My Lunch with Hillary [John Stossel]

Photo credit: John StosselI had lunch with Hillary Clinton.

Really.

I was on vacation on the Caribbean island of Anguilla, at a hotel that's a mixture of villas-for-rent that stand right next to big houses owned by rich Americans.

One day, several black SUVs arrived—men in suits wearing earpieces got out. I asked another tourist, "What's that about?"

"Bill and Hillary Clinton may stay here," he said.

Another tourist said, "That's just a rumor." But a few days later, Secret Service men surrounded a big house owned by Black Entertainment Television billionaire Bob Johnson. He's a big Clinton supporter. It was clear that the former president had arrived.

We then wondered, "Are both Bill and Hillary here?"

This was 2006, five years after Bill left office, 10 years after his affairs with Monica Lewinsky and others had been revealed. Pundits said the Clintons had a "political marriage"—that they didn't actually live together.

So we tourists asked, "Is it Bill with someone else?"

We got our answer quickly. There were the former president and first lady, strolling down our beach. "Holding hands!" gasped a tourist. "Is it just for show?" Who knows? But they certainly acted as if they liked each other.

So my brother-in-law invited them to lunch.

Why did he think they might accept? Because he's a successful investor who, years before, squandered money on a group called the Democratic Leadership Council. Its goal was to bring Democrats back to centrist economics.

The Clintons had convinced him that they were "responsible" Democrats (sometimes Bill was). So, by donating money, my brother-in-law helped Bill Clinton become president.

Donating money: That gets the Clintons' attention. Our lunch invitation was quickly accepted. Of course, they didn't know that I would be there.

I sat next to Hillary Clinton. She was very friendly—for a while.

Being a provocateur, I brought up a local controversy: Some Chinese workers were sleeping in old shipping containers, four to a container. They had moved to Anguilla to help build hotels.

"This is why we need regulation!" she told me.

I pointed out that the workers weren't slaves. They'd come to Anguilla only because their alternatives in China must have been significantly worse.

Of course, the housing the Chinese workers inhabited wasn't up to American standards, but the standards Clinton wants would raise costs. That would eliminate opportunities. Some of those workers might never have gotten the chance to leave China and better their lives. Our well-intended rules often create nasty, unintended consequences.

For example, after Western media complained that Bangladeshi workers were abused in "sweatshops," many of those businesses closed. "Good!" said the media. "We stopped the abuse!" But then Oxfam researchers discovered that many of those now unemployed workers were begging for food on the streets. Some became prostitutes.

Clinton replied, "I heard about that study, but most regulation improves living conditions: zoning rules, affirmative action, licensing, minimum wage..."

"I know who you are!" she interrupted. We were off. I give her credit: She argued with me for half an hour. Finally, she'd had enough. She just ignored me for the rest of the meal.

Clinton's wish to regulate workers' sleeping arrangements is a symptom of "lawyers' disease." Like most politicians, she assumes problems are best solved with new rules. She doesn't notice that most new rules create new problems. Worse problems. Problems that often take away opportunity altogether.

I don't want to live in a shipping container. But when politicians say "no one" may, they prevent desperate people from improving their lives.

America's settlers lived in one-room homes made of sticks and mud. Should that have been banned?

In China, millions try to live on a buck or two a day. Because Anguilla did not have Clinton-level housing regulation, some moved to Anguilla, where they can live cheaply and start businesses. Many now run grocery stores. Their lives are immeasurably better.

Forget about the overseas folks, look at the ones here.

Regs making cars, homes, and household appliances more expensive are part of what’s keeping folks down. It’s not just jobs. Even if you are one who actually does get a job, the “startup cost” of getting out the door is too high.

Want to live in a crappy apartment, drive a clunker, and otherwise live “on the cheap” until you save enough and make enough more to get the hell out of there?

Good luck with that! This is why about a third of folks under 35 are still living at home w/mommy and daddy.

I bet within a year, you’re going to see a rapidly increasing number of households not having AC. New efficiency regs are putting AC systems up around 10k where just last year you’d get AC for 1-3k depending.

That might not be too bad if you’re already “established”. For those not, it’s no AC until they save enough.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

My Lunch With Hillary

Arguing over regulations that keep poor people from improving their situations