Inactive

This blog is inactive as of 11/2009. I am now posting everything at my main blog, and everything is also over there.

Go to Easy Opinions

We Can't Stop Government Growth

Can the Rampaging Leviathan Be Stopped or Slowed?
11/02/09 - Independent.org by Robert Higgs
Senior Fellow in Political Economy, and Editor of The Independent Review at The Independent Institute.

[edited] There are critical difficulties restraining the growth of government. Even when restraints on government are enacted into law, the government does not obey. So, constitutional amendments are worthless. The Constitution already contains the NinthThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. and TenthThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Amendments. With those amendments and four bucks you can get a latté at Starbucks.

"Solutions” to the ongoing growth of government are a dime a dozen and utterly worthless in themselves. Every genuine solution must be implemented by enough people and money. Marshalling people and money will require ideological conversions on a substantial scale. These conversations themselves will require many people and much money, if such conversions are possible at all.

The troubling fact remains, that if any truly effective measures are approved to limit the government, the rulers would likely resort to whatever legal or illegal violence proved necessary to prevent those measures from taking effect.

If Ron PaulCongressman from Texas, noted for wanting a much smaller and limited government were miraculously elected president, he would not live to take office. Opponents of the government’s ongoing growth must bear in mind that we are dealing with violent, heavily armed, utterly unscrupulous people who, if pushed to the brink, will stop at nothing to retain their power and privileges.

We who abhor the continued growth of government cannot stop or slow it in the near term. But, we can take heartNot much of a comfort -ag from the knowledge that ultimately this criminal enterprise will attain such bloated size and scope that it will implode, as the Soviet Union and other overreaching systems have imploded.

Governments that grow without other limits find that their predation becomes greater than their prey can support. Thus, the government in this country and many others contain the seeds of their own destruction.

-----
Leading the People
08/2008 - EasyOpinions by Andrew Garland

My personal experience with radicals in college was scary. They don't mind threatening others, regardless of the academic setting or discussion.

[excerpt] He argued that only a radical change in government would bring about a better society. I disagreed. He said that I should join the demonstrations against the University to end the Vietnam war. I thought a sit-in demonstration against the University was misdirected. I suggested the he should demonstrate against the government; the University was not at war.

He said that his movement would become stronger, and eventually I would agree with him. I asked, what if I didn't agree with him, even later? He flashed anger and told me that if I didn't agree on my own, he would make me agree. I saw that as the end of the discussion.

-----
We Must Spend or We Are Going to DIE!
04/2009 - EasyOpinions by Andrew Garland   (satire, excerpt)

From: Ruling Class
To : Public
Re : We must tax and spend now, or we are all going to DIE!

We don't want to tax and spend (cough), but we must react to the crisis that we have identified. We are going to borrow, spend, and tax reluctantly to support our actions. The alternative is DEATH. No one wants that.

So what if you are poor in the future? At least you will be alive, and we will continue to guide you through supportive government to help you out of poverty. We will create and assign the jobs of the 21st century. Your children will pay most of the taxes, and we are training our children to have the public spirit that will allow them to rule wisely.

Blunting the Costs of Healthcare Reform

States of Personal Privilege
10/09/09 - WSJ Opinion by by Kimberley A. Strassel

Quip: This bill is vital to our country and will save a lot of money. We just don't want to depend on it.

[edited]

Powerful senators have avoided the most costly provisions of healthcare reform for their own states. They want "reform" for the nation, so long as it doesn't disadvantage the people who support or vote for them.

• The Baucus bill vastly expands state Medicaid programs, requiring the states to pay an additional $37 billion.

  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is worried about losing his seat next year. He has arranged for the federal government to pay Nevada's increased Medicaid expenses for the next five years. This applies to only three other states: Oregon, Rhode Island, and Michigan, because they "are suffering more than most."

• The Baucus bill would tax expensive insurance plans at 40%, so that those with "luxury" health insurance help to pay for the poor. But states like New York and Massachusetts have a lot of those plans, having a lot of union members with great benefits, and high-cost insurance mandated by state regulations.

  New York Sen. Chuck Schumer didn't want angry, overtaxed voters, so he and other similarly situated Democrats carved out a deal to reduce the tax on 17 states, mostly with Democratic politics.

• The Baucus bill taxes pharmaceutical companies, on the principle that they are filthy rich and involved in health care.

  But, New Jersey boasts it is the "global epicenter" of the drug industry, where "15 of the world's 20 largest pharmaceutical companies have major facilities." Its Sen. Menendez has a deal for a $1 billion tax credit for companies investing in drug R&D.

• Many Dems assure us that the Baucus bill will "bend down" the health-care cost curve. Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry aren't counting on it. They included $5 billion in the bill to reduce costs for union members.

So, health-care "reform" is good, smart, and necessary, so long as it isn't fully applied to the states of the senators who are pushing it.

Most senators are saving up their special demands for the Senate floor. Then, we'll know how much change Democrats truly believe in.

-----
Baucus Bill Bull: The Hypocrites In DC Are Trying To Pass a Doozy
10/14/09 - PJTV: Medically Incorrect (video 3 minutes)

A video opinion of the Baucus bill by Dr. Peter Weiss.

Dr. Weiss is an OB/GYN at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, the Medical Director of Rodeo Drive Women's Health Center and Rodeo Drive Dermatology and Aesthetics, and an Assistant Clinical Professor at the UCLA School of Medicine.

-----
Obamacare Bails Out Medicare
09/12/09 - Easy Opinions by Andrew Garland
"Healthcare Reform" is a huge tax hike plus rationed medical services.

Better Through Creative Statistics

Reagan's Unemployment Numbers
10/03/09 - DonSurber's blog - Comment by John D.

[edited]

John D:  I am a little confused when I see unemployment numbers from the Reagan years compared to unemployment since 1993.

I believe that the Clinton Administration changed the formula for figuring unemployment to make the numbers smaller. They stopped counting the long term unemployed and those that had quit looking for employment.

Are the Reagan numbers being compared to numbers using the new method, or have the Reagan numbers been recalculated?

Surber:  They are not recalculated. Good point.

Don't believe government statistics and historical comparisons.

The Democratic President Clinton changed the unemployment computation to make his administration look better compared to Reagan and Bush the father. Bush the son didn't change it back; doing so would have made him look worse.

So, now we have unemployment statistics that specifically leave out the long term unemployed and those not looking regularly for work. People who are in part-time jobs are naturally left out, even if they consider this a fallback from former full-time employment.

This is fine for government, which claims that things are just as good as 20 years ago. This supposed progress is a result of manipulating the numbers.

This distortion builds over time as the definitions change to make things look better. The numbers become more unreal, leaving us ignorant about how effective our policies are.

----------
USA Healthcare is First - Infant Mortality is Low
01/08/09 - Easy Opinions by Andrew Garland

Health statistics are intentionally misrepresented to argue for socialized medicine. The major argument is that the US spends more than Europe, but lags behind in health outcomes. So, US healthcare is both expensive and inefficient. Actually, government administration hides much of the socialized cost, and the USA has better health.

----------
Consumer Price Index -
Things You've Suspected But Were Afraid to Ask
10/01/06 - Shadow Stats by Walter J. Williams (John Williams)
Via 11/05/08 - Alpha Dominance

[edited] Inflation, as reported by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is understated by roughly 7% per year, due to recent redefinitions of the numbers and flawed methods, particularly adjusting prices for changes in quality.

The CPI was designed to help everyone adjust their financial planning to the impact of inflation. Since the earyl 1980's, these statistics have changed to meet demands from miscreant politicians. Politicians were and are intent upon stealing income from social security recipients, without public discussion or Congressional approval.

The Clinton Administration changed the CPI to significantly understate inflation, along with changes in the late-Carter and early Reagan Administrations. Thas has reduced current social security payments by roughly half from where they would have been otherwise.

Anyone who receives payments adjusted by the CPI has been similarly damaged. On the other side, the government makes out like a bandit making payments adjusted by this lowered CPI.

Memo - Health Plan Deficit Reduction

From:   Chairman [redacted] of the [redacted] Committee
To:        Healthcare Reform Drafting Group II
Re:        Finessing the Health Plan Deficit

( This is a Class I rice-paper memo. )

The estimated deficit for our health reorganization plan is causing us trouble in the press. President Obama has promised not to raise taxes on the middle class, and not to increase the deficit. Unfortunately, we have to live with this until the plan passes Congress.

After passage, we will spend what it takes, just like the last times.

Please hold off on more complexity. I asked for enough boards, committees, commissions, and regulators to confuse things and distract our opponents. You went overboard, but that is not a big problem. Just don't add more.

(Jim, that advisory commission on do-it-yourself birthing is out. I know it would save money, but it is out for now.)

Here is how we will handle the cost. Pick a big cost to convince people that we are serious. Too small looks like we might be hiding things. (If they only knew.) Keep it under $1 trillion over 10 years. That seems to be the right psychological price point for the public.

Now, this is how we will "pay for it". Assign whatever fees (not taxes!) you want against insurance companies, big businesses, and "private" doctors. Make the fees big enough to cover the entire added cost of the plan. Yes, even if you think we can't raise that much money from those fees.

The Congressional Budget Office will score the plan based on the fees we say we will raise. They will find that the plan is covered, and that is all we care about. We have convinced the public that only deficits matter, not the actual cost.

Our opponents will express doubt that we can collect all of the money we say we will. But, that is just their opinion, and the CBO will go along with us.

So, we will have a plan that does not increase the deficit, and there are no taxes on the middle class, only fees on evil companies and rich doctors.

To Fred: Yes, the fees would be passed through, and effectively would be a tax on employees and patients. I appreciate your insight. Forget about it. We will be rearranging everything in any event, after the bill is in effect for a while.

Good work everyone. Just a few more all-nighters, and we will get this thing passed. Remember that there are enough boards, committees, commissions, and regulators to provide plum assignments for all of you.

__________
This is a rice-paper memo, distributed on edible paper and written in edible ink (raspberry). Please eat this memo after reading.

Nutrition Label: Fat 0g   Protein 0g   Carbohydrate 4g
Dietary Fiber 1g.  Free of gluten and tree nuts.

US Printing Office G5-034 236 Washington D.C.

Leading the People

Leading The People
If You Don't Agree Now, You Will Later
08/30/08 - EasyOpinions by Andrew Garland

My post from a year ago still applies. Here are two excerpts:

Brad said that his movement would become stronger, and eventually I would agree with him. I asked, what if I didn't agree with him, even later? He flashed anger and told me that if I didn't agree on my own, he would make me agree. I saw that as the end of the discussion.

Brad's Friends want to be elected, then use that power to make your life better, and you better, whether you agree or not. Brad's Friends are not motivated by respect for their fellow citizens or a regard for the truth. They want to produce a grand experiment to make a better world. Eventually, they will make you agree with them.

Van Jones: What's New?

To President Obama:

Van Jones is your Green Jobs Czar, a position of importance and power in deciding how to restructure US industry. He has recently been in the news for his speeches and petitions. He signed a petition asking that the US Government, then under President Bush, be investigated for complicity in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

He declared that he became a Comunist in his recent past. He stated that black high school students might shoot another black student, but that they had never tried to shoot many people at once, as two white students did in the Columbine tragedy.

It seems that you will announce soon that he has resigned, or that you have fired him, or that you are going to keep him in your administration.

Whatever you do, please tell me, what is new to you about this information? If you already knew about these aspects of his history, then why should you now fire him or ask him to resign?

If your actions are based on recent information, new to you, then what's new?

----------
What Van Jones Signifies
09/05/09 - PowerlineBlog by Scott Johnson

[edited] Do not write off Van Jones as a one-off nutjob in the Obama administration. He signifies. The Obama team sought him out and signed him up for his job as green jobs commissar precisely because of who he is.

He is a self-proclaimed Communist. A vulgar Marxist twice over. A supporter of cold-blooded cop killer Mumia Abu Jamal. A 9/11 Truther. A racist hater, whose hatred extends to the United States. And, insofar as his current job is concerned, we have a man who sees the "green jobs" con as a tool for overthrowing capitalism.

He is the complete, left-wing, nightmare package.

I will add that he seems to me to be a well-dressed, fit man, with energy and personal charisma. He speaks very well, simply and with good phrasing, if you ignore the content. He reminds me entirely of President Obama.

----------
Van Goes Under The Bus — Updated
09/05/09 - PajamasMedia by Ed Driscoll

A collection of links and comment about Van Jones, who he is, what he said, and how people are reacting.

Jennifer Rubin said in Commentary Magazine:

[edited] The immediate issue is that the White House is harboring such a figure. It is under siege for its leftward lurch, and is battling the tag that the president is out of touch with ordinary Americans. It’s hard to believe that Van Jones isn’t a fictional character dreamed up by Obama’s conservative critics. Unfortunately no, Jones is very real.

----------
Where is the policy paper?
07/26/09 - Easy Opinions by Andrew Garland

Obama and Congress must have thoroughly investigated before writing down new law to change all of healthcare. Where is it? Let's see it.

Or, are they legislating off of a cocktail napkin?

Obama's Green Jobs Snake Oil

Obama's Green Snake Oil
Obama ignores the cost of his global warming plan.
01/28/09 - Reason Online by Jacob Sullum

[edited]Obama says that his plan to reduce global warming is actually a way of stimulating the economy. The plan immediately spends for weatherizing buildings, alternative energy production, and more power transmission. He ignores the enormous cost of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. He falsely portrays this economic burden as a boon.

Consider this to see the fallacy: If Obama could snap his fingers and make global warming disappear, should he do it? By his logic, no, because then we'd lose all those wonderful green jobs that will help pull us out of the recession.

Obama: "Climate change could result in violent conflict, terrible storms, shrinking coastlines, and irreversible catastrophe." Does Obama's cap-and-trade proposal make sense? We need to know how likely are those outcomes, how costly they would be, and whether his plan would prevent them.

Critic Bjorn Lomborg wrote "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming." He argues that adapting to climate change is much less costly than trying to prevent it. Prevention is unlikely to have any measurable impact. I'd like to hear why Obama thinks this criticism is wrong.

----------
Dispelling the Global Warming Myth

There is a close correlation between global temperature and solar output. See the graph.

Legislative Language

3.7(b)(2):
No funds shall be used for pork roasting within any federal facility except in accord with the provisions of 12.14(f)(4).

12.14(f)(4):
Notwithstanding the language in 3.7(b)(2), pork roasting is approved in any amount, anywhere.

----------
5.   Restrictions

5.1   The President's authority under this bill is strictly limited to the explicit provisions of this bill, narrowly considered and constructed.

5.2   The sense of this section 5.2 is constructed from combining the language of sections 5.13 through 5.17 after striking out the words "dog", "cat", and "fish" wherever they appear in those sections.
. . .

5.13   The dog cat President fish
5.14   is fish hereby cat cat
5.15   cat dog empowered dog to cat
5.16   dog dog do dog dog anything cat
5.17   fish dog he fish cat wants. dog fish

----------
Ignorance is bliss! But see (hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4)
08/11/09 - Classical Values by Eric

[edited] I finally understand why the Congressmen who are pushing the healthcare bill HR3200 have not read it, and have come up with something unreadable. It's quite deliberate.

If people could actually read it, they might learn too much. If they learned that a new cancer drug would not be available, or that their father's heart surgery would not be covered, millions and millions of ordinary people would be outraged and up in arms, and it would be very bitterly personal, like Mike Sola, the guy whose son has cerebral palsy and who learned he wouldn't be covered.

----------
A Few Words About Policy
Would Obama try to legislate from some scribbles on a cocktail napkin? Would he think "give me anything, we'll rearrange it later to do what we want"?

Join me in the demand to "Show me the policy paper!" If any politician refuses or says that it doesn't exist, then mock him with "Show me the cocktail napkin!"

ObamaCare May Save Social Security

ObamaCare Saves Social Security
08/11/09 - InsureBlog by Henry Stern

[edited] The healthcare bill we reference is "America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, Revised Standard Edition". It has the potential to save Social Security from bankruptcy:

Page 425. "The term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner [doctor] ... if ... the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years."

So, seniors are encouraged to have these consultations at least every 5 years. What are they?

Page 432. "For purposes of reporting data on quality measures for covered professional services furnished during 2011 and any subsequent year, to the extent that measures are available, the Secretary shall include quality measures on end of life care and advanced care planning that have been adopted or endorsed by a consensus-based organization, if appropriate. Such measures shall measure both the creation of and adherence to orders for life sustaining treatment."  (note)Can you imagine 1000 pages of this language?

So, a "consensus based organization"The End of Life Quality Treatment Board will come to order. All in favor of 'Non-Heroic Treatment Plan 103' say Aye. The plan is approved by 8 votes to 1. I declare this a consensus. We are adjourned."" will determine advanced care planning. It will create orders for life sustaining treatment that will be measured for compliance. It could order anything from a pain pill to life saving surgery, depending on whatever utilitarian measures it wants. And, that will be that. Are you reassured?

This implements social justice. Rich and poor will be prescribed the most cost-effective lifesaving or pain-numbing treatment, according to expert guidelines.

If you are a federal politician, federal employee, or approved union member, you are not covered by this act. You have other, nicer choices for your care, provided by private insurance companiesAren't the insurance companies supposed to be the spawn of the Devil? arranged for you by your union or the federal government.

Social Security will save a lot as most people's lives end on a more rational basis.

----------
This prompted my comment (sarcasm warning):

It is shortsighted to bring quality of life issues into discussion only because of explicit costs for healthcare at the end of life.

It is obvious that we cannot support useless members of the tribe who are no longer able to work.

What is less obvious, and much more important, is to factor in carbon use. This is also a cost to society, and to Gaia herself.

We should accept that when our personal carbon footprint goes up past our productivity, then we need a talking to.

When an individual can no longer bicycle to work, it may be better to accept the end rather than be a carbon burden on us all.

It is inescapable. Some must continue on in the cycle of life so that others may live without damaging the Earth.

Cuban Health and Economic News

Via Don Surber, Daily Scoreboard Item 8.

Cuba must replace tractors with oxen
08/08/09 - Google Hosted News by Will Weissert (AP)

[edited] President Raul Castro suggested expanding a pilot program, giving private farmers fallow government land to cultivate.

"For this program we should forget about tractors and fuel, even if we had enough. The idea is to work basically with oxen. An increasing number of growers have been doing exactly this with excellent results."

The agricultural ministry proposed increasing the use of oxen to save fuel. Factory closings and turning off air conditioners at government offices has saved oil. The ministry said it had more than 265,000 oxen "capable of matching, and in some cases overtaking, machines in labor load and planting."

Cuba is running out of toilet paper
08/10/09 - Reuters by Nelson Acosta and Esteban Israel

[edited] An official with state conglomerate Cimex said: "The corporation has taken all the steps so that at the end of the year there will be an important importation of toilet paper."

The shipment will enable the state-run company "to supply this demand that today is presenting problems." Cuba both imports toilet paper and produces its own, but does not currently have enough raw materials to make it.

CNN reports Cuba is a model for a U.S. healthcare plan
08/10/09 - American Thinker by Humberto Fontova

[edited] The CNN report included clips from Michael Moore's "Sicko". CNN's Morgan Neill reported on location from a Havana hospital. "Cuba's infant mortality rates are the lowest in the hemisphere, in line with those of Canada!"

According to 2009 UN figures for infant mortality per 1000 live birtihs, Canada ranks 23rd best at 4.8, Cuba ranks 28th at 5.1, and The U.S. is 33rd with 6.3.  [My link and figures -ag]

Other statistics and reports question the truth of Cuba's rank.

• According to the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, the mortality rate of children aged one to four years is Cuba 11.8 vs U.S. 8.8, 34% higher.

  This statistic doesn't figure into UN and World Health Organization spotlighted "infant-mortality rates", so there is no pressure to fudge these figures.

• Dr. Juan Felipe García, MD, of Jacksonville, Fla., in April 2001, interviewed several recent doctors who defected from Cuba:

  "The official Cuban infant-mortality figure is a farce. Cuban pediatricians constantly falsify figures for the regime. If an infant dies during its first year, the doctors often report he was older. Otherwise, such lapses could cost him severe penalties and his job."

• The maternal mortality rate per 1000 births is Cuba 33 vs U.S. 8.4, 3.9 times the death.

The comparison to the U.S. is too strange. Many more Cuban mothers and children aged 1-4 die in Cuba, but the statistic reported to the UN for "infant mortality" (birth to 1 year) shows the same health as in much wealthier countries.

----------
USA Healthcare is First - Infant Mortality is Low

Health statistics are intentionally misinterpreted to argue for socialized medicine. The major argument is that the US spends more than Europe, but lags behind in health outcomes. So, US healthcare is both expensive and inefficient.

Actually, the USA has better health.

Plants Make Natural Pesticides

07/29/09 - Via M.D.O.D by 911Doc

Organic foods are not more nutritious than conventional foods, but what about the pesticide residues?

Study Finds Organic Food Is Not Healthier
07/29/09 - Reuters by Ben Hirschler

[edited] A review of 162 scientific papers published in the last 50 years finds no significant difference in nutritional or health benefits between organic and ordinary food.

Alan Dangour: "A small number of differences in nutrient content were found between organic and conventional food, but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance. There is no evidence to prefer organic over conventional foods based on nutrition."

----------
Plants Produce Natural Pesticides
5/24/1989 - FortFreedom - Paper by Bruce N. Ames, Chairman of Biochemistry at U.California Berkeley

[edited] The bad news is that our plant foods contain carcinogens, natural pesticides that cause cancer in rats. Examples are basil, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, carrot, cauliflower, celery, fennel, grapefruit, mushroom, mustard, orange, parsley, parsnips, pepper, pineapple, and raspberry.

These chemicals are present at levels ranging from 70 ppb (parts per billion) to 4 parts per thousand. These levels are enormously higher than the amounts of man-made pesticide residues in plant foods.

The good news is that the risk of cancer is negligible at levels far below the maximum tolerated dose given to rats. I am not even very concerned about the risk from allyl isothiocyanate, a natural carcinogen present in cabbage at 40,000 ppb and in brown mustard at 900,000 ppb. Most leading scientists and I are very skeptical about making worst-case, low-dose extrapolations from high-dose animal tests.

Here is an example of a low-dose extrapolation. We might observe that 95% of adults will be legally drunk after drinking 6 beers in an hour, 12 ounces each. We might extrapolate that 1.3% (1/72nd) of those people will be drunk after drinking one ounce of beer.

----------
Organic Pesticides Fail EU Safety Review
03/30/09 - OpenMarket by Greg Conko

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has rejected 13 of 27 commonly used "organic" pesticides. That organic carrot doesn't look as good any more.

Some of the organic pesticides might be dangerous, so it is reasonable to test them. But as above, the risks from pesticides are probably highly exaggerated.

----------
Synthetic vs Natural Pesticides
06/06/2007 - NYTimes By John Tierney

[edited] About 99.9% of the chemicals humans eat are natural. The amount of synthetic pesticide residues are insignificant compared to the natural pesticides produced by the plants. 99.99% of dietary pesticides are natural. Plants produce these chemicals to defend themselves against fungi, insects, and other animal predators.

Average Americans eat 5,000 to 10,000 natural pesticides and their breakdown products. Each eats 1,500 mg (1/3 teaspoon) of natural pesticides each day, about 10,000 times more than the 0.09 mg of synthetic pesticide residues.

Natural pesticides make up 99.99% of the pesticides in our diet, and synthetic pesticides are the remaining .01%. These pesticides are equally likely to be cancer-causing, but it does not follow that they are causing human cancer.

Dr. Bruce Ames and Dr. Lois Swirsky Gold believe most of these natural or synthetic pesticides don’t present problems because the exposures are very low compared to the high doses given to rodents in lab tests.

Dr. Ames: "Everything you eat in the supermarket is chock full of carcinogens, but most cancers are not due to parts per billion of pesticides. They’re due to causes like smoking, bad diets, and obesity."

----------
Dietary Pesticides are 99.99% All Natural
07/19/1990 - At JStor - by by Bruce N. Ames, Margie Profet and Lois Swirsky Gold

[edited] We examined the toxicological significance of exposure to synthetic chemicals compared to naturally occurring chemicals. 99.99% by weight of the pesticides in the American diet are produced within plants to defend themselves. Only 52 natural pesticides have been tested in high-dose animal cancer tests; about half (27) are rodent carcinogens present in many common foods.

We conclude that natural and synthetic chemicals are equally likely to be carcinogenic in animal tests. We also conclude that the comparative hazards of synthetic pesticide residues are insignificant at the low doses of typical human exposures.

Not Just Words

Obama famously said that his speeches were "not just words", that words were powerful and determined a nation’s path.

Unfortunately, Obama thinks that taxes, finance, productivity, unemployment, and income are just numbers.

A Few Words About Policy

President Obama recently held a prime-time press conference to present his desire to reform healthcare in the U.S. He suggested passing the bill in Congress, and asked for questions. He talked for about an hour and answered about 12 questions.

There has been a flurry of activity discussing what he said, whether there was any new detail, and criticizing some of his examples and facts. This told us very little about what is proposed in this sweeping grant of power to the government.

The press and the country are entirely wrong about what press conferences are good for.

Policy On Paper

Obama should have already released a detailed "white paper" describing his summary and justification for his health care proposals. (And such a paper for his other policy recommendations.) We need proposed results, methods, justifications, comparative studies, past successes, funding sources, the works.

Laws are not written as a random collection of thoughts, although they often look that way. They start with policies and reasons on paper. Legislator's staffs follow those policies when creating the details in these 1000 page bills. The white papers must exist, but they are not being presented to the public.

We should examine, verify, and criticize the policy documents, and then compare these to the details in the bills. Starting with the bills is like trying to approve a new building by looking only at the blueprints, without the purpose, graphics, and site requirements.

This is the United States Government, of, for, and by the People. The public cannot participate in a government that runs on policies that are hidden. The press and public should be able to review these undelivered documents. The government should be proud to display its carefully researched and supported policies. We deserve this as a free people.

The absence of these policy papers is appalling. Instead of open and proud policy, we have closed, imperial government. Sadly, we are controlled by a tyranny if our government sees no reason to explain and justify its actions. Are they ashamed or afraid of what they propose?

Be Informed

A press conference is supposed to question the President on his knowledge of the policy already presented in detailed, written form. The press conference is for the President to announce and defend the policy. It is to reassure the public that he knows about what he is proposing.

Instead, we have a few questions and vague speeches about what we would all like in a perfect world, and about the power and money that Obama wants ahead of time to work on it.

It is a magician's trick, to treat press conferences as if they could communicate the needed information, for either support or criticism.

We must ask our government for the important things. Among them is always a clear explanation of what the law will be, and why. If we ask and are not answered, then the responsible politicians must be voted out.

Minimum Wage Prosperity

Suddenly, McJobs are Good
07/24/09 - Blogs.DailyMail by DonSurber

[edited] Labor union officials and their handmaidens in Congress, including former congresswoman Solis, derided any increase in employment under a Republican president, calling them "McJobs". They derided them, even if they were above minimum wage, because new jobs do not pay as much as old jobs.

Now that Obanomics has turned a mild recession of 7.6% unemployment into 9.5% unemployment, in just 4 months, we have Solis praising a 70 cents an hour increase in the minimum wage as an economic stimulus.

Solis says that raising the minimum wage to $7.25/hour is going to help the economy and increase employment. I hope she doesn't mean it will help the economy while decreasing employment. Or, hurt the economy while increasing employment.

Where are the studies and information about the ideal minimum wage? Maybe the sky is the limit. Why not set the minimum wage at $50/hour? That would send funds to poor people while lifting the economy, right? (sarcasm)

The minimum wage is just another way of saying: "Fire that person unless you can pay them $7.25 per hour. We would rather that they be out of work, than work for less than we think is polite."

The government cannot help people by restricting their choices.

----------
A Minimum Wage Equals Minimum Jobs
07/30/09 - Reason.com by John Stossel

[edited] Politicians declare that workers should get a raise, and people assume they will actually get it. But, government can increase wages by decree only if employers set wages arbitrarily. You have to believe that employers are arbitrarily stingy.

Say an employee produces $4 of value each hour after all business expenses, and the employer offers just $2. Another employer will hire him away for $3 or more. Competition drives wages up to the the worker's level of productivity.

Several years ago, Santa Monica, CA made the town a workers' paradise by requiring everyone to be paid at least $12.25 an hour. Restaurant owner Jeff King complained to me, that the law would "dry up the entry-level jobs for just the people they're trying to help."

He was right. It's why gas stations no longer hire teenagers to wash your windshield. Wage minimums tell employers: "Don't give a beginner a chance." The people of Santa Monica later woke up and overturned the "living wage."

If minimum-wage advocates really believe wages are set arbitrarily, why do they favor only a $7.50 or $14 minimum? Why not $100? At those levels, even a diehard interventionist knows that workers would be hurt. But, the principle is the same at lower levels. Wages follow productivity, not whim. If the minimum wage is set above productivity, those workers will be harmed.

Low Skilled Workers Are Not Helped
07/26/09 - Cafe Hayek by economist Don Boudreaux

[edited] Uncle Sam has hiked the minimum wage, raising the hourly cost of employing low-skilled workers by 10.7%. This is always unwise, and more so when unemployment is rising.

Say that Uncle Sam passed a minimum-salary statute for economists, requiring that every employed economist be paid at least $300,000 annually. I would, of course, love to earn this much by teaching economics. My more accomplished colleagues would benefit, such as Tyler Cowen and Walter Williams. But, I would lose my job.

Using the Minimum Wage to Hamper Your Rivals
07/24/09 - Econlog.Econlib by David Henderson

[edited] Forty years ago, politicians who pushed for the increased minimum wage did not hide their motives or their knowledge of who the victims would be.

In a 1957 Senate hearing, Senator (and future President) John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts said:

Having on the market a rather large source of cheap labor depresses wages outside of that group, the wages of the white worker who has to compete.

When an employer can substitute a colored worker at a lower wage, it affects the whole wage structure of an area, doesn't it? There are, as you pointed out, hundreds of thousands of colored workers looking for decent work.

Exploiting the Minimum Wage
07/24/09 - Open Market by Ryan Young

[edited] Young people with little or no work experience may not be able to offer $7.25 per hour worth of productivity. No wonder so many of them are having trouble finding summer jobs. The law says that they have to be paid more than they are worth [if they are hired]. Wage floors reduce the number of jobs.

Raising Rival's Costs
7/24/09 - Marginal Revolution by Alex Tabarrok

[edited] Some employers benefit from an increase in the minimum wage because it raises the cost of labor for their rivals. This is why unions have typically been in favor of the minimum wage even when their own workers make much more than the minimum.

Borrowing Costs Per Legislator

Consider borrowing $1 billion. This costs $40 million/year at 4%.

There are 535 congressmen and senators. That is $75,000 each per year, without paying back any of the principal loan.

This year, the US is borrowing about $2 trillion. The cost of this is $150 million per federal legislator, per year.

Let's just pay the legislators a few million more per year in salary, if they will stop borrowing money.

Regulations are Too Complex and Dangerous

"A Crisis Of Politics, Not Economics:
Complexity, Ignorance, And Policy Failure"
07/16/09 - Critical Review by Jeffrey Friedman (PDF)
(Via Cafe Hayek)

The abstract summary seems right to me. Edited.

• The financial crisis was caused by the complex, constantly growing web of regulations designed to constrain and redirect modern capitalism.
• This complexity made investors, bankers, and perhaps regulators themselves ignorant of regulations previously promulgated across decades and in different “fields” of regulation.
• These regulations interacted with each other to foster the issuance and securitization of subprime mortgages; their rating as AA or AAA; and their concentration on and off the balance sheets of many commercial and investment banks.
• As a practical matter, it was impossible to predict the disastrous outcome of these interacting regulations.
• Government has attempted for 100 years to create a hybrid capitalism in which regulations are supposed to remedy economic problems as they arise. This may be impossible to do in practice due to complexity.

Motto of government: Let's have 50 more regulations and see what happens.

I see the government as falsly advertising that they have produced trustworthy systems. This leads people to trust the governmnet, drop their guards, and be hurt more badly than if they had been prudent and skeptical.

The government creates the idea that regulation makes a business trustworthy even if parts of the business are hidden from investors. In fact, only open disclosure and public audit can give confidence in a business.

The Bernie Madoff theft shows this. People trusted in the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to investigate Madoff and find any fraud. The SEC did investigate him twice, and found nothing. They excused themselves by saying that they really didn't have the resources to find fraud.

While not helping much, regulations cost $trillions.

----------
The Madoff Scandal Exposes Government Failure
07/17/09 - Future of Freedom Foundation by Sheldon Richman

[edited] No matter how much the government controls the economic system, any problem is blamed on small zones of freedom. The government can’t possibly monitor and regulate everything in a country, but it claims that it must. Anything that displeases the government can be an excuse for stamping out whatever freedom still exists.

A false sense of security is worse than none at all. People are more vulnerable to scams when they believe government is protecting them, because they relax their efforts to protect themselves. The government broadcasts one unmistakable message: Have no fear because Big Brother is watching over you.

Free-market advocates do not claim that we need no protection from the unscrupulous. Rather, protection is maximized by undiluted market discipline, profit, loss, and buyer-beware skepticism.

A Hidden Cost of National Health Care

The Hidden Cost Of National Health Care
07/11/09 - Washington Examiner Op-Ed by Glenn Harlan Reynolds

Treatment will be rationed by slowing the development of new treatments, along with longer waiting times and plain denial.

[edited exerpts] The normal and valid critique of socialized medicine is that people have to wait a long time for treatment in places like Britain.

There is another, hidden cost. A bureaucratized healthcare system will squash medical innovation.

Todays treatments did not come out out of the blue. They were developed by drug companies and device makers who thought they had a good market for things that would make people feel better.

But, under nationalized healthcare, the "market" is whatever the bureaucrats are willing to buy. Treatment for politically stylish diseases will get some money, but the main concern will be cost-control. More treatments mean more costs to bureaucrats.

Bureaucrats have their own view of cost. Medicines like Prilosec have made ulcer surgery a thing of the past. But, to bureaucrats, those pills are a cost, while ulcer-surgery expenses can be reduced by rationing. Let 'em eat Maalox while they wait.

The potential marvels of the next twenty years will never be developed unless some developer sees a market. This is despite the great promise of new medical technology for cancer treatment, biotechnology, nanotechnology, and more.

The existence of a market will be much less certain with bureaucrats in charge of selecting treatments to pay for. Federally funded medical research will still go on, but turning that research into actual treatments is a different story.

----------
Begging for Medical Care File that emergency request in writing during office hours.
---
Will your socialized hospital have enough money to care for you?

The actress Natasha Richardson died after hitting her head in a ski fall. She was very unlucky. Montreal does not have fast transportation to a full-service hospital, even near a ski area. Why not? Patients are a cost to the system.

The bureaucracy sees you as a cost, especially if you have already paid. All people and organizations seek income and avoid costs. Socialized healthcare is paid up-front and delivers services after the fact.

How hard will a system work to earn the money that they have already been paid? This is something that everyone can understand in their gut. A customer is lost without competition for his dollar.

The Actual Role of Government

Michael Moore Gets It Wrong
07/11/09 - John Stossel

Everyone is greedy, it is how you organize things that matters.

Socialists
The government is a caring institution that has been taken hostage by big business. We can free it by making it big enough to resist these businesses. Then the government can give the citizens a fair and prosperous world.

Libertarians
The government is a regulatory oppressor with a big sign in neon "Buy your favors and loopholes here". The back room has a high cover charge, a gambling casino, and rooms for sleeping with legislators. The front room is musty, with slow service and dirty glasses. The cardboard sign reads "We will improve service after we raise our prices".

Capitalists
The simple ones just want to make and sell things. The sly ones see the government as an opportunity which they can't resist. They all have to find a way around the regulations, mostly by paying to stay in business.

Reformers
Everyone is a reformer. The front room is obviously bad, and there are many speeches about fixing it up. Winners go to the back room, where they go along to get along, and work on the problem of not being poor at the end of their elective careers.

----------
How do you see the government? Caring mother held hostage, or corrupt ruler selling favors?

Who's the Materialist?

Who's the Materialist?
07/11/09 - Cafe Hayek by Donald J. Boudreaux

[edited] Capitalism emphatically does improve material living standards. But more, all the great champions of economic freedom ultimately justify capitalism because only it affords true dignity to individuals. That dignity is denied by systems which arbitrarily diminish each person's freedom to choose.

It is fine for "Progressives" such as Mr. Dionne not to share the value of freedom. But it is rather cheeky with one breath to accuse proponents of capitalism as unduly focused on material goods, and with the next breath to insist that a major problem with capitalism is that some people get fewer material goods than do other people.

Government Healthcare by Experts

The Mayo Clinic weighs in
07/11/09 - Don Surber

Dr. Wood is the chairman of the Mayo Clinic, division of Health Care Policy & Research:

[edited] The clinic supports “value indexing” to determine how providers get paid. This would measure patient outcomes and cost over a period of time. The current bills in Congress contain very little that reflects payment for value.

Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar:

[edited]If we just simply change who is paying for something and do nothing to make the system more efficient, we are really not going to get where we want to go.

Don Surber:

[edited] This is exactly what is wrong with government-run health programs. Their goal is to save money, not lives. More than anything, I oppose having Sen. Klobuchar decide how “to make the system more efficient.”

Jim B comments:

[edited] When Sen. Klobuchar can show me a record of the government ever making anything more efficient, ever, then maybe we can talk about health care. But she needs to put up or shut up. Government bureaucrats claim to be able to do things they’ve never once demonstrated an ability to do. There’s absolutely no substance to back it up.

So come on, supporters of ObamaCare, show me where you can back up your claims. Even one of them.

Links

Healthcare Reform Myths

One of the myths: If you like your current plan you can keep it.

You can keep your current plan if it is still offered and the company is still around. This is not a silly consideration. Proponents have learned from the Hillary Care proposal in the 1990's that radical transformation does not sell. The current plan provides a framework to take away freedoms one at a time, to minimize resistance, and obscure the ultimate goal.

A century of monopoly by the Post Office shows us how much Congress likes competition to one of its high-cost, inefficient activities. Private insurance likely will disappear or be made to conform to government rules, standards, limitations, and costs.

----------
Massachusetts Health Care Cuts

Henry Stern at InsureBlog examines the Massachusetts Health program that is the darling of Washington. Here is a part:

Massachusetts can't pay for the plan by itself. It needs Washington to distribute funds from the national money tree to pay for this program.

$32 million of the $115 million in claimed savings comes from slowing payments to the managed-care health insurance companies that won bids to offer insurance through the Commonwealth Care program. Regulators said that by slowing enrollment growth, the companies would receive less money than they had banked on when they submitted their bids earlier this year.

Overselling Science

Overselling Science
07/10/09 - ChicagoBoyz by Shannon Love

Why polls of scientists don't mean much, even if they are real scientists making their living from research. Read it all.

[edited] The problem with polling “scientists” is that there is a wide range in the predictive power of the studies that we lump together as “science”.

Physics has tremendous predictive power, but sociology has almost none. Worse, scientists in highly predictive fields tend to have too much trust in less predictive fields, and scientists in low- or non-predictive fields try to gain public trust by referring to the success of highly predictive fields.

Non-predictive sciences invite social and political fads. There was wide agreement a hundred years ago on the validity of eugenics, Improving a human population by discouraging people with undesirable traits from having children, or of mating people who have desireable traits. more agreement than we have today on global warming. Darwin strongly opposed implementing eugenics, but nevertheless believed in its validity.

Likewise, most scientists of that era thought it was obvious that races differed in behavior because they had different biology. Much bad policy, even in politically liberal countries, was based on this flawed and oversold “scientific” idea.

The theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) has the same social and political dynamics as did eugenics. Climatology has not predicted climate either in the short or long term. The computer models [and their predictions for tens or hundreds of years into the future] cannot be tested by any observation in the here and now. Yet, the public gives climatology the same respect as meteorology, physics, and chemistry.

To global warming, we could add each past “scientific” consensus on the population bomb, resource depletion, energy crisis, and inevitable nuclear war. In all of these cases, scientists and the public thought untested models with no predictive power were similar to the highly predictive models [of the experimental, physical sciences].

----------
Global warming caused by humans is a scam
The proponents of Global Warming don't mind lying for the good of us all. Saving the world justifies much cutting of corners.

Be Skeptical About Scientists and Polls

Scientists Versus The Great Unwashed
07/10/09 - Just One Minute by Tom Maguire

Survey Shows Gap Between Scientists and the Public
07/09/09 - New York Times by Cornelia Dean

Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public and Media
07/09/09 - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

-----
I don't trust Pew research polls, after seeing this poll and information about it. I am skeptical of all polls, and the word "scientist".

Mr. Maguire reviews an article in the NY Times which reports a survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, working with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Opinions differed between scientists and the general public.

Pew said "scientists". I credit Ms. Dean for the following, which is not emphasized in the Pew report:

NYT Ms. Dean: [edited] The survey involved about 2,000 of the public and 2,500 scientists drawn from the rolls of the AAAS, which includes teachers, administrators and others involved in science, as well as researchers.

The Pew report section About the survey is at the end of the report, the last segment of 10, and says:

Pew Report [edited] Results for the scientist survey are based on 2,533 online interviews. A sample of 9,998 members was drawn from the AAAS membership list excluding those who were not based in the United States or whose membership type identified them as primary or secondary-level educators.

The term "scientist" is used everywhere, but the survey contacted the AAAS membership, which includes people with a career related to science, and can include anyone. The survey excluded grade-school and high-school teachers, but included administrators. It seems that this classification is whatever each member listed when joining.

Rhetoric and Bias

It bothers me that Ms. Dean reports on a survey and inserts her own beliefs. For evolution and global warming, the supposed scientists agree with her, and the public is dumb. For nuclear power, she does not report on the supposed scientists who come to a conclusion different from liberal opinion.

This is a common misuse of surveys and group opinions. We often hear that we should believe something because "almost all scientists agree".

• How can we know that thay all agree?
• What does "all" mean?
• Who are the "scientists"?
• If "scientists" are all trustworthy, how can they disagree? If they are not all trustworthy, why are we polling them?
• Who employs them and how will they benefit from acceptance of their results?
• What are their areas of expertise?
• Have they opened their research, data, methods, and computer models to public examination?
• Has their research survived critical attention? Did they respond to criticism with thoughtful detail, or dismiss their critics as evil idiots?

Macguire selected these parts of the NY Times article.

[edited] There is a large gap between the views of scientists and ordinary Americans about climate change, evolution, and the state of the nation’s research enterprise.

Almost all of the scientists accept that human beings evolved by natural processes and that human activity, chiefly the burning of fossil fuels, is causing global warming. The general public is far less sure.

Almost a third of ordinary Americans say human beings have always existed in their current form. Only 2% of the scientists agree. Only half of the public agrees that people cause climate change, and 11% does not believe there is any warming at all.

About a third of Americans think there is lively scientific debate on both topics. In fact, there is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution and there is little doubt that humans are altering the atmosphere in ways that threaten global climate.

Dean associates evolution and global warming as two settled theories. Evolution has been studied for 150 years with confirmation from many directions and sources that has survived public evaluation and criticism. Global Warming investigations are recent, biased by government support and political pressure, and results are unsettled and exaggerated The proponents of Global Warming don't mind lying for the good of us all.

Dean says "almost all of the scientists accept", implying that the issue is settled, except for the dumb public that has not yet accepted the uncomfortable implications.

Macguire points out something Dean does not report. The supposed scientists want more power plants, an action that is not supported by liberals.

[edited] Interesting, the Times forgot to report this factoid from a Pew chart. 70% of scientists (but only 51% of the public) favor "building more nuclear power plants". On global warming, 49% of the public and 84% of scientists believe that "the earth is getting warmer because of human activity".

----------
Global warming caused by humans is a scam
The proponents of Global Warming don't mind lying for the good of us all. Saving the world justifies much cutting of corners.

Obama Can Win The Chicago Way

Quote of the Day . . 07/08/09 - ChicagoBoyz by Jonathan
Minus Five . . 07/08/09 - Belmont Club by Richard Fernandez

Life Of The Mind commented on Obama's declining polls and his re-election prospects if this trend continues. Despite any development, Obama plans to win.

[edited] Soros, Axelrod, and Obama know what they are doing. They won't cancel elections or do anything spectacular that will rally resistance. I don't expect them to worry much about sagging poll numbers.

They intend to win the next election, despite 15-20% unemployment and inflation in 18 months. They intend to do it the Chicago way, to buy it with your money.

• The Democrats will have $500 billion of slush funds ready to pump out for the 2010 election.
• Acorn and an army of hacks will push to hold onto Congress in 2010.
• The census will be cooked to deliver the Congress in 2012.
• The declining economy will drain resources from the opposition.
• The carping left will discover a new discipline that Republicans could never threaten them with. Recalcitrant academics and think tanks will be defunded, and media jobs will be increasingly under the control of Obama aligned conglomerates.
• Immigration reform will complete the picture for Obama’s reelection.

Much of this will be technically illegal and corrupt. But, they will not resort to violence or attempt to repeal the 2nd Amendment before 2012.

People should stop assuming that Obama will make a mistake and do something overtly revolutionary. This hope puts people in a passive, reactive mode. Some expect that his birth certificate or college transcript will magically appear and then somehow force someone to invalidate the election.

Anyone thinking that way needs to have Cher slap him in the face and yell "Snap out of it". Can we win this battle? Yes, but it will take hard sustained work.

Newspaper Influence Peddling

A Question That Needs to be Asked
07/06/09 - ChicagoBoyz by James R. Rummel

Newspapers influence public opinion, and that influence is quite valuable. It seems that some newspapers are selling that influence. Do you still trust your newspaper?

[edited] The Washington Post salon scandal reveals that publisher Katharine Weymouth invited people to pay up to $25,000 USD in order to have dinner at her house.

For that money, the movers and shakers at the newspaper would personally introduce you to the movers and shakers at the White House, as well as the reporters who covered them. Pay them cash, and the good folks at the WaPo would create an instant handshake relationship with the people who are shaping the future of the country, and the reporters who shape public perception. This was irresistible to special interest groups, corporations, and lobbyists.

This is done all the time by newspapers with their foot in the door of the White House press room. But, this time it was jsut too blatant to pass the smell test.

David Bradley is chairman of the board at Atlantic Media. He emphasized that there can be no influence/access peddling going on, because everything that happens at the get-togethers is strictly off the record!

Idiots rarely work their way up to become ultra-rich, and dumb inheritors rarely hang on to wealth for long. They were not idiots. They expected good value for their bucks, and they must have received that value because they kept coming back for more.

Obama Explains Millionaire Grants (smile)

Future News:

It is just weeks after Barack Obama won the 2012 election to his second term as President. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs provided some details today about President Obama's campaign promise to "make 95% of all citizens a millionaire".

Participants must earn less than $50,000, with a net worth less than $50,000. They must be a legal resident for 3 years at the time of the grant. Illegal status will incur a $10,000 penalty in exchange for immediate citizenship. Gibbs said: "It just seems fair not to spoil such a happy event because of a technicality".

The White House will establish the Department of Citizen Grants to administer the program. Applicants can sign up at WhiteHouse.gov or write to an address to be announced. DCG will be fully established "by next year, or a bit later". Until then, one grant per month will be "completed by hand". Grant ceremonies may be televised.

The DCG will issue at least 1,000 grants each month, "or even more" when fully operational.

Gibbs deflected criticism that this plan was too expensive and was proposed merely to buy votes. "We are all tired of hearing 'NO' from Republicans. They should propose their own plan if they object to ours."

Republicans complain that this program will cost at least $12 billion per year and will take approximately 11,000 years to award grants to just the 130 million people who are taxpayers.

Gibbs: "We disagree with our opponents figures. Our economic advisors fully approve of this plan. These negative projections do not take into account future advances in money creation and grant making, which will result in net savings to the government overall and a revenue neutral program. The economy will receive $18 billion per year from this money injection, a 1.5 multiplier. The 60% tax on incomes over $100,000 will raise more than $6.5 billion per year for government programs to help the poor."

A reporter from Fox News asked Gibbs to "just look at the numbers". Gibbs: "I am not an economist, and I am not authorized to scribble things on a blackboard, even if we had a blackboard. We live in the richest country in the world, and $12 billion per year is quite affordable within the $20 trillion 2013 federal budget."

----------
Let's Counterfeit Our Way to Wealth
When an idea leads directly to a crazy result, what should we think about that idea? Maybe laugh at it until Obama explains in detail how it works.

If you believe Obama, Keynes, and their proclaimed wealth multiplier of 1.5 on government spending, then it would be valuable to counterfeit as much money as possible, of course under government regulation. You don't have to borrow counterfeit money, or pay it back. It is ideal for Keynesian government projects.

Gaining Power Through Public Policy

Social Science and Public Policy
07/03/09 - EconLog by economist Arnold Kling

[edited] Political Economy is the science of obtaining and retaining power. The pollster, the fundraiser, and the media expert supply expertise to the operation. The public policy expert is for decoration. If you want to be an economic policy adviser, my advice is to learn how to put a good spin on the methods used by leading politicians to obtain power.

Is Health care reform about health, the stimulus about recovery, cap and trade about global warming, or TARP about the financial system? No, they are about seizing and retaining power.

The social scientist's role is to say, "X is a problem. Government must solve X. Here are some solutions." The solutions that rationalize seizing and retaining power will bubble to the top.

Suppose you believe that regulators cannot possibly have the wisdom to direct human activity, and that politicians spending other people's money tend to choose unwisely. Keep those beliefs to yourself, if you want to get anywhere as a public policy adviser.

Obama: Honduras Should Accept Tyranny

Banana Democrats
06/29/09 - Investor's Business Daily - Editorial

We might think that President Obama likes ballot-box stuffing and doesn't like term limits.

[edited] President Obama while campaigning, strongly criticized leaders who are elected democratically but don't govern democratically. He has not applied this to Honduras.

Mel Zelaya is Honduras' now ex-president after defying a Honduras Supreme Court ruling last Thursday. He tried to hold a "survey" to rewrite the constitution for his permanent re-election. It's the same blueprint for a rigged political system that has made the former democracies Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador into shells of free countries.

Zelaya's operatives did their dirt all the way through. First, they used threats to collect signatures to launch their "citizen's power" survey. They warned those who didn't sign that they would be denied medical care, and worse. Zelaya then flew the ballots to Tegucigalpa on Venezuelan planes. This was declared illegal by the Supreme Court, but he did it anyway.

As a result of his brazen disregard for the law, the military escorted Zelaya into exile Sunday morning. Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Cuba's Fidel Castro rushed to blame the U.S., calling it a "yanqui coup".

Zelaya committed the coup, not the U.S. or the Honduran court. Zelaya defied the law, and Hondurans overwhelmingly supported his removal. A pro-Zelaya rally Monday drew a mere 200 acolytes.

The U.S. response has been disgraceful. The administration stands with Chavez and Castro, calling Zelaya's lawful removal "a coup". A State Department official told reporters: "We recognize Zelaya as the duly elected and constitutional president of Honduras. We see no other". Obama called the action "not legal and a terrible precedent", and said Zelaya remains president. The U.S. now contemplates sanctions on the tiny, drug-plagued, dirt-poor country of 7 million.

The U.S. condemns Honduran democrats who acted to save their democracy. Honduras' actions are actually a historic turning of the tide against the false democracies of the region. It's time for a more sophisticated definition of democracy — one that includes the rule of law and the will of the people.

----------
Honduras Under the Bus
06/30/09 - National Review by Jonah Goldberg

A Honduran writes:

[excerpt] The country is bewildered that the world, especially the United States, is not on their side. Zelaya was confident of his plans to convert Honduras into a Venezuelan satellite.

The Honduran people are proud of their constitution and are proud to have a functioning democratic system. Zelaya was replaced by a member of his own party who vows to see that this November's presidential election takes place. What happened was not a "coup" but a bipartisan effort to save the nation.

----------
Coup Rocks Honduras Coup Rocks Honduras
07/01/09 - WSJ by Paul Kiernan, Jose De Cordoba, and Jay Solomon (via American Thinker)

It seems that the Honduran constitution anticipated and excluded the type of referendum that Zelaya wanted to hold. I find it reasonable to keep a President from declaring himself "popular leader for life".

[edited] Honduran soldiers rousted President Manuel Zelaya from his bed and exiled him at gunpoint Sunday to Costa Rica. This halted his controversial push to redraw the constitution, and raised concerns about democratic rule.

Mr. Zelaya said he was kidnappped and was still president. The U.S. and other countries condemned the coup. President Barack Obama said he was "deeply concerned" and called on all political actors in Honduras to "respect democratic norms."

Venezuela President Hugo Chávez is a close ally of Mr. Zelaya and nemesis of the U.S. He said it would be an "act of war" if there were hostilities against his diplomats, and "I have put the armed forces of Venezuela on alert".

Mr. Zelaya is a frequent critic of the U.S. He has been locked in a growing confrontation with his country's Congress, courts, and military over his plans for the Sunday referendum. It would have asked voters whether they want to scrap the constitution, which the president says benefits the country's elites.

The Supreme Court had ruled the vote was illegal because it flouted the constitution's own ban on such referendums within six months of elections. The military had refused to take its usual role of distributing ballots. But Mr. Zelaya fired the chief of the army last week and pledged to press ahead.

----------
The Wages of Chavismo
07/01/09 - WSJ Opinion (via Instapundit)

[edited] The Honduran coup is a reaction to Chávez's rule by mob in Venezuela. As military "coups" go, the one in Honduras was strangely democratic. The military didn't oust President Manuel Zelaya on its own, but followed an order of the Supreme Court. It also quickly turned power over to the president of the Honduran Congress, a man from the same party as Mr. Zelaya. The legislature and legal authorities remain intact.

We mention these not so small details because they are being overlooked as the world, including the U.S. President, denounces tiny Honduras in a way that it never has Iran. President Obama is joining the U.N., Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez, and other model democrats (smile) in demanding that Mr. Zelaya be allowed to return from exile and be restored to power. Maybe it's time to sort the real from the phony Latin American democrats.

----------
A 'coup' in Honduras? Nonsense
07/02/09 - Christian Science Monitor by Octavio Sánchez

[edited] Don't believe the myth. The arrest of President Zelaya represents the triumph of the rule of law.

Constitutional assemblies are convened to write new constitutions. When Zelaya published his decree to initiate an "opinion poll" about the possibility of convening a national assembly, he contravened the unchangeable articles of the Constitution that deal with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term.

His actions showed intent, and our Constitution takes such intent seriously. According to Article 239:

No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.

----------
The Chavez Playbook
07/18/09 - Babalu Blog by Alberto de la Cruz

[edited] Honduran authorities have seized computers from the Presidential Palace belonging to deposed president Mel Zelaya. These computers contained the official and certified results of the illegal constitutional referendum that Zelaya wanted to conduct and which never took place.

The results of this fraudulent vote heavily favored Zelaya, ensuring he could illegally change the constitution and remain in power.

Introduction to Medical Billing

Medical Economics
06/30/09 - M.D.O.D by ERDoc85

Read the whole thing. The quote only gives a map and a feeling about the post. Will the best, most caring people continue to choose medicine under these conditions?

[edited] You may want to know how the government determines what to pay physicians. Government involvement is already a major problem in medicine!

As you read through the following (it might be hazardous to your health), consider the vast bureaucracy of people necessary to determine, process, audit, and bill all of this stuff. You will understand why there are so many clipboard carrying, useless flesh-bags in hospitals today.

RVU is Relative Value Unit
RVUwork        = Actual Physician Work
RVUexpense     = Practice Expenses
RVUliability   = Liability Insurance
RVUtotal = RVUwork + RVUexpense + RVUliability

GPCI = Geographic Practice Cost Index
       1.0 to 1.5 according to geographic area

CF = Medicare Conversion Factor
     $36.067 (for 2009) per RVUtotal
   
BF = Billing factor by treatment level 1-5
     or Critical (according to medical records)
   
Medicare Payment = RVUtotal × GPCI × CF × BF

You thought your medical record was only for keeping your medical history, but it also serves for legal defense and billing.

It is a source of medico-legal protection for the health care staff. Your record is replete with exactly what you said, including symptoms you denied having and warnings you were given. Anything you refused or argued about will be in great detail. This isn't for your benefit. It's to protect us from the vultures.

And, it has become your billing template! In order to bill you at any of the 6 billing levels, it must be documented that you were asked certain numbers of questions and examined in a specific number of areas.

( The complicated part is omitted here to protect the sanity of vulnerable readers. You have been warned. Smile. )

Legions of people known as "Medical Coders" sit down with every chart, count these items, and bill accordingly! All of these people make a good living, and their salaries are built into your medical care costs. It is government regulations that cause these people to exist.

Will it be simple to reform the health care system? The government has simplified it so far. No doubt (smile) more government involvement will simplify it further, supposedly lowering expenses without cutting services.

Now you know why your doc has his/her face buried in a chart instead of making eye contact with you. And why your doc spends 5 minutes with you, then excuses himself to sit outside for 15 minutes with the chart.

---------
The Department of Work and Production

The average guy hasn't seen government control close up, except for those in banking and auto manufacturing. Why can't knowledgeable, fact-based, systematic government oversight bring community and efficiency to everyone? (smile)

A possible encounter of an ordinary guy with a government agency that is going to make his profession more efficient, by saving or increasing his salary.

Predicting No Climate Change

MIT's unscientific, catastrophic climate forecast
06/17/09 - Financial Post by Kesten C. Green and J. Scott Armstrong   (via John Stossel)

Forcasting is the heart of science. It is easy to convince yourself that you understand something until you must predict what will happen. It is hard to predict things even when you can repeat the experiment. You must be very careful when you are predicting events that cannot be repeated.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) sponsors a Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. It released a report last month: "Probabilistic Forecast for 21st Century Climate based on uncertainties in emissions (without policy) and climate parameters."

Green and Armstrong examined this report. They found serious problems in trusting the MIT results, related to proper forcasting methods and skepticism. A forcast of "climate change" may seem to fit the data, until you find out that "no change" fits the data better.

[edited] The MIT authors predicted that global warming could be twice as severe as previously forecast, and more severe than the official projections of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Their prediction is based in part on 400 runs of a computer model of climate and economic activity. So, they recommend massive government action.

The MIT group espouses lofty objectives based on "independent policy analysis and public education in global environmental change". But, we found they violated 49 important forcasting principles. For such an important problem, they should not have violated even one.

So what's really wrong with their report? Their phrase "global environmental change" provides a clue. The group implicitly rejects the possibility of no or unimportant change, or the possibility of unpredictable change.

A forecast of "no-change" can be hard to beat in many circumstances. No-change can be appropriate even when a great deal of change is possible, but the direction, extent, or duration is uncertain.

Earth's temperature has gone up and down irregularly over periods from one year to thousands of years. Moreover, science has not been able to tell us why. There is much uncertainty about past climate changes and about the strength and even direction of causal relationships.

Do warming temperatures result in more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, or is it the other way around, or a bit of both? Does warming of the atmosphere result in negative or positive feedback from clouds? There are many more such questions without answers. All this strongly suggests that a no-change forecast is the appropriate long-term forecast.

We compared the IPCC projection of 0.03 C temperature increase per year with what actually happened from 1850 to 2007. The errors from the IPCC prediction were 12 times larger than the errors of the no-change prediction.

The forecasts from the MIT modellers and from the IPCC are merely the opinions of some scientists and computer modellers. These are not truly scientific forecasts.

----------
Dr. Kesten C. Green is a senior research fellow of the Business and Economic Forecasting Unit at Monash University, Australia.

Dr. J. Scott Armstrong is Professor of Marketing at The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.

They are co-directors of the public service Web site Forecasting Principles sponsored by the International Institute of Forecasters.

----------
Dispelling the Global Warming Myth
There is a very close match between global temperature and solar output. See the graph. That even seems reasonable in its own way. (smile)

AGW Scientists Can't Predict
Academic degrees mean nothing if you can't say what is going to happen. Watch out for global warming scientists who can't predict the details. And watch out for "economists" who fiddle some equation as a reason to take your money to improve your life.

Better Bank Robbery

Future News:

An upsurge in bank robberies and muggings is sweeping the nation. The government is calling this phenomenon "Suggested Resource Reallocation".

There is an eerily consistent pattern. The robber approaches the bank or victim and says "Please give me your money. It is for the environment and Global Warming". People then hand over their money without protest, and actually report a warm and happy feeling. No robber has yet been caught. In some cases, people refuse to identify the person who robbed them, or have destroyed surveillance tapes.

One victim reported: "It was for the environment. How could I refuse?"

Psychologists blame a pervasave desire to "be good", rooted in early pre-school instruction. Even when informed of the scam, many respond that "the poor robber probably needed the money".

Police departments are at a loss for what message will protect the public. A government spokesman presented the dilemma. "Of course we want them to give their money for the environment, but it should be to the right people."

---------
Global Warming Caused by Humans is a Scam
The famous Hockey Stick graph showing global warming is based on bad data, political motivation, and an overt attempt to exclude a detailed review and alternate explanations.

EPA Supresses Climate Study

Obama's EPA Quashes Climate Change Science
06/28/09 - Powerline Blog by John Hinderaker

Science is about open debate and analysis of published data. A scientist wants his results to stand as a guide to future generations, as a truth on which to build. Emotionally, he may not enjoy criticism, but no one can devote energy and insight into criticising his own work. So, real science welcomes review and criticism. It is an ethical standard.

A politician wants his program to be approved along with lots of pretty money. The truth is secondary to getting the bill passed.

It seems that the EPA made a political mistake. It hired real scientists to evaluate the data, and they wouldn't suppress the results.

When tobacco companies hid the results of their own studies, they were tagged as monsters. How dare they suppress the best data about smoking? How dare the EPA suppress the best data about the environment, when the lives and prosperity of hundreds of millions of people are at stake?

[edited] The EPA (US Environmental Protecion Agency) has suppressed its own study which concludes that carbon dioxide is not a significant cause of climate change.

The report by Carlin and Davidson reveals that the EPA has not done its own evaluation of global warming. Rather, it has relied on analyses by others, mostly the U.N.'s IPCC report (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

The IPCC report was a political, not a scientific document. The U.N. ordered that no recent research be considered, knowing that recent research disproves the anthropogenic (man-made) global warming theory, This is a scandal. As science, the U.N. report is a bad joke.

Carlin and Davidson recite and summarize the scientific work that shows rather clearly that human activity is at most a minor factor in climate change.

EPA Emails obtained by CEI are revealing. Carlin's and Davidson's superior declines to make their report public because "the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment". A second email orders them not to communicate to the public their conclusion that the global warming theory is bunk. (See the emails at Powerline)

----------
Dispelling the Global Warming Myth
There is a very close correlation between global temperature and solar output. See the graph. That even seems reasonable in its own way. (smile)

"Do The Right Thing" Bill

Inspired by Not Reading Is Fundamental, 06/27/09 by Ed Driscol

Future News:

An ashamed Congress has debated the "Do The Right Thing" bill for a week, and it is expected to pass today. Senate approval should follow in short order.

A leading Congressman spoke anonymously to avoid "electoral difficulties":

None of us has read any of the bills this year before voting for them. Or, for that matter, after voting for them. Even the sponsors don't know the contents; this is left to the staff and lobbyists.

We certainly are ashamed. It is clear to all of us that we cannot go on this way. The average bill is now 1,500 pages, and the details of government have gotten out of hand.

'Do The Right Thing' will give us open, consistent, dynamic government. It grants President Michele Obama (now in her 3rd successful term in office) all principles and powers to consider all matters and then "Do the right thing". The Congress retains the important function of advising on the President's actions should she desire this.

The Congress is now free to do what it does best, arrange for hospital admissions and allocate liquor licenses.

A congressional colleague added:

We are being unfairly blamed for our YES votes. The opposition is just as bad for not reading or understanding the bill before voting NO. They are monuments to an ignorant opposition to anything new that they don't understand.

----------
The Political Manual
The "Bible of Politics" has come to light. (smile)

Windmill Jobs are Expensive

Tilting at Green Windmills
06/25/09 - Washington Post by George F. Will (via Cafe Hayek)

[edited] Gabriel Calzada is a professor of economics at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Spain. He has produced a report that is inconvenient for Obama's green agenda and for budget assumptions that are dependent upon it.

Spain is the leading country in aggressively supporting production of electricity from renewable sources. Calzada says Spain's huge spending on wind farms and other forms of alternative energy has indeed created jobs. But his report concludes that they are often temporary and have cost $752,000 to $800,000 each in subsidies, and $1.4 million each in the wind industry. Each such new job also destroys 2.2 other jobs in other industries because of the inefficient political allocation of capital.

European media regularly report "eco-corruption" leaving a "footprint of sleaze", such as gaming the subsidy systems and profiteering from land sales for wind farms. Calzada says the creation of jobs in alternative energy has subtracted about 110,000 jobs elsewhere in Spain's economy.

Robert Gibbs is the president's press secretary. It is weird that he dismisses this report as false witout reading it. He can't believe that some American importers are cashing in on the U.S. government's promotion of wind power, despite this being an economically unproductive project.

Calzada has come to conclusions that he, as a libertarian, finds ideologically congenial. And his study was supported by a like-minded U.S. think tank, The Institute for Energy Research, for which this columnist has given a paid speech. Many Spanish critics have impugned his patriotism because he faulted something in Spain which Obama has praised. But, they have not tried to refute the content of his report.