Obamacare At Ground Level

Government:  Whoa! Why are you reacting like this? We are the ones qualified to plan for the future, and it is going to work out fine. We are changing everything, but you should keep on as if nothing has changed.
Business:  We must be unqualified. We see a different future than you do.

 

Fannie Mae Health Insurance
05/16/10 - Throckmorton's Other Signs

[edited]  The effects of ObamaCare are beginning to hit. New quotes for health insurance are scary for small businesses in our area and in surrounding states. Health insurance rates are going up 27-37% because of increased demands on private insurance companies and the costs imposed on businesses.

Companies are dropping health insurance. Patients can't get Medicaid because it is out of money. So, there are now more people without insurance, and those who have it have giant deductables and are waiting too long to get care.

Medical centers like ours that have an open door to the indigent are getting creamed. Demand from indigent patients is increasing, and demand from the under-insured is skyrocketing. The costs of practicing medicine are increasing exponentially.

This medical model is like Fannie Mae. Give everyone "healthcare" that they can't afford, hide the cost, and stick it to future generations. Then forclose and destroy the whole thing.

- - -
Throckmorton's sign
In case you were wondering. "Throckmorton's sign" is irreverent medical slang. The Throckmorton sign is positive when the patient's penis points to the side of the body showing a problem on a plain X-ray of the Pelvis. Throckmorton's sign is negative if there is no abnormality, or reversed if the problem is on the other side.

It is also called the John Thomas sign, after the common British euphemism for the penis.

- - -
If Obama were a Marxist, what would he believe?
10/17/09 - American Thinker by Kelly O'Connell

[edited]  These are the basic teachings of Karl Marx. Readers may judge for themselves whether these might be at work influencing current administration decisions. In the present chaotic political atmosphere, the phrase "Marxist" is tossed around without explanation. But what exactly does Marxism represent?
. . .
Critics claim Obama's budget is an example of the Cloward-Pivin model of planned economic destruction of a functioning capitalist economy via sabotage. Outlays are so gigantic, and so dreadfully misspent, that our financial infrastructure will soon collapse. A trillion dollar tax increase and spending rising by $10 trillion dollars over the next decade is probable.

If so, government default will occur, only offset by printing money, which will then bankrupt the general populace. The middle class will fall. Chronic inflation will result, causing America to lose its sterling credit rating. Global financial players will dump the dollar as it falls in value. Then, hyperinflation will accelerate, and the era of superpower America will end.

John Maynard Keynes' wrote "The Economic Consequences of the Peace". He commented on Russian dictator Vladimir Lenin's economic insights.

[edited]  Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist System is to devalue the currency. Governments can secretly confiscate an important part of the wealth of their citizens by a continuing process of money inflation. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to devalue the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.

- - -
Rahm Emanuel is Obama's Chief of Staff:

You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that, it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.

If it is moral to politicize a crisis for a good cause, is it moral to create a crisis to bring about a thorough transformation of an imperfect and supposedly unjust society?

Stimulus Give and Take

Useless Stimulus and Phoney Green Jobs
05/05/10 - Aguanomics by David Zetland
Via Knowledge Problem

[edited]  A friend mentioned that he had hired an extra guy under the stimulus program.

"Yeah, they are paying 80% of his wages and overhead. It's a win-win for him and me ... but then I fired another guy; he just cost too much compared to the new guy."

So we get +1 job and -1 job = 0 new jobs, more profits for my friend, and more taxes for us.

This happened because my friend was encouraged to use this new program to "get America back to work." I'm guessing that this is happening across the country.

Bottom Line: You can't make jobs where there's no demand, but you can sure waste money pretending that you know what you're doing!

To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson: A government big and intrusive enough to manipulate incentives for your business, is big enough to screw up your business in other ways. Manipulation does not create jobs.

Unconstitutional Health Law

An Unconstitutional Solution
03/17/10 - PowerLine Blog by John Hinderaker

Democrats are attempting to pass ObamaCare healthcare "reform" with unconstitutional procedures. John Hinderaker explains and quotes clearly about the conflicts.

Michael McConnell is a law professor at Stanford and a former judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals:

[edited]:  Senate rules protect a 41 vote minority by allowing it to block most types of legislation (a fillibuster). "Reconciliation bills" only make adjustments to spending or revenues, to reconcile current law to a new budget resolution, and they require only a majority vote.

Say the President signs the ObamaCare Senate bill into law. "Reconciliation" would permit Senate Democrats to change budget issues in that law with 51 votes. They could correct most offensive features, but maybe not the abortion provisions.

The Senate parliamentarian says reconciliation may only amend existing law. House Democrats must first pass the identical bill that passed the Senate, including the special deals, abortion coverage, and high taxes on expensive health-insurance plans.

The clever, but unconstitutional, Slaughter solution ignores basic fact. To become law, and eligible for amendment via reconciliation, the Senate bill must actually be signed into law.

The Constitution speaks directly to how a bill becomes a law. According to Article I, Section 7, a bill shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, and be presented to the President of the United States for signature or veto. Unless a bill actually has passed both Houses, it cannot be presented to the President and cannot become a law.

Here is my summary. The Senate has passed ObamaCare. The House dislikes ObamaCare, but likes ObamaCare + Amend. What can the House do?

• Pass ObamaCare + Amend directly. But, it will not pass the Senate, because Republicans now have 41 votes (via Scott Brown) to block passage.
• Pass ObamaCare to become law. Also pass Amend and expect the Senate to approve. The Senate might pass Amend with 51 votes, or it might easily accept ObamaCare as-is, leaving the House Democrats hanging.
• The Slaughter trick. Pass Amend + Rule. The Rule says: When the Senate passes Amend, then the House automatically approves of ObamaCare.

Opponents object:

• The Senate can't pass a reconciliation amendment to an ObamaCare law that doesn't yet exist.
• Congress can vote on laws. It can't vote on laws that automatically vote on other laws.

I want the actions of Congress to be deliberate, open, and understandable. Congress is not a computer program that writes rules to create other rules. That complexity would end any accountability.

- -
The Health Care Debate: What is “Deeming”?
03/17/10 - Washington Watch by Jim Harper

A clear 900 word description of the procedures affecting passage of the massive healthcare overhaul called ObamaCare.

Cloture, The 60 vote rule, House passage of the Senate version, Reconcilliation, Senate promises to amend, Hiding a Yes vote, a Rule, a Self-Executing Rule, and Deeming it Passed.

- -
Questions for Thoughtful ObamaCare Supporters - Part 3
03/16/10 - Cato@Liberty by Michael F. Cannon

What do the following facts mean to you? [edited]

• Pharmaceutical-industry lobbyists are meeting with House Democrats behind closed doors to write this legislation. They are preparing to spend millions of dollars on advertisements to support the legislation.
• A former federal judge: Under Article I, Section 7, passage of one bill cannot be deemed to be enactment of another.
• Speaker Pelosi says of her proposed “deeming” strategy: I like it because people don’t have to vote on the Senate bill. Pelosi once opposed this same strategy in a court of law.
• The Washington Post editorializes: The Democrats’ endgame seems “dodgy” and “threatens to turn into something unseemly and contrary to Democrats’ promises of transparency and deliberation”.

Questions for ObamaCare Supporters
Part 1   Part 2   Part 3

Only 40% of Healthcare Costs

Mike:  I have a $4 coupon here for a hamburger.
Server:  (loudly to kitchen) Burger, well done, no salt, no cheese, no fries, half a bun. (to Mike) We'll have it for you in an hour.

Mike:  Wait, I don't want it like that!
Server:  It's free. Stop complaining.

Mike:  (looks at next table) Their meals look good.
Server:  Politicians and union guys. Where do you work?

Mike:  Acme Manufacturing, why?
Server:  We'll bill them for the other $6. Hah, they'll be happy.

Mike:  Say, what sort of restaurant is this?
Server:  Obama's Health Restaurant.

- -
Obamacare Cost Estimate Watch
03/11/10 - Cato@Liberty

[edited] The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) released today another cost estimate for ObamaCare. It still omits the cost of new private-sector mandates, nine months after the first version was released. President Obama has implicitly acknowledged this omission.

From history, the CBO estimated that mandates in President Clinton's health plan accounted for 60% of the costs. The Obama plan is remarkably similar, which is probably why Democrats have suppressed such estimates this time around.

So, when the CBO says the plan will cost $1 trillion ($1 million million), the true cost is likely $1 trillion collected in tax and spent by the government, PLUS $1.5 trillion in health care spending required of businesses and individuals, totalling $2.5 trillion.

The government is likely reporting just 40% of the true cost.

--------
Obamacare Would Increase Deficits by $59 Billion
(Via Legal Insurrection)
03/20/10 - Fox News

[edited] After correcting for the Doctor Fix gimmick the CBO estimates imply that the Obama plan increases Federal deficits by $59 billion over the next 10 years.

Democrats hid another $1.5 trillion by preventing the CBO from scoring hidden taxes. "Individual mandates” force workers to pay money to insurers, which is a hidden tax. History says those taxes would cost roughly $1.5 trillion, omitted from the CBO analysis.

The actual cost of the bill is nearly $3 trillion. Worse, existing and new constituencies will demand even more government spending, and proposed cuts in spending will be stopped by highly organized and vocal opposition.

Terrorism is Thug Advertising

Wars, Crimes, and Underpants Bombers
03/02/10 - Cato at Liberty by Julian Sanchez

The common question: Why do Islamic extremists spend their time and resources attacking the US and our people? What is in it for them?

One explanation is hate. They don't mind sacrificing their men to suicide bombings, or enduring our counter-terrorist operations that kill their leaders, as long as it shakes up The West and the US. But, there is much hate in the world, and most organizations and countries are not attacking in that way. So, hate is a plausible explanation, but doesn't leave me satisfied.

The following insight seems right to me. They attack us as a form of thug advertising, to build their organizations.

Sanchez [edited]: The claim that "we are at war" seems to be a statement that "we are very, very serious about national security". This self-esteem boosting ritual has a cost.

Jihadis primarily want to impose their rigid vision in the Muslim world, and to depose rulers perceived as corrupt or too secular. (See "The Far Enemy" by Fawaz Gerges.)   Their decision to strike “the Far Enemy” in the United States is not motivated by blind bloodlust or a desire to kill Americans as an end in itself. Their decision is generally unpopular, even among radical Islamists.

Al Qaeda had been perceived within jihadi circles as a marginal organization. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri hoped that a titanic conflict between Islam and the West would revive the jihadi movement and enhance the prestige of Al Qaeda. This has largely backfired

Terrorism is primarily a symbolic act. Terror groups execute sensational attacks as PR stunts. They don’t love blowing up airplanes; they do it to establish their own credibility versus more locally-focused Islamist groups. They compete with both violent and peaceful groups for recruits.

Our response to these attacks will often have a military component. But, we should not treat Al Qaeda as if it were a belligerent foreign state. A big show supports their advertising and outreach efforts. We should treat Abdulmutallab and his cohorts as just one more band of thugs, when this is compatible with our intelligence gathering and security goals.

Do Smart People Run The Market?

Merit and the Market
02/16/10 - Econlog by Shikha Dalmia

[edited] Does merit drive the market? I say the opposite, that markets reward merit and many other qualities. The former Soviet Union lacked technical and financial successes because it suppressed markets. Free Markets enable people to turn their smarts and other knowledge into benefits.

Rewards can go to the stupid as well as the brainy. The recent MTV reality show "Jersey Shore" has made a group of young, non-descript Italian-American kids from New Jersey into millionaires for displaying a lifestyle that is self-indulgent and devoid of accomplishment. It is these kids' vices that are making them rich, not their virtues!

Markets create a mechanism to use knowledge about the everyday stuff of life, along with the abstract and complex. There will always be brain-powered industries in any economy, and smart people will do well. In addition, for every Bill Gates, there are thousands of little guys making money through small innovations: improved plastic caps, a tastier salad dressing, a better vegetable peeler, [and restaurants, dry-cleaners, and hardware stores].

The market rewards brilliant ideas, not brilliant people. Markets care only about the idea and its value to others, not its source. Markets are inherently anti-elitist. Smart, educated, credentialed people may lose in market competition, even to someone or some product they consider inferior. They regard this as a symptom of market failure and demand corrective government regulations, such as standards for minimum quality, manufacture outside "sweat shops", [and professional licensing].

Smart people have an undeserved sense of entitlement, that their brains power the market, and that some portion of the world is rightfully theirs. This sense of superiority blinds them to the broader "ecological rationality" of the environment in which they operate. They think that they are the ones who make markets work, instead of the other way around. This offends the vast portion of humanity.

Rational Management vs Random Markets

Academics and politicians routinely pose a question: Do you want us to provide rational, insightful, far-seeing management of your life and resources, or do you want to leave this to the unregulated, unplanned, hit-or-miss results of the market? They are smug in their belief that there is only one smart answer, that rational planning has to beat random action every time.

Of course, they spin the question to get their desired answer. The better question is: which do you choose as the primary way of solving the problems of life and offering you methods and choices?

• Government

  Empower 100,000 academics, lawyers, and politicians with half of what you produce, and entrust them to find great solutions. They deserve this power because
  - Academics are the best at deriving statistical results from historical studies,
  - Lawyers are adept at interpreting and writing complex rules of procedure, and
  - Politicians are the most likeable and talkative members of their group.

  If they make mistakes, they will shrug their shoulders, will explain why it was the best anyone could do under the circumstances, and will promise to do better in the future with even more of your resources.

  They will coordinate their actions through interpersonal agreements, meetings, organized political support, and lobbying. They will parcel out the work into divided areas of responsibility, to prevent wasteful competition and duplication. Except, if there are indeed multiple committees or agencies working on the same problems, then all will be funded to preserve the widest range of ideas and solutions.

  The most successful gatherers of resources will go on to higher responsibility.

• Market

  Trust three million people to solve the problems that they understand, using their own resources or those of willing partners. Anyone can participate, at their own risk and for whatever reward they can negotiate.

  If they make mistakes, they lose their investments. This is a direct and unavoidable reason to plan well and be careful in the use of their resources.

  They will coordinate their actions through prices and contracts. Their success depends on delivering value to others, a greater value than the resources they use to produce their product. This creation of value is called Profitability.

  A wide variety of products will be produced to satisfy the same problem area, limited only by profitability for each product. If more than one product competes, and some are not favored, those products will go out of business, ending the wasteful allocation of resources to those products.

  The most successful producers of valuable products will gain funding and trust, enabling them to attempt the production of further products.

The choice is not between government planning or market non-planning. The choice is between  (1) government planning by the few through politics, or  (2) market planning by millions with the knowledge and resources to create more value than they use up.

Myth of the Clinton Surplus

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus
10/31/07 - Craig Steiner US

This is one of multiple links that reveal these facts (Google: Clinton's Surplus). This shows how deceptive are the Democrats and big media. The Clinton Surplus is repeated endlessly as a biased and untrue talking point, in an attempt to prove the effectiveness and thriftyness of Democratic administrations.

This is a clear and interesting analysis. Here are edited excerpts:

You will often read the claim that President Clinton balanced the budget and even ran a surplus. This is then used to underline the irresponsibility of the Bush administration. [Bush ran deficits also, but he wasn't a sinner following a saint. -ag]

Clinton claimed surpluses of $69, $123, and $230 billion for FY1998-2000. Clinton claimed that the national debt had been reduced by $360 billion (interestingly, not the $422B sum of the yearly claims).

There was never a surplus. In fact, the total national debt increased by $281 billion during those years. How can this be? The Public Debt and yearly deficits were paid down by borrowing money from the Social Security fund, rather than borrowing directly from the public. Clinton did not achieve a surplus and he did not leave President Bush with a surplus. Actually, growing deficits began with a $133 billion deficit in the last Clinton budget, not in the first budget of the Bush administration.

Analogy: Dad has a college fund for the kids (accumulated money from Social Security taxes) and a credit card (Public Debt). Dad spends more than he earns, and borrows from the college fund to cover the excess. Then he goes further, and borrows $281 more from the college fund to pay off some of the credit card. Dad talks to Mom: "We're doing great dear. Look, I have paid down some of the credit card." Dad doesn't tell her that the kids aren't going to college.

Craig Steiner is evenhanded. He explains the myth as being a biased report of statistics, but not an intentional scam by Clinton.

This result most likely was not a conscious decision by Clinton. The Social Security Administration is required to buy U.S. Government securities with its surplus. This automatically borrows from Social Security, labeled "intergovernmental holdings" in the national accounts.

People were earning a lot during the dot-com bubble and paying a lot into Social Security. The government was running deficits, but the money from Social Security taxes was larger than those deficits. The amount borrowed from the public went down, while the money borrowed from Social Security went up by much more.

-----
The Real Tax Burden
Jan 2009 - EasyOpinions by Andrew Garland

The real tax burden is what government spends, not just the deficit.

Political Distribution of Wheat

A politician sees a warehouse full of wheat. He takes some of it to distribute to poor voters and prospective voters in his district. The warehouse will have to bear the burden. He is applauded for his sensitivity and charity.

The politician is dismayed at the consequence. Maybe the warehouse goes out of business, as people switch to using a warehouse that the politician doesn't see or can't tax. Or, the price of wheat goes up as the warehouse is not completely refilled. The politician ignores the people who paid for the wheat or were expected to buy it.

People complain that wheat is more expensive. The politician takes more of the wheat to subsidize the not-so-poor, to keep up his political support. Even less wheat appears in the warehouse, the price goes up again, and another group of people complain about the rising price.

The politician decides that the rich are making the price go up by buying too much wheat. He proposes a Wheat Allocation Board to decide how much wheat a person should get at the official, lower price. That board decides that politicians, state and federal workers, union members, and anyone granted a Wheat Buyer Card ("The Exempt Ones") can buy what they want. If others want more wheat, they can buy more by paying the 40% Wheat Tax on their extra wheat. Or, there are always oats available, which make a crumbly and dry bread, and cause some people digestive problems.

The amount of wheat falls further. The politician explains that the wheat farmers are at fault for not growing enough and charging too much, that the warehouse operators are causing shortages by not stocking enough wheat, and the rich must be cheating by continuing to buy too much wheat.

The answer is the Comprehensive Wheat Reform Act of 2010. It appoints 120 committees and boards to understand, control, and allocate all aspects of wheat production and consumption. Preliminary reports claim that the price of wheat will fall dramatically, now that the chaotic and inefficient market in wheat will be brought under comprehensive, organized, scientific, and rational management. The wheat farmers are called on to do their patriotic and humanitarian duty by cooperating with the government to finally provide wheat to everyone at a fair price. The selfish rich are told that they will be limited to a fair amount of wheat, regardless of their hard-to-justify wealth.

The Exempt Ones arrange for special deliveries of wheat to themselves subsidized at public expense, given their necessary and special contributions to the national welfare. They will need to remain impartial in deciding how much wheat the common man will receive, given that there may be a continuing and worsening wheat shortage, on a temporary basis.

-----
The Medicare Tomato Market
06/24/09 - The Happy Hospitalist

Say that tomatoes were declared vital to life and made available free through the Medicare National Tomato Bank. This translates the story of the healthcare market to the tomato market. A long, readable, and informative post directly about the horrible effects of politically allocated healthcare.

This inspired my shorter analogy about wheat.

-----
Capgras' Syndrome
01/15/10 - Throckmortons Other Signs

Capgras' Syndrome is the primary delusion that a close relative or friend has been replaced by an impostor, an exact double, despite familiar appearance and behavior.

Throckmorton [edited excerpt]: One pulmonologist on staff had pontificated on how we spend so much resources keeping people alive in their last six months. He didn't think the proposed panels to limit care were a bad thing.

His father has suffered a massive stroke. Now he wants everything done, a trache, peg, longterm rehab vent unit, the works. I thought I was having an attack of Capgras' syndome, but then remembered liberals want to decide how to spend everyone's money except their own [and limit everyone's choices except their own -amg].

Europeans Are Less Wealthy

Are Europeans as Wealthy as Americans?
01/15/10 - Links from Cafe Hayek by Don Boudreaux.

Consumption in America vs. Europe
01/15/10 - Cato At Liberty by Daniel J. Mitchell

[edited] People claim Europe is as rich as the United States. I’m shocked, because abundant data shows otherwise. The following charts should be more than enough to end the argument, both from presumably impeccable sources.

The OECD is the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD data (page 6) shows average consumption per capita. I compare America to the EU-15 (Western Europe) adding Norway and Switzerland to boost the European score.

The chart shows US consumption at 152, Western Europe at 105, compared to a benchmark of 100 for the average of all members of the OECD. That is 44% more goods and services enjoyed in the US as compared to Western Europe.

The biggest policy difference between the U.S. and Western Europe is the burden of government.

-----
We're Rich, You're Not. End of Story.
04/17/05 - NYTimes.com by Bruce Bawer

[edited] I am an American living in Oslo, Norway. People here believe the common wisdom about economic life in the Nordic countries. They believe that they are incomparably affluent, with all of their needs met by an efficient welfare state. Some recent studies support my view that the reality is not quite what it seems.

I moved here six years ago. I quickly noticed that Norwegians live more frugally than Americans do. They hang on to old appliances and furniture that we would throw out. They drive around in wrecks. My partner and I took his teenage brother to New York in 2003 on his first trip outside of Europe. He stared boggle-eyed at the cars in the Newark Airport parking lot, as mesmerized as Robin Williams in a New York grocery store in the movie "Moscow on the Hudson".

An office worker in New York might go to a deli for lunch. In Paris, she might enjoy quiche and a glass of wine. In Norway, she will sit at her desk with a sandwich from home. The home sandwich is ubiquitous here, from classroom to boardroom.

It is not simply a matter of tradition, or a preference for a non-materialistic life. Dining out is just too pricey in a country where teachers make about $50,000 a year before taxes. A large pizza delivered from Oslo's most popular pizza joint costs $34 to $48, including delivery and a 25 percent value added tax.

-----
Of Sunroofs and Motor Scooters
06/27/07 - Pittsburgh Live by Donald J. Boudreaux

[edited] I suspect that Parisians have fewer sunroofs on their cars because they are less wealthy than Americans. A sunroof is a luxury unrelated to reliability or safety. It only makes a car ride more enjoyable, like an in-dash CD player.

A very poor person buying a car cares mostly about how reliably the car will transport him. He is unlikely to pay for leather seats and a tilt steering wheel. He prefers to conserve his income for more vital purposes such as fuel, food, and decent housing.

But, give this same poor person a windfall of $1 million, and he is more likely to buy a fancy car.

A large number of Parisians ride motorcycles. This makes me more confident in my conclusion about sunroofs. Parisians might like motorcycles more than Americans do, or Paris' weather might make motorcycles more practical than in America. The most plausible explanation for the larger volume of motorcycle traffic is that Parisians are less wealthy than Americans.

+++++
Do We Want to Mimic Western Europe’s Stagnant Welfare States?
02/26/10 - Cato@Liberty by Daniel J. Mitchell

[edited] America today is richer than Western Europe. Per-capita living standards are about 30 percent higher in the United States, according to the statists at the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (see page 6 of this report). And we have been growing faster, which presumably should not be the case according to convergence theory (see Annex Table No. 1 of this OECD database).

Left-wing populists seem to believe (wrongly) that the economy is a fixed pie, so their fixation on redistribution is understandable. Their view is that robbing Peter is the only way to lift Paul.

Why does the left want America to be more like Western Europe, when their living standards lag America, and the gap grows wider each year? I think they are so fixated on differences in income (or resentful of success) that they are willing to make poor people worse off if they can impose even greater damage on rich people.

-----
The Political Dictionary: Liberal Economics
11/07/08 - EasyOpinions

Money falls from heaven for everyone to use. But, the immoral and sneaky rich gather more than their share. The government's purpose is to redistribute the money the way God intended. Or, if you wish, the way Gaia, or the Tooth Fairy, or whoever intended.

Taxes remove the excess income of the rich and give it to the voting poor, through a fair and organized bureaucracy. The rich oppose this action by selfishly and spitefully decreasing employment. Government responds by increasing grants and spending, to boost employment. The government runs a deficit while it discovers the "knack" for creating the jobs that the rich are hiding.

The Good Side of Dictatorship

Totalitarian governments past and present are receiving some praise from liberal sources. This alarms me.

Benito Mussolini was the Fascist dictator of Italy from about 1936-1943, and was killed in 1945 when Italy surrendered to the Allies.

A joke about his governance is: "Yes, he was a dictator, with all the harm and problems that came from that, but he did a lot of good, too. He made the trains run on time". Of course, this is dark humor. No reasonable person would excuse dictatorship and arbitrary control by saying "but, some good came from it".

I am reminded of the occasional tragic story about wild mushrooms. The dish killed all at the table. The participants remarked how delicious the mushrooms were, just before they died. Usually, these people were experts at identifying and preparing wild mushrooms. I'm sure they were quite surprised to die, because of their superior knowledge.

I don't care at all how delicious the mushrooms were. Those mushrooms are an unacceptable risk for having a delicious dinner.

So, what possible purpose is there in understanding the good parts of a dictatorship? I don't care if a much stronger government can do some good things, because the risk of harm is greater also. It is fine if you can isolate a policy that had a good effect and doesn't need dictatorial power to be implemented. In that case, why mention the dictatorship at all, except as a curiosity?

If you can't isolate the policy, then you are arguing for dictatorship, and I want none of it.

Read more ...

-----
It’s Not Censorship, It’s "Reasonably Enlightened"
01/12/10 - Investors.com by Ed Carson. Via Ed Driscoll.

[edited] Google defiantly stated late Tuesday it may exit China, citing attempts to hack into dissidents’ e-mail accounts. It strongly suggested the Chinese government was behind the attacks. Google will no longer censor search results in China.

Clearly, Google doesn’t understand the nuances of China’s totalitarian rule the way New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman does.

Our One-Party Democracy
09/08/09 - NY Times - Op Ed by Thomas L. Friedman

[edited] One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But, when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century.

Our one-party democracy is worse. The fact is, on both the energy/climate legislation and health care legislation, only the Democrats are really playing. With a few notable exceptions, the Republican Party is standing, arms folded and saying “no.”

Many of them just want President Obama to fail. Such a waste. Mr. Obama is not a socialist; he’s a centrist. But if he’s forced to depend entirely on his own party to pass legislation, he will be whipsawed by its different factions.

Sarcastic restatement:

Democracy is so inefficient. When half of your country disagrees with your policy, it is so much easier to have autocracy, the absolute rule by one faction. This is useful for suppressing the Republicans, and also for suppressing the "different factions" within your own party. Where is Mussolini when you need him?

It is so much better when the leader is called a "centrist", because his policies are then necessarily good for everyone. Friedman says we should not mind a "centrist" dictator.  As long as a "reasonably enlightened group of people" is running things, all will be well. If they aren't enlightened, then what? Where do our politicians get this enlightenment? At the top of a mountain in Tibet? Where?

-----
I Have Your Hitler Context Right Here
01/12/10 - Big Hollywood by Kurt Schlichter

[edited excerpts] Oliver Stone’s latest, desperate grasp at relevance is a new cable series which promises to place der Furher into der context. Does Stone really believe that Hitler somehow lacks “context”, or that “American corporations from GM through IBM were involved with the Nazis”?

His Secret History will not be “history”, in the sense of reporting what actually happened in the past. Nor is its tired leftist wisdom a "secret", about how America was somehow to blame for the rise of the Nazis, and to blame for all evil throughout the ages.

The real Secret History which Stone won’t disclose is the identity of the Americans who actually thought the Nazis had quite a lot to offer: their collectivist, anti-capitalist vision; their refusal to let democracy stop their agenda; and their fondness for eugenics. Those Americans were the Progressives.

I would not be at all surprised if the Secret History shows the silver lining of the Third Reich which we short-sighted conservatives always overlook.

-----
Oliver Stone's 'Secret History' to put Hitler 'in context'
01/09/10 - The Live Feed by David Hibberd. Via Ed Driscoll.

Oliver Stone as quoted by Hibberd [edited]:

Stalin, Hitler, Mao, McCarthy -- these people have been vilified pretty thoroughly by history.

Stalin has a complete other story. Not to paint him as a hero, but to tell a more factual representation. He fought the German war machine more than any single person. We can't judge people as only 'bad' or 'good.' Hitler is an easy scapegoat throughout history and has been used cheaply. He's the product of a series of actions. It is cause and effect.

People in America don't know the connection between WWI and WWII. I've been able to walk in Stalin's shoes and Hitler's shoes to understand their point of view. We're going to educate our minds, and liberalize them, and broaden them. We want to move beyond opinions.

Go into the funding of the Nazi party. How many American corporations were involved, from GM through IBM. Hitler is just a man who could have easily been assassinated.

What could be the motivation for showing the "more complex" Hitler, the Hitler that reacted to historical imperatives, the Hitler who wasn't completely bad?

Collectivist:  Hitler had the strength and vision to reorganize German society in a coordinated, comprehensive, scientific way. He saw the state as the only power that could tame the unruly masses and produce a glorious future for Germany and all of the territories that would come under Germany's influence.

Unfortunately, divisions in German society and some defects in Hitler's world vision caused more human suffering than was necessary to that cause. His goals and methods were rational and effective, but some of his results were regrettable.

We should not tar Hitler's methods and major visions with those few unfortunate results. We have the capability today, as then, to use organized government to accomplish greater goals for society. We are wiser now, and we will do it better.

Just to be clear, I hate the Collectivist.

Exchanging Gifts Cooperatively

The short story The Gift of the Magi by O. Henry (William Sydney Porter) is an ironic, painful, and sweet story of a poor couple who want to give a fine Christmas gift to each other, out of true love. Their gift giving is impractical because it is selfless.

Here is my contribution to the genre, far out at the other end of the subject. (smile)

John:  Let's shop together for something that you would really enjoy. What would you like for Christmas?
Mary:  I would like a nice, snuggly, terry-cloth robe.
So, sweetie, what would you like for Christmas?

John:  [thinks a moment] I would like a nice, snuggly, terry-cloth robe, in your size.
Mary:  [thinks, gasps] Wait a minute. That is like me buying the robe for myself!

John:  What's the problem? I will be giving you what you really want, and you will be giving me what I really want. Sweetie?

Healthcare Price Controls

Medical Economics 101
12/08/09 - MDOD by 911Doc

911Doc practices Emergency Medicine. He writes about what happens to doctors and patients when a bureaucracy sets prices and rewards. The emergency department became a jungle. He now works for lower pay in an environment where he can be a doctor under reasonable rules.

[edited excerpt] What happens when the government imposes price controls? You can find out for yourself by reading "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell. (For purchase at Amazon or free online as PDF -ag)  He is a black conservative with the Hoover Institution, so half of you can quit reading, because you care more about that fact than you do about logic.

Here is what happens in my little branch of the world. When price controls are imposed in medicine, EMTALA is a good example, then particular medical procedures and services lose any meaningful relation to their actual worth. Price and cost cease to have any real relation.

I'm happy with my pay cut and have no plans to go back and use my unique skills in the ER. The ER is a circus of pain and silliness, and the same kind of silliness is being debated right now in Washington. You should pray that it doesn't pass.

I find myself in agreement with what Shrodinger's Cat said a few years ago. They could pay him four times as much, and it would not make it worth working in the ER. Good luck all.

- -
Amy comments:

[edited] A lame piece on PBS pushed government healthcare, highlighting the amazing medical services of several other nations and how cheap they are. They used Japan as an example.

My inlaws have lived in Japan for over 20 years. They have ample experience with the healthcare system in Tokyo. The government sets the cost of everything from an office visit to an aspirin. PBS didn't mention that Japanese health care is based on rationing. It is not overt rationing, but that is exactly what it is.

They depend on Eastern medicine first. No matter what you come in with, they give you a little purple powder to mix up and try first. If it doesn't work, you come back and get a crack at Western medicine. Maybe you get sick and die, too bad. No one under the age of 12 can get an organ transplant. Hospitals do not accept ambulances. If you have a heart attack, you die in the bus. Japanese doctors strongly rely on the wait and see approach, even if current medical literature stresses prompt action.

Healthcare in Japan is 20 years behind the US. Yes, they make those robots for laproscopic surgery, but they don't use them, or they don't know how.

My mother-in-law fell and had a blow-out fracture of the orbit. She had a sagging eyeball and severe double vision. Her Japanese surgeon insisted that she wait a month to see if it got better. If not, they would operate to remove a piece of bone from her hip to plug the hole in her eye socket. This is about 20 years behind what a U.S. surgeon did, two weeks after the accident.

My in-laws can buy the best. The problem is, you just can't buy that in Tokyo thanks to the government.

(There is more.)

-----
ER Medicine and Bureacracy
08/31/08 - MDOD by 911DOC

Medicine becomes more expensive, harder to do, with worse outcomes, as government imposes intrusive regulation and arbitrary quality measures, despite good intentions.

Government Motto: You say you are a caring doctor, so treat the poor for free.

-----
The Medicare Tomato Market
06/24/09 - EasyOpinions quotes The Happy Hospitalist

A readable analogy and explanation of Medicare economics. Say that tomatoes were declared vital to life and made available free through the Medicare National Tomato Bank. The story of the healthcare market is translated to the tomato market.

-----
More on Healthcare

Congressional Sports Team

Worthwhile Analogy
12/10/09 - ChicagoBoys

Quip:  It is painful to think of Barney Frank coaching pro-basketball, or running U.S. business.

David Foster:

[edited] Imagine that Congressmen Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, and Robert Byrd managed a professional sports team. Would anyone invest money in that team?

The average Congressman probably knows far more about sports than he knows about business. He watches sports on TV and he may have played in his younger days. Whereas, his knowledge of business is comparable to not understanding the difference between balls and strikes.

Yet, this Congress and an approving Administration is acquiring the power to micromanage every business in the country in excruciating detail.

Entrepreneurs Go on Strike
11/20/09 - American Thinker by C. Edmund Wright

[edited] The big opportunity now is to spend government money: on an $18 million government contract to create an awful Recovery.org website, SEIU union jobs in ObamaCare, bankruptcy lawyers, and the coming carbon credits. There are ACORN-style crony contracts to be had, and all the jobs created by David Axelrod astroturf media escapades.

If you are connected, or if your dream is to enrich yourself by killing the dreams of others, then the field is ripe for you.

Entrepreneurs can sense it. This is not now the country for you if you simply want to build a better mousetrap. This is not just about tax policy, health care, or cap-and-trade (which are all terrible and need to be stopped).

The American dream is dying. This kind of economy cannot work, not until pigs fly, or until Barney Frank dunks on Lebron James.

Not Just One Rotten Climate Apple

Riddle Me This
12/07/09 - Chicago Boyz by James R. Rummel

ClimateGate is about the emails and practices of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of East Anglia Univeristy, Britain. It is a large and previously prestigious institution.

Logicians now say that this scandal does not necessarily invalidate the work of the other climate centers. I suppose that this is the difference between fine academic logic and a more realistic view of human bias, politics, and politicized Big Science.

The climate scientists will have to prove their work, as they should have from the beginning. They must reveal their data, theories, methods, and computer codes. There must be no more splicing of different data series to get a graph showing what is politically correct.

[edited] Most climate scientists speaking on news programs or writing op-eds offer a general defense. This scandal might cast doubt on more than 10 years of work at CRU, but they say it does not invalidate research by other scientists supporting catastrophic global warming caused by humans.

This is why it invalidates the work of other scientists:

• The Hadley CRU boasted the largest and most comprehensive collection of climate data in the entire world.
• This massive collection of data inspired, if not directly influenced, just about every other climate scientist’s work.
• The people who wrote the emails are the most prestigious and influential climate scientists in the world. The emails show their dirty tricks, data manipulation, and collusion to hide problems with their research.

Why should anyone take any climate scientist’s word for his own integrity and the soundness of his work? Isn’t the onus on him/her to prove that he isn't a crook and liar, like the big guys are?

A comment by Shannon Love [edited]:

The revelations invalidate the work of other scientists:

1. They all claimed to have reviewed and reproduced the CRU’s work, and
2. They defended that work against scrutiny.

(1) causes doubt about their competence, and (2) causes doubt about their integrity.

-----
Fast Facts About Climategate
12/06/09 - Pajamas Media by Charlie Martin
A convenient overview of the emails and issues of ClimateGate.

-----
Government Funds Distort Climate Science
07/22/09 - Science and Technology News

Quip: We don't fund studies critical of our policies.

The Science and Public Policy Institute:

[edited] The US Government has spent $79 billion since 1989 on research and support for climate change studies. Yet, scientific review and criticism is left to unpaid volunteers, who have repeatedly exposed major errors.

Dedicated, uncoordinated scientists around the globe test the integrity of global warming theory. They compete with Government, a lavishly funded, highly organized, centralized purchaser of climate research.

The government pours money into a single, scientifically baseless agenda. It has created a self-fulfilling prophecy, not an unbiased investigation. Sound science cannot easily survive this grip of politics and finance.

-----
Jo Nova Finds the Medieval Warm Period
12/07/09 - What's Up With That by Jo Nova (Via Don Surber)

The sharp upward swing in temperature was due to a single tree in Yamal, Russia.

In 2009, McIntyre analyzed Briffa’s Hockey Stick graph of sudden warming. He waited three years for the data he asked for. It took just three days to expose it too as baseless.

Briffa had concealed for nine years that he only had 12 trees in the sample from 1990 onwards, and that one freakish tree transformed the graph. When McIntyre graphed another 34 trees from the same region of Russia, there was no sudden warming.

Craig Loehle used 18 other proxies. (Proxies are measurements of physical processes that should have been sensitive to temperature. -ag) Temperatures were higher 1000 years ago and cooler 300 years ago. We started warming long before cars and powerstations were invented. There is little correlation with CO2 levels.

-----
Hockey stick observed in NOAA ice core data
09/12/09 - WattsUpWithThat by Anthony Watts

J. Storrs Hall is at the Foresight Institute. He made some interesting graphs from NOAA ice core data:

[edited] Let's look at the temperature record as read from this central Greenland ice core. It gives us about as close as we can come to a direct, experimental measurement of temperature at that one spot for the past 50,000 years. As far as I know, the data are not adjusted according to any fancy computer climate model or anything else like that.

Watts comments on graphs of the temperature record from this single ice core, going back 500 1,200 4,000 10,000 12,000 and 40,000 years. Other data shows temperature for the past 400,000 years.

The 500 year record shows a wiggling, slow decline in temperature, then rising steadily by .7 degrees F in the 80 years from 1840-1920. That +.7 F is the total increase, not yearly. Watts says with humor: "a hockey stick".

True understanding comes from looking at temperature over longer time scales going into the distant and geologically distant past. On that scale, our current temperature fluctuations are nothing special. The Earth has been much colder for most of the last 400,000 years, and somewhat warmer for part of that time.

We don't need CO2 by humans to explain changing global temperature. The Earth has had large fluctuations all by itself. We should be glad it is warm for us now.

-----
Galilean Peer Review
12/06/09 - Throckmorton's Other Signs

A doctor teaches his residents how to read published, peer-reviewed papers in medical journals.

[edited] In our journal club, we all take recent papers in our field and present them to the group. This is a great exercise for the residents. First, you look at what question the research is hoping to answer. You then see how they are getting the data and if analysis of the data will lead to an answer. You then check the statistics on the data. Only then can you say if the research is of merit.

I stress that the comments and discussion are just that, or better expressed as an editorial. It is amazing how many of the papers don't support the conclusions.

I can't help but feel this way about Climategate. This seems to be a classic example of researchers having an opinion and then trying to backtrack to make the research support that opinion.

Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin's Governing Philosophy Emerges In "Going Rogue"
11/30/09 - Riehl World View

Palin in Wasilla - Resistance to insider assimilation
11/29/09 - Op-ed at the Appeal-Democrat

[edited] It seems Palin resisted influence peddling, even when this opposed her early political mentors. Her governing approach showed itself as mayor of Wasilla and stayed with her as Governor.

[edited] Palin showed her political independence to her patron Carney. Palin opposed Carney's plan to have residents pay for neighborhood trash pickup. Most hauled their garbage to the dump themselves, as Palin says she still does. This was important to Carney because he owned the local garbage truck company.

It seems that Palin is not anti-government, but wants government to provide critical services and programs while trimming out the fat.

[edited] Palin consistently opposed heavy-handed community planning initiatives and burdensome taxes during her terms on the council. She explains: I focused on what I believed to be the key functions of government: infrastructure development, fiscal responsibility, and simply being on the side of the people.

Palin haters spread the canard that she is an airhead, and clearly not capable of dealing with the intricacies of government. This chapter demonstrates the opposite.

Palin has a keen grasp of the details of governing and budgeting, and also understands the political difficulties making government responsive. Many of her antagonists at the national level scoffed at her experience in Wasilla. Quite the contrary, local government is where a public official has direct impact on the electorate. It is where you really have to understand what you're doing.

Peer Review is Not What You Think

Scientific Peer-Review is a Lightweight Process
11/30/09 - ChicagoBoyz by Shannon Love

[edited] "Peer Review" says nothing about conclusions. It is the fate of most scientific papers to be proven completely wrong.

Peer review protects a journal’s reputation. The journal hires experts to check for basic errors in math or methodology, along with grammar and spelling. It offloads responsibility for publishing bad papers onto anonymous scientists. It is a form of blame-passing that everyone would like to use. It does not confirm or refute experimental or theoretical conclusions.

The anonymous and secret peer review process is not part of actual science. Science demands that that all observers of a phenomenon can agree they see the same thing. Ruthless transparency is critical. Secrecy hinders the functioning of science, and peer review is a secret process. Science is not settled by the secret complaints of the anonymous.

Some people will say that a scientific result is true because it appears in a peer reviewed journal. That is the weakest defense possible. It means only that some editor and his reviewers found it to meet their minimum quality standards for publishing. It meets no standards if the editors and peer reviewers are corrupt.

When people see "peer review", they usually think of "scientific review", which is the detailed investigation of data and the replication of results by independent scientists. Scientific review gives some confidence that the claimed results are correct. Even then, conclusions about what the results "mean" can be wrong.

- -
ClimateGate: The Fix is In
11/24/09 - Real Clear Politics By Robert Tracinski
Via SmallDeadAnimals

[edited] Global warming "skeptics" had unearthed evidence that scientists at the Hadley Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at Britain's University of East Anglia had cherry-picked data to manufacture a "hockey stick" graph. This graph showed a dramatic, but illusory, runaway warming trend in the late 20th century.

Much broader evidence has emerged that will break that scandal wide open. Pundits have named it "Climategate." Thousands of e-mails and data from the CRU are now available on the Web.

The following stood out for me. There is extensive evidence of the hijacking of the "peer review" process to enforce global warming dogma. Peer review is the practice of subjecting scientific papers to review by other scientists with relevant expertise before they can be published in professional journals. The idea is to weed out research with obvious flaws or weak arguments, but there is a clear danger that such a process will simply reinforce groupthink.

Peer review has been corrupted, becoming a mechanism for an entrenched establishment to exclude legitimate challenges by simply refusing to give critics a hearing.

The noted climate researcher Michael Mann emailed about pressuring the journal Climate Research, which published a paper critical of global warming.

I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.

This is the scandal of the century. It needs to be thoroughly investigated, and the culprits need to be brought to justice.

Read more at the link:

• The emails involve numerous leading British and American climate scientists outside of the CRU.
• Private admissions of doubt or scientific weakness in the global warming theory.
• A prominent global warming alarmist admits to using a statistical "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures.
• Cherry-picked data
• Evasion of legal requests for data, under the Freedom of Information Act.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a project of the United Nations. Its reports are taken as gospel by governments and scientists pushing for global control of industry, to avoid catastrophic global warming.

Many of the scientists contributing to the IPCC, especially at the Hadley CRU, were committed to avoiding scientific review. Despicably, they used their powers of peer review to exclude criticism of their papers, and they refused to release underlying data to any independent scientific review. Fortunately, a few scientific bloggers were able to make many of the faults public.

Amazingly, the IPCC didn't even restrict itself to peer reviewed results. The IPCC is a political institution, not a scientific one. Being half a scientist is like being half a truth.

1/3rd of IPCC claims were not peer-reviewed
04/20/10 - by Don Surber

Citizens Audit of the UN's Climate Report
04/07/10 - by Noconsensus.Org

- -
The IPCC is Political, Not Scientific
04/20/10 - PrisonPlanet by economist Richard Tol

Working Groups 2 and 3 of the AR4 (Assessment Report 4) violated all IPCC procedures. The conclusions are scientifically unfounded in part, and some are even copied from the environmental movement. Valid comments were ignored. AR4 contains crude errors as a result, only some known publicly.

- -
Galilean Peer Review
12/06/09 - Throckmorton's Other Signs

A doctor teaches his residents how to read published, peer-reviewed papers in medical journals. They must carefully examine the evidence and methodology. Most of the papers are not convincing after a hard look.

Think about that, the next time a newspaper breathlessly reports a finding in a newly published scientific paper.

- -
An array of errors
09/10/11 - The Economist

Summary:  Researchers Anil Potti and Joseph Nevins at Duke University published that they could predict the course of lung cancer using expression arrays, colorful activity patterns of thousands of genes in a tissue sample. The research was sloppy and wrong, despite initial peer review and repeated publication in respected medical journals. Those journals refused most critical comment.

AMG:  This is similar to the controversy surrounding the data, statistics, and computer code used to construct climate models. Prominent climate scientists have refused to release this supporting information for independent confirmation. The climate journals seem to be a much tighter and more defensive group than the medical journals.

When researchers refuse to supply their source data and methods, they are not scientists. A researcher earns our trust through open disclosure. He does not deserve any trust from calling himself a scientist or from working for a prestigious institution.

[edited]:  Investigations into alleged scientific misconduct have revealed numerous holes in the oversight of science and scientific publishing.

Bio-statisticians Keith Baggerly and Kevin Coombes work at the MD Anderson Cancer Centre in Houston. They found serious flaws in the work at Duke.

Dr. Baggerly noted that he did not have full access to the computer code and consistent raw data on which the work was based.

Journals that had readily published Dr. Potti’s papers were reluctant to publish Dr. Baggerly's criticism of Potti's work. Nature Medicine published one critical letter, and a rebuttal from the team at Duke, but rejected further comments as more problems arose. Other journals behaved similarly.

Eventually, Baggerly and Coombes resorted to publishing their criticisms in a statistical journal, unlikely to reach the same audience as a medical journal.

Dr. Califf is vice-chancellor in charge of clinical research at Duke University. He and other senior administrators acknowledged they gave too much weight to Dr. Nevins's judgment. That led them to withhold Dr. Baggerly’s criticisms from the external-review committee in 2009. The internal committees responsible for overseeing clinical trials lacked the expertise to review the complex statistical methods used in experiments on gene expression.

The process of peer review relies (as it always has) on the goodwill of workers in the field, who have jobs of their own and frequently cannot spend the time needed to check other people’s papers in a thorough manner. (amg: Despite the fact that they have agreed to peer review those papers.)

Dr. McShane estimates she spent about 350 hours reviewing the Duke work. Drs. Baggerly and Coombes estimate they spent nearly 2,000 hours. The methods sections of papers are supposed to provide enough information for others to replicate the work, but often do not.

Dodgy work will be revealed eventually, as it is found not to fit in with other, more reliable discoveries. But that all takes time and money.

Biased Reporting

The Media has Always Been Biased
11/25/09 - ChicagoBoyz by Shannon Love

Shannon Love excerpts one of his favorite Bloom County comic strips:

Milo:  Senator? This is Milo Bloom at the Beacon. Will you confirm that you sunk Jimmy Hoffa in your backyard pond?

Sen. Bedfellow:  What? Of course not!

Milo:  Fine, I’ll go with ‘Sen. Bedfellow Denies That Pond Is Where He Sunk Hoffa.’

Sen. Bedfellow:  That’s not true!

Milo:  Okay. ‘Bedfellow Did Sink Hoffa in Pond.’

Sen. Bedfellow:  I don’t know where Hoffa is!!

Milo:  ‘I Lost The Body’ Says Bedfellow.

Anti-Capitalist Policies Are Anti-Job

Anti-Capitalist Policies Are Anti-Job
11/25/09 - BigGovernment by Thomas Del Beccaro

[edited]  There is no secret to capitalism.

• Some people save money for investment.
• They start or grow businesses.
• Businesses employ people.
• Employed people have purchasing power to buy things.
• Trade distributes value to buyers and profits to sellers.
• Profits are partly saved for investment ...

The Left’s political policies destroy that simple and effective economic process. They impose taxes to reduce class differences and to raise revenue. Ironically, the opposite occurs in both areas.

Say it takes $500,000 from two partners to start a restaurant. High taxes take money from them and spread it to tens of thousands of people through government programs. The recipients don’t start businesses, and jobs are not created. Businesses that don't exist or grow also don't pay taxes or don't pay more taxes.

Increasing regulation has a similar effect, raising the cost of starting or expanding a business, reducing business activity, and killing jobs.

There are many other anti-capitalist policies of the Left, including Cap & Trade, the proposed Wall Street regulations, and skyrocketing deficits. All result in fewer businesses, jobs, and purchasing power, killing economic recovery.

Quip: Communist theorist Karl Marx revealed that business owners are leeches on society, draining away the wealth that rightfully belongs to the workers. At least, the ones who have jobs.

-----
The Real Tax Burden
Jan 2009 - EasyOpinions by Andrew Garland

The real tax burden is what government spends, not just the deficit.

-----
Public Tax Meeting
Sep 2008 - EasyOpinions by Andrew Garland

It isn't common knowledge just how much tax wealthy people already pay, and how much is wasted by increased government spending. Ironically, raising taxes on anyone will lower the production of the US, and so will lower the number of jobs.

An excerpt:

John JJ Richman was making breakfast when he heard the crowd outside. They seemed just shy of hostile. He opened his door to see about 65 townspeople, out of a town of 100. Two spokesmen were standing on the porch.

John: Good morning. Why are you all here?

Rob: There are things that need changing, and you are the one to help us.

Top Ten Political Statements

Statements 1-9 are political messages from no particular source, as satire. Statement 10 is quoted from early remarks by President Obama about the mass murder at Fort Hood, TX.

-----

1   There is nothing strange about my policies. The incompetent former occupant of this office did many of the same things I have, but for selfish and stupid reasons.

2   I would not say that we lied. Sophisticated people know that politicians must find compromise between groups. This is much easier when those groups don't understand the details. So, we don't lie; we just aren't detailed. And, sometimes those details differ in suprising ways from our general statements.

3   Critics claim that I have changed my policy. In fact, my views have been quite consistent. If my policies seem different now, it is only because the facts have changed. I am smart to change my policy to incorporate different facts. You ask, "What were the facts in the past?". Well, they were different.

See statements 4 to 10 ...

4   I know the public is concerned about deficit spending. Our deficits may be bigger, but the other guys started it. We inherited huge problems, so we have to quickly spend huge money. We haven't spent most of it yet, but we will. Give us time. We are being thoughtful about this.

Deficits are not a problem. Thousands of deserving people have government jobs exactly because we are spending the money that causes deficits. I can say with certainty that there would be no unemployment if the government hired everyone. We are working on it.

5   Our plans are carefully researched to provide more services with less money. If they don't work out that way, we will fix them, no matter how long it takes or how much it costs.

6   We predicted 8% unemployment if we did nothing, and now unemployment is 10% after enacting a $787 billion (with a "b") stimulus package. My opponents blame us for not meeting our earlier estimates. But, if we really knew, we wouldn't call them estimates. Estimates of the future are the most difficult because we don't have the data yet. We estimate that unemployment would now be 18.35% if we had done nothing. So, we are celebrating.

7   Our policies for spending, taxing, deficits, and reviving the economy were based on sophisticated, tested, econometric models, constructed and refined by the best minds in government. Despite this, we have been surprised by the underperformance of the economy. We are not worried. There are plenty of econometric models out there, and we are switching to better ones right now.   (Stimulus jobs) [edited] Congressional Democrats are disgusted with the phony accounting of jobs created by the stimulus plan.
  David Obey is the House Appropriations Committee Chairman. He lambasted the government's flawed data "showing" that $160 billion in stimulus spending has created or saved at least 640,000 jobs.
  The administration has been forced to delete 60,000 jobs from its list, and had claimed 30 jobs in a non-existent congressional district.
  David Obey: [edited] "The inaccuracies are outrageous and the administration owes itself, the Congress and every American a commitment to correct the ludicrous mistakes. Whether the numbers are good news or bad news, I want the honest numbers, and I want them now."

8   The stimulus package we put in place is working just fine. Thousands of government jobs have been created, or stabilized with higher salaries. This assures that government workers will be loyal and at their desks through any economic difficulties to come.

9   Our policies of stimulus and bank bailouts have led to a rising stock market, for which we are proud. Remember that employment is a lagging indicator. Overall employment will increase after fat-cat stockholders have been made rich enough. Of course, we will tax away most of their ill-gotten capital gains.

10   President Obama spoke on 11/05/09 at the Tribal Nations Conference of Native American Leaders, organized by the Department of the Interior. President Obama or his speechwriters are better at satire than I am.

¹ Let me, first of all, just thank Ken and the entire Department of the Interior staff for organizing just an extraordinary conference. I want to thank my cabinet members and senior administration officials who participated today.

I hear that Dr. Joe Medicine Crow was around, and so I want to give a shout out to that Congressional Medal of Honor winner. Good to see you!

My understanding is that you had an extremely productive conference. I want to thank all of you for coming, and for your efforts, and I want to give you my solemn guarantee that this is not the end of a process, but a beginning of a process, and that we are going to follow up. Every single member of my team understands that this is a top priority for us.

I want you to know that, as I said this morning, this is not something that we just give lip service to. And, we are going to keep on working with you to make sure that the first Americans get the best possible chances in life, in a way that's consistent with your extraordinary traditions, and culture, and values.

Now, I have to say, though, that beyond that, I had planned to make some broader remarks about the challenges that lay ahead for Native Americans as well as collaboration with our administration.

² But, as some of you might have heard, there has been a tragic shooting at the Fort Hood Army Base in Texas.

We don’t yet know all the details at this moment. We will share them as we get them. What we do know is that a number of American soldiers have been killed and even more have been wounded in a horrific outburst of violence.

My immediate thoughts and prayers are with the wounded, and with the families of the fallen, and those who live and serve at Ft. Hood.

These are men and women who have made the selfless and courageous decision to risk, and at times give their lives to protect the rest of us on a daily basis. It’s difficult enough when we lose these brave Americans in battles overseas. It is horrifying that they should come under fire at an army base on American soil.

[further remarks omitted]

¹ President speaks about Fort Hood shootings
11/05/09 - youtube - Video from Fox News
My transcription of the beginning of Obama's speech.

² President Obama Speaks About Fort Hood Tragedy
11/05/09 - blogs.abcnews.com by Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller
Continuation of Obama's speech as reported here, slightly edited.

-----
Jumping to Conclusions
11/06/09 - Powerline Blog by John Hinderaker
About President Obama's understanding of the Fort Hood mass murder.

-----
A Political Speech: Troubling Times
Easy Opinions (satire)

My fellow Americans. May I first say that all of you are the most intelligent, beautiful, clear thinking, generous, patriotic, and deserving people that I have met, along with all of the other great people of your town, city, and state.

I am sorry to bring you bad news, and I hope you don't shoot the messenger (smiles). We live in troubling and difficult times.

A Political Speech: Coming Together
Easy Opinions (satire)

My administration will reach across the aisle to both parties, and especially to the opposing and obstinate party, to gain agreement and smooth the operation of government. We will smile rather than argue.

A Political Speech: My Policies
Easy Opinions (satire)

I want you to know where I stand on the issues. I believe in Prosperity, and I always will.

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 latte 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.