Compelled by force of the government. No choice.

She recounts a number of sad instances of hardship falling on employees who become ill or who must stay at home to care for someone else who is ill in their family. She argues for passage of the “Healthy Families Act.”

Here’s why she is dead wrong on this issue. It may well be a good idea for an employer to have an employee stay at home but still get paid. If it is a good idea the only one in any position to judge the idea is the employer. If the employer believes this to be in his or her rational self-interest than the employer and employee can agree to these terms.

It is not the place of government to use its heavy hand to force this agreement, however. Such a law makes the employer a slave to the employee. This is immoral.

I wonder what she would think about this law: let’s create a law that says when things get really busy in the workplace that the employer can compel the employee to work for free. I’ll bet she wouldn’t go for that.

Again, no one argues that sickness or injury or 100 other things don’t cause hardship. No one argues that it isn’t a good idea for an employer to pay an employee for staying home. That’s a decision a rationalemployer can make and I can envision a situation where that is the right decision. However, it is no place for government intervention and regulation. Especially in a bad economy. A crazy law such as the Healthy Family Act would be one more unnecessary, unwarranted and harmful tax on the small-business owner.

First, do they have any objective evidence that someone who marches into a 7-Eleven looking for the chocolate covered cream filled pastry is going to be dissuaded when he learns it’s packing 1200 calories? Even if there was such evidence why should the role of government to protect the consumer from himself? It’s his responsibility to take care of his own health.

Next, this “problem” is something that should be solved by the market if the market wants it solved. So, if you go into 7-Eleven looking for the 1200 calorie donut but wanting to know whether you should choose the 1000 calorie doughnut and that information is not available you simply say to the business owner “hey, I’m going to stop shopping here until you tell me which donut has 1200 calories.” If enough consumers “vote with their wallets” problem solved.

It is shocking that government spends so much time and money trying to solve other people’s problems when it can’t get the big things like traffic, education, protection from criminals right.

She even quotes from an organization calling itself the “Center for Responsible Lending” that complains that the new rules don’t go far enough.

Unfortunately, the new rules will do nothing but raise fees and costs for those who act responsibly. More people will now be denied access to automated teller machines and debit cards because of the irresponsible minority.

Look, no one forces you to use an automated teller machine. No one forces you to obtain or use a debit card. My solution for overdraft fees? Take personal responsibility and don’t overspend. Know how much money is in your bank account.

There, I did it. I fixed the problem and it didn’t take one committee to do it.

The “almighty business” that “makes a buck” because it charges fees under free and voluntary contracts entered into between it and its consumers are the same businesses that brought us the convenience of automated teller machines, debit cards, and credit cards. These are the same businesses that allow us to pay bills with electronic transactions using simple online portals. These are the same businesses that provide access to capital for thousands of entrepreneurs across the country. The entrepreneurs that make America grow.

When will we stop with the over-regulation? When will consumers learn to act responsibly?

He is preparing emergency legislation that would guarantee paid sick days for anyone diagnosed with the H1N1 virus. Guarantee, not by the government but by the business owner who is risking time and capital to run a business.

His exact quote: “families shouldn’t have to choose between staying healthy and making ends meet.”

Okay, so this is another tax on the small business owner. Someone gets sick and the owner loses productivity or hires a replacement for the day. The Senator’s proposed new government interference with small business would mandate that the employer pay the sick employee for the time it.

I wonder if he has ever run a business in his life or done anything to produce a dollar? This is purely a role for private agreement between the employer and employee. Some employers will gladly have the employee stay calm and will be more than happy to pay that employee to stay home. That’s their business. It is not the role of government to tell the small business owner how to run their business.

Gee, can we send the bill to the government? Look, the swine flu isn’t good for anyone. Having to stay home and not being able to be paid for the day obviously isn’t good for the employee but who made the rule that it’s the employer we are going to stick this bill with?

They rely on a 1970 amendment to the Federal Anvestment Company act that not to accept excessive compensation. The amendment gives investors the power to enforce the duty in Court.

The problem is that the sets law no standard by which a mutual fund advisor can tell whether he is going to be sued or not. He leaves it to lawsuits (this one now five years old) and the courts to sort through the dispute. This is terribly inefficient.

There are over 8000 mutual funds available to an investor. Moreover, any investor can go online to see the fees paid to advisers and directors. If the investor thanks the fees are too high love they can exercise their voluntary free will and not purchase shares in the fund. It is absurd to think that the government should have any role in regulating mutual fund adviser fees. The free market already protects investors.

What if next time they seek to regulate the fees you charge in your business? What if it fixes the prices of the goods you sell — the goods that consumer voluntarily purchases from you at a price that he deems to be in his best interest?

An insurance company should be able to create a contract that offers whatever benefits it wants. The consumer is then free to accept the contract at the price offered or not.

Its that simple. Imagine if the government came into your store and required you to sell certain goods to everyone who entered…whether or not they wanted the good and whether or not you could make a profit on the goods.

No one would think that situation a proper use of government power.

This is yet another example, if our government ascedes to the request, of the government taking by force, from the producers, money to selectively help one industry. You would think that they would have figured out by now that tripling the national deficit by bankrupting the future isn’t the way to grow the economy.

Here’s how you grow the economy: get the government out of the way. Reduce or eliminate mindless regulation that slows the growth of small businesses. Reduce the confiscatory tax system that says to “the producers” the better you do the more we take.

I recently spoke to a young lady whose husband is a small business entrepreneur who was trying to navigate the District of Columbia’s byzantine regulatory system just to be able to establish his business there in order that he could generate income for his family and higher others to work for him. She told me that she had spent a day and a half trying to figure out all of the things that needed to be done just to get this rather simple business “approved” by the government.

If the reduction in regulation and taxation of small businesses took place in each small business was unable to hire one additional person who would cure the unemployment problem. The answer certainly is not to fund GMAC and its ilk with my money.

Here are some phrases she uses:

“financial institutions are preying on the carelessness of their customers”
“the government has a right to rein in an industry practice that in many cases has become predatory by design, allowing customers to overdraw their accounts.”

She describes “a troubling trend that just won’t die: the financial industry continues to greatly profit from consumer’s love affair with their plastic.”

“This issue should be of concern because many of those who are paying for overdrafts are doing so at a time when they are least able to afford the service.”

“Financial institutions have crossed the lines of fairness.”

So, Ms. Singletary would use the “heavy hand of government” to regulate and reduce the profits of a business.

Again.

Crazy.

By what moral right does a government sacrifice one entity (in this case a business and its shareholders) for another?

Here’s the solution. Don’t ask for a debit card. No one forces you to get one. No one forces you to use one.

Use cash. If you don’t have enough money don’t buy something.

No one is forcing the consumer to be stupid and the government should not use its power to reduce bank profits. Banks can’t “make” people do stupid things. People DECIDE to do stupid things.