Let Parents Decide if Child Has Cell Phone

In the media and the academy I sense growing agreement that children and adolescents should have their cell phones restricted or even taken away. I disagree. Parents within a very wide range should be free to parent. I wanted our child to have a cell phone when she was in school, partly to co-ordinate logistics, but mostly to be able to contact her in emergencies. Many girls died in the flooding at Camp Mystic last summer. Camp Mystic, apparently like many camps, did not allow the girls to have cell phones. With cell phones some of the girls might have received timely warnings from their parents, and still be alive today.

(p. A3) In the wake of revelations by Kerr County officials that they didn’t have a flood warning system, an online petition has been started to get one set up for any such future disasters. “This is not just a wish—it is a necessary investment in public safety,” said the Change.org petition signed by more than 100 people since going up Friday [July 4, 2025]. “Early warning sirens have saved thousands of lives in other communities by giving clear, unmistakable alerts day or night, even when cell phone service or electricity fails.”

Nicole Wilson, a resident of nearby San Antonio who started the petition, said she was moved into action after seeing friends nearly lose their children to the floods while at Mystic and other camps along the river and knowing that most, like one her daughters go to near New Braunfels, Texas, don’t allow cellphones or other electronic devices. She said outdoor warning sirens, such as the one she grew up with in Kentucky to seek shelter from tornadoes, could give lifesaving advance notice.

“You are going to hear the sirens, and you are going to know what the sirens mean,” said Wilson, 42, an Army veteran. “I have no doubt if they had five minutes warning they would have had opportunity to get uphill, and they would have had a chance.”

“They had no chance,” she added, her voice breaking. “They had no warning.”

For the full story, see:

Jennifer Hiller, Eric Niiler, and Jim Carlton. “Flooding Alerts Escalated as People Slept.” The Wall Street Journal (Mon., July 7, 2025): A3.

(Note: bracketed date added.)

(Note: the online version of the story was updated July 6, 2025, and has the title “Escalating Alerts of Dangerous Flooding Arrived When People Were Sleeping.”)

Deregulation Is “The Third Pillar” of Trump’s “Plan to Unleash the Nation’s Economic Potential”

In an earlier entry I agreed with David Henderson that libertarians and classical liberals should give Trump credit where credit is due. We should occasionally take a break from criticizing his tariffs, to spend a few minutes to praise his deregulation. The New York Times article quoted below says that deregulation is “the third pillar” of his program to bring us economic prosperity, and that the “deregulatory push” is accelerating.

(p. B3) The Trump administration accelerated its deregulatory push on Thursday [Dec. 11, 2025] by asking the Financial Stability Oversight Council, a financial crisis-era government panel that monitors threats to the financial system, to take steps to ease regulations that they claim are strangling economic growth.

The focus on deregulation comes as President Trump looks to jump-start economic output ahead of midterm elections next year. Republicans are hopeful that Americans will see benefits from the tax legislation that they passed earlier this year and the fruits of new foreign investments that have been pledged as part of trade agreements.

The loosening of regulations has been described by Mr. Trump’s advisers as the third pillar of his plan to unleash the nation’s economic potential.

Mr. Bessent argued in a letter accompanying the annual FSOC report that financial stability is best achieved through faster economic growth, which is constrained by unnecessary regulations. He is directing the FSOC to create working groups that will focus on Treasury market resilience, the resilience of household finances, opportunities for artificial intelligence to help safeguard the financial system and preparation for cyberattacks.

For the full story see:

Alan Rappeport and Colby Smith. “Bessent Is Accelerating A Regulation Overhaul To Jumpstart Growth.” The New York Times (Weds., December 13, 2025): B3.

(Note: bracketed date added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date Dec. 11, 2025, and has the title “Bessent Accelerates Regulation Overhaul to Jumpstart Growth.”)

“Several Biting Critiques of the Red-Tape State”

I have been so intrigued by reviews of books by Philip K. Howard that I have bought four of them. I am chagrined to admit that I have not yet read any of them–I am a slow reader, and have a long to-do list. But when I saw Howard’s suggestions of books that critique government red-tape, I made the to-do list even longer.

(p. R5) American government is overdue for a spring-cleaning, so I was delighted to read several biting critiques of the red-tape state, especially Marc Dunkelman’s “Why Nothing Works” and Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson’s “Abundance.” What’s needed is a philosophical shift toward human agency and accountability. In “The Origins of Efficiency,” Brian Potter reveals the role of human ingenuity in refining modern technologies. In “Humanocracy,” Gary Hamel and Michele Zanini describe how decentralizing individual responsibility helps businesses thrive. Barry Lam’s “Fewer Rules, Better People” shows why fairness requires judgment on the spot. Without human oversight, systems always take on a life of their own.

The source for Philip K. Howard’s book suggestions is:

Philip K. Howard. “Who Read What in 2025: Philip K. Howard.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, Dec. 13, 2025): R5.

(Note: the online version of Howard’s suggestions has the date December 12, 2025.)

The books suggested by Howard are:

Dunkelman, Marc J. Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress―and How to Bring It Back. New York: PublicAffairs, 2025.

Hamel, Gary, and Michele Zanini. Humanocracy: Creating Organizations as Amazing as the People inside Them. Revised & Updated ed: Harvard Business School Press, 2025.

Klein, Ezra, and Derek Thompson. Abundance. New York: Avid Reader Press, 2025.

Lam, Barry. Fewer Rules, Better People: The Case for Discretion. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2025.

Potter, Brian. The Origins of Efficiency. South San Francisco, CA: Stripe Press, 2025.

“The Future Doesn’t Belong to the Fainthearted; It Belongs to the Brave”

(p. C5) Thirty-five years ago . . ., on the morning of Jan. 28, the U.S. space shuttle Challenger exploded just over a minute after its launch from Cape Canaveral.

. . .

Reagan postponed his State of the Union address, which had been scheduled to take place that evening, and set out to craft a speech to the nation that would especially reach the hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren who had watched the disaster on live TV in their classrooms.

. . .

. . . the middle of the speech, where Reagan addressed himself to the schoolchildren of America about the harsh lesson of human tragedy, is where the important message is conveyed: Risk is a part of the human story. “The future doesn’t belong to the fainthearted; it belongs to the brave.” Reagan spoke to the families of all the lost astronauts over the following days; they all told him our space program must continue.

. . .

The aftermath of Challenger, which saw a special commission set up to investigate the causes of the disaster through public hearings, points to one of the continuing challenges posed by modern complexity. The Rogers Commission, which issued its report that June, was harsh in its assessment of NASA’s negligence in risk assessment and launch decision-making.

. . .

The usual response to such lapses is to add more layers of bureaucratic review and decision-making. But that is a two-edged sword. While reducing risk, it can also lead to soaring budgets, rigidity, groupthink, and less creativity and innovation. Just compare the cost and progress of NASA’s current rocket and spacecraft designs to recent private sector space efforts.

For the full commentary, see:

Steven F. Hayward. “The Enduring Lessons Of the Challenger Disaster.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, Jan. 30, 2021 [sic]): C5.

(Note: ellipses and bracketed year added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary was updated January 28, 2021 [sic], and has the title “The Challenger Disaster and Its Lessons for Today.”)

Hayward is also the author of:

Hayward, Steven F. The Age of Reagan: The Conservative Counterrevolution: 1980-1989. New York: Crown Forum, 2009.

FDA Worked Better and Much Cheaper Before 1962 Expansion

Before 1962, the FDA regulated for drug safety, but not for drug efficacy. If the FDA returned to regulating only for safety, that would imply that Phase 3 randomized clinical trials would no longer be mandated. Phase 3 trials are usually more expensive than the Phase 1 and Phase 2 trials combined. They cost a lot more, and usually take a lot longer. If the FDA no longer mandate Phase 3 trials we will have more drug innovation, more quickly, and have much lower costs. And we will have more freedom.

(p. A13) From 1938 through 1962, the Food and Drug Administration required proof of safety before drug approval but not proof of efficacy. The approach was abandoned due to a significant misunderstanding of the thalidomide tragedy—when thousands of babies outside the U.S. were born with severe birth defects.

The issue with thalidomide was a failure of safety, not efficacy. But under pressure to react, Congress required, through the Kefauver-Harris Amendments of 1962, proof of efficacy before granting marketing approval. The new rule addressed a problem that didn’t exist and, in doing so, imposed a substantial new cost burden.

Before 1962, developing a drug took about two years. Now it takes 12 to 14 years. Since 1975 real development costs have risen about 7.5% a year, roughly doubling every decade. Today, we estimate that bringing one successful drug to market costs about $9 billion on average.

For the full commentary, see:

Charles L. Hooper and Solomon S. Steiner. “Deregulation Can Make Medications Cheaper.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., Oct. 18, 2025): A13.

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date Oct. 17, 2025, and has the same title as the print version.)

Large Randomized Controlled Trial Finds Little Benefit in Free Money to Poor, Undermining Case for Universal Basic Income (UBI)

A variety of arguments have been made in support of a Universal Basic Income (UBI). I am most interested in the argument that says that technology will destroy the jobs of the worst off, and so for them to survive society would be justified in giving them a basic income. I do not believe that in a free society technological progress will on balance destroy the jobs of the worst off. If innovative entrepreneurs are free to innovate, especially in labor markets, they will find ways to employ the worst off.

Others have argued that giving a basic income to the worst off will make them better parents, measurable by better child outcomes in terms of language skills and better behavior and cognition. Several years ago these advocates setup a big, expensive randomized controlled trial to test their argument. The results? None of their hypotheses were supported. The passages quoted below are from a front page New York Times article in which they express their surprise, and for some, their incredulity.

(p. A1) If the government wants poor children to thrive, it should give their parents money. That simple idea has propelled an avid movement to send low-income families regular payments with no strings attached.

Significant but indirect evidence has suggested that unconditional cash aid would help children flourish. But now a rigorous experiment, in a more direct test, found that years of monthly payments did nothing to boost children’s well-being, a result that defied researchers’ predictions and could weaken the case for income guarantees.

After four years of payments, children whose parents received $333 a month from the experiment fared no better than similar children without that help, the study found. They were no more likely to develop language skills, avoid behavioral problems or developmental delays, demonstrate executive function or exhibit brain activity associated with cognitive development.

“I was very surprised — we were all very surprised,” said Greg J. Duncan, an economist at the University of California, Irvine and one of six researchers who led the study, called Baby’s First Years. “The money did not (p. A15) make a difference.”

The findings could weaken the case for turning the child tax credit into an income guarantee, as the Democrats did briefly four years ago in a pandemic-era effort to fight child poverty.

. . .

Though an earlier paper showed promising activity on a related neurological measure in the high-cash infants, that trend did not endure. The new study detected “some evidence” of other differences in neurological activity between the two groups of children, but its significance was unclear.

While researchers publicized the earlier, more promising results, the follow-up study was released quietly and has received little attention. Several co-authors declined to comment on the results, saying that it was unclear why the payments had no effect and that the pattern could change as the children age.

For the full story see:

Jason DeParle. “Cash Stipends Did Not Benefit Needy Children.” The New York Times (Weds., July 30, 2025): A1 & A15.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date July 28, 2025, and has the title “Study May Undercut Idea That Cash Payments to Poor Families Help Child Development.”)

The academic presentation of the research discussed above, can be found in:

Noble, Kimberly, Greg Duncan, Katherine Magnuson, Lisa A. Gennetian, Hirokazu Yoshikawa, Nathan A. Fox, Sarah Halpern-Meekin, Sonya Troller-Renfree, Sangdo Han, Shannon Egan-Dailey, Timothy D. Nelson, Jennifer Mize Nelson, Sarah Black, Michael Georgieff, and Debra Karhson. “The Effect of a Monthly Unconditional Cash Transfer on Children’s Development at Four Years of Age: A Randomized Controlled Trial in the U.S.” National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Working Paper 33844, May 2025.

Brigham and Epstein Have the Guts to Nudge the Overton Window

The Overton Window is the range of “officially acceptable” or “politically correct” policy views. The left has been successful at shifting the window in their direction, for instance, in cancelling those who question any aspect of the global warming ideology for being outside polite discourse. In the face of cancel culture it takes courage to challenge the current Overton Window. Brigham and Epstein (see below) have that courage. Their views should be considered.

(p. B12) Exxon Mobil, Occidental Petroleum and other oil giants are expected to receive billions of dollars of incentives to collect and bury carbon emissions. Texas oil billionaire Ben “Bud” Brigham and pro-fossil-fuels activist Alex Epstein want to turn off the tap.

Brigham, a serial entrepreneur and libertarian from Austin, is urging President Trump and the Republicans who are considering slashing a host of energy incentives to go further and nix tax credits for carbon capture.

. . .

Brigham says he doubts carbon capture can be profitable without public funding and that it is a distraction from firms’ core mission of finding oil and gas. He says that the subsidies distort markets and encourage cronyism.

A geophysicist by training, Brigham made his fortune building and selling two oil companies for a total of about $7 billion. He is an Ayn Rand fan who has produced two movies based on the philosopher’s work. He was also a major backer of what is now the Civitas Institute, a conservative center that launched in 2022 at the University of Texas at Austin.

Brigham first met Epstein, another Rand fan, about a decade ago. The two men bonded over a common belief in the importance of free markets and fossil fuels. Epstein is the author of “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels,” a book saying that the imperative to fuel societies flourishing with oil and gas outweighs climate-change risks. It has given Republicans ammunition to counter the left’s climate push, oil lobbyists say.

For the full story, see:

Benoît Morenne. “Oil Tycoon, Philosopher Fight Carbon-Capture Goals.” The Wall Street Journal (Tues., July 1, 2025): B12.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date June 28, 2025, and has the title “The Oil Tycoon and the Philosopher Threatening Big Oil’s Bet on Carbon Capture.”)

Epstein’s book, mentioned above, is:

Epstein, Alex. The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. New York: Portfolio, 2014.

Healthcare Industry Now Top Employer in Most States

Source: the NYT article quoted and cited below.

Some argued that Obamacare would reduce the costs of healthcare in the U.S., but that has not happened. The government has failed us in multiple ways, by tolerating rampant fraud, by mandating voluminous red tape, and by reducing competition.

(p. A18) For years, the United States labor market has been undergoing a structural transformation. As jobs in manufacturing have receded, slowly but steadily, the health care industry has more than replaced them.

. . .

The nation’s corps of nurses, oncologists, lab technicians, anesthesiologists and other health-related workers has been growing steadily, through recession after recession, going from 9 percent of the total workforce in 2000 to 13 percent today.

. . .

. . . 20 percent or so of health care employment . . . is administrative.  . . .

David Cutler, a health care economist at Harvard University, cautions that while more people will be needed to deliver care in the future, the industry shouldn’t be seen as a jobs program. Costs have been rising for decades, placing a larger and larger burden on taxpayers and businesses — and to the extent possible, those resources should be redirected to other parts of the economy.

“Any person who’s employed in health care who we don’t need to be employed in health care, that’s a waste,” Dr. Cutler said. “That’s money in health care that costs people money when they’re sick, and that’s a person who could be doing a job somewhere else.”

For the full story see:

DePillis, Lydia, and Christine Zhang. “Health Care Industry Jobs Are Taking Over.” The New York Times (Sat., July 12, 2025): A18.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date July 3, 2025, and has the title “How Health Care Remade the U.S. Economy.”)

The Democratic Deep State Looked the Other Way as Fraudsters Stole 10 BILLION Healthcare Dollars

When DOGE fired federal workers we saw televised scenes where the fired workers expressed outrage at how taxpayers would be hurt by the loss of devoted civil servants. So where were the devoted civil servants in 2023? Were they doing their jobs to be alert to the Medicare, and personal identity, fraud that cost the public about 10 billion (that is “billion” with a “b”) dollars?

When Elon Musk’s DOGE uncovered myriad examples of major fraud, I saw Democrats on television complain that of course they were against fraud too, but it should be pursued more slowly and systematically, following traditional procedures. The Democrats were running the federal government in 2023. What procedure were the Democrats using, fast or slow, to protect taxpayers from the fraudulent loss of 10 billion (that is “billion” with a “b”) dollars?

Our jerry-rigged government-run-and-regulated health care system is rife with middlemen. In a true free-market healthcare system, patients would directly pay for healthcare, without middlemen. Patients would have the information, and the incentive to act on the information, to detect, report, and pursue fraudsters. Some fraud would exist under any system, but my hypothesis is that much less of it would exist under a free-market system.

(If you are concerned that patients would not have enough funds to pay for healthcare themselves, we could adopt the much better insurance system once proposed by Susan Feigenbaum, combined with deregulation that would reduce healthcare costs–like no longer mandating Phase 3 clinical trials.)

And my secondary hypothesis is that if we have to have a jerry-rigged government-run-and-regulated system, the Republicans, a party full of former bourgeois entrepreneurs and business managers, will usually do a marginally better job of detecting and pursuing fraud.

I wonder if these hypotheses have ever been researched by any of those noble economists studying the field of Public Choice?

(p. A18) When hundreds of thousands of people enrolled in Medicare were billed for expensive medical equipment they never asked for in 2023, it was part of a $10.6 billion fraud, among the largest such schemes in the program’s history, federal prosecutors said this week.

. . .

Those involved in the fraud bought dozens of companies that were accredited to submit claims to Medicare and the program’s supplemental insurers, prosecutors say.

Then, using personal information stolen from more than a million Americans, the defendants filed billions of dollars in claims for equipment that had not been ordered by people enrolled in Medicare and was not delivered to them, according to the indictment.

Of the $10.6 billion that was fraudulently billed, the indictment says, the defendants collected more than $900 million, most of it coming from private “Medigap” insurers and the rest from the Medicare program itself.

Even if the patients themselves did not pay for the phantom supplies, which included urinary catheters, braces and other durable medical equipment, such schemes can affect Medicare recipients by causing premium costs to rise.

. . .

In 2019, the Justice Department uncovered a scheme that it said had defrauded the program of more than $1 billion with phony claims for back and knee braces. In April 2023, prosecutors charged 18 defendants in a nearly $500 million scheme that involved false billing for Covid-19 tests that were never administered.

For the full story see:

Santul Nerkar. “11 Accused of Medicare Fraud In Scheme Based in Russia.” The New York Times (Sat., June 18, 2025): A18.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date June 27, 2025, and has the title “U.S. Charges 11 in Russia-Based Scheme to Bilk Medicare of $10.6 Billion.”)

The better healthcare insurance system proposed by Susan Feigenbaum was proposed in:

Feigenbaum, Susan. “Body Shop’ Economics: What’s Good for Our Cars May Be Good for Our Health.” Regulation 15, no. 4 (Fall 1992): 25-31.

Public Should Beware of F.D.A.’s Lax Inspections of Drugs Made in India and China

On drug safety, the public puts its trust in the F.D.A. which frequently drops the ball. The public would be better off adopting caveat emptor, and seeking private means of assurance of safety. These would include certification (stamps of approval) from private organizations like the United States Pharmacopeial Convention (USP).

They might also choose to buy well-known name brands, since a well-known brand has more reputation capital to lose if they produce a bad batch, and thus can be expected to invest more in quality control. (Lester Telser made this argument–I need to seek where.)

(p. A10) A highly drug-resistant bacteria that was linked to eyedrops imported from India and that spread from person to person in a Connecticut long-term care center has prompted concerns that the strain could gain a foothold in U.S. health care settings, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

. . .

The outbreak has renewed longstanding concerns about the quality and frequency of the F.D.A.’s overseas inspections.

In June 2020, Senator Chuck Grassley, Republican of Iowa, held an oversight hearing on the F.D.A.’s foreign inspection process, noting that the plants were given 12 weeks’ advance notice, “plenty of time to doctor up a facility to make sure that it passes inspection.” The agency has since received budget authority to conduct unannounced overseas inspections.

. . .

The F.D.A. paused overseas inspections during the height of the coronavirus pandemic, and the number of foreign inspections remained low last year, at 684 compared with 3,272 in 2019, according to agency data.

The F.D.A. has 4,000 overseas facilities to inspect, with about 20 percent in India; one of its six inspector positions in that country was vacant in late 2021, according to a report issued last year by the Government Accountability Office.

For over-the-counter drugs, the F.D.A. uses a system that essentially lists a medication recipe. Companies can make the products without express agency approval but are expected to follow agency rules for manufacturing quality products, said John Serio, a lawyer with Withers who has pharmaceutical clients.

“If you’re not out there inspecting facilities,” Mr. Serio said, “these sorts of problems will crop up because there’s no threat that if you’re out of compliance that the inspector will come knocking at your door.”

For the full story see:

Christina Jewett and Andrew Jacobs. “Drug-Resistant Bacteria Linked To Eyedrops Can Easily Spread.” The New York Times (Mon., April 3, 2023 [sic]): A10.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the same date as the print version, and has the title “Drug-Resistant Bacteria Tied to Eyedrops Can Spread Person to Person.”)

The F.D.A.’s lax inspections of generic drugs made in India is documented in:

Eban, Katherine. Bottle of Lies: The Inside Story of the Generic Drug Boom. New York: Ecco, 2019.