Should I go to work or should I go on welfare? If you run the numbers, the decision isn’t as easy as you might think. A new study by the Cato Institute discovered that welfare pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35 states. Welfare in 13 of those states pays more than $15 an hour. There isn’t a much incentive for Americans to take an entry-level job when welfare pays more than work.

The Federal government funds 126 separate programs that are aimed at helping low-income citizens. Of them, 72 provide either cash or in-kind benefits to individuals. While it is true that no individual or family gets benefits from all 72 programs, they still benefit from a welfare society that provides more in benefits than most people realize.

Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute in a recent column put it bluntly. “Here’s an offer for you: $38,004 per year, tax free. No work required. Apply at your local welfare office.” He argues that if Congress and state legislatures are serious about reducing welfare dependence and rewarding work, they need to change some of the benefit levels and eligibility requirements.

Michael Tanner also says “there is no evidence that people on welfare are lazy.” But he also adds “they are not stupid.” If you pay more for welfare than work, it is easy to guess what they will do. Why work when welfare pays so well?

I should also point out that some have criticized the study because it “lumps together” a set of safety-net programs. And it is not true that “all poor families in which the parents aren’t working receive all these benefits.” Nevertheless, the study illustrates how generous welfare benefits undercut independence and a work ethic.

Americans support welfare as a way of providing a hand up. They just don’t want it to be a handout and become a way of life.

Nearly everyone in business complains about too many regulations, but nobody seems to be able to do anything about them. Small businesses often drown in a tsunami of bureaucratic red tape that keep many from being successful. Certainly we need rules and regulations, but we don’t need all of the 46,000 pages of rules in the Federal Register.

What can we do? Senator Angus King (Maine) and Senator Roy Blunt (Missouri) have an idea modeled on a successful legislative approach used in the past. Many years ago, Representative Dick Armey proposed the Defense Realignment and Closure Commission that was used successfully to close down or consolidate unnecessary military bases. No politician wanted to vote to close down a base in his or her district. The commission gave politicians cover. They had to vote up or down on all of the bases the commission recommended.

The Regulatory Improvement Act uses the same mechanism. It creates a commission that recommends cuts in the Byzantine collection of Federal rules and regulations. Then Congress must vote up or down on their recommendations.

Thomas Stemberg started a company called Staples nearly 30 years ago. He writes in a recent Wall Street Journal that launching the same business in 2013 would be a harder proposition. He says that “there are so many government impediments to business today that the next Staples—and its 50,000 jobs—might never get off the ground.”

The commission will be given the task of finding regulations that are outdated. They will also be tasked with finding regulations that are duplicative. The American Action network estimated that employees spend 642 million hours trying to comply with redundant regulations.

Cutting rules and regulations will also reduce costs. A May 2013 report by the Heritage Foundation estimated that new regulatory costs added in 2012 alone totaled $23 billion. It is time for a commission to look at Federal rules and regulations and make some common sense recommendations.

Every few days we seem to learn something new in regard to the National Security Agency controversy. Two weeks ago, we learned that the NSA violated the Constitution over a three-year span when it collected at least 56,000 emails without appropriate privacy protections. And we also learned that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court criticized the NSA for “misrepresenting” its practices.

We have been assured that the NSA only is able to track the origin, destination and length of a phone call. We have been assured that the NSA isn’t listening in to phone calls or reading emails. Then we find out that the NSA has built a surveillance network that is able to read 3 out of every 4 emails sent in the United States.

Peggy Noonan writes that this growing problem with NSA surveillance will grow worse and not get better any time soon. The nation is legitimately concerned about terrorism, and that becomes the justification for more intrusion into our lives. The technology makes it easier than ever to violate our privacy. Most politicians are willing to let the surveillance state grow because he or she fears the next terrorist attack that will bring the inevitable questions of whether the government did enough.

Will the data the NSA is collecting be misused? Peggy Noonan challenged these three assumptions. “If you assume all the information that can and will be gleaned will be confined to NSA and national security purposes, you are not sufficiently imaginative or informed. If you believe the information will never be used wrongly or recklessly, you are touchingly innocent. If you assume you can trust the administration on this issue you are not following the bouncing ball.”

Is it possible to reverse direction and prevent the use and abuse of NSA data? That will not happen if American citizens accept those three assumptions. We can change the direction of this surveillance if we express our concern about big government collecting Big Data on us.

Last month, former President George W. Bush had a stent inserted to open a blocked artery. End of story, right? Not exactly. For weeks, doctors have been debating whether the procedure was necessary. The debate illustrates why we should be concerned about how Obamacare is implemented.

Dr. Richard Besser, a medical correspondent for ABC News, questioned why George Bush had an exercise stress test as part of his routine physical exam. It was during such a test at the Cooper Clinic in Dallas that his primary care physician noticed EKG changes and ordered a CT angiogram. It revealed a severe blockage in a crucial position in a coronary artery.

Two physicians wrote in a Washington Post op-ed column that George Bush’s surgery was unnecessary. Moreover, they worried that the media coverage of his stent would lead “patients to pressure their own doctors for unwarranted and excessive care.”

Dr. Marc Siegel, physician and associate professor at NYU, recently responded to some of the criticism. He said it was “completely reasonable to perform an exercise stress test. If only Jim Fixx, author of The Complete Book of Running, had a stress test, he might be alive today, rather than dying of a heart attack while jogging in 1984.” He also added: “Doctors who have stated that his cardiac work-up was unnecessary are doing what bad TV experts do all the time—speculating wildling without enough information.”

I agree with Dr. Siegel we don’t have the information (nor do most of us have the expertise) to say who is right. But I hope we can agree that the doctors closest to George Bush were the ones who should make the decision about what to do next. They had the medical facts and President Bush’s medical history.

This is one reason to reject how Obamacare will be implemented. Bureaucrats or a committee of doctors and bureaucrats a thousand miles away will be making decisions about medical treatments. They will never be able to make good decisions about what medical care is appropriate for you.