If you’ve been following my blog, you already know I am no fan of the FDA. This bureaucracy costs drug developers so much time and money that many drugs that could save lives are never invested in and developed. I’ve talked about that here and here. This morning, the Wall Street Journal has an article about FDA staffers “helping” companies move their orphaned drugs through the process by holding workshops. The underlying story, if you read between the lines, is many drugs never make it to the market because the FDA is a road barrier that is not worth overcoming for rare diseases. The end result is people with rare diseases die or have to live with their disease with a lot less hope that a drug will be developed, all thanks to your all caring government.

Staff members at the Food and Drug Administration are doing something unusual. They are leaving Washington to help drug makers take a crucial step in developing drugs for rare diseases.

Only a statist would consider it a crucial step in the development of a drug to fill out government paperwork.

The staffers help administer the Orphan Drug Act, which provides incentives to create therapies for so-called orphan diseases—those that affect fewer than 200,000 Americans. There are about 7,000 such maladies, most of them serious, that have few or no drugs to treat them, from adenoid cystic carcinoma, a rare head and neck cancer, to Zollinger-Ellison syndrome, which is associated with a tumor that causes the production of high levels of stomach acid.

As a result, doctors may end up prescribing drugs developed for other diseases off-label, but not all insurers will cover this kind of use.

Getting an orphan-drug designation opens the door to incentives once the FDA approves a medicine for sale in the U.S., including seven years’ marketing exclusivity and tax breaks. Last year, just 250 requests for orphan-drug designation were filed, and 160 received it.

“We’re barely scratching the surface,” says Timothy Coté, director of the FDA’s Office of Orphan Products Development, the workshop’s sponsor. He says there are roughly 350 orphan drugs approved, covering about 150 rare diseases.

Tim Cunniff, vice president of global regulatory affairs at Lundbeck Inc., which has a number of approved orphan drugs, says most companies developing orphan drugs are small.

As I’ve stated previously, the big companies love the FDA. It’s a barrier to small companies from developing drugs to bring to market, which means less competition for Big Pharma. Small companies would develop drugs for rare diseases, because they see the whole in the market. The problem for them though is trying to find $1 billion dollars and up to 15 years time to move the drug through the FDA. This is a huge barrier to entry, and it leaves people with these rare diseases to suffer.

Big companies are starting to get more interested in rare diseases, but the key issue is the high cost of developing a drug and the typically long time it takes to move it from a lab into a clinic as a treatment that gets prescribed. Before starting down this arduous path, a company needs to feel there is a reasonable chance of making a profit.

Bing-O. Here is the proof that the FDA is a hindrance to progress. Companies have to make predictions about an extremely expensive and time consuming process, that can be swayed by politics. As we all know, everything has opportunity costs. If they decide to move forward on one drug, the money and time spent moving it through the FDA process is money and time that are not spent developing the next drug. Because of this alone, we are losing out on more drugs, but we are also making it much harder for companies to decide in favor of moving forward with a drug. It’s probably almost never going to happen for drugs for rare diseases, because the market is so small.

To help get more applications, Dr. Coté’s office put out the word: Help is available, in two workshops with on-the-spot regulatory advice. The first workshop, held last month at the Keck Graduate Institute here, drew 29 potential sponsors, from major drug companies to academic centers, small biotechs and even some patient advocates. In a follow-up survey, 74% said they had never before filed an application for orphan drug designation.

Dr. Coté said he wanted participants to understand that the workshop wasn’t providing an alternative pathway to orphan-drug designation, just regulatory advice. He said it was very important that the FDA avoid the “perception of favoritism” and even stressed that in the cover letter to an application, the sponsors shouldn’t say they had been at the workshop.

Sure wouldn’t want the “perception of favoritism”. Don’t make it easier for companies to develop drugs for rare diseases, that otherwise won’t be developed. That would be just horrible.

Barbara Fant, president and chief executive of Clinical Research Consultants Inc., attended the workshop to prepare an application for a drug-company client, and said this was her first time filing for an orphan drug designation.

An FDA staffer pointed out issues in her application that “would have come back to me as questions and delayed the designation process” if she had filed before the workshop. “I learned some nuances that I didn’t know,” said Dr. Fant, who declined to provide details about her client or the drug.

Who says you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to fill out government papers correctly. I guess being a doctor just isn’t enough. If this lady was not at this workshop, should would have probably just lost months of time before this paper went into the FDA bureaucracy and got turned down and returned, because it was missing some “nuance”.

An orphan-drug designation is no guarantee a medicine will ultimately be approved for marketing. A different FDA division reviews safety and efficacy data for approval. Upon further testing, a drug may turn out to be too dangerous or not effective. Companies may decide a product is too expensive to make, change direction, or go out of business. But Dr. Phillips and Dr. Coté hope that by increasing the pool of applicants for designation, they will increase the chances of getting more approvals.

via FDA Pushes for Cures for Rare Diseases – WSJ.com.

Did you get the underlying message of this article? Do you need more proof that the government, in this case the FDA, is a road barrier to progress? There really is no need for the FDA. There could easily be a private mechanism for testing drugs. All it would take a is change to patent laws, which have to give Big Pharma complete control of the market for a long time in order for them to make enough profit to make it worth bringing a drug to market. Because of the huge expense of the FDA, that control of the market has to be longer than it otherwise would need to be.

Also, as John pointed out in the comments section on this post, why couldn’t the FDA be optional? Why can’t we as consumers have a choice between an expensive FDA approved drug and a cheaper non-FDA approved drug? Surely, the non-FDA approved drug will go through the rigors of private testing via competitors, doctors and universities. We know the answer to that though. Government can never have something that challenges it’s claim to be our protector. If we allowed non-FDA options, the FDA would shortly be proven useless.

Following up on an earlier post about democracy, here is a great find from The Daily Paul. I constantly hear about us being a democracy, even by conservatives. It’s considered taboo to say anything bad about democracies, but we were not founded as a democracy, which is why our government was supposed to be extremely limited in what it could do. Our founders knew that democracy was a horrible system.

Democracy is …

…the majority turning their guns on the minority.

…the majority enslaving the minority.

…the creation of human sacrifices for the majority.

…the destruction of the individual.

…constant growth in government as the majority votes more to themselves.

…the road to absolute tyranny.

YouTube – Democracy is not Freedom!.

Some drug company must not like Cheerios eating into their cholesterol drug sales. The FDA better get involved.

Last year the Food and Drug Administration made itself fodder for late-night comedy when it warned the manufacturer of Cheerios against boasting about some of the cereal’s health benefits. “We have determined [Cheerios] is promoted for conditions that cause it to be a drug,” the FDA said in a letter to General Mills.

By this logic, consumers would need a prescription to buy a box of the oats.

The letter typifies the FDA’s longstanding discomfort with health claims made on food labels, particularly those touting the medical benefits of certain diets and ingredients.

via Scott Gottlieb: The FDA Takes on Cheerios – WSJ.com.

This is a perfect example of how we have all been brainwashed. Everyone just assumes that the FDA really has a clue what they are doing and that they really our there to protect us.

Would it be surprising to see Big Pharma using the FDA to go after companies that might eat into their drug sales? Who wouldn’t love eating Cheerios instead of taking cholesterol medicine?

Also, why don’t people ask how many people die as a result of the FDA’s involvement in drug testing. It takes almost $1 billion and up to 15 years for a drug to make it through the obstacle course laid out by the FDA. No wonder drugs are so expensive. So, how many people die because of the time lag of getting a drug to market? Also, how many drugs that could save peoples lives just can’t make enough profit to justify running it through this expensive, time consuming process?

Has anyone thought maybe the FDA and this expensive process was put into place to protect Big Pharma from small competitors? Like most government regulations, only the huge corporations can afford to play the game, so they love all the regulations. It prevents the up and comers from ever nipping at their toes.

Quit assuming the government is their to protect you. The FDA is not about protection. It is about control. As long as the government controls this part of society by deciding who can play, they maintain the power. They pick the winners and losers, and they are the ones who need bribed, elected, and need to remain in power.

While our government constantly preaches to the Chinese government about freedom of the internet, they are quietly attempting to get control of it themselves.

The president would have the power to safeguard essential federal and private Web resources under draft Senate cybersecurity legislation.

Federal is fine, but what gives the president power over “private Web resources”? This is how they sneak in the ability to take over the internet as a whole. Essential federal and private Web resources pretty much covers everything.

According to an aide familiar with the proposal, the bill includes a mandate for federal agencies to prepare emergency response plans in the event of a massive, nationwide cyberattack.

The president would then have the ability to initiate those network contingency plans to ensure key federal or private services did not go offline during a cyberattack of unprecedented scope, the aide said.

Does anyone have confidence that the government can even pull this off?

Their renewed focus arrives on the heels of two, high-profile cyberattacks last month: A strike on Google, believed to have originated in China, and a separate, more disjointed attack that affected thousands of businesses worldwide.

Rockefeller and Snowe’s forthcoming bill would establish a host of heretofore absent cybersecurity prevention and response measures, an aide close to the process said. The bill will “significantly [raise] the profile of cybersecurity within the federal government,” while incentivizing private companies to do the same, according to the aide.

Oh boy, any time you read “incentivizing” you can pretty much get ready to be robbed. Businesses already have incentives to guard against cyber attacks. Unlike government they are accountable to the bottom line. If the chance of an attack would cost them more than the cost of safe-guarding against an attack, they will take the actions needed. They don’t need government to stick a gun to their head forcing them to do it.

Additionally, it will “promote public awareness” of Internet security issues, while outlining key protections of Americans’ civil liberties on the Web, the aide continued.

Good luck on the civil liberties. The last thing the government cares about is civil liberties.

Privacy groups are nonetheless likely to take some umbrage at Rockefeller and Snowe’s latest effort, an early draft of which leaked late last year.

When early reports predicted the cybersecurity measure would allow the president to “declare a cybersecurity emergency,” online privacy groups said they felt that would endow the White House with overly ambiguous and far-reaching powers to regulate the Internet.

It is unclear when Rockefeller and Snowe will finish their legislation. And the ongoing debate over healthcare reform, financial regulatory reform, jobs bills and education fixes could postpone action on the floor for many months.

I’d say let’s hope it never reaches the floor, but considering the other bills before it, I’m not sure it would be much worse.

Both lawmakers heavily emphasized the need for such a bill during a Senate Commerce Committee cybersecurity hearing on Wednesday.

“Too much is at stake for us to pretend that today’s outdated cybersecurity policies are up to the task of protecting our nation and economic infrastructure,” Rockefeller said. “We have to do better and that means it will take a level of coordination and sophistication to outmatch our adversaries and minimize this enormous threat.”

via Cybersecurity bill to give president new emergency powers – The Hill’s Hillicon Valley.

The only cybersecurity policies that might be outdated are the ones guarding federal computers. That is just more proof of the idiocy of government. Private enterprises on the other hand are not outdated and the highly sensitive businesses take it upon themselves to hire the experts needed and purchase the systems needed to properly security their networks.

As far as government goes, if this truly is just to secure the federal computers under a cyberattack, why do we even need legislation? Shouldn’t the government already be taking action on their own networks through current budgets? I’m sure we don’t require separate legislation to secure our military arsenals. That security is already part of the military arsenal budget itself. Also, wouldn’t the President already have power to declare an emergency over the federal networks?

It would appear that the President and the government already have all the power that they need…well unless they want the power to take control of the entire internet. Let’s not sugar coat this as The Hill and the Senators trying to pass this bill are. The government is pushing legislation for one thing only. They are pushing it to get control over “private Web resources”, the very resources that are already secured by private businesses themselves.

The government cannot be trusted with a power like this. They want to “secure” the internet to make sure if there is ever a challenge to their power from the people, they could cut off communication between those people. It is not to protect us from the boogieman overseas as they always claim it to be. It is to prevent us from ever challenging our government.

While many of my conservative friends won’t agree with me, I must say I was surprised to see Justice Sotomayor being the voice of reason on the court when it comes to the government going after terrorist abettors.

The Supreme Court wrestled to find the line between First Amendment rights and the fight against terrorism Tuesday during oral arguments over a law barring people from providing “material support” to foreign terrorist organizations.

Prosecutors favor the material-support charge because it is broad enough to cover a range of activities linked to terrorist organizations, from collecting funds to shouldering a rifle. But by making it a crime to provide “training,” “personnel” and “expert advice” to such groups—even for, say, peaceful ends such as disaster relief—the law sweeps too far into the rights of U.S. citizens to speak and associate freely, critics say.

Highlights are mine. Prosecutors love broad laws, because all they care about is convicting someone. The truth is not their concern. Most of them are looking for higher office, and the more convictions they get, the tougher they can claim to be on crime. Let’s not pretend the ultimate goal is to get to the truth.

The lawsuit was filed in 1998 by people who wanted to offer what they view as benign support to the Kurdistan Workers Party in the Middle East and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka, which the U.S. designated as foreign terrorist organizations in 1997.

Though neither group has targeted Americans, justices were aware of the case’s implications.

“Suppose the group is not the two that we have here, but al Qaeda and the Taliban?” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor challenging the law.

Ah Oh! The boogieman. Maybe the geniuses in congress could pass a law with the names al Qaeda and the Taliban in them, so you could fix this problem. Besides, in my naive view of the Supreme Court, I thought their job was to determine constitutionality of laws. Where was al Qaeda, Taliban or terrorist for that matter written in the constitution? You could use this argument from Justice Ginsburg in regards to any activity. Next time the second amendment comes up, what if Ginsburg says “Suppose we don’t have these two people here, but al Qaeda and the Taliban? Do we want them to have guns?”

“It would pose a very different constitutional question,” Mr. Cole said, as lending support to groups taking up arms against the U.S. could be considered akin to treason or aiding the enemy.

Hey, here’s a thought. The constitution actually addresses treason, and if we are at war with the Taliban and al Qaeda, helping them would fall under treason.

Mr. Cole’s clients filed suit seeking a court ruling that their intended activities, such as helping the Tigers get aid following the 2004 tsunami in Asia, were not covered by the law. “It is advocating only lawful, peaceable activities,” Mr. Cole said.

Justice Anthony Kennedy suggested that it could be difficult to draw such a bright line. “If you get tsunami money, that frees up your other assets for terrorist money, so why can’t the government forbid teaching how to get that money?” he said.

Solicitor General Elena Kagan, representing the government, said that was the law’s point.

“Hezbollah builds bombs. Hezbollah also builds homes,” she said, referring to the Lebanon-based Shiite Muslim faction that is also designated a foreign-terrorist organization. “What Congress decided was when you help Hezbollah build homes, you are also helping Hezbollah build bombs.”

This has to be the worst argument ever. Why should we be able to donate to the Red Cross then? If the Red Cross goes in to help Palestinians, then Hezbollah would not have to pay for the help that the Red Cross provided. Since they don’t have to pay, Hezbollah now has money freed up for building bombs.

Several justices seemed troubled by the claim that virtually any interaction with such groups could be prohibited. The government has said that even filing legal briefs on behalf of a designated organization would violate the law.

“Under the definition of this statute, teaching these members to play the harmonica would be unlawful,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.

As my title says, it’s amazing to me that the woman I didn’t want to make it to the bench is the voice of reason in this case.  While neocons think she’s an idiot for this (read comments on the Wall Street Journal) because they love big government when it comes to foreign policy and fighting boogiemen, I don’t trust the government with foreign policy and the taking of my rights in pursuit of their wrong headed foreign policy. Neocons don’t trust the government with domestic policies, but they give the government a blank check with their freedoms when it comes to any “war on….” insert latest war title here.

As I said above, there is a means to try treason written in the constitution. We do not need laws that take away our liberties at the whim of government prosecutors and bureaucrats. With laws like this, the government can imprison any group of people that challenge them. What if the government thought the teaparties were getting a little to powerful for them? They could easily label Joe Stack’s attack on the IRS as a terrorist act. Then in pursuit of terrorism look into and prosecute anyone who is speaking out too boldly against government taxation. They could label militia groups terrorists, and then go after anyone who sold militia guns or was ever involved in militia.

Do not trust the government with you liberties. They do not care about protecting you. All they care about is the perception of protection in order to get you to hand over your liberties.

The Supreme Court should rule in favor of the Humanitarian Law Project, and the burden should be heavily placed on the government to prove their was treason and harm to our country.

A decision in the case, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, is expected by July.

via Justices Wrestle With Terror Law – WSJ.com.

Interesting that this would show up just days after my privatizing 911 post. If you watch the video or even if you read the post at Hot Air, everyone seems to think this has to be a government service that is provided for “free”.  Of course the news piece focuses on a retired gentlemen who is on a fixed income, because he probably depends on another crappy government program, social security.

My guess would be that the city is doing this knowing that people will be up an arms. There are probably 100s of other places to cut, but those are probably places voters don’t care about. They need the voters to get up in arms to raise taxes or to get the federal government to cough up more money. Ultimately though, this probably isn’t a bad idea. It shows people that government really does have a cost. Imagine if you had to pay one time fees for all government services. How quickly would the waste be  drained out of the system?

Saying that people shouldn’t or can’t pay $300 for a 911 call, which is probably used to save someone’s life, should tell us how bad our country has become. Who in their right mind wouldn’t spend $300 to save their life or someone else’s life? My only question would be why aren’t they having private sector companies competing for this business. If they are going to make people pay, at least let them have service from people who care about their jobs and a business who cares about their customers.

If we are ever as a nation are going to get back to the free market and back to any semblance of what the founders envisioned, we must realize that nothing the government “gives” us is free, and nothing the government does is more efficient than what the free market can deliver.

via Hot Air.

When Democrats want welfare programs and Republicans want wars, ultimately the bill comes due. When asked how they are going to pay for them, they always default to their standard line, “We’re going to tax the rich.” Well, the rich are not that stupid to pay for other people’s free lunch. How do they avoid paying? Well, let’s look at how we are going to pay off the debt we have accumulated with all the government spending.

As the White House tried one more time Thursday to galvanize support from a recalcitrant Congress for a deficit commission to tackle the nation’s dangerously bloated debt, fears are growing that the United States will once again resort to printing money and ginning up inflation to resolve its debt problem.

While accelerating the printing presses could do irreversible damage to the dollar’s international reputation and the U.S. economy, history suggests that this is the way Washington will go to avoid the political pain of having to raise taxes and cut spending on popular programs such as Social Security, defense and Medicare.

Some notable economists argue that such a move would avert a debt crisis like the one confronting Greece and other European countries that have been unable to reduce spending because of strong public resistance.

Political leaders and the Federal Reserve, which is charged with printing and circulating U.S. dollars, strenuously deny that they have any intent to “inflate” out of the debt.

Nevertheless, a sign emerged this week that the prospect is increasingly becoming an issue in internal Fed deliberations.

The Fed’s most strident inflation fighter, Thomas Hoenig, president of the Fed’s Kansas City reserve bank, warned on Tuesday that “short-term political pressures” are prompting Congress to take a risky gamble by continuing to borrow at unsustainable rates rather than address the deficit problem and he expects political leaders to be “knocking at the Fed’s door” to demand that it print money to pay for the debt.

This path “inevitably leads to financial crisis,” Mr. Hoenig said, while the inflation it would spawn would threaten American living standards and destroy the independence and credibility of the Fed, whose most important job is to prevent inflation.

That’s right. How do you rob the middle class without most of them knowing you are taxing them to pay for government? You devalue the money they have. Think this isn’t a tax on the middle class? Well, prices will effect he poor as well, but they get inflation adjusted government benefits anyway. How about the rich? Well, the rich own assets, which go up with inflation. Rich people aren’t sitting around swimming through their devaluing dollars like Scrooge McDuck. They own real estate, businesses, etc. Real estate prices go up with inflation. Businesses will charge more for their products and services, so their value will go up with inflation. Now, how about the middle class? The middle class will be the ones paying this tax. Their pay will not adjust before prices increase, so their pay will be eroded and they will afford less goods and services.

Keynesians, the ruling economists of our government, believes that in a recession wages will not decrease enough to help with improving the economy. They believe this to be the case, because workers are unwilling to take less pay. I can tell you from real world experience this is not the case. Many workers have taken one or more pay cuts in our current recession to help their companies and to remain employed. The Keynesians though argue that because workers won’t take pay cuts, you must lower their pay without them knowing it. How do they do it? They devalue their pay with inflation. Just more of the government trying to manipulate the economy at our expense.

But despite some resistance and wariness at the Fed, a growing number of Wall Street gurus expect the U.S. to adopt at least an unofficial policy of growing or “inflating” out of the debt in light of Congress’ unwillingness to tackle budget deficits running at more than $1 trillion for the foreseeable future.

“Inflation was the largest factor behind debt reduction” after World War II, he said. “Growth was the second-largest factor,” with Congress making only a small contribution through modest budget restraint. The behind-the-scenes role of the Federal Reserve in accommodating faster growth and inflation through faster money creation was critical, he added

I guess this is supposed to be an example of us doing this in the past, so you should just say, “Oh, OK. If it worked then, then I guess we can do it now.” This is a horrible example though. One, we went into debt to fight the largest war the world has ever known. Currently our debt is largely frivolous spending, with more spending in the pipeline. Second, we had tremendous growth after the horrible policies of FDR were removed from the economy after the war. Imagine how fast you would be able to run, after throwing another person off your back. That is what happened to the economy. The rationing and price controls implemented during the new deal and the war, shackled the economy. When they were removed, the economy boomed. Do you see that happening now? Of course not, it will take much more inflation than it did after the war.

“The independence of the Fed is extraordinarily important. If the Congress or the administration were to begin to interfere with our monetary policy decisions, then the markets would say, wait a minute, there’s going to be more inflation because of political reasons, more inflation because the government wants the Fed to spend money in order to pay for the deficit.”

Independent my ass. The Fed was created by the congress, which means ultimately the congress can pressure them to do what they like. Watch Bernanke testify before congress, and see how often he mentions what congress tasked the Fed to do. The congress could easily change what they task them to do. There is no such thing as independence when one party has a gun.

But some analysts say the Fed undermined its own case last year by instituting programs that had the effect of helping to underwrite the Treasury’s debts.

The Fed printed money to purchase $200 billion of Treasury bonds last year in an effort to keep interest rates low and nurture an economic recovery. The rationale was that interest rates paid by consumers and businesses are linked to Treasury rates. But Fed officials ended the program in the fall, partly out of concern that it gave the appearance that the central bank was printing money to help underwrite the national debt.

Some respected economists have openly advocated an inflation strategy for reducing the debt. Kenneth Rogoff, a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, has suggested a 4 percent to 6 percent inflation target for the Fed to help deal with the debt.

via Induced inflation feared as way to cut debt – Washington Times.

How many people have are getting 4 to 6 percent raises every year just to keep their same purchasing power. Of course, what this number really is is disputable. The Fed uses the Core CPI with energy, food, and housing excluded. It just so happens those are the areas where most of your money goes.

“What? No, No, there’s no inflation here. Look! The CPI says so. Nothing here to see. Get back to work. You’ll need to get some extra hours in.”

In  my post on every day socialism, I only talked about police, fire and roads. I guess I shouldn’t have left out 911 service, since I just recently had some liberal tell me not to bash socialism if I ever need to use 911. From my home town comes an example of what socialism delivers. The truth is 911 service is too critical to be entrusted to government.

In his first call to 911, Curtis Mitchell sounded calm, explaining to dispatchers that his “entire stomach [was] in pain.”

By the time his longtime girlfriend made a 10th call nearly 30 hours later, she was frantic. He wasn’t breathing. He was cold to the touch.

“Oh God, oh God,” Sharon Edge sobbed to dispatchers. “I’ve been trying to get an ambulance over here for three days.”

Paramedics arrived at their Hazelwood home as Ms. Edge tried to resuscitate the 50-year-old, but it was too late.

“I sat up here with him, watching him die,” Ms. Edge said Tuesday, after city officials apologized to her and pledged immediate changes in emergency response after Mr. Mitchell’s death on Feb. 7. “They didn’t do their jobs like they were supposed to.”

Snow-covered roads, poor communication and a 911 center deluged with more than double the average number of calls during last week’s crippling snowstorms combined to cause Mr. Mitchell’s long wait, city officials said.

Ambulances were dispatched three times on Saturday, Feb. 6, to the couple’s home in the 5100 block of narrow Chaplain Way, but couldn’t get there because of the snow. Paramedics twice asked whether Mr. Mitchell could walk to an intersection, even after he told them that he could not because he was in too much pain.

Emergency vehicles were within blocks of his home three times — once so close Ms. Edge could see the ambulance lights from her porch — but did not make contact with him. They finally reached the home on Sunday morning, Feb. 7, but Mr. Mitchell was already dead.

“We should have gotten there,” Public Safety Director Michael Huss said. “It’s that simple.”

via Hazelwood man dies after 10 calls to 911 over two days.

I know. I know. I’m going to have liberals jumping mad about privatizing. Even conservatives find privatization hard to swallow for what they believe is critical government services. Now, I am not talking about just hiring some company to do the exact same thing government does currently, although it would still be better than what we have now.

The problem with our current system is it’s a monopoly. Even worse, it’s a government monopoly. Without competition, you have no options, and because you have no options, the monopoly providing service has no incentive to provide the best service possible.

Let’s just throw some ideas out there just to drive liberals nuts. How about if you had a service that you subscribe to like you do for home security systems. Why couldn’t you have companies who provide 24/7 911 service (who knows what the number would be) that you subscribe to when you move into an area. When you move in to an area, you would research who has the best response times, pricing, etc. This way once you subscribe, you know who to call. This could just be one business. You could then have separate or combined businesses that actually provide the ambulances and do the pickups. The 911 service would either be the customer or the owner of the ambulance services. In order to maintain or increase their profits, the 911 service would make their system more efficient. They would work with ambulances the most efficient and least costly way to fulfill their contractual obligations. Their contractual obligation to their customers would be quickly organizing a response to your call for police, fire and 911 service.

So, what would drive 911 service providers to make sure they get to your house even in the snow? PROFITS. If you saw a story similar to the story above and it was under privatized 911 services, would you sign up for that providers service? If you were a current subscriber, would you switch your provider? The risk of losing business and profits would drive 911 service providers to never let what happened in the story above to happen. If it did, they would be punished by being put out of business. How is the government punished? You pay for the crappy service no matter what.

If there were multiple providers as I’m advocating here, Mrs. Mitchell could have said to hell with her current provider. She could have called a competitor and said, “I’m ready to switch if you get someone here asap.” Unfortunately for Mr. Mitchell, the biggest mistake was expecting a government agency to act as if they would be held accountable. They would have been better off if they called a taxi service, Fedex or even the local flower shop to deliver him to a hospital. He would probably still be alive today.

This has been a big story in my home town. Of course, even though it’s a government failure, local bureaucrats are using the incident for grandstanding. As I’ve said many times, you can’t lose when you are in government.

Looks like the climate scam is falling apart day by day. Just like Big Pharma with ObamaCare, these energy giants were trying to get in on the scam to make sure the government gun was not pointed in their direction. Now that the rational from our government, “we’re pointing this gun at you to protect you from the weather”, is falling apart, these companies are jumping off the ship.

Oil giants BP PLC and ConocoPhillips and heavy-equipment maker Caterpillar Inc. said Tuesday they won’t renew their membership in the three-year-old U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a broad business-environmental coalition that had been instrumental in building support in Washington for capping emissions of greenhouse gases.

The move comes as debate over climate change intensifies and concerns mount about the cost of capping greenhouse-gas emissions.

via BP, ConocoPhillips and Caterpillar Pull Out of Climate Partnership – WSJ.com.

This is just more proof that the private sector is more efficient. Even in their scamming they react to changing conditions. Meanwhile, the government keeps pressing forward acting like nothing has changed. Then again, when all you have to do is stick a gun in someone’s face, you don’t need to change.

Have you ever felt like politics in the US is just bumper bowling? The people bounce back and forth between the two parties, all the while moving down the lane towards tyranny. Everyone votes for Republicans when they preach the virtues of small government. Then when they realize Republicans want to use the fear of some foreign boogieman to take their civil liberties away and to maintain an empire, they bounce back to a liberal Democrat who claims to be against war and to be for civil liberties.

Soon the people realize the Democrats are just another bumper keeping the people on the path towards tyranny. Of course, now the neocons over at HotAir are coming out against the possible civil rights violations that the Obama administration is considering. These are the same neocons who loved ignoring constitutional rights when they were in power. The truth is both parties would prefer to take your liberties all at once, but the chance of a revolution forces them to do it slowly.

After the people (No not me.) voted for Obama in hopes that he would end the wars and bring the troops home, they quickly found out that Obama expanded the wars, increased bombings and is now looking to make indefinite imprisonment the law of the land. Don’t worry though, Lindsey Graham, who believes himself representative of the real Republican party, backs Obama.

From HotAir.com.

As Allahpundit noted last night, the push to create an indefinite-detention law to allow the government to hold al-Qaeda terrorists is not a new idea, but it is a bad idea. It springs from a return to the law-enforcement model and the desperation of an administration that has begun to feel the limitations of their approach. That’s why the White House has once again begun floating trial balloons to which it hopes Congress will react with legislation, and unfortunately some on Capitol Hill — including one prominent Republican — want to provide that cover:

The White House is considering endorsing a law that would allow the indefinite detention of some alleged terrorists without trial as part of efforts to break a logjam with Congress over President Barack Obama’s plans to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Monday.

Last summer, White House officials said they had ruled out seeking a “preventive detention” statute as a way to deal with anti-terror detainees, saying the administration would hold any Guantanamo prisoners brought to the U.S. in criminal courts or under the general “law of war” principles permitting detention of enemy combatants.

However, speaking at a news conference in Greenville, S.C. Monday, Graham said the White House now seems open to a new law to lay out the standards for open-ended imprisonment of those alleged to be members of or fighters for Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

via Hot Air » Blog Archive » Indefinite detention law a bad idea.

Wonder if Allahpundit was saying it was a bad idea when Bush was ignoring the fourth, fifth, six and eighth amendments of the Bill of Rights? Oh, that’s right. It doesn’t apply to enemy combatants. The founders believed these to be natural rights, but to neocons it must mean natural born citizen’s rights. Wait. Wait.

Andy McCarthy tries to do a snow job on Jose Padilla and Ali Saleh al-Marri:

Jose Padilla (who, unlike Abdulmutallab, is an American citizen) was designated an enemy combatant and held without trial after being arrested inside the United States; so was Ali al-Marri. Ultimately, both were prosecuted in the civilian system — but only years later, after the intelligence community had ample opportunity to exhaust their capacity to provide useful information.

In fact, they were put back in the criminal justice system because the courts were about to wipe the floor with the Bush administration over Padilla, and as I’ve reported before, the Obama administration over al-Marri. They weren’t put back in because their capacity to provide useful information had been “exhausted.” What I love about this line of argument is that it directly contradicts the ones Republicans make in favor of detaining Umar Abdulmutallab in this manner. Republicans argue that military detention allows the government to get otherwise “perishable” intelligence quickly, but Padilla was held for three and a half years in military custody, al-Marri for nearly eight. That’s some pretty non-perishable intelligence.

via TAPPED Archive | The American Prospect.

I forgot. They aren’t even meant for all citizens. All that has to happen to take away these natural rights is for anyone in the government to claim you have terrorist connections.  I guess under Republicans it’s up to neocons to decide who gets rights and who doesn’t. Under Obama is it Holder, Van Jones, SEIU or some other socialist group?