lyft, Uber and Sidecar have quickly become popular, and this may help them avoid being crushed. By contrast, politicians don't hesitate to destroy things that people think of as weird or dangerous.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Ride-share companies, perhaps sensing that it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission, offered rides without first seeking approval from every regulator. Now they have millions of customers. Politicians often fear regulating things that are widely liked.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br /> </span><span>Government is as crude and annoying as a speed bump, but individuals looking for better ways to do things keep cruising ahead. Sooner or later, if we restrain the regulators, the market might even produce flying sleighs.</span><span> </span></p>John Stossel2013-12-25T00:15:00ZLook Back in Liberty 2013John Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Look-Back-in-Liberty-2013/703973834956934408.html2013-12-19T00:13:00Z2013-12-19T00:13:00Z<p><span>This wasn't a great year for liberty. A few disasters that government caused:</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />--Obamacare. It was supposed to "bend the cost curve" downward. The central planners had lots of time to perfect their scheme. For a generation, the brightest left-wing wonks focused on health care policy. The result? Soviet-style consumer service comes to America.</span><br /><span><br />--Government shutdown. The real disaster was the unnecessary panic over it. Zoos would shut down, and baby pandas would starve. The media made it sound like America might not survive even slightly limited government. They were happy to echo the politicians' claim that there's no wasteful or stupid spending to cut.</span><br /><span><br />"The cupboard is bare," said Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "There's no more cuts to make."</span><br /><span><br />Nothing to cut? Government spends $3.8 trillion a year!</span><br /><span><br />Many Republicans are almost as eager to spend as Democrats, despite the difference in rhetoric between the two parties. About the only spending reduction Republicans accomplished in the past few years was the so-called sequester -- which really happened by legal default because the two parties couldn't reach an agreement. The sequester instituted cuts of about $85 billion a year, a mere sliver of that $3.8 trillion budget and a still smaller sliver of our $17 trillion debt.</span><br /><span><br />Yet even those modest cuts will not happen now under the new congressional agreement. Because some Republicans were upset the sequester made small cuts to the military's budget and were fearful another partial government shutdown might hurt their chances in upcoming elections, they gave up the modest spending discipline the sequester imposed. Speaker of the House John Boehner, R-Ohio, said conservatives who want to keep the sequester are "ridiculous."</span><br /><span><br />The Republican behind the new agreement, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., was once called a fanatical budget-slasher who wanted to push Granny off a cliff. People talked about him reading Ayn Rand and being a cutthroat capitalist. But now, even he abandons the meager budget cuts that were already scheduled.</span><br /><span><br />I suppose Republicans feel they have no choice. They face Democrats who will cut <em>nothing</em>. They hope to win the Senate next election and realize that spending cuts are not particularly popular with the general public.</span><br /><span><br />Americans say they want less spending. But then they fight for farm subsidies, flood insurance and "economic development" schemes. Most federal spending funds Social Security, Medicare and the military. Even citizens who sound fiscally conservative, especially elderly ones, don't want these things cut.</span><br /><span><br />--This was also the year we found out just how much the federal government spies on its own citizens. I annoyed my fellow libertarians by saying the privacy I lose to data mining seems a small price to pay for surveillance against terrorism. I posted a list of a hundred other things government does that upset me more. Some people responded by calling me a "traitor" and "LINO" (libertarian in name only).</span><br /><span><br />Look, libertarians, I'm constantly angry at my government for lots of things, but I just can't get worked up about data mining. My emails fly through the air. For all I know, my political enemies already read them.</span><br /><span><br />It is upsetting, though, that the National Security Agency snooping goes far beyond what the government first claimed. President Barack Obama assured us the NSA does not read our emails or listen to our phone calls. But it turns out they sometimes do.</span><br /><span><br />They say they only look for terrorists, and they won't use the records to harass and punish their critics. But why would we trust that the same big government that spends $3.8 trillion a year, raids our homes looking for drugs and regulates almost every part of our lives won't use its snooping powers to look into things other than terrorism?</span><br /><span><br />Given the truth of Thomas Jefferson's warning -- "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground" -- I fear next year will be still worse for liberty.</span><br /><span><br />To make it a better year, we can't trust such a powerful government to restrain itself. We should cut back its duties to reduce its power.</span></p>John Stossel2013-12-19T00:13:00ZCelebrity HypocritesJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Celebrity-Hypocrites/558692195788825243.html2013-12-11T21:09:00Z2013-12-11T21:09:00Z<p><span>I'm annoyed that so many Hollywood celebrities hate the system that made them rich.</span><br /><span><br />Actor/comedian Russell Brand told the BBC he wants "a socialist, egalitarian system based on the massive redistribution of wealth."</span><br /><span><br />Director George Lucas got rich not just from movies but also by selling Star Wars merchandise. Yet he says he believes in democracy but "not capitalist democracy."</span><br /><span><br />Actor Martin Sheen says, "That's where the problem lies ... It's corporate America."</span><br /><span><br />And so on.</span><br /><span><br />On my TV show, actor/author Kevin Sorbo pointed out that such sentiments make little sense coming from entertainers. "It's a very entrepreneurial business. You have to work very hard to get lucky, mixed with any kind of talent to get a break in this business. I told Clooney, George, you're worth $100 million -- of course you can afford to be a socialist!"</span><br /><span><br />It's bad enough that celebrities trash the only economic system that makes poor people's lives better.</span><br /><span><br />What's worse is that many are hypocrites.</span><br /><span><br />Celebrities who support big-government politicians routinely take advantage of tax breaks, which reduce the amount they contribute to that government.</span><br /><span><br />It's nice that Obama supporter Bon Jovi has a foundation that builds houses for poor people, but at tax time, the musician labels himself a "farmer." He pays only $100 in state property tax. And his tax dodge gimmick: raising honeybees.</span><br /><span><br />Bruce Springsteen sings about factories closing down but pays little tax on the hundreds of acres of land he owns. His dodge: An organic farmer works his land.</span><br /><span><br />Hollywood's campaign to "save the earth" brings out the most hypocrisy. Actor Leonardo DiCaprio recently announced, "I will fly around the world doing good for the environment." Really? Flying around the world? I'm amazed they're not embarrassed by what they say.</span><br /><span><br />Maybe they don't know how clueless they are because reporters rarely confront them about their hypocrisy. Hollywood reporters want access to celebrities, and posing uncomfortable questions reduces that access.</span><br /><span><br />To fill the gap, Jason Mattera, author of "Hollywood Hypocrites," confronts hypocritical celebrities.</span><br /><span><br />He and his cameraman located Harrison Ford after the actor had himself filmed getting his chest hair waxed. Ford said the pain of ripping out his chest hair should make us think about the pain the earth feels when trees in a rainforest are cut down. Chest hair, rain forest -- get it? But that environmental message came from a celebrity who owns <em>seven</em> airplanes. Ford once even flew his private jet to get a cheeseburger!</span><br /><span><br />"I don't care that he owns seven airplanes," said Mattera, "but do not lecture the rest of us that we're on the precipice of global warming Armageddon while you have a sasquatch-sized carbon footprint." Even though Ford ignored Mattera when confronted by him, at least he was forced to listen to someone questioning his positions.</span><br /><span><br />Some actors wake up to the burden of big government when they try doing something outside acting. Actors usually collect a paycheck. They rarely deal with government regulation; their agent handles the details.</span><br /><span><br />When actor and lifelong Democrat Rob Schneider tried launching a business, he was so offended by California's burdensome regulation that he left the state and changed political parties.</span><br /><span><br />Arnold Schwarzenegger was enthusiastic about free markets when he owned a bricklaying business. But, unfortunately, during his time as California governor, he started to act more like a supporter of big government. Being a politician has that effect on people, especially in California.</span><br /><span><br />Actors Drew Carey and Vince Vaughn are among the few others who've seen the light. On ReasonTV, Carey said, "We don't need a centralized government to tell us what to do all the time."</span><br /><span><br />On a radio show, Vaughn recently said, "I'm very supportive of Ron Paul ... As you get older ... you just get less trust in the government running anything. If you look at the Constitution and the principles of liberty, the real purpose of government is to protect the individual's right."</span><br /><span><br />Hooray for Carey and Vaughn. Maybe they'll convince their colleagues.</span></p>John Stossel2013-12-11T21:09:00ZReal CharityJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Real-Charity/-87586302989285950.html2013-12-04T19:06:00Z2013-12-04T19:06:00Z<p><span>'Tis the season for giving.</span><br /><span><br />But when you give, do you know your money will help someone?</span><br /><span><br />Social workers say, "Don't give to beggars." Those who do give are "enablers," helping alcoholics and drug users to continue bad habits. It's better to give to charities that help the "homeless." I put "homeless" in quotes because my TV producers have quietly followed a dozen of the more convincing beggars after "work," and all had homes.</span><br /><span><br />Once, I put on a fake beard and begged for an hour. At the rate money was coming in, I would have made ninety bucks in an eight-hour day -- $23,000 per year, tax-free! I see why people panhandle.</span><br /><span><br />Their success, however, means that people who give them money, no matter how good their intentions, are not engaging in real charity. Giving may make you feel better, but it doesn't make the world a better place.</span><br /><span><br />So where <em>should</em> we give? Charity-rating services try to separate good charities from scams, but they get conned, too. The definition of "charitable work" is rarely clear. How should the board of a nonprofit's first-class hotel expenses during a trip to Africa be classified?</span><br /><span><br />That's why I give to charities I can watch. I donate to The Doe Fund, a nonprofit helping to rehabilitate ex-convicts. I saw their "Men in Blue" working near my apartment -- cheerfully and energetically. I thought, "Whoever's rehabbing these guys is doing something right!" So I give money to them -- and to a couple other groups I can <em>see</em>.</span><br /><span><br />Finally, I give more to charity because I'm not much of an entrepreneur. I don't have business-building skills. But for those who do, here's a novel idea: Don't give to charity.</span><br /><span><br />Years ago, Ted Turner was praised for donating a billion dollars to the United Nations. He said he wanted to "guilt" other billionaires into giving more and told me Warren Buffet was "cheap" for giving too little.</span><br /><span><br />At first, the idea makes sense. Billionaires have more than they need; merely chasing more profit seems selfish.</span><br /><span><br />But giving it a second thought, I found a fallacy in Turner's argument. The U.N. is a wasteful bureaucracy, leading me to assume it squandered Turner's gift. Buffet, meanwhile, continued to direct his investors' money to growing companies. Based on Buffet's stock-picking success, his investments were probably a more productive use of capital than Turner's. Money went to people making better products, inventing better things, creating more jobs and so on. Maybe Buffet's stock picks are now funding the next Bill Gates.</span><br /><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT173_com_zimbra_date" class="Object"><br />Today</span><span>, the real Gates spends his time giving money away. He's unusually conscientious about it. He experiments, funding what works and dropping what doesn't. His charity work saves lives. Good for him. But Gates was also unusually skilled at bringing people better software. Had he continued doing that at Microsoft, I bet the company would have been even more productive. And Gates would have done more for the world.<br /></span><br /><span>I tried that thought experiment on Turner, who, in turn, unclipped his microphone and walked off the set.</span><br /><span><br />OK, so people who give away a billion dollars don't want to hear skepticism about their gift. But there's little doubt capitalism helps people more. Even rock star Bono from U2 has come to understand that. He used to call for more government spending on foreign aid. Now he says: "Aid is just a stopgap. Commerce, entrepreneurial capitalism take more people out of poverty."</span><br /><span><br />Bingo. If Bono gets it, Turner should, too.</span><br /><span><br />I applaud those who give to charity, but let's not forget that it's capitalists (honest ones, not those who feed off government) who do the most for the poor. They do more good for the world than politicians -- and more even than do-gooders working for charities.</span></p>John Stossel2013-12-04T19:06:00ZThankful for PropertyJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Thankful-for-Property/687248748458013456.html2013-11-28T22:21:00Z2013-11-28T22:21:00Z<p><span>Had</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT220_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span><span>'s politicians and opinion-makers been in power four centuries ago, Americans might celebrate "Starvation Day" this week, not</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT221_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">Thanksgiving</span><span>.</span><br /><span><br />The Pilgrims started out with communal property rules. When they first settled at Plymouth, they were told: "Share everything, share the work, and we'll share the harvest."</span><br /><span><br />The colony's contract said their new settlement was to be a "common." Everyone was to receive necessities out of the common stock. There was to be little individual property.</span><br /><span><br />That wasn't the only thing about the Plymouth Colony that sounds like it was from Karl Marx: Its labor was to be organized according to the different capabilities of the settlers. People would produce according to their abilities and consume according to their needs. That sure sounds fair.</span><br /><span><br />They nearly starved and created what economists call the "tragedy of the commons."</span><br /><span><br />If people can access the same stuff by working less, they will. Plymouth settlers faked illness instead of working the common property. The harvest was meager, and for two years, there was famine. But then, after the colony's governor, William Bradford, wrote that they should "set corn every man for his own particular," they dropped the commons idea. He assigned to every family a parcel of land to treat as its own.<br /><br /></span><span>The results were dramatic. Much more corn was planted. Instead of famine, there was plenty. Thanks to private property, they got food -- and thanks to it, we have food</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT224_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span><span>.</span><br /><span><br />This doesn't mean Pilgrims themselves saw the broader economic implications of what they'd been through. "I don't think they were celebrating</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT226_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">Thanksgiving</span><span> </span><span>because they'd realized that capitalism works and communal property is a failure," says economist Russ Roberts. "I think they were just happy to be alive."</span><br /><span><br />I wish people understood. This idea that happiness and equality lie in banding together and doing things as a commune is appealing. It's the principle behind the Soviet Union, Medicare, the Vietnam War, Obamacare and so on. Some communal central planning is helpful, but too much is dangerous. The Pilgrims weren't the first settlers on the East Coast of the New World to make this mistake.</span><br /><span><br />Just a few years before, the colony of Jamestown was almost wiped out by the same idea.</span><br /><span><br />Historian Edmund S. Morgan, in "American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia," describes what happened in 1609-1610: "There are 500 people in the colony now. And they are starving. They scour the woods listlessly for nuts, roots and berries. And they offer the only authentic examples of cannibalism witnessed in Virginia. One provident man chops up his wife and salts down the pieces. Others dig up graves to eat the corpses. By spring only sixty are left alive."</span><br /><span><br />After that season, the colony was abandoned for years.</span><br /><span><br />The lesson that a commons is often undesirable is all around us. What image comes to mind if I write "public toilet"? Consider traffic congestion and poor upkeep of many publicly owned roads. But most people don't understand that the solution is private property.</span><br /><span><br />When natural resources, such as fish and trees, dwindle, the first impulse is to say, "Stop capitalism. Make those things public property." But they already are public -- that's the problem.</span><br /><span><br />If no one owns the fishing rights to a given part of the ocean -- or the exclusive, long-term logging rights to part of the forest -- people have an incentive to get there first and take all they can before the next guy does. Resources are overused instead of conserved. We don't maintain others' property the way we maintain our own.</span><br /><span><br />Colonists in Plymouth nearly starved because they didn't understand that. In Jamestown, some were driven to cannibalism.</span><br /><span><br />But no one starves when ranchers are allowed to own land and cattle. Or turkeys.</span><br /><span><br />Private ownership does good things. Be thankful for it this week.</span></p>John Stossel2013-11-28T22:21:00ZWar on the Little GuyJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/War-on-the-Little-Guy/904403306073922878.html2013-11-21T23:03:00Z2013-11-21T23:03:00Z<p><span>Marty the Magician performed magic tricks for kids, including the traditional rabbit-out-of-a-hat. Then one day: "I was signing autographs and taking pictures with children and their parents," he told me. "Suddenly, a badge was thrown into the mix, and an inspector said, 'Let me see your license.'"</span><br /><span><br />In "Harry Potter" books, a creepy Ministry of Magic controls young wizards. Now in the USA, government regulates stage magicians -- one of the countless ways it makes life harder for the little guy.</span><br /><span><br />Marty's torment didn't end with a demand for his license. "She said, from now on, you cannot use your rabbit until you fill out paperwork, pay the $40 license fee. We'll have to inspect your home."</span><br /><span><br />Ten times since, regulators showed up unannounced at Marty's house. At one point, an inspector he hadn't seen before appeared. He hoped things had changed for the better.</span><br /><span><br />"I got a <em>new</em> inspector and I said, oh, did my first one retire? She said, 'No, good news! We've increased our budget and we have more inspectors now. So we'll be able to visit you more often.'"</span><br /><span><br />Here are your tax dollars at work.</span><br /><span><br />The inspectors told Marty that the Animal Welfare Act required him to file paperwork demonstrating that he had "a comprehensive written disaster plan detailing everything I would do with my rabbit in the event of a fire, a flood, a tornado, an ice storm."</span><br /><span><br />The federal forms list "common emergencies likely to happen to your facility ... not necessarily limited to: structural fire, electrical outage, disruption in clean water or feed supply, disruption in access to facility (e.g., road closures), intentional attack on the facilities ... earthquake, landslide/mudslide/avalanche ... "</span><br /><span><br />Sadly, this Kafkaesque enforcement of petty rules is not a bizarre exception.</span><br /><span><br />Some regulation is useful. But when we passively accept government regulation of everything, thinking we're protecting people from evil corporations run amok, we're really making life harder for ordinary people. Every profession, from cab driving to floral arrangement, is now burdened with complex rules.</span><br /><span><br />You can't even give tours of Washington, D.C., the city that produces most of these insane rules, without getting a special license. Tour guides must pay about $200 for criminal background checks, provide four personal references, show passport photos and pass a written test -- a difficult one.</span><br /><span><br />People who reflexively defend government may feel no pity for businesses that face extra costs: Let businesses pay fees and take tests -- we don't want unlicensed tour guides describing famous statues incorrectly! But these costs add up. Often, they make a small, barely profitable business impossible to operate. These rules also violate Americans' right to free speech. They are unnecessary. If tour guides are no good, people can patronize others. The government doesn't need to be gatekeeper.</span><br /><span><br />These rules generally prevail because existing businesses are politically connected. They capture licensing boards and use license rules to crush competition from businesses just getting started.</span><br /><span><br />In some places, you can't open a business like a limo service or moving van company unless you can prove that your business is needed and won't undermine existing businesses in the same field.</span><br /><span><br />But undermining competition is the whole idea. If Starbucks or Home Depot had to prove new coffee shops and hardware stores were "needed," we wouldn't have those companies. Apparently they <em>were</em> needed, since these companies thrived, but no one could have "proven" that beforehand.</span><br /><span><br />Jeff Rowes, an attorney at the Institute for Justice, a civil liberties group that defends many people caught up in regulatory cases, says, "America was conceived as a sea of liberty with islands of government power. We're now a sea of government power with ever-shrinking islands of liberty."</span><br /><span><br />The little guys don't have an army of lawyers to defend those islands of liberty one regulatory battle at a time. We should get rid of most of these regulations -- and sail back, together, to a free country.</span></p>John Stossel2013-11-21T23:03:00ZThe Libertarian Era?John Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Libertarian-Era/90782871511951542.html2013-11-14T22:05:00Z2013-11-14T22:05:00Z<p><span>I didn't know what a libertarian was when I started reporting. I was just another liberal. I knew the Republicans were icky, and Democrats were more like me -- except they didn't care about debt.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I had no idea there was an actual movement of thinking people who want to honor the principles of the Founders -- liberty and limited government. It took me a long time to wake up.</span><br /><span><br />Now more Americans have woken up, say Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie, editors of Reason magazine.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />"Poll after poll show you that Americans are much more fiscally conservative than their elected representatives," says Welch. "A majority of Americans thinks that we should balance the budget. Seventy-five percent think that we should not raise the debt ceiling ... Growing majorities -- especially young people -- are more socially tolerant. They think that we should legalize marijuana ... they're in favor of gay marriage."</span><br /><span><br />Gillespie argues that some of the change comes from people seeing how the private sector offers us more options that we like, while government fails.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />"The 21st century has been a demonstration project of how Republicans and conservatives screw things up, under the Bush years, and now we have the Obama version -- the liberal Democrat version of screwing everything up ... you go to Amazon.com, you have a good experience and you get all sorts of interesting stuff. When you go to a government website, not so much."</span><br /><span><br />It changes minds, they argue, when people see this is a strong pattern, not just the result of isolated mistakes unique to Obamacare or another specific government project.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But do people realize that it's a strong pattern? I don't think so. I wrote "No, They Can't: Why Government Fails -- But Individuals Succeed" because I worry most Americans instinctively trust central planning. The spontaneous order of the invisible hand is harder to grasp. The invisible hand is ... invisible.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Maybe that's why leftists fear liberty. A sarcastic online video scares people by calling Somalia a "libertarian paradise." (It isn't. Libertarianism assumes private property and rule of law.) One of my Fox colleagues, Bill O'Reilly, calls my libertarian views "desperately wrong" and says "you're living in a world of theory!"</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But Gillespie says even people who don't understand the theory at least see what the invisible hand produces. "Where people do things voluntarily and in free markets, everything is getting better, (but) when you go to this old model of command and control, things are terrible." True. But while Gillespie, Welch and I -- and maybe you readers -- pay attention to that, I suspect that the promises of the central planners will fool most people most of the time.</span><br /><span><br />Politicians fool us with offers of free goodies like cheaper health care and "cures" for social problems, like the War on Drugs. They fool us with their promises to "contain" China, Iran, al-Qaida, etc. and "build democracy" in the Middle East.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />If libertarian-leaning politicians express doubt, they may be condemned by others in their own party.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., filibustered until President Obama responded to their questions about drone strikes. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., called them "wacko birds."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />After some politicians criticized NSA spying, Gov. Chris Christie said, "This strain of libertarianism is a very dangerous thought."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Mainstream conservative pundit Fred Barnes tells me Ron Paul is "deluded" because he wants to shrink the military. Barnes says we're not seeing a new libertarian era, just a libertarian "blip." He points out that even government programs Ronald Reagan railed against are still with us 30 years later -- and suggests that they probably aren't going away.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I'm not optimistic about most people recognizing liberty's benefits. Old politicians -- and old voters collecting Social Security -- may never change their minds. But libertarianism is growing fastest among the young, and groups like Students for Liberty give me hope. These young people certainly know more about liberty than I did at their age.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Maybe they will avoid prior generations' big-government mistakes. Maybe.</span></p>John Stossel2013-11-14T22:05:00ZPrivatize EverythingJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Privatize-Everything/169895496055495810.html2013-11-07T03:24:00Z2013-11-07T03:24:00Z<p><span>The market is fine for some things, people will say, but other activities are too important to be left to the market. Or too complicated. Or too fundamental to our democracy.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />I say: Privatize everything.</span><br /><span><br />To some of you, that will sound callous -- but failure to privatize services, keeping them in government hands instead, is what impoverishes and kills people. Nothing compassionate about that.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Take organ donations.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Regulations forbid buying and selling organs, so the market cannot operate. Desperate patients must wait and hope someone gives out of sheer generosity, that someone dies at just the right time, and that hospital administrators bump their case to the top of the list.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />In the U.S., 100,000 people are on waiting lists for kidneys. Kidneys make up 80 percent of the organ shortage. We have two kidneys but only need one. Donors could save many lives, but not enough choose to donate. By contrast, in Iran, there's often a waiting line of willing <em>donors</em>. That's because in Iran, it's legal to sell organs. It's the rare thing that Iran does right.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />People still buy and sell organs even when it's illegal, but, as is so often the case, the black market produces horrors that are unlikely to occur when people can trade in the open. So we get headlines like "Girl smuggled into Britain to have her 'organs harvested'" and "Chinese boy, 6, has eyes gouged out for organ transplant black market."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Surely, it is better if organ exchanges -- like any other exchanges -- take place voluntarily.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Bioethicist Sigrid Fry-Revere, founder of the Center for Ethical Solutions, went to Iran to meet organ sellers and buyers.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />After, she told of people like "an apprentice who needed the money to start his own shop ... He had his own shop now. He gave his kidney to a 15 year-old girl, who is going to school and doing well. He checks in regularly with her mother because it gives him such a lift to hear that the girl is doing fine."</span><br /><span><br />Fry-Revere says organ trading in Iran is much like open adoption in the U.S.: The two parties can decide whether to visit and get to know each other. Other times, the donation is anonymous. Both are much better than kidnapping and eye-gouging.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />In America, we let people sell blood. And sperm. And eggs. Why not kidneys? Why do politicians recoil at the idea of a legal market? Fry-Revere says, "I think it's just, old habits die hard."</span><br /><span><br />There are all sorts of services that people think the market can't handle. It's like they have some sort of mental block. President Obama says that without government, we can't put out fires. But almost half the people government pays to fight wildfires work for private companies. In parts of America, private companies also put out house fires. They get to the fire sooner.</span><br /><span><br />The city of Sandy Springs, Ga., contracted out most of its services. Residents were surprised to notice that the streets got cleaned faster, and traffic lights were synchronized. It's not that the old government workers were lazy -- they just didn't have the same incentive to find better ideas. They figured they'd never lose the job if they just did what they'd always done.</span><br /><span><br />Some things ought to be done by government: things like running courts, policing pollution and protecting the border. But most everything else should be left to private actors.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Government offers guarantees on paper and promises in speeches. But government rarely delivers. Private companies did brilliant Internet work for President Obama's election campaign. But when it came to <br /><br /></span><span>Markets aren't perfect, but they allow for a world where prudence is rewarded and sloth punished, a world in which more people take risks and innovate. That's a world where people prosper.</span><br /><span><br />Some prosper instead of waiting -- and sometimes dying -- while hoping government will eventually get things right.</span></p>John Stossel2013-11-07T03:24:00ZEnd the FedJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/End-the-Fed/566094161027832688.html2013-10-30T16:44:00Z2013-10-30T16:44:00Z<p><span>I've always avoided reporting on the Federal Reserve. I know it's more important than much of the stuff I cover, but it's so boring. How can I succeed on TV reporting on the Fed? Fed chairs even work at being dull.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Alan Greenspan said he tried to be obscure because he didn't want to spook markets. He called his obfuscation "Fedspeak." It's a far cry from the clarity of his language -- and principles -- when he was young and a disciple of libertarian Ayn Rand.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Outgoing Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and his likely successor, Janet Yellen, are almost as boring.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But we should watch what they do. The Fed can destroy your savings and your future. The current crew of Fed bureaucrats has raised the Fed's balance sheet to a stunning 4 trillion dollars.</span><br /><span><br />As Sen. Rand Paul's father, retired congressman Ron Paul, put it, "No secret cabal of government officials should have the authority to create money out of thin air."</span><br /><span><br />He makes a good point. For three decades, Ron Paul was virtually alone among politicians in questioning the Fed. But now there are more.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Jim Bruce's documentary "Money for Nothing" is a great beginner's guide to the Fed. Bruce points out that the last two Fed chairmen, appointed by both Republicans and Democrats, have quietly increased central planning of our economy. Government now controls more of our economy than ever before. This is not a good thing.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The Fed was created to prevent bank runs. It would be a lender of last resort and create stability.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Yet 16 years after the Fed's creation, the Fed's low interest rates fueled the Roaring Twenties and led to the greatest stock market crash in history. Then the Fed's tight money worsened the Depression.</span><br /><span><br />I'm told they learned from their mistakes. For four decades after that, the Fed usually kept increases in the size of the money supply gradual, steady and predictable. Except for one nasty period, inflation has been kept in check.</span><br /><span><br />But now the Fed is charged with two sometimes clashing missions: preserving a stable currency and reducing unemployment.</span><span> </span><br /><span> <br /></span>There's great pressure for the Fed to time these decisions just right in order to avoid economic downturns and -- some argue -- to make current political officeholders look good. Increasingly, investors and Wall Street analysts obsess over what the Fed will do, instead of paying attention to inventions, productivity and real wealth-creation. <span><br /></span><span><br />The Fed, created to shore up capitalism, has become an instrument of government economic management not so different from a socialist planning board: a tiny handful of powerful people attempt to fine-tune the entire economy. Its main mission has become continually goosing economic activity through infusions of new cash to maintain the illusion that good times will never falter.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The result isn't stability, but one economic bubble after another.</span><br /><span><br />The Fed's manipulations fit well with President Obama's "stimulus spending" efforts. But neither seems to do the trick. This post-recession "recovery" is among the weakest ever. Japan's central bank tried the same stimulus for the past 15 years, since its economic crash. That didn't work either.</span><br /><span><br />Instead of following Japan's example, we should learn from Canada. The Canadians had no central bank when the Great Depression began, just private banks issuing currency backed by gold. During the 1930s, not even one Canadian bank failed. Thousands failed in the U.S.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The massive bank bailouts a few years ago -- taxpayer money showered on the richest institutions that have ever existed -- are based on the assumption that those banks are "too big to fail."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />It would be more accurate to say that those banks and the Federal Reserve that dominates them are too big and too powerful, so much so that they risk dragging us all down with them if they fail. No dozen people should be granted so much power.</span></p>John Stossel2013-10-30T16:44:00ZBroke U.S. Resumes SpendingJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Broke-U.S.-Resumes-Spending/669111567143663992.html2013-10-23T16:33:00Z2013-10-23T16:33:00Z<p><span>What would you think of a person who earned $24,000 a year but spent $35,000? Suppose on top of that, he was already $170,000 in debt. You'd tell him to get his act together -- stop spending so much or he'd destroy his family, impoverish his kids and wreck their future. Of course, no individual could live so irresponsibly for long.</span><br /><span><br />But tack on eight more zeroes to that budget and you have the checkbook for our out-of-control, big-spending federal government.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Yet when Congress and President Obama agreed on a deal last week to raise the debt ceiling and resume government spending, people reacted as if a disaster was averted -- instead of reacting as if a disaster had resumed. It has. And it continues.</span><br /><span><br />Congratulating ourselves for raising the debt ceiling once again, the way we do every time this drama plays out, is like congratulating an alcoholic for talking the bartender out of cutting him off.</span><br /><span><br />As with alcoholics, there's a deeper problem here. It's not just that America is addicted to debt. Everyone agrees we should pay our bills, just not when or how. The deeper addiction is to government.</span><br /><span><br />For most of the history of America, federal spending never took up more than 5 percent of the economy. Spending increased during wars, but after World Wars I and II, spending dropped back to prewar levels.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Then came Presidents Johnson and Nixon and the "great society." From then on, spending rose even in peacetime. Now, if you include local government, government spending makes up more than 40 percent of the economy.</span><br /><span><br />"Government has exploded in size," warned economist Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute. It happens because of "politicians promising things they cannot deliver and imposing tax burdens that are crippling private sectors."</span><br /><span><br />Politicians from both parties criticize spending when they're out of power. But then they increase spending once they're in power.</span><br /><span><br />I'd forgotten that when Obama campaigned for the presidency, he was very upset about his predecessor's deficits.<em> Sen.</em> Obama complained, "The way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the bank of China. ... We now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back. ... That is irresponsible."</span><br /><span><br />I agree! $9 trillion in debt is totally irresponsible. That makes it all the more remarkable that just a few years later, under President Obama, debt increased to $17 trillion. But now, suddenly, this vast debt is no longer irresponsible.</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT470_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">Today</span><span> </span><span>the president says what is irresponsible is for Congress not to constantly raise the debt <em>ceiling</em>.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />The problem isn't just politicians. I showed people on the street a chart that documented America's unsustainable spending. People were horrified and said government "should make cuts." But when I asked, "What programs would you cut?" most could not name a single significant program.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />So let me make some suggestions: Eliminate NPR and PBS funding. Cut foreign aid. End the war on drugs. Kill Fannie and Freddie, which financed America's mortgages and helped cause the financial crisis. Eliminate cabinet departments like Commerce, Energy, Agriculture and Education, all activities that happen without any need for the federal government. (Education is a local function, and the department spending $100 billion a year hasn't raised test scores one bit.)</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Shrink the military by reducing our overseas commitments. Reform Social Security by raising the retirement age. And instead of increasing government involvement in health care, turn Medicare into a self-sustaining insurance program.</span><br /><span><br />But to save America from bankruptcy, we don't even need to make all those cuts. We could grow our way out of debt if Congress simply froze spending. They won't do that either, but if they limited spending growth to 2 percent per year, we could balance the budget in just three years.</span><br /><span><br />Limiting government growth is politically difficult, but if we don't do it, America is doomed.</span></p>John Stossel2013-10-23T16:33:00ZStossel's Column: Longing to be a VictimJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossels-Column:-Longing-to-be-a-Victim/546749273286966806.html2013-10-17T17:47:00Z2013-10-17T17:47:00Z<p><span>These days, being seen as a victim can be useful. You immediately claim the moral high ground. Some people want to help you. Lawyers and politicians brag that they <em>force</em> others to help you.</span><span> <br /></span><br /><span>This turns some people into whiners with little sense of responsibility.<br /></span><br /><span>Joe Biden's niece was arrested recently for throwing a punch at a cop. The New York Post says she's addicted to alcohol and pills, but rather than take responsibility for her actions, she blamed them on the "pressure she faces" because her uncle is vice president.<br /></span><br /><span>Give me a break. <br /></span><br /><span>I had to overcome stuttering to work as a TV reporter. Had</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT260_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span><span>'s disability laws existed when I began work, would I have overcome my stuttering problem? Maybe not. I might have demanded my employer "accommodate" my disability by providing me a job that didn't demand being on-air.<br /></span><br /><span>Now that the laws exist, it's no coincidence that more Americans say they are disabled.<br /></span><br /><span>Tad DeHaven of the Cato Institute writes that this is part of a <em>disability-industrial complex</em>: collusion between specialty law firms, doctors vouching for applicants with dubious claims and federal administrative law judges awarding benefits.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />It changes the way people calculate their options.</span><span> <br /></span><br /><span>Despite improved medical care and the workforce's dramatic shift from physical to mental labor, the number of Americans claiming disability keeps growing. You start to feel like a sucker if you're not one of them.</span><br /><span><br />On my TV show, DeHaven said</span><span> </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT262_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span><span> </span><span>even poor parents "try to get their kids on psychotropic medications in hopes of qualifying for a check that goes to Dad and Mom."</span><br /><span><br />Since the 80s, there has been a 300 percent increase in disability claims for hard-to-prove illnesses like back pain, stress and other "non-exertional restrictions." Over the past two decades, the number of people receiving Social Security disability benefits grew from 4 million to 11 million.</span><br /><span><br />"It's like any other government program," says DeHaven. "You start off with good intentions and then it becomes something that it was never supposed to be."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />We all want to help the genuinely disabled, but a wide range of subjective ailments are affected by attitude. Labeling people victims, telling them they need help, teaches some to think like victims. Social scientists call that "learned helplessness."</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Private charities are pretty good at separating real victims from malingerers. But government is not. Its one-size-fits-all rules encourage people to act like victims.</span><br /><span><br />Whether people have real physical ailments or just see the economic deck stacked against them, the most damaging thing say to them is: Give up. You can't make it on your own. Wait for help.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />Pessimism changes what we think is possible. It shrinks our horizons.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />We in the media keep an eye out for people who are victimized. Sometimes that's a valuable service. But it often means looking for victims when they really aren't there. This makes reporters feel like heroes -- noble sentries protecting the powerless.</span><br /><span><br />Even the newly crowned Miss America, Nina Davuluri, who sure seems like a winner by conventional standards, was portrayed as a victim in many news stories. Since she's the first Miss America of Indian descent, some trolls on Twitter made racist remarks.</span><span> </span><br /><span><br />But skeptical writer Gavin McInnes did a little digging. He found those racist Twitter users were almost certainly just irresponsible little kids. One of the media's most quoted tweets, "You look like a terrorist," was sent by a Twitter user with <em>zero</em> followers.</span><br /><span><br />If millions of people are familiar with that remark now -- and some Americans grow up a little bit more frightened that they will be victimized -- it will be largely because media hyped racism rather than because of the handful of racists themselves.</span><br /><span><br />America is full of success stories. But if we obsess over stories about victimhood, that is what we'll get.</span></p>John Stossel2013-10-17T17:47:00ZStossel's Column: Shutdown TheaterJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossels-Column:-Shutdown-Theater/-333922784672108547.html2013-10-09T21:09:00Z2013-10-09T21:09:00Z<p>Government wants you to play a role in the "shutdown" of the federal government. Your role is to panic. <br /><br /> Republicans and Democrats both assume that shutting some government is a terrible thing. The press concurs. "Shutdown threatens fragile economy," warns Politico. "Federal workers turn to prayer," laments The Washington Post.<br /><br /> If the public starts noticing that life goes on as usual without all 3.4 million federal workers, we might get dangerous ideas, like doing without so much government. Politicians don't want that. <br /> They'd rather have us worry about how America will cope. <br /><br /> President Obama gave a speech where he actually said we need to keep government open for the sake of people like the person working for the Department of Agriculture "out there helping some farmers make sure that they're making some modest profit," and the Department of Housing and Urban Development "helping somebody buy a house for the first time."<br /><br /> Give me a break. Farmers don't need bureaucrats to teach them how to make a profit, and Americans can buy first homes without HUD helping a chosen few. Americans would make more profit and afford better homes if they didn't have to spend a third of national income on federal taxes. <br /><br /> Bureaucrats, acting like bullies, protest the partial closures by doing things like cutting off access to public parks -- even privately funded ones. Federal cops block access to outdoor war memorials and much of Mt. Rushmore. They block access to motels and order people out of private homes that happen to sit on federal land. The Washington Free Beacon reports, "The closure of a Virginia park that sits on federal land, even though the government provides no resources for its maintenance or operation." <br /><br /> This is shutdown theater. <br /><br /> It's similar to the fake "austerity measures" in other countries. We're told that Europe's slow economic growth is a result of "austerity" embraced by European governments.<br /><br /> But there hasn't really been any austerity. England, where a "conservative" government is in charge, <em>increased </em>government spending by 4 percent.<br /><br /> "Austerity" in Greece -- supposedly so drastic that the public has little choice but to riot in protest -- meant changes like reducing mandatory severance pay to one entire year (instead of two!). <br /><br /> In the U.S., Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.) told CNN the federal government has cut so much spending that there's just nothing left to cut: "The cupboard is bare! There's no more cuts to make!"<br /><br /> What? The federal government spends almost 4 trillion dollars! The government cupboard overflows! We fund entire cabinet departments that are worse than useless. The Labor Department <em>interferes</em> with actual labor. Commerce would flow more smoothly without Commerce Department bureaucrats channeling money to their cronies.<br /><br /> The government hasn't cut spending -- it never does. After the last shutdowns, politicians even voted to award retroactive pay to government workers who didn't work. Bet they do it again this time. The federal government remains the biggest employer in the country. President Obama says so with pride.<br /> Compare this to what happens in the private sector in tough times: AT&T cut 40,000 workers. Sears cut 50,000. IBM: 60,000. They weren't easy decisions, but they enabled the companies to stay profitable. With fewer workers, leaner companies found more efficient ways to get things done. <br /> And the rest of us barely noticed. We expect change and adaptation in free-market institutions. But it doesn't happen in government. Government just grows.<br /><br /> Maybe the ugliest part of this story is that the city that whines most about suffering through the shutdown, Washington, D.C., is now the richest geographic area in America. Washington got richer while the rest of America didn't. Over the past 12 years, median income in the U.S. dropped about 6.5 percent -- but not in D.C.! There, it rose 23 percent. Four of the five richest counties now surround Washington, D.C.<br /><br /> No wonder politicians and bureaucrats are convinced big government is essential to keep the economy going -- it is essential to keep <em>them</em> going.</p>John Stossel2013-10-09T21:09:00ZStossel's Column: Escaping 'Government' SchoolsJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossels-Column:-Escaping-Government-Schools/905291841732720163.html2013-10-02T22:19:00Z2013-10-02T22:19:00Z<p>People say public schools are "one of the best parts of America". I believed that. Then I started reporting on them. </p>
<p>Now I know that public school -- <em>government school</em> is a better name -- is one of the <em>worst</em> parts of America. It's a stultified government monopoly. It never improves.<br /> <br /> Most services improve. They get faster, better, cheaper. But not government monopolies. Government schools are rigid, boring, expensive and more segregated than private schools. <br /><br /> I call them "government" instead of "public" schools because not much is "public" about them. Members of the public don't get to pick their kids' schools, teachers, curriculum or cost. <br /><br /> By contrast, supermarkets are "private" yet open to everyone. You can stroll in 24 hours a day. Just try that with your kid's public school. You might be arrested. <br /><br /> Now a school choice movement has given government schools a sliver of competition. Private schools, charter schools, vouchers, education tax credits and the Web offer competition. Not all the alternatives work, but with competition, bad alternatives die and good ones grow. <br /><br /> This will help <em>all</em> kids.<br /><br /> But so far, the alternatives reach only a small number of kids. Unions and bureaucrats don't want competition, and they use their political clout to stifle it. But gradually, they're losing.<br /><br /> After fighting homeschooling for years, they've stopped trying to ban it, and today homeschoolers fare better on tests and college admission. So, some in the government monopoly claim that if your kids are homeschooled, they will not be properly <em>socialized</em> (in the sense of interacting with peers, that is, not in the sense of belonging to government). <br /><br /> But homeschooled kids participate in all sorts of social events with other homeschooling families -- plus theater, ballet, karate and other classes that most kids get and that some only wish they did.<br /><br /> Homeschoolers do just fine. Somehow, without government control, they prosper.<br /><br /> Defenders of government schools often claim their schools are what create the American "melting pot." Different races, ethnic groups and income levels mix together in government-funded schools. <br /><br /> Bunk. If it was ever true, it isn't now.  <br /><br /> University of Arkansas education professor Jay Greene examined school classrooms and found that public schools were more likely to be almost entirely white or entirely minority. <br /><br /> He also looked at who sat with whom in school lunchrooms. At private schools, students of different races were more likely to sit together.<br /><br /> We don't do poor kids any favors by keeping them trapped in the poorly run government system. If you really care about "the public," you should let people go where they get the best service.<br /><br /> When government gets bad results -- high dropout rates, poor test scores -- its defenders say schools need more money. But spending per student has tripled. There are more computers, teachers, social workers, reading specialists, principals, assistant principals, etc. But test scores haven't improved.<br /><br /> Unpredictable things happen when you leave people free to experiment, and competition produces better results than one tired monopoly. <br /><br /> A bizarre column in Slate recently, arguing that school choice might drain resources away from government schools, was titled, "If You Send Your Kid to Private School, You Are a Bad Person". <br /><br /> The columnist wrote, "If every single parent sent every single child to public school, public schools would improve ... It could take generations. Your children and grandchildren might get mediocre educations in the meantime, but it will be worth it, for the eventual common good."<br /><br /> This is how leftists think. Everyone must jump into the government pot. Even if it is mediocre (or worse), we're all in this together. Otherwise, the rich will get all the goods, and the poor will suffer.<br /> Don't they notice that cellphones, cars and air conditioning keep improving yet poor people are able to buy them? No.<br /><br /> They don't understand that market competition helps everyone, especially the poor.<br /><br /> I think those who want to force a single-government solution on everyone are just confused -- but if I were as judgmental as that Slate columnist, I'd be tempted to conclude that they're bad people.</p>
<p>Â </p>John Stossel2013-10-02T22:19:00ZStossel's Column: Innovation or StagnationJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossels-Column:-Innovation-or-Stagnation/-390008508982101374.html2013-09-25T17:08:00Z2013-09-25T17:08:00Z<p>Invent something and the first thing that goes through some people's minds -- especially politicians' minds -- is what might go wrong.</p>
<p>3D printers now allow you to mold objects right in your living room, using patterns you find online. It's a revolutionary invention that will save time, reduce shipping costs and be kind to the earth.</p>
<p>But what critics see is: guns! People will print guns at home! Well, sure.</p>
<p>On TV, Rachel Maddow sneered about "a well-armed anarchist utopia, where everybody fends for themselves with stupid-looking plastic guns. ... It's a political effort to try to do away with government."</p>
<p>Do away with government? If only we <em>could</em> do away with some! Big-government politicians and their cheerleaders in the media focus on threats posed by innovation because they fear loss of control. They move to ban things.</p>
<p> In Texas, Cody Wilson used a 3D printer to make a plastic gun. He called it "the Liberator" and posted its specs on the Internet. The State Department then ordered him to take the specs down. He did. But by then, 100,000 people had downloaded it.</p>
<p> Wilson takes pride in pointing out how his gun shows that gun "control" is an illusion. Being able to print a gun in your own home will render laws against purchasing guns unenforceable and irrelevant.</p>
<p>"I'm your full-service provocateur," Wilson told Kennedy, my TV show's correspondent. "Here's the printed gun. I'm not here to make you feel better about it. I'm here to say, 'Look, this space is occupied. Deal with it.'"</p>
<p> The "Liberator" didn't work well. It broke before Kennedy could fire a shot. However, printed guns will improve over time. Wilson's point: "prohibiting this is no longer effective."</p>
<p>Technological innovation constantly threatens centralized authorities.</p>
<p>Now we take the Internet for granted, but when it first became popular, people worried that it would mainly be used by terrorists, child molesters and money-launderers.</p>
<p> "Smash the Internet!" said a cover story in the conservative magazine Weekly Standard, illustrated with a sledgehammer smashing a computer screen.</p>
<p>Even today, after Google, Facebook, Wikipedia, eBay, Yelp, Craigslist, WebMD, YouTube and more have clearly made our lives better, Luddites in the media fret about problems. </p>
<p>"The Internet Is Making Kids Stupid" says PC Magazine. CBS's Bob Schieffer whines that in the absence of supervising editors, "ignorance travels as rapidly as great ideas."</p>
<p>There's some truth behind these complaints. The Internet does make some people isolated. It does allow ignorant ideas to spread. But so what? It also creates <em>new</em> forms of human interaction and allows the crowd of users to correct ignorant mistakes.</p>
<p>Schieffer is prematurely old, but even hip novelists like Dave Eggers and Jonathan Franzen worry about the Net. Eggers' latest novel suggests it creates "unnaturally extreme" needs, and a Franzen essay attacks "technoconsumerism." Comedian Louis CK gets laughs by worrying that cell phones just keep us distracted -- but not really happy or sad -- until we die. He'd prefer his kids didn't have them.</p>
<p>They are right that any activity can become a time-waster, but to all the fearmongers I say, stop whining! Overwhelmingly, innovation brings us good things. It's even changed the way Americans find love. A University of Chicago study says 35 percent of new marriages now start online.</p>
<p>We don't think twice about miracles like computer dating or email or the fact that, today, most everyone in the world has access to all the world's knowledge on a little phone. We take it for granted that we can put a piece of plastic into a wall and cash will come out -- and the count is always accurate. Government couldn't do that. Government can't even count votes accurately.</p>
<p>In a free market, a symphony of desires comes together, and they're met by people who constantly rack their brains to provide better services and invent solutions to our desires.</p>
<p>It's not a few people desiring guns that I fear. It's government getting in the way of all those new possibilities. </p>John Stossel2013-09-25T17:08:00ZStossel's Column: Make Trade, Not WarJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossels-Column:-Make-Trade-Not-War/629032071711626874.html2013-09-18T00:56:00Z2013-09-18T00:56:00Z<p> </p>
<p>What's up with so many Democrats wanting missile strikes on Syria, while Republicans balk? I'm told Republicans are the war party.</p>
<p>Is this just hypocrisy? Politicians change their position on military intervention when their own party controls the White House?</p>
<p>Historian Thaddeus Russell says it's not. He says it's always been "progressive" Democrats who led America into war: Woodrow Wilson in World War I, FDR in World War II, Truman in the Korean War, Kennedy and Johnson in Vietnam and Bill Clinton in Somalia and Kosovo.</p>
<p>Russell says the progressives like "nation-building" because it fits their view that government can reform the world "not just in the ghettos, but outside our borders. Anywhere we find the oppressed, we must go out and save them."</p>
<p>Of course there are the neoconservatives, such as William Kristol, who were pro-war under both Bush and Obama.</p>
<p>"The so-called neocons who drove us to war in Iraq actually all began in the Democratic Party. They all began as progressives," says Russell. "They supported intervention in Iraq to remake Iraq in our image, and they support intervention in Syria to do the same."</p>
<p>Both neocons and progressives call those of us who oppose most intervention overseas "isolationist."</p>
<p>A Wall Street Journal column complained about "the isolationist worm eating its way through the Republican Party apple." On the left, Secretary of State John Kerry declared, "This is not the time for armchair isolationism."</p>
<p>I resent the smear.</p>
<p>"Isolationist" suggests that anyone who objects to killing people in foreign countries (mostly people who have never attacked us) wants to "isolate" America, withdraw from the world.</p>
<p>Before World War II, American isolationists did fight to prevent refugees who were escaping Hitler from coming to America. Isolationists also opposed trade and immigration. That's nuts. We libertarians who are skeptical about war today are nothing like that.</p>
<p>I want to be engaged with the world without us being in charge of it. Let us trade with people of every nation. It's said that when goods cross borders, armies don't. History backs that up. A report funded by several governments found that the level of armed conflict in Muslim countries is lower today than two decades ago, and trade is the reason. You're less likely to bomb the people with whom you engage in commerce.</p>
<p>Preferring trade to government action may not sound "progressive" to progressives, but it's not a surrender to evil or a withdrawal from global affairs. As we trade goods, we also export our ideas and our culture.</p>
<p>I don't claim that this will end all conflict, but it is harder for radicals to make you hate people who sell you things, inspire you to change your hairstyle or make movies that make you laugh.</p>
<p>When the Soviet Union fell, conservatives said it happened because of Ronald Reagan's military buildup. OK, that played a part. But so did American music.</p>
<p>In 1988, Bruce Springsteen held a concert in East Berlin, and even there, behind the Iron Curtain, 160,000 people came to hear him perform. And they knew the words to "Born in the USA" and sang along. Springsteen stopped his performance and told the crowd he hoped one day all the barriers would be torn down. One year later, the Berlin Wall did come down.</p>
<p>I don't claim that America's culture, consumer goods or Bruce Springsteen was entirely responsible for that, but the obvious comparison between Soviet repression and America's vibrancy did play a part. Eventually, people in the Soviet bloc wanted what we had.</p>
<p>These cultural and economic influences work, and they are less likely to create new enemies and bankrupt America than bombing and invading.</p>
<p>So let tourism flow. Let our music alarm mullahs. Let neocons donate books to the Middle East filled with ideas dictators hate. Let our cell phones expose isolated people to the wonders of the free world.</p>
<p>There are times when we have to go to war, but real progress means making those times as rare as possible.</p>John Stossel2013-09-18T00:56:00ZStossel's Column: Road to DamascusJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossels-Column:-Road-to-Damascus/655827346884309692.html2013-09-11T22:12:00Z2013-09-11T22:12:00Z<p><br />Some things you just <em>have</em> to do, in spite of great uncertainty.</p>
<p>Launching missiles at Syria isn't one of them.</p>
<p>Many pundits talk about going to war as if all we have to do is make up our minds about what "ought" to happen -- who the bad guys are -- and the rest is just details. If we decide we must punish a tyrant, let the military worry about how to get it done.</p>
<p>We ought to worry more about details.</p>
<p>Everyone agrees there are huge "known unknowns" in Syria -- we barely know the composition of the rebel movement we're supposed to aid -- but we should be more concerned about "unknown unknowns," to borrow former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's phrase.</p>
<p>Remember the confidence with which he and other Bush administration officials described their plans to remake Iraq? Dick Cheney said, "We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." The Wall Street Journal beat the drums for war for a year. I read that Iraq was full of repressed democratic activists just waiting for Saddam to be overthrown.</p>
<p>Pundits also argued that once the authoritarian ruler was gone, Iraq would blossom into a showcase of peace and democracy that would inspire transformation throughout the region. I wanted to believe it. Once they had a choice, why wouldn't they pursue our way of life? It's clearly better!</p>
<p>Instead, we've spent more than a decade fighting feuding factions that most Americans have never heard of -- and still can't name.</p>
<p>When pro-war pundits did admit to uncertainty about what would happen in Iraq, it was often to stoke fear about what would happen if we <em>didn't</em> intervene. Saddam might use chemical weapons! Saddam might get nukes! Well, maybe.</p>
<p>I'm glad Saddam is gone, and Iraqis are better off. But the masses yearning to breathe free turned out to include more troublemakers than we expected.</p>
<p>I don't trust John Kerry, but I'll accept his claim that Syria's leaders probably used chemical weapons to kill 1,400 people. Horrible.</p>
<p>But are we going to enforce a "red line" to tell dictators that if they murder their people, they better use <em>conventional</em> weapons?</p>
<p>Even if that's the goal, our options are limited. Maybe we'll:<br /> --Lob a few cruise missiles, like Bill Clinton did in Sudan. <br /> --Hit Assad's compound, killing hundreds of innocents, without killing Assad.<br /> --Kill Assad himself and then ... what?</p>
<p>President Obama argues that limited intervention in Syria might accomplish good more quickly and cheaply than our efforts in Iraq did. He said he wants a two-day engagement instead of months of fighting.</p>
<p>But we thought that would happen in Iraq, too. We didn't foresee years of civil war. What do we fail to foresee now? More intervention from Russia? China? Iran? World war?</p>
<p>Even if the conflict remains localized and contained -- a dangerous assumption in the "fog of war" -- we can't assume that a new government will be more democratic or tolerant than Assad's regime.</p>
<p>We already know that the rebel forces include factions allied with al-Qaida. Some of those people execute Christians and want to replace Assad's repressive but multi-faith regime with Islamic totalitarianism. If they murder Christians while still fighting Assad, what will they do once in power?</p>
<p>Years ago, al-Qaida (and Osama bin Laden) gained power because America funded "rebels" fighting the Russians in Afghanistan.</p>
<p>Given what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, there are worse things than leaving murderous Russian-backed governments in place.</p>
<p>I hate Assad. I hate what's happened in Syria. I also hate what happened in Rwanda and Darfur and what still happens in Somalia, China, Russia, Zimbabwe and so on. But there's just not much we can do about it without making new enemies and exacerbating America's coming bankruptcy. America cannot police the world and shouldn't try.</p>
<p>Defense should mean defense. Unless we are attacked, we shouldn't go to war.</p>John Stossel2013-09-11T22:12:00ZStossel's Column: Trains to NowhereJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossels-Column:-Trains-to-Nowhere/-969158114503845982.html2013-08-28T17:20:00Z2013-08-28T17:20:00Z<p>When Democrats and Republicans agree, I get nervous. It often means that they agree to grab my wallet.<br /> <br /> Both parties now agree that we don't have extra budget money lying around, but both say government does need to spend more on "infrastructure."<br /> <br /> Even conservatives want more spent on roads and mass transit.<br /> <br /> The reason, advocates claim, is that infrastructure, unlike most government spending, has a "multiplier effect" -- it creates new wealth by doing things like speeding up travel. <br /> <br /> Well, it might. <br /> <br /> Advocates also point out something that seems obvious to them: Infrastructure is a job that must be done by government. Who else would launch big projects like the New York City subway system? Subways are what Big Government supporters call a "public good." <br /> <br /> They are important to many people, but there's no way that business would build subways or run them, they argue. Subways lose billions of dollars. Entrepreneurs would never invest in subway cars or dig subway tunnels -- there's no profit in that.<br /> <br /> But often what we "obviously know" ... is not so. <br /> <br /> Most of New York's subways were actually built by private companies. Few New Yorkers even know that. Private companies dug the first tunnels and ran the trains for about 40 years. But when they wanted to raise the fare to a dime, the politicians said they had to "protect" the public. Government took over the system, saying only "public ownership" could guarantee affordable fares.<br /> <br /> But government doesn't do anything well. Under government management, profit disappeared and the fare rose well beyond the inflation-adjusted equivalent of what the private companies had wanted to charge. <br /> <br /> Now, politicians want you to buy them new trains. Who wouldn't like a shiny new train? The Obama administration gave your money to California politicians who want to build a 200-m.p.h. train to take people from Los Angeles to San Francisco. Somehow, in the tradition of political boondoggles everywhere, the train that politicians actually approved doesn't yet come close to either city. It starts, and ends, "in the boondocks," says Reason magazine's Adrian Moore.<br /> <br /> "I live in a little mountain town called Tehachapi," he says. "It's in the middle of nowhere, 50 miles to the nearest Walmart ... the high-speed rail line in California comes right through my town. This thing is like the boondoggle of boondoggles."<br /> <br /> When I confronted train advocate Dennis Lytton about that, he said, "They're starting high-speed rail in the middle of the state because that's where you can build it fast." <br /> <br /> He also said, "Private investors will be part of the mix." But when I asked if any have invested so far, he said, "Not at this time."<br /> <br /> People who spend their own money know better.<br /> <br /> Lytton also claimed that California's Amtrak trains are "packed." So we investigated that claim. It turns out to be far from the truth. On average, California's Amtrak trains are one third full. <br /> <br /> Government planning leads to transit systems that lose money on every passenger, airports where there are few passengers or planes and bridges to nowhere. <br /> <br /> America does need mass transit. Three hundred million people need to go places. Roads are congested. Who will provide it when government drives transit entrepreneurs out of the business? <br /> <br /> Well, instead of building giant rail projects in the boondocks, how about letting people ride buses? <br /> <br /> Buses, privately owned buses, are now the fastest growing mass transit in America. Buses are much cheaper than trains. Amtrak charges about $150 to ride from New York to D.C. Buses charge less than $20. And buses don't require new land seizure through eminent domain. Buses aren't locked into straight-line routes. They go where people go. And when people move, buses, unlike trains, change routes.<br /> <br /> Let services be paid for by the people who use them and built by people who put potential profits on the line. Otherwise, politicians will take us for a ride.</p>John Stossel2013-08-28T17:20:00ZStossel's Column: Beware Warrior CopsJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossels-Column:-Beware-Warrior-Cops/-330387853344469039.html2013-08-21T17:18:00Z2013-08-21T17:18:00Z<p>We need police to catch murderers, thieves and con men, and so we give them special power -- the power to use force on others. Sadly,today's police use that power to invade people's homes over accusations of trivial, nonviolent offenses -- and often do it with tanks, battering rams and armor you'd expect on battlefields.<br /> <br /> In his book "Rise of the Warrior Cop," Radley Balko recounts the rise of police SWAT teams (SWAT stands for Special Weapons And Tactics) armed with heavy military equipment. SWAT raids began as rarely used methods of dealing with violent situations, like hostage-takings.<br /> <br /> But government always grows.<br /> <br /> In the 1970s, there were about 300 SWAT raids per year. "As of 2005," says Balko, "100 to 150 per day." <br /> <br /> What began as a few specialized groups of police trained to address genuine threats to safety has degenerated into small armies descending on organic farms where farmers sell unpasteurized milk and legal medical marijuana dispensaries getting raided as if they were heavily armed threats.<br /> <br /> The increase began under Nixon-era politicians who wanted to look "tough on crime," even if that meant exaggerating the threat posed by illegal drugs. As the futile war on drugs escalated, cops worried that drug users would destroy evidence if cops knocked and announced themselves. So they stopped doing that, changing a centuries-old rule that treated citizens' homes as their castles -- castles whose owners must be presented with a warrant before police can enter.<br /> <br /> Soon, every police department wanted a SWAT team -- and many were more interested in getting cool military gear than in considering the potential downside -- like terrorizing innocent people, raiding the wrong house and causing violence.<br /> <br /> "I found over 50 cases where a completely innocent person was killed in one of these raids," says Balko. Often this happens because the homeowner does not realize who is breaking down his door in the middle of the night. <br /> <br /> Iraq War veteran Jose Guerena just knew that armed men were bursting in. So he picked up his semi-automatic rifle. Before he could take the safety off, police fired 71 bullets, hitting him 22 times. <br /> <br /> Police raided his house because they suspected drugs were there. But after Guerena was killed, police found no drugs and no evidence of drug dealing. Today, the vast majority of SWAT raids are about drugs, not terrorism or hostage situations. Guerena's brother was arrested on drug charges. Balko says, "It appears Guerena's crime was being related to someone." <br /> <br /> Now that the public is finally starting to have doubts about the drug war, another type of war has arrived: the War on Terror. The idea that domestic enemies need to be raided and rooted out -- that law enforcement should be given a free hand or we could all be killed -- got a new lease on life.<br /> <br /> And a new source of funding.<br /> <br /> Despite laws clearly saying that soldiers may not be used for domestic policing except in very special circumstances, the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security now offer armored vehicles -- tanks and troop transports, body armor and stun grenades -- to police departments, large or small. <br /> <br /> Local police jumped at the chance to have new toys -- so they expanded the circumstances under which those toys get used. <br /> <br /> The police chief in quiet Concord, N.H., cites people not so different from me as an excuse for getting DHS money to buy an armored vehicle. In an application for what is essentially a tank, he wrote that groups like the Free State Project -- libertarians who moved to New Hampshire seeking increased individual freedom -- pose "daily challenges" to the police of Concord.<br /> <br /> Free Staters better watch out next time they get into an argument over a traffic ticket.<br /> <br /> Most libertarians argue that police, courts and military are legitimate functions of government. We focus our skepticism on completely illegitimate government actions, like corporate welfare. <br /> <br /> But few freedoms are more basic than being able to sleep securely in your bed without armored men bursting through your door.</p>John Stossel2013-08-21T17:18:00ZStossel's Column: Battle of the SexesJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossels-Column:-Battle-of-the-Sexes/-956364902577628276.html2013-08-14T18:21:00Z2013-08-14T18:21:00Z<p>Women make only 77 cents per each dollar made by males. Outrageous! Sex discrimination!</p>
<p>So say advocates of government-enforced "equality."</p>
<p>But they are wrong. Women today are rarely victims of salary discrimination.</p>
<p>If they were, market competition would punish bosses who discriminate. A company that hired women who were "underpaid" by other companies would have a cost advantage, allowing them to lower prices, and they'd quickly take business away from the "sexist" competition. Since those female workers provide the same value for less, entrepreneurs who hired only women would get rich!</p>
<p>Warren Farrell, author of "Why Men Earn More," dug deeper into reasons why women are paid less and found that it's women who make discriminating choices. Women are more likely to choose a well-rounded life than their workaholic male peers.</p>
<p>"Many women say, what do I want? Do I want to make $200,000 a year, or do I want more personal time? Time with my children? More spiritual time?"</p>
<p>He found that even female business owners are more likely to favor flexibility and proximity to home. Men are more likely to chase higher earnings by working longer hours, traveling farther and taking dangerous assignments. They are paid accordingly, though they may not be happier.</p>
<p>In her recent book, "Lean In," the chief operating officer of Facebook, Sheryl Sandberg, urged women to put in the extra effort that enables workers to jockey for position in business.</p>
<p>She says: "At Facebook, we hosted a senior government official, and he had these two women traveling with him who were pretty senior in his department. And I said to them, sit at the table, come on, sit at the table. (But) they sat on the side of the room."</p>
<p>Sandberg's been criticized by feminists for this common-sense message. The critics claim she "blames the victim." But most women are anything but victims. Making a different choice, choosing a less career-driven life, may be why women have more friends and live longer.</p>
<p>Many women don't want "corporate success," though it's politically incorrect to admit it, says Sabrina Schaeffer, executive director of the Independent Women's Forum.</p>
<p>"I don't think that most women want what Sheryl Sandberg wants," Schaeffer told me. "In some recent studies, only 23 percent of women said that they would prefer to work full-time, let alone (have the) sort of CEO quality of life that Sheryl Sandberg is living."</p>
<p>Regardless of what many women prefer, America now is stuck with laws based on a feminist view that only discrimination accounts for differences between women and men -- and that government must use regulation to "correct" those differences: affirmative action, subsidies for female-owned businesses, Title IX rules that require equal money for women's college sports, etc.</p>
<p>Instead of trying to change sexist male institutions by force, Sandberg's book suggests that women change voluntarily.</p>
<p>"Sandberg picks up on some very sensitive gender differences," says Schaeffer. "She says, look, women don't negotiate their salaries. I was one of those women. My brother told me he negotiated every salary he had. The fact is, once you're aware of that, you can do things."</p>
<p>If they do, women might very well overtake men in business -- but they will have to give something up to do it.</p>
<p>Psychiatrist Dr. Daniel Amen, author of "The Power of the Female Brain," conducted the biggest brain-scan study ever done -- 46,000 scans -- and found that "female brains were dramatically more active. Women are really wired for leadership. ... If it wasn't for this thing called children that derails their careers ... they really make great CEOs."</p>
<p>Amen says women are "better with things like empathy, intuition, collaboration, self-control." Since leadership isn't all about bellowing and frightening people, those are useful corporate skills.</p>
<p>They are also useful skills for managing a household full of children and promoting family life. We should respect both choices.</p>
<p>Politicians and "equality" feminists should respect reality: Differing choices come with differing rewards -- and different salaries.</p>John Stossel2013-08-14T18:21:00ZStossel's Column: Killing GigglesJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossels-Column:-Killing-Giggles/16013670111769415.html2013-08-07T18:19:00Z2013-08-07T18:19:00Z<p> </p>
<p>Global average temperature has been flat for a decade. But frightening myths about global warming continue.</p>
<p>We're told there are more hurricanes now. We're told that hurricanes are stronger. But the National Hurricane Center says it isn't so.</p>
<p>Meteorologist Maria Molina told me it's not surprising that climatologists assumed hurricanes would get worse. "Hurricanes need warm ocean waters," but it turns out that "hurricanes are a lot more complicated than just warm ocean waters."</p>
<p>Computer models have long predicted nasty effects from our production of greenhouse gasses. But the nasty effects have not appeared. As far as hurricanes, more hit the United States in the 1880s than recently.</p>
<p>Why do people believe that global warming has already created bigger storms? Because when "experts" repeatedly tell us that global warming will wreck the Earth, we start to fit each bad storm into the disaster narrative that's already in our heads.</p>
<p>Also, attention-seeking media wail about increased property damage from hurricanes. And it's true! Costs have grown! But that's because more people build on coastlines, not because storms are stronger or more frequent.</p>
<p>Also, thanks to modern media and camera phones, we hear more about storms, and see the damage. People think Hurricane Katrina, which killed 1,800 people, was the deadliest storm ever. But the 1900 Galveston hurricane killed 10,000 people. We just didn't have so much media then.</p>
<p>Climatologist Patrick Michaels, director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, says humans don't have as much impact on global temperature as the doomsayers feared.</p>
<p>"Forecasts of global warming -- particularly in the last two years -- have begun to come down," he says. "We're seeing the so-called 'sensitivity' of temperature being reduced by 40 percent in the new climate models. It means we're going to live."</p>
<p>Michaels is tired of dire predictions. "I have lived through nine end-of-the-world environmental apocalypses, beginning with (the 1962 environmental book) 'Silent Spring,' and, you know, we're still here."</p>
<p>As a consumer reporter, I fell for dire predictions about cellphones, Y2K and pesticides.<br /> <br /> Maybe the new scare will be killer bees, flesh-eating bacteria or bird flu. The media always hype something.</p>
<p>Since this is hurricane season, let's at least debunk one specific myth about preparing for hurricanes: the idea you should use masking tape to put X's on your windows. Government brochures did recommend that in the 1930s, but now the National Hurricane Center calls it a mistake.</p>
<p>It won't stop glass from shattering, says Molina, but "now you have larger pieces of glass -- potentially deadlier pieces of glass -- flying around. ... What you should be doing during a hurricane is be in a room with no windows and in a lower part of your home."</p>
<p>I'm a global warming skeptic not because I don't believe the world will get warmer. It may. Climate changes. It always has. Man's carbon output might make it worse.</p>
<p>But just because humans sometimes damage the environment doesn't mean government is competent to fix the problem. That's the biggest myth of all.</p>
<p>Government is the same institution that takes over forests to "protect" them -- but then builds logging roads into forests to cut down trees that unsubsidized, private roads might never have reached. The forests end up smaller, but people still assume they're safer in government hands than in greedy private hands.</p>
<p>Government is the institution that puts itself in charge of caring for wildlife but recently sent a dozen armed agents into a Wisconsin animal shelter to seize and kill a baby deer named Giggles who was being nursed back to health there, since Giggles wasn't in the right type of approved shelter.</p>
<p>When government screws up, we're supposed to say, "They meant well." When individuals pursuing their own interests screw up, we're supposed to feel ashamed of industrial civilization and let government punish and control us all. If we let it do that, government will do to the economy what it did to Giggles.</p>John Stossel2013-08-07T18:19:00ZStossel's Column: Are We Rome Yet?John Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossels-Column:-Are-We-Rome-Yet/320222303858823662.html2013-07-31T18:17:00Z2013-07-31T18:17:00Z<p> </p>
<p><br /> Unfortunately, the fall of Rome is a pattern repeated by empires throughout history ... including ours?</p>
<p>A group of libertarians gathered in Las Vegas recently for an event called "FreedomFest." We debated whether America will soon fall, as Rome did.</p>
<p>Historian Carl Richard said that today's America resembles Rome.</p>
<p>The Roman Republic had a constitution, but Roman leaders often ignored it. "Marius was elected consul six years in a row, even though under the constitution (he) was term-limited to one year."<br /> <br /> Sounds like New York City's Mayor Bloomberg.</p>
<p>"We have presidents of both parties legislating by executive order, saying I'm not going to enforce certain laws because I don't like them. ... That open flouting of the law is dangerous because law ceases to have meaning. ... I see that today. ... Congress passes huge laws they haven't even read (as well as) overspending, overtaxing and devaluing the currency."</p>
<p>The Romans were worse. I object to President Obama's $100 million dollar trip, but Nero traveled with 1,000 carriages.</p>
<p>Tiberius established an "office of imperial pleasures," which gathered "beautiful boys and girls from all corners of the world" so, as Tacitus put it, the emperor "could defile them."</p>
<p>Emperor Commodus held a show in the Colosseum at which he personally killed five hippos, two elephants, a rhinoceros and a giraffe.</p>
<p>To pay for their excesses, emperors devalued the currency. (Doesn't our Fed do that by buying $2 trillion of government debt?)</p>
<p>Nero reduced the silver content of coins to 95 percent. Then Trajan reduced it to 85 percent and so on. By the year 300, wheat that once cost eight Roman dollars cost 120,000 Roman dollars.</p>
<p>The president the Foundation for Economic Education, Lawrence Reed, warned that Rome, like America, had an expanding welfare state. It started with "subsidized grain. The government gave it away at half price. But the problem was that they couldn't stop there ... a man named Claudius ran for Tribune on a platform of free wheat for the masses. And won. It was downhill from there."</p>
<p>Soon, to appease angry voters, emperors gave away or subsidized olive oil, salt and pork. People lined up to get free stuff.</p>
<p>Rome's government, much like ours, wasn't good at making sure subsidies flowed only to the poor, said Reed: "Anybody could line up to get these goods, which contributed to the ultimate bankruptcy of the Roman state."</p>
<p>As inflation increased, Rome, much like the U.S. under President Nixon, imposed wage and price controls. When people objected, Emperor Diocletian denounced their "greed," saying, "Shared humanity urges us to set a limit."</p>
<p>Doesn't that sound like today's anti-capitalist politicians?</p>
<p>Diocletian was worse than Nixon. Rome enforced controls with the death penalty -- and forbid people to change professions. Emperor Constantine decreed that those who broke such rules "be bound with chains and reduced to servile condition."</p>
<p>Eventually, Rome's empire was so large -- and people so resentful of centralized control -- that generals in outlying regions began declaring independence from Rome.</p>
<p>At FreedomFest, Matt Kibbe, president of the tea party group FreedomWorks, also argued that America could soon collapse like Rome did.</p>
<p>"The parallels are quite ominous -- the debt, the expansionist foreign policy, the arrogance of executive power taking over our country," says Kibbe. "But I do think we have a chance to stop it."</p>
<p>That's a big difference between today's America and yesterday's Rome. We have movements like the tea party and libertarianism and events like FreedomFest that alert people to the danger in imperial Washington and try to fight it. If they can wake the public, we have hope.</p>
<p>The triumph of liberty is not inevitable, though. And empires do crumble.</p>
<p>Rome's lasted the longest. The Ottoman Empire lasted 623 years. China's Song, Qing and Ming dynasties each lasted about 300 years.</p>
<p>We've lasted just 237 years so far -- sometimes behaving like a republic and sometimes an empire. In that time, we've accomplished amazing things, but we shouldn't take our continued success for granted.<br /> <br /> Freedom and prosperity are not natural. In human history, they're rare.</p>John Stossel2013-07-31T18:17:00ZStossel's Column: Stalled Motor CityJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossels-Column:-Stalled-Motor-City/744480774852594161.html2013-07-24T20:42:00Z2013-07-24T20:42:00Z<p>MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry -- the same TV commentator who said Americans need to stop raising kids as if they belong to individual families -- had an extraordinary explanation for why the city of Detroit sought to declare bankruptcy last week: not enough government. <br /> <br /> "This is what it looks like when government is small enough to drown in your bathtub, and it is not a pretty picture." She says budget-cutting Republicans threaten to transform all of the U.S. into Detroit.<br /> <br /> What? Detroit has been a "model city" for big-government! All Detroit's mayors since 1962 were Democrats who were eager to micromanage. And spend. Detroit has the only utility tax in Michigan, and its income tax is the third-highest of any big city in America (only Philadelphia and Louisville take more, and they aren't doing great, either).<br /> <br /> Detroit's automakers got billions in federal bailouts. <br /> <br /> The Detroit News revealed that Detroit in 2011 had around twice as many municipal employees per capita as cities with comparable populations. The city water and sewer department employed a "horseshoer" even though it keeps no horses. <br /> <br /> This is "small enough government"? Harris-Perry must have one heck of a bathtub.<br /> <br /> Politicians think they know best, but they can't alter the laws of economics. They can't make mismanaged industries, constant government meddling, welfare and bureaucratic labor union rules (Detroit has 47 unions) into a formula for success. <br /> <br /> County Judge Rosemarie Aquilina wants to stop the bankruptcy process on the grounds that state law forbids Detroit to cut government services. But how will Detroit pay for the services? Unsustainable public-sector pensions, a bloated workforce -- it's all supposed to continue somehow.<br /> <br /> Politicians on Detroit's city council aren't even willing to sell off vacant lots that the city owns, or even a portion of the billions of dollars in art in its government-subsidized museum (including the original "Howdy Doody" puppet). <br /> <br /> On my TV show, I confronted the council's second in command about his refusal to let Detroit sell land. He says he voted against it "because the developer wants to grow trees. We don't need any more new trees in our city." The politicians micromanaged themselves into bankruptcy, and they want to keep digging.<br /> <br /> A member of the British Parliament writes that Detroit is like the fictional city of Starnesville in Ayn Rand's 1957 novel "Atlas Shrugged" -- a car-manufacturing city that became a ghost town after experimenting with socialism. In the novel, Starnesville's demise is the first sign that the entire society is approaching collapse.<br /> <br /> Detroit is already there. 911 calls sometimes go unanswered. Two-thirds of the population left town. <br /> <br /> As usual, the politicians want to try more of the same. They constantly come up with plans, but the plans are always big, simple-minded ones that run roughshod over the thousands of little plans made by ordinary citizens. Politicians want new stadiums, new transportation schemes, housing projects.<br /> <br /> Andrew Rodney, a documentary filmmaker from Detroit, says many bad, big-government ideas that have plagued the U.S. were tried out first in Detroit. "It's the first city to experience a lot of the planning that went into a lot of cities." <br /> <br /> Home loan subsidies, public housing, stadium subsidies, a $350 million project called "Renaissance Center" (the city ended up selling it for just $50 million), an automated People Mover system that not many people feel moved to use (it moves people in only one direction), endless favors to unions -- if a government idea has failed anywhere in America, there's a good chance it failed in Detroit first. <br /> <br /> And if you criticized them for it, politicians like former Mayor Coleman Young called you a racist. "To attack Detroit is to attack black," Young said. That tends to shut critics up.<br /> <br /> But the laws of economics apply to us all. <br /> <br /> Insulated from serious criticism, insulated from economic reality, Detroit thought somehow it'd muddle through -- until now. There is a big lesson, if people elsewhere are willing to learn before it's too late.</p>John Stossel2013-07-24T20:42:00ZStossel's Column: Strangling LifeJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossels-Column:-Strangling-Life/327154992198361091.html2013-07-16T21:20:00Z2013-07-16T21:20:00Z<p>There are now 175,000 pages' worth of federal laws. Local governments add more.<br /> <br /> I'm not so cynical that I think politicians pass laws just to control us. Someone always thinks: "This law is needed. This will protect people."<br /> <br /> But the cumulative effect of so many rules is to strangle life. <br /> <br /> Yet lawyers like George Washington Law professor John Banzhaf want more rules. <br /> <br /> Banzhaf requires his law students to sue people, just for practice. <br /> <br /> "And we keep winning!" he bragged to me.<br /> <br /> They do. But his legal "victories" hardly benefit the public.<br /> <br /> He and his students have sued Washington, D.C., hairdressers and dry cleaners for "discrimination" because they charge women more. <br /> <br /> Of course, they charge women more for a reason. Women's haircuts take longer. "Women get pampered," said hairdresser Carolyn Carter. "Men just get a haircut." Women's clothing is more varied and doesn't always fit dry-cleaning machines. The market sorts out these differences through differing prices. <br /> <br /> But intrusive Washington, D.C., politicians write laws that say, "Discrimination ... cannot be justified by ... comparative characteristics of one group as opposed to another." <br /> <br /> So the poor defendants have to spend thousands on legal fees, while law students get their "practice." A Korean dry cleaners association "went through three or four high-powered law firms" defending itself, Banzhaf says with pride.<br /> <br /> Banzhaf's lawsuits even got "ladies' nights" banned at Washington, D.C., bars. Women liked "ladies' night." Men liked it because it brought more women into bars. Bars liked it; that's why they did it. But the practice violates the lawyers' concept of "equality."<br /> <br /> As if his lawsuits weren't obnoxious enough, the real irony is that the cost of the suits is passed on to future customers. Businesses charge more to cover the cost of suits and complying with regulations. <br /> <br /> Lawyers like Banzhaf aren't elected, but their actions still govern our choices.<br /> <br /> Tibor Machan, professor of business ethics at Chapman University, told me we should object to Banzhaf on principle. "Is it right to manipulate people all the time, to treat them like they're little children? The next step from the nanny state is the petty tyrannical state. And a dictatorial state."<br /> <br /> Machan echoes writer C.S. Lewis' point that well-meaning tyrants are even more dangerous than purely selfish ones. Lewis wrote, "Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end."<br /> <br /> The conceit of politicians and lawyers is that they think they can manage life through rules. So they keep adding more.<br /> <br /> They don't see that these rules gradually wreck life.<br /> <br /> Critics of lawsuit abuse focus on the cost of litigation, but the bigger harm is that fear of lawsuits itself deprives us of good things. <br /> <br /> -- Drug companies invented a vaccine against Lyme disease, but they won't sell it, because they're scared of lawyers. <br /> -- Fearful medical device makers often stick to old technologies because trying something new, even if it's better, risks a suit. <br /> -- Monsanto developed a substitute for asbestos, a fire-resistant insulation that might save thousands of lives, but decided not to sell it because the company feared it might be sued. <br /> <br /> We don't even know how many wonderful life-enhancing products we might have today if innovators didn't live in a climate of fear.<br /> <br /> I don't suggest that we should be at the mercy of rip-off artists. Some lawsuits are useful -- if businesses commit theft or fraud, they should be sued. But American law encourages suits. In other countries, if you sue and lose, you and your lawyer must pay the court bills of the people you dragged into court. <br /> <br /> When I started consumer reporting, I believed that only legal rules could protect us. But it's not true. The rules just give us a false sense of security.<br /> <br /> The free market does a better job protecting consumers. Competition protects us. <br /> <br /> Repeal most of the laws. Let the market work its magic.</p>
<p> </p>John Stossel2013-07-16T21:20:00ZStossel's Column: I ShruggedJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossels-Column:-I-Shrugged/-898927806329005143.html2013-07-03T11:18:00Z2013-07-03T11:18:00Z<p>Many libertarians, outraged by how our government spies on us, call me a "traitor" because I'm not very angry. I understand that the National Security Administration tracking patterns in our emails and phone calls could put us on a terrible, privacy-crushing slippery slope. <br /> <br /> But we're not there yet. <br /> <br /> Some perspective:<br /> <br /> We are less closely watched by government than citizens of other countries. There are about 3,000 government security cameras around New York City, but London has 500,000.<br /> <br /> Some people in London love that, believing that the extra surveillance deters crime and catches terrorists. I thought government cameras helped identify the Boston Marathon bombers, but Ginger McCall of the Electronic Privacy Information Center told me that those cameras provide an illusion of security at a nasty price. <br /> <br /> "These cameras reveal very private information -- where you go, who you go there with," she said. "They can record you going into the sex therapist's office, the gay bar, the abortion clinic, any number of places that you would probably not want other people to know that you're going ... "<br /> <br /> She says that loss of privacy doesn't even make us safer. <br /> <br /> "It isn't necessarily how we found the Boston Marathon bomber. There were a lot of things going on there ... eyewitnesses identifications, cameras that were not government-owned (often cellphones) and eventually the fingerprints of the older brother ... if the cameras were really successful, there would be no crime in London."<br /> <br /> But "no crime" is too much to demand. I'm convinced that widespread use of cameras is one reason crime is down in America. Some criminals are caught, and others deterred. <br /> <br /> It does make a difference if cameras are controlled by a city government or a private department store. No store can lock me up. But I hate to get bogged down in the surveillance debate when there are so many other ways that government clearly threatens our freedom and our finances, while accomplishing nothing. <br /> <br /> Thinking about the NSA revelation, I also thought about other things my government does that I really hate. Within a few hours, I had a list of 100 -- it was surprisingly easy. I encourage you to start a list of your own. Here are just a few example of horrible, destructive government:<br /> <br /> -- Government (federal and local) now employs 22 million Americans. That's outrageous.<br /> -- Government runs up a $17 trillion deficit and yet continues to throw our money at things like $100 million presidential trips, million-dollar bus stops and pork projects, as well as thousands of programs that don't work.<br /> -- It funds a drug war that causes crime and imprisons millions, disproportionately minorities. That's horrible.<br /> -- It spends your money on corporate welfare. And farm subsidies. And flood insurance that helps higher-income people like me build homes in risky spots.<br /> -- Government keeps American Indians poor by smothering them with socialist central planning. It does this despite the fall of the Soviet Union and the obvious failure of socialism everywhere. That's evil. <br /> -- So are "too big to fail" bank bailouts. And other bailouts.<br /> -- I'm furious that there are now 175,000 pages of federal law. No one understands all the laws, but they keep passing more. How dare they!<br /> <br /> <br /> NSA spying seems less horrible than these other abuses, especially if data mining might prevent terrorism. <br /> <br /> <br /> I suspect people are outraged by the NSA in part because new threats seem scarier than old, familiar ones. That's a trick government itself exploits all the time: Each new drug, each new health threat, each new dictator is made to sound like the most horrible thing ever.<br /> <br /> We should be wary of treating the new danger as if it's the biggest danger.<br /> <br /> I don't suggest that we should be passive about data mining and surveillance. But we should not let the latest threat make us passive about the old ones, some of them much more clearly wrong.<br /> <br /> What we already know about government is even scarier than what they know about us.</p>
<p> </p>John Stossel2013-07-03T11:18:00ZStossel's Column: Puritanical GovernmentJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossels-Column:-Puritanical-Government/544108175689471300.html2013-06-26T22:40:00Z2013-06-26T22:40:00Z<p>People say America is a free country. But what if you want to drink, have a cigarette or make a bet? Government often says "no" to protect us from ourselves. <br /> <br /> It's as if the government is still run by the Puritans who settled this land four centuries ago. They said pleasure and luxury are sinful. <br /> <br /> Today's government has a better argument when it seeks to restrict activities that might harm others, but I notice that even then, it often focuses more on things that upset modern-day Puritans.<br /> <br /> Drinking and driving can be fatal. But government data show that sleeplessness and driving are just as deadly. Having kids in the back seat, looking at GPS map instructions, fiddling with the radio and eating while driving are often deadly, too. <br /> <br /> But sleeplessness doesn't seem as decadent and irresponsible as drinking. Nor is there an easy way for police to test for such discretions -- no breathalyzer test for excessive radio tuning. <br /> <br /> Why is the DUI test all about alcohol level, rather than behavior? Government keeps lowering legal blood-alcohol levels -- recently from .10 to .08 -- and now they want to lower it to .05. But some people are good drivers even after a drink or two. It would be better to punish people for "reckless" driving.<br /> <br /> Alcohol-related driving deaths are down. Groups like MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) credit tougher DUI laws, but it's not clear that they are right.<br /> <br /> Maybe people are simply more aware of the dangers, thanks to publicity from groups like MADD. Safer car designs helped, too. Non-alcohol-related driving deaths are also down. <br /> <br /> Stats that some cite to claim alcohol is the cause of a third of highway accidents are misleading. That just means that a third of the people had alcohol in their systems; it doesn't necessarily mean alcohol caused the accident. <br /> <br /> I don't suggest that drinking and driving is safe or smart. But the puritanical obsession with drinking distracts us from other ways we could make driving safer.<br /> <br /> At least DUI laws seek to protect people from others. But government puritans go well beyond that, banning activities that harm only the individual engaged in them -- like gambling. <br /> <br /> Polls show 70 percent of you support the current ban on Internet gambling.<br /> <br /> Why? It's true, for some people, gambling becomes addictive. Some wreck their lives. But for most people, gambling is entertainment, practice in using strategy and an excuse to socialize. A little risk is fun. And the laws don't stop the activity. They drive it underground, where it's run by criminals.<br /> <br /> If we banned every activity that had the potential to become addictive, we'd have to ban fatty foods, sex, alcohol and investing in the stock market. Life means risk.<br /> <br /> Sometimes puritans want to ban things without any evidence that the activity is harmful. After every mass shooting, someone wants to tax, or ban, violent video games. <br /> <br /> Yet violent offenses by youth fell by more than half over the past two decades, while video game sales doubled. If there's a causal relationship, maybe playing video games prevents kids from behaving violently. <br /> <br /> Japan spends much more on violent video games than the U.S., but its crime rate is much lower. Maybe the Japanese get it out of their system through make-believe? I don't know. But I do know that a lack of evidence rarely stops the puritans. <br /> <br /> The puritanical panics of today may look silly someday. In the 1950s, a psychiatrist testified that Superman comic books inspire juvenile delinquency. <br /> <br /> After hearing about those moral panics, you might feel like relaxing with a cold beer. But don't try buying one from a convenience store in Indiana. The state requires that the beer be sold warm. <br /> <br /> In theory, warm beer will discourage drinking on the road. <br /> <br /> I doubt that such laws help. Perhaps puritanical laws don't have to make sense. They just have to leave us feeling righteous because we've done something to crack down on bad behavior.</p>John Stossel2013-06-26T22:40:00ZStossel's Column: Government's WarJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossels-Column:-Governments-War/-538299318109507087.html2013-06-19T18:41:00Z2013-06-19T18:41:00Z<p>As Americans obsess over NSA spying, abuse by the IRS and other assaults on our freedom, I can't get my mind off the thousand other ways politicians abuse us. <br /> <br /> In their arrogance, they assume that only they solve social problems. They will solve them by banning this and that, subsidizing groups they deem worthy and setting up massive bureaucracies with a mandate to cure, treat and rescue wayward souls.<br /> <br /> Their programs fail, and so they pass new laws to address the failures. It's one reason that 22 million people now work for government. <br /> <br /> Some of the things they do seem like bigger assaults on our freedom than NSA spying, although we've become accustomed to the older abuses. <br /> <br /> Take the drug war.<br /> <br /> It's true that some Americans destroy their lives and their families' lives by using drugs. Others struggle with addiction. But if illegal drugs are as horrible and addictive as we've been told, how come the government's own statistics say millions try those drugs but only a small percentage continue using? <br /> <br /> Ninety-five percent of those who have tried what we think of as "hard drugs" report not using the substances in the past month. <br /> <br /> Columbia University psychology professor Dr. Carl Hart, author of "High Price: A Neuroscientist's Journey of Self-Discovery," says "hard" drugs are not as dangerous as the media make them out to be. For 15 years, he's studied the effects of marijuana, methamphetamine, crack cocaine and more on users.<br /> <br /> "The data simply shows that the vast majority of people who use these drugs don't go on to become addicted," he said on my show. "In fact, some of these people go on to become president." <br /> <br /> He means Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama. "All those guys used illegal drugs at some point."<br /> <br /> Society has grown more accepting of marijuana, but many people believe crack and meth are far more dangerous and addictive, and that they quickly lead to violent criminal behavior. <br /> <br /> "The same thing was said about marijuana in the 1930s," Hart cautions. "People said you use this drug, you go on to commit murder, you go on to use heroin." New drugs always frighten the authorities. <br /> <br /> When the panic over meth passes, we may look back on it with amusement, much the way people now look back on the anti-marijuana propaganda film "Reefer Madness." <br /> <br /> "That was allowed to happen because few people actually used marijuana," says Hart. The unknown is scarier than the familiar -- like beer. <br /> <br /> To learn what drugs really do, Hart advertises for drug users on Craigslist, and then, with government approval, he gives users drugs at his lab at Columbia. He's discovered that drug users' brains react in similar ways to the brains of alcohol consumers.<br /> <br /> "The vast majority of people who use drugs like cocaine use it on weekends, monthly or every six months," says Hart. "Most hold jobs. Pay taxes. They do those things, in a similar way that we use drugs like alcohol." <br /> <br /> Government's anti-drug crusaders think they protect kids by hyping the threat, but Hart says they actually make it harder for people like him to educate the public about real dangers. After the hype over marijuana, young people no longer trust warnings about other drugs.<br /> <br /> Finally, he adds, politicians' futile war kills more people than the forbidden substances themselves. <br /> <br /> The gangs of today, like the Crips and the Bloods, are motivated by the absurd profits created when legitimate businesses aren't allowed to sell something -- just as Al Capone's empire and the violence of his turf wars were created by forbidding mainstream businesses to sell alcohol.<br /> <br /> In fact, Hart says, the drug war is worse than Prohibition. It costs more, has lasted longer and doesn't just kill people in the U.S.: From Afghanistan to Colombia, American helicopters try to destroy drug crops. Foreigners gain one more reason to hate Yankees.<br /> <br /> Arrogant and ignorant politicians do more harm than the social problems themselves.</p>John Stossel2013-06-19T18:41:00ZStossel's Column: Terror and SafetyJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossels-Column:-Terror-and-Safety/711185873784189322.html2013-06-12T22:52:00Z2013-06-12T22:52:00Z<p>This week, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said the National Security Agency's data mining violates our Fourth Amendment right to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers" and is "tyranny that our founders rebelled against." Good for him. <br /><br />In an op-ed, he adds, "We fought a revolution over issues like generalized warrants, where soldiers would go from house to house, searching anything they liked," and wonders "which parts of the Constitution this government will next consider negotiable." Good for him. I'm glad at least one senator reminds Big Government that our Constitution <em>limits</em> federal power. <br /><br />And many libertarians are furious at this latest intrusion of "Big Brother." <br /><br />So what's wrong with me? I just can't get that worked up about it. <br /><br />I know Big Data now in NSA computers probably includes my phone calls. (I hope it's just time, duration, location and recipients, not my words, too, but I'm not sure.) <br /><br />I know the snooping may be unnecessary. Government's claim that it prevents terror is weak: Officials say a terrorist was caught, but New York City police say he was caught via other methods. I'm skeptical about the very claim that any terribly important "secrets" are held by unhappy 29-year-olds and 4.8 million other people (that's how many Americans hold security clearance for classified material). <br /><br />So it's invasive, probably illegal and maybe useless. I ought to be very angry. But I'm not. Why? <br /><br />I need to keep thinking about this issue, but for now, two reasons: <br /><br />1. Terrorists <em>do</em> want to murder us. If the NSA is halfway competent, Big Data should help detect plots. <br /><br />2. My electronic privacy has already been utterly shredded by Google, Amazon, YouTube and so on. <br /><br />They know with whom I talk, what interests me and how much time I spend doing this or that. They creep me out with targeted ads. How did they know I want that?! Oh, right ... I spent an hour searching ... <br /><br />Then I go outside in New York City, where 16 cameras record me on my way to work.<br /><br /> Greedy lawyers can subpoena my private records. My employer has a right to read my emails. <br /><br />My privacy is already blown. <br /><br />I'm angrier about other things Big Government does in the name of keeping me safe: forcing me to wear safety gear, limiting where I may go, stripping me at airports, forcing me to pay $2,300 for more military than we need. <br /><br />Actually, $2,300 is the average Americans pay for our military. I pay more. The total for all of us is more than $700 billon a year, which is, as Chris Preble of the Cato Institute pointed out on my TV show, "more than we spent at the peak of the Cold War ... fighting the Soviet Union." <br /><br />The danger was greater then, when we had a nuclear Soviet Union threatening to "bury us."<br /><br /> Much of America's defense spending goes to defend our allies in Europe and Asia. They spend less because we spend more. <br /><br />"We are suckers," said Preble. "I don't blame them. If I were in their situation, if someone else was offering to pay for my security, I'd let them do it." <br /><br />And it's not clear that we do what we do efficiently. The U.S. Department of Defense is prone to the same sorts of inefficiency that plagues other parts of government. The department's brownie recipe is 26 pages long. <br /><br />Military officials say al-Qaida has been weakened. Iran (someday) may build a nuclear bomb, but we managed to deter China and Russia when they had thousands.<br /><br /> Some people want the U.S. military to police the world: Contain China, transform failed states, chase terrorists, train foreign militaries, protect sea lanes, protect oil supplies, stop genocide, protect refugees, maintain bases in allied countries, police our southern border, stop drug trafficking and spread good through humanitarian missions. The list is endless, which is the problem. <br /><br />The U.S. military can't be everywhere. And we can't hand the government unlimited power and unlimited money every time a potential crisis looms. <br /><br />We must remain on guard against threats. But bankruptcy may be the greatest threat.</p>John Stossel2013-06-12T22:52:00ZStossel's Column: Austerity MythJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossels-Column:-Austerity-Myth/-190819051241369503.html2013-06-07T00:20:00Z2013-06-07T00:20:00Z<p>Europe's struggles prove that "austerity" fails!<br /> <br /> So say the Big Spenders. <br /> <br /> With a condescending sigh, they explain that Europe made deep cuts in government spending, and the result was today's high unemployment. "With erstwhile middle-class workers reduced to picking through garbage in search of food, austerity has already gone too far," writes Paul Krugman in The New York Times.<br /> <br /> One problem with this conclusion: European governments didn't cut! If workers pick through garbage, cuts can't be a reason, since they didn't happen.<br /> <br /> That doesn't stop leftists from complaining about cuts or stop Europeans from protesting announced austerity plans. But if austerity means spending less, that hasn't happened.<br /> <br /> Some European countries tried to reduce deficits by raising taxes. England slapped a 25 percent tax increase on the wealthy, but it didn't bring in the revenues hoped for. Rich people move their assets elsewhere, or just stop working as much.<br /> <br /> If politicians honestly want to boost their nation's economies, they should look to what happened in countries that bounced back from economic slumps. <br /> <br /> Iceland was hit by bank collapses -- but government ignored street protests and cut real spending. Iceland's budget deficit fell from 13 percent of gross domestic product to 3. Iceland's economy is now growing.<br /> <br /> Canada slashed spending 20 years ago and now outranks the U.S. on many economic indicators. <br /> <br /> Around the same time, Japan went the other way, investing heavily in the public sector in an attempt to jump-start its economy, much as the U.S. did with "stimulus" under President Obama. The result? Japan's economy stagnated.<br /> <br /> The left now claims Japan didn't stimulate "enough." <br /> <br /> In the U.S., politicians imply spending limits would be "cruel" because vital programs are "cut to the bone." But we are nowhere near bone.<br /> <br /> Consider this family budget:</p>
<p>Annual Income ---- $24,500<br />Annual Spending ---- $35,370<br />New Credit Card Debt ---- $10,870<br />Existing Debt ---- $167,600</p>
<p>When I show that to people, they laugh and say the family is "irresponsible." They are dismayed when I point out that those are really America's budget numbers, with eight zeros removed:</p>
<p>Revenue ---- $2,450,000,000,000<br />Spending ---- $3,537,000,000,000<br />Deficit ---- $1,087,000,000,000<br />Debt ---- $16,760,000,000,000</p>
<p>Then people say: "That's terrible! We have to balance the budget."<br /> Actually, we don't need to "balance" it. We just need to slow spending growth to about 2 percent a year, so the economy can gain on our debt. But politicians won't do even that. <br /> <br /> I understand why. I ask people who say they are horrified by America's debt, "What would you cut?" Most have no clue. They just stare. Some say things like, "Don't cut education!"<br /> <br /> C'mon. Federal bureaucrats spend $3.7 trillion! But most people can't think of anything to cut?<br /> <br /> When businesses face budget shortfalls, they can't just give speeches about how much they care about fiscal responsibility -- at least not for long. They must make real cuts. When they do, they often prosper. Years back, IBM and GE each laid off 100,000 workers. People were furious. But thanks to those cuts, the companies survived.<br /> <br /> If the politicians don't know what to cut, they should just accept Sen. Rand Paul's proposed budget. Among other things, he would cut four Cabinet-level agencies: Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Energy and Education. Why not? We don't need a Commerce Department. Commerce just ... happens. Education is funded by the states. The Energy Department gives money to politicians' cronies.<br /> <br /> I'd go further than Paul. Why do we need an Agriculture Department? Agriculture is done by farmers, not bureaucrats. Why do we need a Labor Department? And so on. All those things are better handled by a free market. I wish we had a real free market in America.<br /> <br /> Government recently revised its dire forecasts about America's coming bankruptcy. The numbers are a little better than once thought. <br /> <br /> But make no mistake: As people my age retire and demand Medicare, America will eventually go broke. <br /> <br /> The first step toward a solution is just being honest about the deep hole we're in -- giving up on the lie that governments elsewhere failed with "austere" budgets. They haven't.</p>John Stossel2013-06-07T00:20:00ZStossel's Column: Gas MythsJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossels-Column:-Gas-Myths/-925049151155274742.html2013-05-29T22:36:00Z2013-05-29T22:36:00Z<p>Plan to drive more this summer? Annoyed by the price of gas? Complaining that oil companies rip you off?<br /> <br /> I say, shut up. Even if gas costs $4 per gallon, we should thank Big Oil. Think what they have to do to bring us gas. <br /> <br /> Oil must be sucked out of the ground, sometimes from war zones or deep beneath oceans. The drills now bend and dig sideways through as much as 7 miles of earth. What they discover must be pumped through billion-dollar pipelines and often put in monstrously expensive tankers to ship across the ocean. <br /> <br /> Then it's refined into several types of gasoline, transported in trucks that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Finally, your local gas station must spend a fortune on safety devices to make sure we don't blow ourselves up while filling the tank.<br /> <br /> And it still costs less per ounce than the bottled water sold at gas stations. If government sold gas, it would cost $40 per gallon. And there would be shortages!<br /> <br /> Another myth: Big Oil makes "excess" profit. Nonsense. The oil business is fiercely competitive. If one company charges a penny too much, other companies steal its business. Apple's profit margin is about 24 percent. McDonald's makes 20 percent. Oil companies make half that.<br /> <br /> Per gallon, ExxonMobil makes about 7 cents. Governments, by contrast, grab about 27 cents per gallon. That's the average gas tax. If anyone takes too much, it's government.<br /> <br /> President Obama says, "Gas costs too much." So he announced: "We've put in place the toughest fuel economy standards in history. Over the life of a new car, the average family will save more than $8,000 at the pump."<br /> <br /> Sounds good. But the magic of fuel economy standards is another myth. <br /> <br /> Susan Dudley, who runs the Regulatory Studies Center at George Washington University, points out that many car buyers care more about safety, style, power, etc. than mileage. <br /> <br /> "The problem with the government's rule is that they ignore all those other preferences ... assuming that the only thing we value is fuel economy."<br /> <br /> Fuel economy sounds appealing when it's presented as something created at no cost. But car dealers say it will make cars cost $3,000 more. <br /> <br /> Also, as James Taylor, an energy expert at the Heartland Institute, pointed out to me, fuel-economy regulations kill. <br /> <br /> "In order to make cars more fuel-efficient, auto manufacturers make them smaller -- using lighter materials, they're less crash-worthy ... We're seeing thousands of people dying on the roads that shouldn't be."<br /> <br /> You'd think automakers would strongly oppose these regulations -- but if so, why, when President Obama unveiled the regulations, did the heads of 13 car companies shake Obama's hand and smile?<br /> <br /> "Even if it is a $60 billion cost to them," says Dudley, "if everyone has to do it, they can pass it on to consumers." <br /> <br /> In other words, normally companies compete to do things more efficiently than rivals, in order to charge lower prices and get the lion's share of customers. But there's no need to worry about jacking up your prices when your rivals must do so, too. Regulation makes companies lazier, not more efficient.<br /> <br /> Republicans at least talk about deregulation. But the "regulation-killing Republican" is another myth. Despite being labeled a deregulator, George W. Bush hired 90,000 new regulators. Dudley, who was their overseer, now says, "The pressure to regulate is intense." <br /> <br /> Almost no one seems to speak up for a true free market in energy, with competition, innovation and unfettered consumer choice. People say regulation is needed to counter industry "greed."<br /> <br /> But if anyone's greedy here, it's government -- and unlike oil companies, government doesn't have to work hard and compete to give you good service at the lowest possible price. Government just sits there, telling companies to charge less, telling car companies to make smaller and more dangerous cars, mandating and subsidizing alternative fuels like ethanol -- and then telling us that we benefit from the politicians' efforts. <br /> <br /> The truth: We rarely benefit.</p>John Stossel2013-05-29T22:36:00ZStossel's Column: Sublet My People GoJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossels-Column:-Sublet-My-People-Go/-998084181808575430.html2013-05-23T01:04:00Z2013-05-23T01:04:00Z<p>My kids moved out! I have two empty rooms in my apartment. Maybe I can rent them? A tourist visiting New York City could have a different experience, and save hotel money. I'd make money. Wouldn't it be great?<br /> <br /> No, says the government of my state. <br /> <br /> New York recently passed a law making it very difficult for people to offer short-term rentals via popular websites like Airbnb and Roomorama, which connect room-owners and room-renters. I could be fined $25,000 if I rent to tourists through those services.<br /> <br /> New York State Sen. Liz Krueger defended the law. <br /> <br /> "Tenants all over the city are begging their legislators for help. They were being harassed by strangers in the middle of night entering their building, moving into the apartments next door ... violating the fire code, the safety code, and harassing people, sometimes very aggressively, out of the buildings" <br /> <br /> Please. Of course some renters behave badly. But they can be dealt with by building owners. There's no need for authoritarian governments to ban consenting adults from renting to each other.<br /> <br /> Krueger says that despite these services' rapid growth, their customers are unhappy -- and that despite the online customer-satisfaction reviews and ratings that enable everyone to compare thousands of different offerings, and blacklist renters and homeowners who behave badly, customers are being duped.<br /> <br /> "They think they're signing up for a hotel room. They pay through a credit card. They walk into a situation that is not safe, not clean."<br /> <br /> This is how politicians think. <br /> <br /> Jia En Teo, co-founder of Roomorama, has a different explanation for why businesses like hers are attacked by politicians: "Short-term rentals have been growing in popularity ... that has posed competition to hotels." <br /> <br /> At age 26, Teo left a job at Bloomberg media to start Roomorama. She understood business -- but didn't have political pull. Big hotel chains and their unions do. They have lobbyists who pressure legislators. The Hotel Association of New York says people who use sites like Roomorama risk their safety.<br /> <br /> But despite such fearmongering, Roomorama hasn't been squashed. It now operates in 5,000 cities around the world. Tourists get to use empty apartments and pay less. They get a novel experience. Property owners make money. Win-win!<br /> <br /> But Roomorama threatens the status quo. Hotels and hotel unions don't like it. Regulators who issue permits to hotels don't like it. So the established businesses, the insiders, work with friendly politicians to craft rules that crush the newcomers.<br /> <br /> Economists call that process "regulatory capture." It happened even during the New Deal. FDR railed against "the money interests" and pushed through regulations controlling what businesses could do, including establishing a minimum wage, maximum hours, agreed-upon production levels and minimum prices for each industry, to eliminate "cutthroat competition." Working at night was forbidden. Government enforcers made surprise inspections and could seize control of businesses on the spot. <br /> <br /> It turned out that most of those regulations were shaped by big business itself, because the established businesses didn't want competition, and both business and regulators like predictability. <br /> <br /> Even when regulators mean well -- when they worry about safety or whether customers get basic services -- regulations are based on the old, familiar ways of doing things, simply because regulators don't know anything else. That's great for old, familiar firms -- but bad for the innovative startup that wants to try something different. And bad for consumers who might have benefitted.<br /> <br /> The new idea might be a bad one, but if it is, it will die on its own. Market competition will kill it. <br /> <br /> But the new idea might be the next Microsoft. Or Roomorama. Or Lyft, a ride-sharing app that helps people find cars without having to use (heavily regulated) local taxi cartels. Like a Roomorama for cars, Lyft lets most any car owner give people rides. It, too, faces regulatory opposition. <br /> <br /> Regulators always say they must protect the "little guy." But it's the little guys who are most hurt by these rules.<br /> <br /> Something can always go wrong -- with businesses new or old. But unless we allow innovators and their customers to try new things, we'll be stuck in the past.<br /> <br /> Then the fat cats win, not the little guy.</p>John Stossel2013-05-23T01:04:00ZStossel's Column: True GritJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossels-Column:-True-Grit/163693279874726054.html2013-05-15T19:27:00Z2013-05-15T19:27:00Z<p>Are you a real man (or woman)? Do you have "grit"? <br /> <br /> Compare yourself to the man on the $20 bill: Andrew Jackson, our seventh president. <br /> <br /> During the Revolutionary War, Jackson volunteered to fight. He was just 13 years old at the time. The British captured him and made him a servant for British officers. When one ordered Jackson to clean his boots, Jackson refused, and the officer slashed Jackson's hand with a sword. When Jackson became president, he showed off the scar. <br /> <br /> Jackson had grit. <br /> <br /> Do your kids have that much grit today? I doubt it. Parents now try to protect kids from all danger. In New York City, some won't let teenagers go to school by themselves.<br /> <br /> Lenore Skenazy, author of "Free-Range Kids," thinks that's absurd. <br /> <br /> "Free-range kids are kids we believe in," she told me. "They can do things on their own."<br /> <br /> Once she allowed her own 9-year-old to ride the subway alone. After she wrote about that, she was labeled "World's Worst Mom." Really. Google "world's worst mom." Skenazy's name comes up. <br /> <br /> "Free-Range Kids" promotes events like "Take Our Children to the Park and Leave Them There Day." Skenazy says leaving kids in the park without adult supervision teaches them grit. Kids get used to bugs, rocks and a lack of constant supervision. They become leaders by discovering how to organize their own lives without parents bossing them around. <br /> <br /> And they are not likely to be kidnapped. The horror of what happened to the three women in Cleveland makes all of us more frightened of sexual assaults and other threats. Skenazy says that today's parents are so frightened that only 6 percent allow young kids to play outside unsupervised. But the risk of harm is small, and we put our kids at greater risk, says Skenazy, if we don't allow them the freedom to learn from their own mistakes -- to acquire grit. <br /> <br /> It shouldn't surprise me that parents want to shelter their kids from all risk. The parents themselves live in a society where risk is less and less acceptable. We expect regulations to protect us from accidents. We expect police to protect us from every imaginable criminal threat. We demand welfare, unemployment insurance and bailouts to protect every level of society from economic risk. When something goes wrong, we sue. <br /> <br /> It wasn't always like this. <br /> <br /> Our country's founders left relatively safe places to tough it out in the wilderness, to turn what a character in a John Wayne movie called "empty land used for nothin'" into ranches and farms. Doing that required long days spent hunting, plowing, fighting off enemies, digging in through cold winters, sometimes starving, losing children, losing wives and husbands -- it took grit to create American civilization.<br /> <br /> Grit requires delaying gratification, wanting something bigger than yourself. <br /> <br /> As John Wayne's character himself put it in "The Big Trail": "We're building a nation. We've got to suffer. No great trail was ever blazed without hardship. That's life."<br /> <br /> Grit is the stuff of life. Greatness is often achieved only after repeated failure. <br /> <br /> Cartoonist Charles Schulz had every cartoon he submitted to his high school yearbook rejected. "Peanuts" later became one of the most successful cartoons of all time.<br /> <br /> Thomas Edison's teachers told his mom he was "too stupid to learn." Edison went on to accumulate 1,000 U.S. patents. His success with the light bulb followed 1,000 unsuccessful attempts. That's grit.<br /> <br /> It's great that we live in a wealthy country -- one with a welfare state so big that we now worry about poor people getting fat. But what makes most people happy is not comfort. It's earned success, success you struggle for.<br /> <br /> The opposite of earned success, says psychologist Martin Seligman, is "learned helplessness." In lab experiments, when good things occurred that weren't earned, like nickels coming out of slot machines, it did not increase people's happiness. It produced helplessness. People gave up, became passive.<br /> <br /> That passivity (and America's welfare state) is a threat to our future. Everyone goes through pain and loss. We face obstacles. It's the struggle to overcome obstacles that matters.<br /> <br /> That's the stuff of life -- and the route to happiness and prosperity.</p>
<p> </p>John Stossel2013-05-15T19:27:00ZStossel's Column: Live Free or MoveJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossels-Column:-Live-Free-or-Move/-624575285856803410.html2013-05-08T18:16:00Z2013-05-08T18:16:00Z<p>Forty-three million Americans moved from one state to another between 1995 and 2010 -- about one-seventh of Americans.</p>
<p>It's good that we can move! Moving provides one of the few limits on the megalomania of state bureaucrats.</p>
<p>Americans have moved away from high-taxed, heavily regulated states to lower-taxed, less-regulated states. Most don't think of it as a political decision. They just go where opportunities are, and that usually means where there's less government.</p>
<p>They're leaving my state, New York, in droves. California, despite its great weather, also lost people, and wealth. Other biggest losers were Illinois, New Jersey and Ohio.</p>
<p>Travis Brown, author of "Money Walks," tracked the movements using IRS data. On my TV show, he revealed that Florida was the state that gained the most: "You're seeing a massive amount of people and their income coming in: $86 billion."</p>
<p>Arizona and Texas also gained, which made me wonder if Americans just move to states where it's warm. "No," said Darcy Olsen, president of Arizona's Goldwater Institute. "Weather explains just 5 percent of the migration ... the Census Bureau asks, and they say, 'to find a job.'"</p>
<p>People move where jobs are, and the states gaining the most -- which also include North Carolina and Nevada -- follow what she calls "the magic formula. Lower taxes and good labor policy, which means, to a business, being free to hire and fire the people you want. (In) the most successful states you see both -- no income tax or low taxes coupled with right-to-work laws."</p>
<p>The states that lost the most people and money were New York, California, Illinois, New Jersey and Ohio.</p>
<p>This competition between states makes it possible for states to learn from each other's successes.</p>
<p>T.W. Shannon, speaker of the Oklahoma House of Representatives, told me that he's learned. His state, where the economy had long been sluggish, finally figured out they could spur growth with tax cuts.</p>
<p>"We are moving to reduce our state income tax rate. ... Every time we have done it in the past, we have seen increased revenues and growth." Shannon adds, "Capital won't flow to a hostile environment."</p>
<p>No, it won't. You'd think politicians would figure that out. But they rarely do. Brown's income data shows that capital flows to friendly environments: "States like (Texas, without a state income tax) gained $146 billion, whereas the reverse, the states with the highest among personal income-tax rates, lost over $120 billion."</p>
<p>The owners of the basketball team the Houston Rockets give prospective players pamphlets that detail how many Rolex watches and Bentleys they could buy just from tax money they'd save if they move to Texas.</p>
<p>This data doesn't stop a prominent pundit in my state, The New York Times' Paul Krugman, from writing that the Texas economic miracle is "a myth" because Texas still has high poverty rates, a high high-school dropout rate and a low percentage of people with health insurance.</p>
<p>Behind this clash is the larger disagreement about how to handle the economy -- promote growth by shrinking government or boost public services for the poor. The state-by-state contrast keeps getting sharper. Crudely put, blue states keep getting bluer, and red states keep getting redder. Krugman looks at Texas and sees policies -- and Republican politicians -- he doesn't like.</p>
<p>But people don't just vote at the ballot box or by their choice of newspaper subscriptions. They vote with their feet. And by that measure, the state that publishes Krugman's columns -- New York -- and the state where he's a college professor -- New Jersey -- are losing big-time.</p>
<p>Ironically, one reason Texas continues to have problems with poverty, despite its population growth, is that people don't just move between states. They also move from other countries in search of opportunity. For about a million people, that meant moving across the border from Mexico to Texas. They start low on the economic ladder but do tend to move upward over time.</p>
<p>For some reason, politicians most sympathetic to those immigrants are clueless about why U.S. citizens move from state to state.</p>
<p>Let people live where they can be free, and get rich.</p>John Stossel2013-05-08T18:16:00ZStossel's Column: Train Wreck AheadJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossels-Column:-Train-Wreck-Ahead/-2164284072562021.html2013-05-01T19:58:00Z2013-05-01T19:58:00Z<p>Most Americans -- even those who are legislators -- know very little about the details of President Obama's Affordable Care Act, so-called Obamacare. Next year, when it goes into effect, we will learn the hard way.</p>
<p>Many people lazily assume that the law will do roughly what it promises: give insurance to the uninsured and lower the cost of health care by limiting spending on dubious procedures.</p>
<p>Don't count on it.</p>
<p>Consider just the complexity: The act itself is more than 906 pages long, and again and again in those 906 pages are the words, "the Secretary shall promulgate regulations ..."</p>
<p>"Secretary" refers to Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius. Her minions have been busy. They've already added 20,000 pages of rules. They form a stack 7 feet high, and more are to come.</p>
<p>Our old health care system was already a bureaucratic and regulatory nightmare. It had 16,000 different codes for different ailments. Under our new, "improved" system, there will be more than a 100,000.</p>
<p>Government likes to think regulations can account for every possibility. Injured at a chicken coop? The code for that will be Y9272. Fall at an art gallery? That means you are a Y92250. There are three different codes for walking into a lamppost -- depending on how often you've walked into lampposts. This is supposed to give government a more precise way to reimburse doctors for treating people and alert us to surges in injuries that might inspire further regulation.</p>
<p>On Government-Planned World, this makes sense. But it will be no more successful than Soviet central planning.</p>
<p>Compare all that to a tiny part of American medicine that is still free-market: Lasik eye surgery.</p>
<p>Its quality has improved, while costs dropped 25 percent. Lasik (and cosmetic surgery) are specialties that provide a better consumer experience because they are a market. Patients pay directly, so doctors innovate constantly to please them. Lasik doctors even give patients their cellphone numbers.</p>
<p>President Obama didn't kill American free-market health care. It began dying during World War II, when government imposed wage and price controls. At first, companies said, "Great, stability!" But then they realized that they could not attract better workers without raises. So companies got around the rules, as companies do. They gave "benefits," like health insurance.</p>
<p>Government then distorted the market further by giving employer-based health insurance better tax treatment than coverage you buy yourself.</p>
<p>But employer-based insurance is nuts. Many workers feel locked into their jobs. Company insurance largely destroyed the health care free market, since employees rarely shop for the best service at the lowest price.</p>
<p>Now Obamacare may kill what's left of that market.</p>
<p>Maybe we will soon be like Canada, where some people wait years for treatment. A producer from my TV show went to a Canadian town where the town clerk pulls names out of a box and then phones people to say: "Congratulations! You get to see a doctor this month!"</p>
<p>But there is at least one area where Canada offers cutting-edge, life-saving technologies. Unfortunately, to get this care, you have to meow or bark. Veterinary care is still handled by the market. Providers innovate or go out of business.</p>
<p>Markets find ways to make things better and cheaper. Obamacare often forbids that. For example, it requires that every insurance policy cover preventive care and "breastfeeding support." It insists that mammograms and colonoscopies be provided without any deductible.</p>
<p>It's tempting to believe that such rules prevent illness and save money, but there is little evidence they will. Some people will undergo invasive procedures that shorten lives instead of extending them. Some of us want those tests; some don't. Government controlled medicine means we all get them and pay for them, regardless of whether we want them. Government control kills consumer choice.</p>
<p>Lucky Lasik and cosmetic surgery patients! Their treatments are better in part because government doesn't consider them important enough to subsidize and regulate. If only government would neglect the rest of health care! Then we'd have better service and better care at lower cost.</p>
<p>And we'd have choices.</p>John Stossel2013-05-01T19:58:00ZStossel's Column: The Education Blob's RevengeJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossels-Column:-The-Education-Blobs-Revenge/481452504428527703.html2013-04-25T00:15:00Z2013-04-25T00:15:00Z<p>I wrote recently how teachers unions, parent-teacher associations and school bureaucrats form an education "Blob" that makes it hard to improve schools. They also take revenge on those who work around the Blob.<br /> <br /> Here's one more sad example:<br /> <br /> Ben Chavis, founder and principal of the American Indian Public Charter Schools, got permission to compete with the Blob in Oakland, Calif. Chavis vowed, "We'll outperform the other schools in five years." He did. Kids at the three schools he runs now have some of the highest test scores in California.<br /> <br /> His schools excel even though the government spends less on them. <br /> <br /> But Chavis paid his wife to do accounting work, rented property to his schools and didn't follow all of the Blob's rules. So last month, the Oakland School Board said it might close the schools. <br /> <br /> Parents and students begged the Blob -- pardon me, the school board -- not to. One sobbing mother pleaded with the board: "As soon as (my son) goes to this school, he's a top student. ... And now you guys want to take that away from me." Many students implored, "Please don't close down our school!"<br /> <br /> The school board voted to close the schools anyway.<br /> <br /> The students will now probably have to go to Oakland's government-run schools, which are not as good. We asked to talk to members of the Oakland School Board, but they refused.<br /> <br /> Chavis, though, explained how working with his wife and renting space to the schools -- regarded by the board as too incestuous -- saved government money.<br /> <br /> "Yes. Some of the money did go to me," he told me. "Someone had to step up and get space. We had 34 kids when I started. Today, we have 1,200." <br /> <br /> And those kids got a better education for less tax money. Who cares if Chavis kept some?<br /> <br /> The Blob cares. The school board will get about $10 million back if they are no longer obliged to send pupils to Chavis' schools. <br /> <br /> They'll be hard-pressed to beat Chavis' academic results, though. U.S. News & World Report says his schools are No. 1 in Oakland. The Washington Post this month said American Indian is No. 1 on the list of most challenging high schools in America. Over the past three years, 100 percent of Chavis' high school seniors were accepted to four-year colleges.<br /> <br /> By contrast, in New York City, where I live, a third of high school students don't even graduate in four years.<br /> <br /> Chavis says that if the board thinks he stole money, they should arrest him instead of shutting down his schools. <br /> <br /> "If I did steal anything ... punish me. Don't punish the students."<br /> <br /> And while options for kids in Oakland shrink, the Blob grows. <br /> <br /> Over the past six decades, as the number of students in public schools doubled, the Friedman Foundation reports that the number of non-teaching staff got eight times as large. Non-teaching staff means assistant principles, associate principals, secretaries, social workers, etc. Twenty-one states now have more school administrators than teachers.<br /> <br /> Despite all that new staff, test scores stayed flat. <br /> <br /> At least there are a few signs of hope. Remember the union protests at the Wisconsin state capitol two years ago? The union there eventually lost its fight to stop Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker from limiting collective bargaining. Now they can bargain over pay but little else. Contracts negotiations that used to take years are sometimes resolved in 15 minutes.<br /> <br /> Union membership is no longer automatic but has to be renewed annually by individual members, voluntarily. The result: Teachers unions lost about a third of their members.<br /> <br /> I expected that but had no idea that some of the savings in Wisconsin would come from ending the union's monopoly on health insurance. The union had demanded that its members buy insurance from a company the union created. Allowing other insurers to compete lowered insurance costs so much that Wisconsin has saved tens of millions of dollars. <br /> <br /> Good for Scott Walker. Less money for the Blob means more money, and freedom, for the rest of us.</p>John Stossel2013-04-25T00:15:00ZStossel's Column: A Post-Post Office WorldJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossels-Column:-A-Post-Post-Office-World/755354436519493566.html2013-04-17T17:51:00Z2013-04-17T17:51:00Z<p>Even parts of government that look like a business never get run with the efficiency of a business. Just look at the post office.</p>
<p>They buy commercials and tout their services the way private businesses do. They offer a service that customers want.</p>
<p>But a real business can't get away with losing billions every year. (I guess in the era of bailouts, I should say shouldn't get away with it.) The post office lost $16 billion last year, despite having all sorts of advantages that most private businesses don't have.</p>
<p>They have a near monopoly on first-class mail delivery. You want to deliver something to someone? You better not put it in their mailbox -- that's illegal. The U.S. Postal Service doesn't pay sales tax or property tax. They don't even pay parking tickets.</p>
<p>With advantages like that, how do they lose money?</p>
<p>They are part of the government, under the thumb of Congress, and that invites calcified, inefficient behavior.</p>
<p>"We are expected to operate like a business, but Congress has not allowed us the flexibility to operate like a business," said Postal Service Board of Governors Chairman Mickey D. Barnett on my TV show. It's all "part of being a quasi-governmental entity. That's how the cookie crumbles." Barnett added that the post office has "union contracts that have no layoff provisions."</p>
<p>Reality is at odds with the proud claim on the post office's website that "Since Ben Franklin ... the Postal Service has grown and changed with America." But it's barely changed. You don't tend to see change in "quasi-governmental entities." You see stagnation.</p>
<p>This year the post office tried to limit Saturday delivery to save money. But Congress forbade the change. The politicians' constituents like getting their mail six days a week.</p>
<p>"They don't want a cut in Saturday delivery," Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., told me.</p>
<p>"The USPS does need reform," Rep. Sam Graves, R-Mo., told the Kansas City Star. "However, reducing core services is not a long-term plan. I worry that reducing services will lead to other reductions like closing rural post offices."</p>
<p>But the post office should do both. The government maintains hundreds of tiny local post offices, each of which brings in less than $700 a month. Running those offices costs much more than that. Some are just one mile away from other post offices.</p>
<p>People like "universal service," which has been taken to mean that every American must get mail service, no matter how deep in the boondocks they live. The post office even hauls mail by mule to the bottom of the Grand Canyon.</p>
<p>"The post office provides something that's extremely valuable and has to be maintained, and that's universal service," Grayson told me. "There are countries a lot poorer than the United States, including the Congo ... that try to provide universal mail service to everybody. ... People don't want post offices closed!"</p>
<p>On the floor of Congress, Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., proclaimed that universal service is required, saying, "It's in the Constitution."</p>
<p>But it's not. The Constitution says, "Congress shall have the Power To ... establish Post Offices." But it doesn't have to use that power.</p>
<p>Cato Institute budget analyst Tad DeHaven argues, "People living in rural America aren't living there by force. ... Go back to history. Private carriers picked up the mail from the post office and took it the last mile, or people came to the post office and picked it up."</p>
<p>And private alternatives are much better today. We have e-mail. UPS delivers 300 packages a minute and makes a profit. Federal Express, UPS and others thrive by finding new ways to cut costs. They don't do it because they were born nicer people. They do it because of the pressure of competition. They make money -- while the post office loses $16 billion.</p>
<p>Why not just privatize it? No more special government protections, no limit on competitors offering similar services.</p>
<p>Then mail service would be even better than before. The market delivers.</p>John Stossel2013-04-17T17:51:00ZStossel's Column: Government Plays FavoritesJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossels-Column:-Government-Plays-Favorites/-143279830627234070.html2013-04-10T17:45:00Z2013-04-10T17:45:00Z<p>People say government must "help the little guy, promote equality, level the playing field."'<br /> People often go into government to do that. But even when people mean well, it's natural for them to help out their cronies.</p>
<p>David Stockman, who ran the Office of Management and Budget under Ronald Reagan, was criticized for saying the government's budget numbers didn't add up. But he was right.</p>
<p>Now, in his book "The Great Deformation," he says both major political parties failed ordinary Americans when the housing bubble burst, and they rushed to bail out cronies at big banks. Government continues to threaten our future by printing gobs of money and guaranteeing trillions in loans to banks, homeowners, students and other politically connected groups.</p>
<p>The political class claims the economy would have been destroyed in 2008 without a bailout of the big banks. Stockman says that's a myth: "The Main Street banks were not going to go into a huge retail bank run ... and (Fed chairman Ben) Bernanke is totally wrong when he says we were on the verge of Depression 2.0. We weren't close. We would have worked our way through it. We've done it many times in history."</p>
<p>Worked our way through it? Without the bailouts, there might have been a bigger stock market drop, and more businesses would have closed! But Stockman says, so what? It would have been worth it. And I agree with him.</p>
<p>Today, taxpayers would be $1 trillion richer and not on the hook for trillions in loan guarantees. Prices would now have found a natural floor, business would be eagerly hiring again, and America would be free of moral hazards like "too big to fail" banks.</p>
<p>What do I mean by "moral hazard"? I once built a beach house on the edge of the ocean -- a very risky place to build -- but I did so because federal flood insurance guaranteed my investment. Eventually, a storm swept away my house, but I didn't lose a penny. Government "insurance" covered my loss. Thanks, taxpayers!</p>
<p>Now that I'm wiser -- and more libertarian -- I'm ashamed that I took your money and understand that the whole program is a mistake. The same government that worries about global warming causing flooding spends billions to compensate risk-takers who live next to oceans. That's moral hazard.</p>
<p>But beachfront property owners have political connections. They make desperate calls to legislators. Politicians respond to whoever screams loudest.</p>
<p>When the housing bubble burst, politicians got panicked calls from their friends on Wall Street -- in many cases former colleagues. Instead of letting their old friends take big losses and trusting smaller banks to expand and take their customers, the political class propped up risk-takers who made bad bets.</p>
<p>It's not that those who move back and forth between Wall Street and government are evil. But when you are close to a problem, you are quicker to panic. A few years back, brilliant scientists who studied SARS or bird flu sincerely thought a mass epidemic was coming, and therefore government had to "do something." (It didn't hurt that "doing something" meant spending more on their area of research.)</p>
<p>In 1999, computer techs really believed computers would freeze when the calendar turned to 2000, causing planes to fall from the sky. Killer-bee researchers were convinced bees would sting us to death. Anti-pesticide environmentalists, flesh-eating bacteria researchers and today's global warming fanatics are all sincere in their fear.</p>
<p>But unlike Wall Street bankers, none could confiscate a trillion of your dollars and give them to their cronies. Believe me: If Al Gore could have done that, he would have.</p>
<p>Politicians accuse those of us who advocate limited government of being heartless when we say that government should not protect us against loss. But government efforts to "protect" us create a moral hazard that just makes our problems bigger over time.</p>
<p>Politicians say, "Yes, we can!" But don't be fooled: "No, They Can't."</p>John Stossel2013-04-10T17:45:00ZStossel's Column: Green TyrannyJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stossels-Column:-Green-Tyranny/991994539312000348.html2013-04-03T17:01:00Z2013-04-03T17:01:00Z<p>Environmental activists and politicians would like you to think that we must love their regulations -- or hate trees and animals.</p>
<p>I love trees and animals.</p>
<p>But you can love nature and still hate the tyranny that environmental regulations bring.</p>
<p>The Environmental Protection Agency just announced it will boost gas prices ("only" a penny, although industry says 6 to 9 cents) to make another minuscule improvement to air quality.</p>
<p>In New York City, my mayor wants to ban Styrofoam cups, saying, "I think it's something we can do without."</p>
<p>Congress already dictates the design of our cars, toilets and light bulbs.</p>
<p>Originally, environmental rules were a good thing. I love the free market, but it doesn't offer a practical remedy to pollution. I could sue polluters for violating my property rights, but under our legal system, that's not even close to practical.</p>
<p>So in the '70s, government passed rules that demanded we stop polluting the air and water. Industry put scrubbers in smokestacks. Towns installed sewage treatment. Now the air is quite clean, and I can swim in the rivers around Manhattan.</p>
<p>But government didn't stop there. Government never stops. Now that the air is cleaner, government spends even more than it spent to clean the air to subsidize feeble methods of energy production, like windmills and solar panels. Activists want even more spending. A few years back, the Center for American Progress announced they were upset that "Germany, Spain and China Are Seizing the Energy Opportunity ... the United States Risks Getting Left Behind."</p>
<p>In this case, we're better off "left behind." After spending billions, those European governments made no breakthroughs, and now they're cutting back.</p>
<p>The Endangered Species Act was another noble idea. We all want to save polar bears. But now the bureaucrats make it almost impossible for some people to improve their own property.</p>
<p>Louisiana landowner Edward Poitevent wants to build homes and offices north of Lake Pontchartrain. He could provide safe high-ground housing to people eager to move away from areas that were flooded during Hurricane Katrina. But he is not allowed to build because the government decided 1,500 acres of his land should become a preservation area for a threatened species called the dusky gopher frog. None of these frogs currently live on his property. Poitevent told me, "The Fish and Wildlife Service has certified that the frog has not been seen in the state of Louisiana since 1967."</p>
<p>Fish and Wildlife Service officials said they were "not available" to talk with me about this. Instead, they posted a video on YouTube that says they work "with" landowners: "The Service has many voluntary partnership-based programs that can provide technical and financial assistance to manage species."</p>
<p>That sounds nice, but the government's handbook on how to work with them is an onerous 315 pages long.</p>
<p>The environmentalists so torment those who resist their schemes that some landowners tell each other, "If you find an endangered species, shoot, shovel and shut up!" That's mostly a joke. But it does happen, and it's one more way government regulations backfire.</p>
<p>Throughout the world, most reductions in pollution have been achieved because of capitalism, not government control.</p>
<p>Fracking for natural gas reduced greenhouse gas emissions.</p>
<p>Even much-hated coal and oil provide benefits. Science writer Matt Ridley says, "Burning of fossil fuels is helping the rainforest in the Amazon to grow."</p>
<p>Ridley also points out modern industrial farming allows people to grow more food on less land, and so people cut down fewer trees. "New England used to be 70 percent farmland -- it's now 70 percent forest."</p>
<p>You can even see the difference between areas that get greener and ones that don't from space: The Dominican Republic is noticeably greener than its immediate neighbor, Haiti, mainly because the Dominican Republic uses fossil fuel instead of burning wood from its forests for fuel, as Haiti does.<br />Industry and technology, not regulations, are humanity's greatest contribution to the environment. <br />Leave people their freedom, and they come up with new, smarter, more efficient and thus cleaner ways of doing things. Stifling that process with regulation isn't "progressive."</p>John Stossel2013-04-03T17:01:00ZJohn Stossel's Column: Imperial WashingtonJohn Stosselhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/John-Stossels-Column:-Imperial-Washington/-787964921427692060.html2013-03-29T21:17:00Z2013-03-29T21:17:00Z<p>The Senate did something this past weekend it hasn't done in four years: passed a budget. The law requires the Senate to pass a budget, but Congress often ignores its own laws. For most of Barack Obama's presidency, a series of continuing resolutions kept the money -- your money -- flowing. Now the Senate wants to add a trillion dollars of new taxes, even more than President Obama seeks. Despite our growing debt, the Senate wants to fund things like the Senate barbershop, which loses a third of a million dollars every year.<br /> <br /> It's like they live in a private bubble.<br /> <br /> Politicians say, "I'm going to Washington to serve others." Maybe they mean to. But after most "serve," they never leave. When I visit Washington, I see politicians and bureaucrats serving themselves.<br /> <br /> When the housing bubble burst, home prices dropped in most of America, but not in Washington. Our capital feeds off federal spending, and politicians won't allow that bubble to burst.<br /> <br /> One result is that, today, for the first time, most of America's richest counties are in the Washington area. Of the richest 1 percent of counties in the U.S., 43 percent surround the nation's capital city.<br /> <br /> Nick Sorrentino, creator of AgainstCronyCapitalism.org, notes that average total compensation for a federal employee is now about $120,000, and the gap between government pay and private pay has been growing.<br /> <br /> It's not that Washingtonians are smarter or more productive than the rest of us. It's that as government grows, more money flows to lobbyists, trade groups and others who live close to those who pass out your money. Government is a parasite -- but a parasite that helps its friends. The way people get rich in Washington is not by inventing things, but by being good at schmoozing and manipulating the bureaucrats who control your money.<br /> <br /> Tourists visit Washington and admire the beautiful buildings. All that marble once made me feel patriotic, too, but now I get angry.<br /> <br /> Unions claim workers are "under"-paid. But today's union headquarters resemble palaces. The biggest teachers union, the National Education Association, built a $100 million Washington headquarters that it calls "an environmental oasis." The AFL-CIO's beautiful lobby features a giant mosaic made of marble, glass and gold. When I tried to take pictures, so TV viewers could see the elegance, I was told to leave. <br /> <br /> Government buildings are grand, too, even new ones like the Reagan office building. "It's very much like Versailles before the French Revolution," says historian John Steele Gordon. Washingtonians have become like the French nobility, who spent their lives in the palace at Versailles "and didn't know much about what went on outside that world."<br /> <br /> "But the real royalty is not in Washington, D.C.," Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., tells me. "It's on Wall Street." <br /> <br /> It's true that there's more wealth on Wall Street, but Gordon points out that there's a big difference between those fat cats and Washingtonians. "In the private sector, if you find a way to cut costs, you're a hero. If you find a way to cut costs in the (government) bureaucracy, you're a goat." <br /> <br /> You're a "goat" because cutting waste hurts the lobbyists who feed off taxpayers. With trillions of dollars at stake, corporations and special interests would be crazy not to lobby. Lobbyists and taxpayer-funded special privilege won't go away unless big government does.<br /> <br /> We could improve America's future just by recognizing what so-called "public choice" economists started to realize around the time of World War II: that government isn't just a "public servant." It's not a demon, either. But government and its employees are selfish, like anyone else. That explains most of their behavior better than occasional shifts to the political left or right.<br /> <br /> We all tend to overspend and act lazy when we can get away with it. In the private sector, though, that eventually means that you get fired or realize you're depleting your bank account. In Washington, the Fed just prints more money.<br /> <br /> As long as Washington spends other people's money, there will be little incentive for them to be prudent -- or humble.</p>John Stossel2013-03-29T21:17:00Z