David McElroy

McDonald’s has just announced that it’s changing the menu of its well-known Happy Meal. The company is cutting the number of French fries by more than half and adding an apple. If you think it’s great that Ronald McDonald is responding to consumer desires for a healthier product, guess again. It’s because of politicians and health nazis.

Let me start by saying that I don’t think you should buy this junk food for your kids. I think the sugar and starch content are way too high for anybody. It’s just not very healthy food. Kids are better served by higher quality food. But it’s just my opinion. They’re your kids and it’s your decision.

And that’s the problem. Some people don’t believe it is your decision. They believe the power of the coercive state should be brought to bear on companies selling products — so that the real “market” pressure comes from politicians and busybodies, not from the people who plunk down their money for the products.

Notice what the Reuters story says prompted the change:

“…[McDonald’s] has been taking heat from parents, consumer groups and local lawmakers over the nutritional content and marketing of Happy Meals….”

Actual consumers put “pressure” on businesses by buying products other than the ones they don’t like. I’m sure some parents — probably pretty responsible ones, in this regard — don’t buy Happy Meals. But the real “pressure,” in this case, comes from the “consumer groups” and politicians.

Keep Reading

Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman is a bright guy and he’s done some good academic work. But when it comes to political commentary, he’s both ignorant and arrogant. His latest New York Times column is an example of both.

Krugman called himself a liberal, by which he means that he’s solidly part of the “progressive movement.” These folks have a deep belief in using government to fix the things they see wrong in the world. I understand their theory. I understand their motivation. I just think they’re wrong. I wouldn’t care about them holding an opinion different from mine if they didn’t assert the moral right to control other people — including me.

In his latest column, Krugman talks about the current debt ceiling “crisis.” (I put the word in quotes because I don’t see it as a crisis, even though most others seem to.) He doesn’t see it as a disagreement between two sides with opposing opinions. Instead, he sees it as a battle between crazy people who want to cut the budget and the centrist Democrats who have been willing to do everything reasonable to prevent a crisis. He even calls Barack Obama a “moderate conservative.” (Yes, seriously.)

Keep Reading

What do you think about Michele Bachmann? Obviously, if you’re a real conservative, you’ll love her. Why? Because “those evil liberal Democrats” hate her, of course. Isn’t that good enough?

It’s true that Democrats most hate Bachmann. (Check out the hyperbolic comic book treatment she’s been given recently.) But if you’re a Republican or a conservative, is that a good reason to support her? Does it make her reasonable, right or sane?

I started thinking about this a few minutes ago when I heard a well-educated and generally well-informed lawyer tell someone that he liked Bachmann:

“I haven’t taken the time to carefully study Bachmann as a candidate, but I’m supporting her because the most impressive thing about her is the fear and hate that the Democrats have for her. If the liberals hate her, that’s my kind of president.”

I wonder whether this guy knows that Bachmann’s only employer as an attorney was the IRS? Yes,Bachmann was an attorney suing taxpayers for the IRS. That was her job. And this is the candidate that so many anti-tax Tea Party types love?

Keep Reading