Of what use are those bubbles?

What good is foam? I’m not talking about foam rubber or Styrofoam – they have their uses. But in the form of cleaning products that foam or the head on beer, the value is questionable.

Years ago a New York brewer advertised “The ten minute head”. Another brewer advertised, “Don’t pour it down the side of the glass.” What does a head on a glass of beer accomplish? It prevents the beer drinker from getting at the beer – unless he wants to coat his face with foam.

Cleaning product manufacturers like to show how their product foams. Presumably the foam shows that the cleaner is doing its job. But what the commercial doesn’t tell you is that you’re going to have to rinse and rinse and rinse to get the foam to go down the drain. When I clean the bathroom I don’t use water with the cleaner – just wipe it off with a paper towel. This cuts down significantly on the work of removing the foam. And I avoid cleaning products whose manufacturers tout their foaminess.
And foam from detergents can be a big contributor to pollution of streams and rivers. Better to do without those suds.

Reforming McCain

The following is the text of a message I sent to John McCain's campaign web site this evening:

As a conservative Republican, I am not happy about some of your positions on issues. I will vote for you, but if you want me to contribute to your campaign, please promise to work for the repeal of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance "reform" act. This law restricts free speech and should never have been passed.

Cleaning up Congress

In 2006 the voters gave the Democrats control of the House and the Senate, in part because the Republicans controlling Congress had not lived up to their promises of sound budgeting. However, under the Democrats deficit spending and earmarks continue.

The problem as I see it is that it's too easy to attach earmarks to bills passing through Congress. True, there are major projects approved by Congress that should never be approved. But earmarks represent a constant drain on financial resources that, if controlled, could yield substantial savings. Don't misunderstand me. I'm not proposing to completely eliminate earmarks. Some earmarks are worthwhile and ought to be passed. But the practice of simply attaching them to unrelated bills passing through Congress guarantees that they will not get the scrutiny they ought to.

The solution as I see it is twofold:

1. Require that each bill approved by Congress must address a single subject
2. Give the President a line item veto

The first provision would prevent bills from getting cluttered with unrelated special interest legislation. It would reduce the size of each bill and facilitate lawmakers concentrating on the main subject of the bill.

The second provision would help enforce the first by enabling the President to strike out provisions in a bill that do not address the subject of the bill.

Needless to say, this change could result in a vast increase in the number of bills Congress has to consider in each session. However, each bill would be smaller and address one subject, making evaluation easier. Some legislation would never come up for a vote, because of the logistics of steering it through Congress. That's not bad. A bill that really needs to be passed will be passed. The ones that don't come up for a vote are probably not worth passing anyway.

I want out (of Medicare)

This morning I woke up with a swelling in my left cheek. It didn’t hurt, but it had happened once before and Linda and I decided I needed to see a doctor. We’re new in town, having recently moved to Austin, TX from Rochester, MI. So we first called a doctor Linda had just started seeing. We got an appointment, but while I was filling out the forms they saw I had listed Medicare as my primary insurer. They stopped the process right there. “We don’t take Medicare,” they said. We called another doctor they recommended, with the same result. In all we called 6 doctors, and in every case either they were booked or they didn’t take Medicare. Finally we went to an outpatient facility associated with a hospital.

This is what Americans can look forward to if Hillary Clinton’s or Barack Obama’s health care plans is implemented. Because of the bureaucratic delays, below market reimbursement rates and excessive regulation, many doctors in private practice won’t want to deal with the government system. But in my case it’s not a matter of looking forward. My care crisis is here. If I am going to have health insurance I don’t want to be treated like a skid row bum or a third world peasant. I would far rather pay an exorbitant premium that gets me prompt service, especially when I have a serious concern. It’s time to go back to work, get into a health plan and tell Medicare to go suck eggs.

You may say, “The government can correct this problem by passing a law requiring all doctors to take Medicare patients.” Then we would have the situation that exists in Canada. Doctors, overloaded with mandated patients who don’t pay market rates, would choose to retire earlier, and for similar reasons fewer young people would choose to enter the medical profession. The result for patients would be long waits for treatment. Better to let the market determine the cost and availability of care. That way people won’t die while waiting for treatment.

Who are we to believe?

30 or so years ago university nutritionists and health food advocates were at one another’s throats. At that time I went to a seminar in which a university nutritionist and a health food advocate were accusing one another of jeopardizing people’s health. During the question period I said, “You are debating these issues, and to you it may seem like an academic debate. But what’s at stake is my health. What am I supposed to do while I wait for you to agree?” They were speechless. That controversy is still playing itself out today, although government and the nutrition establishment have made some concessions to organic foods. But the controversy is far from resolved. Dr. Mirkin (www.drmirkin.com) recently quoted some research that claims taking some vitamin supplements can actually shorten your life (http://www.drmirkin.com/public/ezine042708.html). Drs. Roizen and Oz, in their www.realage.com website, recommend specific amounts of various vitamins, including the ones Dr. Mirkin recommends against taking in supplement form. While Drs. Roizen and Oz recommend getting as much as possible of your daily vitamin and mineral intake from food, they recommend making up any deficits with supplements. I have considerable respect for both Dr. Mirkin and Drs. Roizen and Oz, but they disagree and what’s at stake is my health.

Someone needs to evaluate the conflicting claims in layman’s terms and help laymen develop a sensible strategy for eating and supplementation.

For my part I intend to continue taking vitamin pills, while trying to get as much as possible of my nutritional needs from food. The experts change their minds too frequently for me to follow every recommendation.

Who's dictating to whom? Michigan and Florida delegates

It strikes me as ridiculous that the political parties are trying to dictate to the states when they can hold their presidential primaries. By refusing to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates, the Democrat Party is disenfranchising the voters of Michigan and Florida. Both states ought to sue the Democrat party for disenfranchising their voters. The alternative of redoing the primary elections is significantly expensive. Perhaps Florida and Michigan should hold new primaries and sue the Democrat party for the costs involved. Similar reasoning applies to the Republican party, although it only cut each state's delegation by half.

On limited government

As a conservative with libertarian tendencies – at least at the Federal level, I believe in limited government. Some of my liberal friends would say I believe in hogtied government. Why? The short answer is that the less power the government has, the greater the freedom individuals have.

While it has been said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, there are some changes in laws that would help put a damper on expansion of government. Since taxation is one of the ways the government limits freedom, let’s start with the tax code. The US tax code encompasses thousands of pages of text, and the IRS publishes thousands more pages “explaining” the tax code. Companies and individuals collectively spend millions of hours computing their taxes. I propose a constitutional amendment along the following lines:

The entire tax code of the United States shall require no more than (say) 100 pages of 8.5 X 11 paper, printed in 11 point type with 1 inch margins all around. It shall be comprehensible by a 6th grader of average intelligence. The burden of proof shall rest with the government. It shall be possible to prepare one’s tax return using only the tax code. The burden of proof shall rest with the government.

A second amendment would do much to reduce the volume of laws passed by Congress:

The entire US code shall require no more than (say) 1000 pages of 8.5 X 11 paper, printed in 11 point type with 1 inch margins all around. It shall be comprehensible by a 6th grader of average intelligence. The burden of proof shall rest with the government.

What happens when the entire quota is filled up? In order to pass a new law, Congress would have to repeal enough old laws to make space for the new law. In addition to keeping the body of law reasonably compact and concise, this would help eliminate obsolete and archaic laws, as well as slow down Congress’ deliberation. To paraphrase Mark Twain, I feel safer on days when Congress passes fewer laws.

Two additional changes that would reduce waste and favoritism would be
1. A Constitutional amendment requiring each bill to address a single subject. This would virtually eliminate earmarks and help limit the size of bills.
2. A line item veto. This would enable the President to eliminate provisions in a bill that don’t address the bill’s single subject.