Reports Discuss The High Costs Of Government Mandates In Health Care And Energy Policy | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's note: The author of this post is Jon Sanders, who is Director of Regulatory Studies for the John Locke Foundation.

    Two reports this week from the John Locke Foundation discuss the costly unintended consequences of state government mandates.

    The first, by my colleague Katherine Restrepo, explains how repealing North Carolina's highly restrictive certificate-of-need law could help boost patient choice, put downward pressure on health care costs, and reduce red tape in health care provision.

    This newsletter has occasionally discussed the problems with North Carolina's CON law.

    The second, by yours truly, explores the misleading information being given to state lawmakers currently debating North Carolina's renewable energy mandates by the renewable energy lobby.

    Expanding upon last week's newsletter, this report finds several problems with the lobby's report. Here's the list; see the report for the explanations:

• Going all the way back to 2001 instead of seven years later when REPS took effect
• Starting from 2001 without even acknowledging the effects of the Clean Smokestacks Bill enacted in 2002
• Relying on the effects of the earlier, relatively smaller REPS mandate
• Ignoring the future, greater rate effects of the increasing REPS mandate
• Using discredited methodology and sleight-of-stat
• Trying to make renewable resources sound cost-competitive with traditional resources
• Avoiding the reality and implications of plentiful, cheap natural gas from shale

    Both reports are available on the John Locke Foundation home page.