Town charges for 911 calls

Posted by Jason | Posted in Government, Video | Posted on 23-02-2010

0

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmDH8UzgnZ4

via Hot Air.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Borrowing our way to wealth, jobs bill passes Senate

Posted by Jason | Posted in Economics | Posted on 23-02-2010

2

When will we learn that government cannot create jobs? All that needs to happen is for the government to go home and leave us alone. We’ll create jobs. Now, the Senate passes another jobs bill that we have to borrow money to pay for. How idiotic is this? When has borrowing money ever made a nation or a person richer?

The Senate voted to advance a $15 billion job-creation package Monday, showing a rare hint of bipartisanship as five Republicans voted to end debate on the Democratic bill, including newly elected Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts.

via Senate Advances Jobs Bill – WSJ.com.

Thanks Scott Brown! Some conservative, although who didn’t see that coming. Are Republicans still going to talk about this idiot as a Presidential candidate?

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Obama, Our Fascist in Chief

Posted by Jason | Posted in Health Care | Posted on 22-02-2010

4

You seriously have to laugh at the idiocy of our government officials. They simultaneously do things that drive up costs at the same time they try to cap costs. It’s like trying to squeeze the air out of one end of a balloon at the same time trying to keep it from going to the other end.

Seeking to revive his stalled health-care legislation, President Barack Obama is proposing a new idea to address health costs, giving the federal government authority to block insurers from making premium rate increases.

Sorry, one second. I’ll be right back…………

Ok, I didn’t think so. I was looking to see where in the Constitution it says the Federal government has any power to block private enterprises from raising their prices. Competition will prevent private enterprise from raising their prices above market prices. Oh, that’s right our government prevents competition between states.

The move raises the ante after two weeks of presidential bashing of rate increases including WellPoint Inc.’s decision to raise premiums for some California customers by as much as 39%. WellPoint has defended its price increase as unavoidable in light of rising health costs.

While I would hate to sound like a conspiracy nut, this huge rate hike sure comes at an opportune time for ObamaCare. I mean, if I wanted to help out Obama, I would probably do just this. This would make people just mad enough to say “Screw it. Let the government take over the industry. How can they justify a 39% increase.”

Meanwhile, once the health care theft bill is passed, the insurance companies have a huge increase of new customers who have no choice but to buy their crappy products. After all, the customers has a gun pointed at them.

Private insurance companies are now regulated by the states, which review proposed rate increases. Under the Obama proposal, the federal Department of Health and Human Services would gain the power to review and block premium increases.

via Obama in New Health Push to Block Insurers From Raising Premiums – WSJ.com.

Wow, I didn’t realize there was no federal regulation of the insurance industry. The Wall Street Journal really did break news this morning. Can we confirm this and burn all the papers in the federal registry?

States, like the rest of our government idiots, do tell insurance companies they have to provide coverage for all kinds of medical conditions even when the customer doesn’t want or need it. This does not help consumer. They are not getting something for nothing just because state governments tell insurance companies they have to provide certain coverages. The customer still has to pay for services they never wanted and do not need.

Then in order to make sure the citizen can’t avoid the idiotic ideas of their local states, the federal government steps in and makes sure you are trapped. They make sure you cannot buy insurance from across state lines. This is no different than how they trap us into the expensive drug market we have here in the US. Because we aren’t allowed to buy drugs from across the border, drug companies can charge whatever they want.

After all this anti-free market, anti-consumer, anti-freedom idiocy is put into place, you get demagogues like Obama saying the free market has failed. He must step in. The government must have the power to take over the private sector in order to save us. Meanwhile, the only saving we need is from our fascist government.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Teapartiers, thank Glenn Beck for the roadmap to destroy the movement

Posted by Jason | Posted in Video | Posted on 21-02-2010

8

Now that Glenn Beck used the 9/11 Truther question to attempt to discredit Debra Medina, it appears he has handed the left the perfect stick to beat the teapartiers over the head with.

Luckily, teapartiers are not Jason Mattera‘s Obama Zombies. They have people like Sheriff Mack, who know what and why they believe what they believe, so they don’t fall for idiots like Chris Matthews.

Another find from the Daily Paul.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Ron Paul at CPAC

Posted by Jason | Posted in Video | Posted on 20-02-2010

0

Ron Paul show’s what real conservatism is about at CPAC. The love the entrance music.

Sorry for the quality. This is the only video I could find that was full length.

YouTube – Ron Paul at CPAC – FULL SPEECH 2/19/10.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Great Speech by Judge Napolitano

Posted by Jason | Posted in Miscellaneous, Video | Posted on 20-02-2010

3

Great video I found on the Daily Paul.

All Republicans need to watch this. I don’t think they realize, while they are claiming they are for liberty, they are handing the government the tools to steal that liberty because of their foreign policy positions.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Gun Ban Case Could Mean You Have No Rights

Posted by Jason | Posted in Gun Control | Posted on 19-02-2010

0

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments related to gun bans in Chicago and Oak Park, Ill. Those trying to uphold the bans are arguing that the second amendment does not limit what states can do. It only applies to the federal government. If the court rules in this direction, what does that say about the rest of the Bill of Rights?

The court will consider March 2 whether the Constitution blocks states from restricting handguns. The case could further rework arms regulations in the aftermath of the court’s 2008 decision to strike down a law for violating the Second Amendment for the first time.

That decision invalidated the District of Columbia’s handgun ban for infringing what the court called an “inherent right to self-defense.” The capital’s peculiar status as a federal enclave, however, left unclear the implications for state law.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments over that question in challenges to handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park, Ill., weighing whether the principle it set for Washington, D.C. also applies to states and local communities. The issue has scrambled traditional alliances, as gun-rights groups battle each other over how to argue the case, and some left- and right-leaning legal theorists unite over how to interpret the Constitution.

No need to worry. The Supreme Court supposedly leans conservative now. I’m sure our rights will be protected.

In judging the justice’s stances, most enigmatic may be that of Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in the District of Columbia case.

In a 1997 book, “A Matter of Interpretation,” Justice Scalia wrote that he viewed “the Second Amendment as a guarantee that the federal government would not interfere with the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

Yet, this next passage gives court watchers some pause. “Of course,” Justice Scalia continued, “properly understood, it is no limitation upon arms control by the states.”

Now a claim to the contrary—that the Second Amendment does limit arms control by the states—is pending. Justice Scalia declined to comment through a court spokeswoman.

via Handgun Case Creates Odd Alliances – WSJ.com.

Eh boy. Guess we can’t just assume that we will have our rights protected. So, if what Scalia said in his book is the way he rules, what does that say for the rest of the Bill of Rights? Can we look forward to states establishing their own churches? Maybe they can limit our free speech by imprisoning us without due process and use cruel and unusual punishments on us when we complain about the state? Hey now you say? Well, apparently the Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government. You can’t go around proclaiming your rights to the state.

It would seem only our “elite” politicians and judges could have a hard time understanding the intent of the second amendment. How hard is it to interpret,

“the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”?

Sounds pretty straight forward to me. It does not say “shall not be infringed by the federal government”. Maybe the founders made a mistake using words. Maybe pictures would have helped our leaders figure out what they meant.

Clearly the right to bear arms without government interference was the intent of the founders. By the very statement in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed  by our creator with the unalienable right to life and liberty (and property which was edited out), it would seem to me implies you have a right to defend that life, liberty and property. If we are stripped of our right to defend ourselves by the state, then you really have no rights at all. You only have the rights that have yet to be taken from you.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Time For The Middle Class To Eat The Cost of Government

Posted by Jason | Posted in Economics, Government | Posted on 19-02-2010

6

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.”

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 8.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Obama the statesman or the great instigator?

Posted by Jason | Posted in Foreign Policy | Posted on 18-02-2010

0

It seems the Obama administration is either purposefully trying to start an economic world war or he’s just an idiot. Flip a coin, because which one it is won’t make a dimes worth of difference. According to a post from lewrockwell.com, Obama is using the Toyota recall as a weapon against Japan.

The Obama administration, according to WMR’s Asian sources, is waging an economic warfare campaign, coupled with industrial sabotage, against Japan through a pre-planned operation directed against the Japanese automobile manufacturer, Toyota.

WMR has learned that the Obama administration authorized the anti-Toyota campaign as a warning shot to Japan over its reformist government’s insistence that the U.S. pull its military troops out of Okinawa. WMR has learned that Obama and his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, have decided to turn the screws on Japan, not only for auto market leverage, but also to punish Japan over the insistence by Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama and the newly-elected anti-U.S. military mayor of Nago on Okinawa to move the U.S. military off of Okinawa.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a former congressman from Peoria, Illinois, and who is owned and operated by Peoria-based Caterpillar, whose major competitor is Japan’s Kubota Tractor Corporation, kicked off the anti-Toyota campaign when he stated that all Toyoya owners should stop driving their vehicles and return them to the dealership for a fix. LaHood was referring to a problem with some uncontrolled acceleration problems with some Toyota vehicles. However, LaHood painted a wide brush in his comments about Toyotas when the problem, which resulted in a voluntary recall of millions of Toyota vehicles, including the popular Camry and Corolla, by the Japanese auto giant, affected only a small fraction of Toyota vehicles. LaHood has also threatened Toyota with unspecified civil penalties.

Asian intelligence agencies have discovered that LaHood was implementing a White House operation to grab a major portion of Toyota’s market share and hand it over the General Motors and Ford. The Obama administration, through its bailout of GM, has become a virtual auto company and, therefore, is playing economic hardball with Japan. Ford also benefited from the Obama administration’s stimulus package. The chief architects of the anti-Toyota campaign, according to our sources, are Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and White House Chief of Staff Emanuel.

By increasing GM’s viability at the expense of Toyota, Geithner sees a potential windfall when the federal government sells its share of GM stock to the public. The corporate media have played along with the Obama administration’s anti-Toyota and anti-Japan operation by hyping the safety issues with Toyota’s vehicles, especially the popular Prius hybrid vehicle. The Obama administration has decided on economic warfare against Toyota to restore GM as the world’s number one auto manufacturer, a position enjoyed by GM until 2007 when Toyota overtook it in sales.

via Obama Waging Economic Warfare on Several Fronts, Including Japan.

I’m so glad Obama is so good at the foreign policy stuff. I mean there has been so many great foreign policy achievements since he came into office. He got our troops our of Iraq as promised. What? He didn’t? OK, well at least we are not acting like a belligerent nation dropping bombs all over the middle east. Are serious? He’s had more drone attacks in one year than Bush did in eight? Yeah, but he sat down with Iranians and work out a peaceful solution to the tensions between our countries. What do you mean Hillary just turned up the heat saying Iran is a dictatorship?

Eh boy.

You mean with all the chills that went up people’s legs, Obama pretty much sucks at foreign policy? Now he is going to start an economic war with our biggest debt holders?

Under Obama we just sold weapons to Taiwan, which angered China. Obama and Hillary both keep sticking their fingers in the eye of the Chinese government about their censorship of the internet. Obama also imposed tariffs on steel and on tires from China.

China already dumped some of our debt, which made Japan our biggest debt holder. Just one of those countries dumping our debt could collapse our economy. What happens if they both do it?

Now we are instigating a fight with Japan using Toyota, because we don’t want to remove our base from Okinawa. I thought we weren’t an empire. Surely, if we weren’t an empire, we’d have no reason to use coercion against the Japanese. If they want us out, we should leave. Better yet, we should not even have waited to be asked. Considering our finances, we should have closed that base long ago.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 10.0/10 (2 votes cast)

Privatizing 911 because life is too precious to be trusted to government.

Posted by Jason | Posted in Government | Posted on 18-02-2010

7

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.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)