Why Obama’s Government Takeover of Health-Care Will Be a Disaster

by Brian Schwartz | 10:44 pm, October 31, 2009

This is the title of the new pamphlet by David Gratzer, MD, author of The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care. It’s a brief and powerful summary of what’s wrong with Democrat politicians’ proposals to “reform” health care with more political meddling with how we buy insurance and medicine.
Following Dr. Paul Hsieh’s lead, [...]

Friday Funnies Halloween Special – Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey sends Halloween Greetings

by CTBC Director | 4:11 pm, October 31, 2009

Clear The Bench Colorado welcomes you to the Halloween Special edition of the Friday Funnies – and it’s a very special edition, indeed, as Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey shows her true colors in response to the grassroots movement to restore accountability to the Colorado judiciary.

Chief Justice Mullarkey’s hostility to Article X, Section 20 of the [...]

NOVEMBER 3rd 2009 ELECTIONS ALERT!

by Brett Moore | 1:32 pm, October 31, 2009

[ November 3, 2009; ] There are 2 crucial ways that you can get involved in helping Republican candidates here in Colorado and in the crucial New Jersey Governor’s race make gains in the Next 3 Days before the November 3rd Elections. Please take a few moments to check it out!

***First, our friends at The People’s Press Collective have created [...]

Bill Ritter Bait-and-Switch Continues … Desperate? Unethical? Incompetent?

by Ben DeGrow | 12:55 pm, October 31, 2009

Update, 11/2: Another campaign email from Ritter begging multiple times for contributions, with only a brief passing mention of “improving the quality of our children’s education” …. Yes, that’s one bait-and-switch online petition.
The Bill Ritter email bait-and-switch continues. Three weeks ago, during my first and only ever contact on Bill Ritter’s website, I signed an [...]

Scozzafava drops out of NY-23; Black eye for Steele and Gingrich

by Rossputin | 10:27 am, October 31, 2009

On Saturday, so-called-Republican Dede Scozzafava dropped out of the special election in New York’s 23rd Congressional District.  The seat, vacated by John McHugh, who became Barack Obama’s Secretary of the Army, is now being contested by a Democrat, Bill Owens, and by the Conservative Party nominee, Doug Hoffman – who wanted to run as a Republican.

Instead, in the worst of closed-door smoke-filled-room politics, Republican “leaders” in the area selected Scozzafava who is to the left of most Democrats.

Scozzafava had fallen so far so fast that she had no chance of winning, though she did have a chance of causing the Republican vote to be split between her and Hoffman, handing a victory to Democrat Owens.  Perhaps her dropping out was an attempt to salvage a political career within the GOP.  Perhaps she just didn’t want to come in a distant 3rd in a three-person race, especially since she began as the nominal front-runner.  More likely she’s going to switch parties and wants to become a hero to the Democrats in the area.

The big winners in this drama so far have been the people of the district with the courageous campaign of Doug Hoffman giving them a decent choice.  The winner could also be the GOP despite the actions of two of its biggest names: Both Newt Gingrich and Michael Steele supported the RINO Scozzafava, damaging their already declining popularity and relevance.

It could be that Gingrich and Steele are guided by Reagan’s “Eleventh Commandment, “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.”, paraphrased by Denver’s own Mike Rosen as “party trumps person”. But at some point, policies matter at least as much as party.  For the sake of our Republic, I hope we have reached that point. And maybe NY-23 is a hint that we have.

Colorado Springs Gazette decries “the ol’ Bait and Switch” – Budget raiding turns fees into taxes

by CTBC Director | 10:00 am, October 31, 2009

An alert reader (hat tip to Live Free Colorado) brought the Colorado Springs Gazette editorial criticizing the tax and “fee” ‘bait and switch’ tactics employed by the current administration – thanks to the Mullarkey Majority’s unconstitutional ruling last November – to my attention this morning.
The Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights clearly says that voters have to [...]

Could Micropayments Save Newspapers?

by Ari Armstrong | 9:54 am, October 31, 2009

At last month’s media panel, somebody (I believe Adrienne Russell) mentioned the idea of micropayments for online media content. Such payments might help save the newspaper industry as well as help fund better bloggers.

The idea is that readers would pay a small fee — say a quarter or fifty cents — to read an article online. A popular story that drew a hundred thousand readers could do quite well for a publication.

Consider how the Wall Street Journal presents its news stories. It gives you the headline and the opening sentences, then asks you to subscribe. But I don’t subscribe to that paper, because I rarely want to read one of its news stories (and its opinions are available for free). But, if I could pay a small, one-time fee to read the occasional story, I’d probably pay that paper a few dollars per year. That’s not a lot, but multiplied by a few hundred thousand extra readers it could add up. Indeed, newspapers could offer monthly subscriptions for regular readers as well as micropayments for occasional readers.

At the media panel, Greg Moore of the Denver Post said a couple of things of particular interest to this issue. First, he said that newspapers might have to print less frequently. Second, readers would have to pay for online content, eventually, for newspapers to survive and thrive. I can envision a newspaper that goes to press, say, Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday. The print edition would be stuffed with ads, comics, classifieds, crosswords — stuff people like to touch and feel. They would be big, perhaps nearly as many pages as seven days runs now, so subscription rates could at least stay even while production and distribution costs dropped dramatically. This would be the answer to traditionalists, who actually enjoy getting their hands dirty reading the paper. (I would as soon eat dinosaur eggs for breakfast.)

Under such a scheme, the Post would raise revenue from print and online ads, print and online subscriptions, online only subscriptions, and micropayments for individual stories. Publications that used micropayments would probably want to make some significant portion of its content available for free.

Bloggers (the kind with actual readers) and strictly online publications might also be able to employ micropayments for more ambitious stories.

The key to micropayments, of course, is to make them easy. A PayPal account might get the job done, or perhaps PayPal could adapt its existing program to make micropayments easier. Most people aren’t going to pay a small fee to read an article unless it’s as easy as clicking a button or maybe two.

One publication that has already combined ads, micropayments, and subscriptions is The Objective Standard. The publication shows the first part of an article online for no cost. To read the entire article, one must subscribe or “Purchase a PDF of this article” for, in this case, $4.95. (Micropayments for journal articles or specialty articles can be higher than for regular newspaper stories.)

The more I think about it, the more I love the idea of micropayments. Don’t saddle me with a long-term commitment. I have enough of those. Don’t litter my screen with pop ups and flashing lights trying to sell me crap. (That said, a third option to a subscription or a micropayment might be to watch, say, a thirty second video advertising some product before reading the article. I notice that Fox already does this for online video.) Just give me the option of paying a small fee to read something that interests me.

This article has been brought to you at no cost by FreeColorado.com.

“Federal money?”

by David K. Williams, Jr. | 8:50 am, October 31, 2009

We can just print more money

by David K. Williams, Jr. | 8:19 am, October 31, 2009

The federal government reported Friday that Colorado created or saved 8,094 jobs through grants, loans and contracts funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Problem is, the figure is wrong, according to an analysis of recovery.gov data by The Denver Post.

Boulder and Jeffco School Board endorsements

by Rossputin | 8:17 am, October 31, 2009

I know, I should have written this earlier, but for any of you who can vote in any of these races and who have not yet sent in your ballots, I have a couple of recommendations for School Board candidates.

First, in Boulder County (in the area where I live), I contacted all the candidates for the three races.

In District B, I endorse John Kettling over Lesley Smith.  (Smith is the only incumbent in any of the three races.) I do this despite Mr. Kettling’s membership in the CEA and NEA based on his statements that he does not fully support the unions’ political positions or tactics. Also, in Mr. Kettling’s response to me, he stated that he “does not support a tax increase under any condition right now.”

In District E, I endore Tom Miers over Jim Pollicita.  In his response to me, Mr. Miers suggests long-term support for competition in public education and well as support for merit pay.  Mr. Pollicita, on the other hand, tries to argue that merit pay isn’t a good idea because measuring “good teaching is too complex”, a position I utterly reject.

In District F, I endorse Louise Benson over Jennie Belval.  Ms. Benson had the most compelling response to me of any of the 6 candidates, including noting the school district’s “bloated central administration…the largest percentage of admin costs of any large district in Colorado.”  She is also opposed to more debt and higher taxes.

—————-

In Jefferson County, I’d like to make two recommendations for the School Board elections:

In District 2, I endorse Laura Boggs.  Boggs supports budgetary transparency and seems to be the sort of out-of-the-box thinker that public education needs right now.  Her opponent is the incumbent School Board president and a darling of the left, receiving support from unions and far-left Democratic political figures.  If Laura Boggs has opponents like that, Mrs. Boggs must be an excellent choice for Jefferson County.

And in District 5, I endorse Rick Rush. Rush is currently the Secretary and Treasurer of the School Board. His business experience as an actuary and his apparent support for a more sensible (merit-based) pay structure for teachers is important.  In the meantime, his opponent has raised at least $9,000 from teachers’ unions, again showing that Mr. Rush must be the better choice (that is, if you care about good education for a good price.)

 

On risky Wall Street investments

by David K. Williams, Jr. | 7:59 am, October 31, 2009

Most people should not attempt walking across a high-wire.

Sweden in the grip of Islam

by Rossputin | 1:08 am, October 31, 2009

Food for thought, as we listen to The One repeatedly embrace “tolerance” (without preconditions, of course.)

http://newsrealblog.com/2009/10/27/sweden-in-grip-of-islam/

Has John Salazar’s Support of Obama Care Invited a Scott Tipton Challenge?

by Ben DeGrow | 5:27 pm, October 30, 2009

(H/T Complete Colorado) The Grand Junction Sentinel reported yesterday that Colorado 3rd District Democratic Congressman John Salazar has opted to back Nancy Pelosi and the Party leadership’s attempt to push a government health care takeover.
Might this development be enough to prompt a repeat challenge from a strong conservative like state Rep. Scott Tipton? My guess [...]

And we want these people in charge of hospitals and doctors?

by Mr. Bob | 4:33 pm, October 30, 2009

#tcot #ethics #teaparty #corruption
Ethics probe so big lawmakers have to take a number — half the Pentagon spending committee caught in net

Hat tip American Kestrel

We already knew that Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel was under investigation for failing to report some of his real estate holdings and rental income, and a few other goodies, on his financial disclosure forms. And that the Ethics Committee was studying Pennsylvania Democrat John Murtha‘s ties to defense contractors.

Now it turns out that those two were just the tip of the iceberg.

Turns out that nearly half the members of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, which Murtha chairs, are under investigation for funneling millions in federal funds to clients of a lobbyist who used to work on the Hill. The charge;

READ THE ARTICLE

“Courts shouldn’t mess with school funding” – more commentary on the latest Colorado Supreme Court outrageous ‘Lobato’ ruling

by CTBC Director | 2:23 pm, October 30, 2009

“A sense that the Colorado Supreme Court is growing out of control continues to pick up momentum after the October 19 Lobato v State ruling (PDF), in which the 4-3 liberal majority arrogated to itself the power to determine school funding policy.”
The Independence Institute’s expert analyst on Education Policy (and frequent online commentator)  Ben DeGrow is part of [...]

Think About it Friday – Capitalism vs. Everything else

by Mr. Bob | 1:13 pm, October 30, 2009

An example of corporatism

by David K. Williams, Jr. | 10:17 am, October 30, 2009

This Colorado statute is a perfect example of corporatism.

How much do you want to bet that who ever lobbied for this program had a fleet of old trucks ready to be retired; and was planning on buying a new fleet that qualifies for this government subsidy… er, I mean “qualifies to take this money out of your bank account.”

———————————————————–
C.R.S. 42-1-304. Green truck grant program – created.

(1) There is hereby created in the governor’s energy office the green truck grant program to provide grants to qualified recipients for reductions in truck emissions and energy usage by:

(a)

(I) Reimbursements of twenty-five percent, not to exceed fifty thousand dollars to a qualified recipient, of the overall cost incurred by a qualified recipient in purchasing or installing fuel-efficient technologies and emission-control devices approved by the United States environmental protection agency’s smartway transport partnership program, or any successor program, to reduce fuel consumption and emissions of greenhouse gases and other harmful air pollutants from trucks.
(II) The total of all reimbursements issued by the office to qualified recipients pursuant to subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (a) shall not exceed five hundred thousand dollars in a fiscal year.

(b)

(I) Providing grants of up to five thousand dollars per qualified recipient for the retirement and scrapping of a 1989 or older model year truck that is:

(A) Documented to have been in use for at least ten thousand miles during the calendar year preceding the qualified recipient’s application for the grant; and
(B) Donated to an established auto parts recycler, as defined in section 42-4-2201 (1), or a scrap metal recycler, that operates pursuant to all laws, rules, and regulations of the state and the United States environmental protection agency regarding recycling.

(II) The total of all grants issued by the office to qualified recipients pursuant to subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (b) shall not exceed two hundred fifty thousand dollars in a fiscal year.

(2)

(a) The office shall administer the grant program and shall award reimbursements and grants as provided in this part 3. Reimbursements and grants shall be paid out of the green truck grant program fund created in section 42-1-305.
(b) The office shall adopt policies for the implementation of the green truck grant program. At a minimum, the policies shall specify the procedures for applying for a reimbursement or grant, the form of the reimbursement or grant application, and the information to be provided by the applicant.
(c) The office shall review each reimbursement or grant application received from a qualified recipient and shall make a determination as to whether the reimbursement or grant should be awarded and, subject to the limitations in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of this section, the amount of the reimbursement or grant. If the office determines an application is missing any information required to be included with the application, the office may contact the applicant to obtain the missing information.

(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit or restrict the ability of an auto parts recycler, as defined in section 42-4-2201 (1), from recycling any part of a scrapped vehicle for use as a replacement part.

Source: L. 2009: Entire part added, (HB 09-1298), ch. 417, p. 2315, § 3, effective June 4.

Hate Crimes: Killing Both Liberty and Equality

by Julian Dunraven | 8:30 am, October 30, 2009

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.Honorable Friends:Stunned. Appalled. Deeply saddened. Angry. I remember feeling all of these emotions as I watched the tragic story of Matthew Shepard’s brutal slaying unfold in the media back in 1998. It was with grea…

Taking on the Colorado Supreme Court: Mark Hillman, Mike Rosen & Me

by Ben DeGrow | 8:27 am, October 30, 2009

Update, 1:50 PM: I also will be talking about the Lobato case and school funding adequacy on Face The State weekend radio with Brad Jones. In the Denver area, that’s AM 710 KNUS on Saturday at 5:00 AM and Sunday at noon. Check local listings for additional stations and times.
A sense that the Colorado Supreme [...]

You Don’t Punch Zombies – Duh!

by zombiehunter | 6:17 am, October 30, 2009

Let’s take a break from Cap ‘n Tax, socialized medicine, and the general shredding of these United States’ Constitution to discusss something of real importance. Iowa has officially dropped to the number 48 position (just above California and New York) on my official list of States Most Likely to Survive a Zombie Attack. From Iowa [...]

Medicare & Medicaid fraud far exceeds insurance company profits

by Brian Schwartz | 1:30 am, October 30, 2009

A wonderful post by John Goodman:
Competition from a “Public Plan”: What to Expect

60 Minutes: Medicare fraud is $60 billion a year
GAO: Medicaid fraud was $33 billion in 2007 alone [page 32]
Fortune Magazine: The top 14 insurers earned $8.6 billion last year

These figures per Medicare recipient:
Number of Medicare recipients: 44.8 million … For $60 billion in [...]

Krugman Smears SuperFreakonomics

by Ari Armstrong | 11:58 pm, October 29, 2009

Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner certainly don’t need my help defending their new book SuperFreakonomics. They’re doing a great job of it themselves. However, I do want to draw my readers’ attention to the debate surrounding the book and recommend the book itself.

The first thing to note about the book is that it contains five chapters plus an epilogue (about monkeys). The main text of the book runs through page 216 (while notes and such run through page 270). The fifth chapter mostly concerns climate change, though it also rambles into topics such as auto thefts and AIDS, and it runs from page 165 to 209. The book covers a wide range of topics from prostitution to hospital sanitation. But the part about climate change is what has the critics riled up.

Though the debate has since seen more developments, I want to focus on Paul Krugman’s attack on the book in his blog post, Superfreakonomics on climate, part 1, published October 17.

Krugman claims that “the first five pages” of the chapter on climate change “are enough to discredit the whole thing… [b]ecause they grossly misrepresent other peoples’ research, in both climate science and economics.”

The chapter opens with the “global cooling” story — the claim that 30 years ago there was a scientific consensus that the planet was cooling, comparable to the current consensus that it’s warming.

Um, no. Real Climate has the takedown. What you had in the 70s was a few scientists advancing the cooling hypothesis, and a few popular media stories hyping their suggestions. To the extent that there was a consensus, it was that there wasn’t much evidence for anything, and more research was needed.

Krugman puts much more trust in the politically subsidized computer models projecting human-caused global warming than I do, but he legitimately points out that global warming now has much more scientific support than global cooling did decades ago. Uncle.

So where do Levitt and Dubner claim that global cooling was the consensus in the 1970s? They don’t say that. Krugman just made that up. Talk about grossly misrepresenting other people’s research.

What Levitt and Dubner do is quote two old articles about global cooling to begin their chapter. Through the course of their chapter, Levitt and Dubner make precisely the same point that so excites Krugman: global cooling soon lost support whereas global warming now has widespread scientific support.

On to the next point. On page 169, SuperFreakonomics states, “The economist Martin Weitzman analyzed the best available climate models and concluded that the future holds a 5 percent chance of a terrible-case scenario — a rise of more than 10 degrees Celsius.”

Krugman replies,

Yikes. I read Weitzman’s paper, and have corresponded with him on the subject — and it’s making exactly the opposite of the point they’re implying it makes. Weitzman’s argument is that uncertainty about the extent of global warming makes the case for drastic action stronger, not weaker. … Again, we’re not even getting into substance — just the basic issue of representing correctly what other people said.

So where do Levitt and Dubner imply that Weitzman’s paper urges weaker action on global warming? They don’t imply that. Krugman just made that up. Because it’s “just the basic issue of representing correctly what other people said.”

Indeed, just two paragraphs later, Levitt and Dubner quote another economist who favors spending over a trillion dollars per year to address the problem. Perhaps that’s not sufficiently “strong” action for Krugman, but it seems pretty strong to me.

Krugman more recently complains that Levitt and Dubner don’t include arguments from Weitzman’s paper that Krugman wishes they had included. But so what? Krugman is welcome to write his own book on climate change. Levitt and Dubner use the information from Weitzman fairly to set up their question, “So how should we place a value on this relatively small chance of worldwide catastrophe?”

Levitt and Dubner’s broader point is that it’s far cheaper and much faster-acting to geoengineer cooler temperatures than it is to dramatically curb carbon emissions. Read the book for details, or read Levitt’s post on the matter.

You might also want to check out replies from Levitt and Dubner to other environmentalist critics.

Our authors do raise an interesting question: given that geoengineering seems like it would solve potential problems of global warming much faster and much cheaper, why are most environmentalists so dismissive of the idea? I think my dad and I provide the answer in our recent op-ed: environmentalists “see untouched nature as intrinsically valuable. They have no problem with natural climate change, smoke, or chemicals. They just dislike anything that people do to alter nature.”

Environmentalists favor carbon reduction because that reduces human interaction with the rest of the environment. Environmentalists oppose geoengineering because it increases human interaction with the rest of the environment. And that preference has exactly no basis in science.

In the end, the mere fact that Paul Krugman blasts SuperFreakonomics should interest readers in buying and reading the book.

* * *

Which is not to say that the book is perfect. Apparently I’m the outlier in reading the book from the beginning, but my issue with it arose much earlier, in the introduction, pages 2 and 3.

Levitt and Dubner write that “1 of every 140 miles is driven drunk, or 21 billion miles each year.” The “total number of people killed in alcohol-related traffic accidents each year” is “about 13,000.”

Here comes the sketchy part: “The average American walks about a half-mile per day outside the home or workplace. … If we assume that 1 of every 140 of those miles are walked drunk — the same proportion of miles that are driven drunk — then 307 million miles are walked drunk each year.”

The upshot is that, given “more than 1,000 drunk pedestrians die in traffic accidents,” it’s more dangerous to walk drunk than it is to drive drunk.

But whey should we “assume that 1 of every 140 of those miles are walked drunk?” The notes offer no clue about this. Offhand it seems like a wildly implausible assumption.

First, a lot of people go on long walks every day, and typically people don’t get drunk before they exercise. So that skews the averages. Second, when people are rip-roaring drunk, it can seem very hard to walk down the street but very easy to turn the ignition key. So I suspect that the fraction of miles walked drunk is much lower than what our authors assume — which bolsters their point that drunk walking is dangerous.

Regardless of the exact risks, as someone who used to abuse alcohol, I can confirm the author’s broader point that getting drunk can be generally dangerous, and traffic fatalities hardly exhaust the list of potential harms.

Principles Are Still Universal: a Reply to Ari

by Justin Longo | 6:11 pm, October 29, 2009

First off, I’d like to thank Ari for his thoughtful response to my original post – “Principles are Universal, not Convenient.” These types of discussions help move important debates forward. But Ari ended up going far beyond the point I was trying to make. I realize I’m not the best, most clear writer out there, [...]

Road trip to Beaver Run Resort

by Amy Oliver | 4:18 pm, October 29, 2009

According to Governor Bill Ritter’s own transparency Web site TOP, the state paid $283,129.15 to Beaver Run Resort over the last two fiscal years (FY08-09 and FY09-10).   Several state government departments including Education, Governor’s office, Higher Ed, Human Services, Judicial, Corrections, Public Safety, Health Care Policy and Financing, and Local Affairs, spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars for [...]

Josh Penry Taking Debate in Serious Direction of Long-Term State Reform

by Ben DeGrow | 3:16 pm, October 29, 2009

Yesterday state senate minority leader and gubernatorial candidate Josh Penry took the opportunity to respond to Governor Bill Ritter’s “kick the can down the road” budget-cutting proposals with a provocative series of questions aimed at serious reform of state government:

Is it time to abolish the Department of Local Affairs? Is it time to consolidate the [...]

Tom Tancredo takes it to campus airwaves tonight on Seng Center!

by Jimmy Sengenberger | 1:39 pm, October 29, 2009

Join host Jimmy Sengenberger TONIGHT at 6:00 for a jam-packed Special Edition of Seng Center! Tonight, Tom Tancredo, the conservative former Congressman and 2008 presidential contender, takes it to the airwaves of the Regis University online radio talkshow Seng Center!  The controversial former Congressman, will be joining Jimmy for an exclusive in-studio interview on his [...]

“Clearing the Liberal Bench” – Mike Rosen’s Denver Post column promotes Clear The Bench Colorado

by CTBC Director | 9:09 am, October 29, 2009

“The liberal majority on the Colorado Supreme Court has taken judicial chutzpah to a new level.”
Mike Rosen’s column in today’s Denver Post joins the rising chorus of commentators (Mark Hillman’s excellent article Wednesday, and Vince Carroll’s superb commentary Sunday, to name just the most prominent recent examples) speaking out against the Mullarkey Majority’s most recent blatantly unconstitutional ruling [...]

GOP Website Fail

by Night Twister | 8:19 am, October 29, 2009

Jon Stewart takes on the new GOP.com website. He’s always been better when taking on both sides of the aisle as he has been doing recently, and this is a good one.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart
Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c

You’ve Got Fail

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes
Political Humor
Health Care Crisis

I especially liked the Future [...]

Swine Flu is not Obama’s Katrina

by Rossputin | 3:10 am, October 29, 2009

I’ve heard some Republican radio personalities wonder aloud whether the H1N1 pandemic is going to be Barack Obama’s Hurricane Katrina.  I’d argue it shouldn’t be – which is not to say it won’t be.

The late and undersized deliveries of the “swine flu” vaccine were not caused by government, but by problems at certain vaccine manufacturers (problems which were fixed fairly quickly but which nevertheless threw off the anticipated vaccine schedule.)

And while this may be a shocking concept not just to liberals but even to many independents and conservatives (and not so shocking to libertarians), I have to wonder why people are so utterly, slavishly, unthinkingly reliant on government to deal with this problem.

Is there really a reason that we needed or need government intervention to get efficient and effective production and distribution of the vaccine?  Yes, people will argue that “public health” is the concern of the government.

I think the case for that is borderline, and the case for a somewhat worse than normal strain of a flu virus being the responsibility of the federal government is not easy to make.

Rather than blame the federal government, people should reconsider reliance on the private sector, which has ways of getting hammers and toilet seats to customers for single- or double-digit numbers of dollars rather than three- or four-digit numbers for which government is known.

More than the federal government’s fault for getting the vaccine to people in the time and quantities demanded, it’s the peoples’ fault for relying on the government.

That said, I do believe that if the pandemic worsens and there remain substantial problems in vaccine delivery, people will blame Obama in the same way they blamed Bush for a hurricane. (To be fair, there are some real arguments to be made about the Bush Administration failing to do what they needed to, and about much of the New Orleans damage actually being caused by the government’s shoddy construction and planning of levees.)  In other words, Obama has far less to answer for in this situation than Bush did during Katrina.  But politics ain’t beanbag and Obama will be taken to task if things don’t improve soon.

Unfortunately, the result of would-be conservatives attacking Obama over this issue will be to imply that conservatives have found another area in which they believe the federal government should do more rather than less.  And it’s that kind of political miscalculation that deservedly cost the GOP so dearly in the past two election cycles.  Like it or not, Mr. Politician, at some point principles do matter.

Christopher Monckton on the decline and fall of the USA (thanks to “climate change”)

by Rossputin | 2:44 am, October 29, 2009

This has been making its way around the web faster than the H1N1 virus through my family, and I’m pleased to try to help it get seen even more.

As I noted in a blog posting a few days ago, the working document which Monckton refers to can be found HERE, with some of the stuff about a new, unelected world government on page 18.

(If the embedded video doesn’t show up for you, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40)

keep looking »

Featured Posts

• Judge Rules Americans Can Be Forced to Testify Against Themselves

  In order to protect our rights, our security must be protected. In order to protect our security, our rights must be invaded. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

• World Economic Forum in Switzerland: Global Elites Celebrating Hypocrisy
• SCOTUS decision on warrantless GPS surveillance produces an expected friend of privacy
• You didn’t want your Fifth Amendment rights, anyway, did you?
• Keynesian Economists Finally Catch Up and Agree: China to Have Hard Landing
• The Beauty of Private Property—from China?
• Regime Uncertainty, Regulatory Surge, and Unemployment Numbers