Is Banning Skinny Models a Legitimate Function of Government?

Notwithstanding my post comparing stupid government policies in the U.S. and U.K., I thought the Greeks took to prize for most moronic government.

After all, the politicians in that nation think it’s fine and dandy to subsidize pedophiles and collect stool samples as a condition of getting a business license to set up an online company.

But the United Kingdom will reclaim the top spot (or would it be the bottom spot?) if the government follows through on the advice of two nanny-state academics.

Here’s a blurb from a story in the Telegraph.

Experts said the eating disorder was a disease that was linked to social and cultural influenced, the Guardian reported. The LSE academics said restricting the use of photographs of underweight models in magazines would help ease the pressure on women to be very thin. In a paper that will be published in the journal Economia later this year, LSE economist Dr Joan Costa-Font and Professor Mireia Jofre-Bonet from City University wrote: “Government intervention would be justified to curb the spread of a potential epidemic of food disorders.

To be fair, there’s no indication in the story that the U.K. government will adopt the recommendation of these academics, but don’t be too optimistic. After all, this is the country that has done these crazy things:

o A job-placement center got in trouble for discriminating against incompetent people by seeking “reliable” and “hard-working” candidates.

o A women who was being threatened by thugs got in trouble with the police for brandishing a knife in her own home.

o A man got arrested for finding a gun in his yard and turning it over to the police.

o The government wanted to require “competency tests” for pet owners.

Remember, never underestimate the stupidity of government.

And I suppose this is the appropriate spot for a disclaimer. Yes, I realize anorexia is not a joking matter. I’ve known people with this problem and I recognize it’s serious. But banning skinny models is an absurd and abusive way for politicians to deal with the issue.

Read Full Post »

Senator Ron Johnson Exposes Obama’s “Frugal Budget”

I mentioned yesterday that Senator Johnson of Wisconsin did a good job at the Senate Budget Committee’s hearing on tax reform. Today, I want to elaborate on two of his points.

First, he asked all three of the witnesses what the maximum marginal tax rate on any American should be. The two leftists on the panel, Len Berman and Diane Lim Rogers, hemmed and hawed because they (correctly) smelled a trap. But the Senator persisted and Len said something in the range of 45 percent and Diane said 70 percent-80 percent. This matters because recent polling data shows that the vast majority of Americans don’t want any of their fellow citizens to ever pay more than 30 percent.

Most Republicans aren’t smart enough to focus on arguments that are simultaneously economically sound and politically effective, so kudos to Senator Johnson.

The Wisconsin lawmaker also hit hard on the notion of phony spending cuts, a point near and dear to my heart (as you can see by these interviews with Judge Napolitano and John Stossel).

I touched on this yesterday, but I want to share a chart that Senator Johnson used during the testimony. As you can see, Obama’s budget doesn’t call for any budget cuts.

When Obama released his budget, I did a post showing how annual spending was going to be $2 trillion higher in 10 years than it is today. But I think I’ll steal Senator Johnson’s chart since it makes the same point more dramatically.

I’ve already confessed to having man crushes (in the philosophical sense) on Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, and Rand Paul. If Senator Johnson continues this good work, I may have to become really promiscuous.

Read Full Post »