Is it even possible to make more friends than enemies in Afghanistan?

With each civilian death, an entire family, a group of friends, neighbors, and other sympathetic Afghans probably turn anti-American and anti-occupation.

The New York Times had an article yesterday about our troops opening fire on a bus of civilians. How many minds did this turn away?  Can you even win the hearts and minds of a population with military action, when the main function of a military is force and violence(Don’t mean this condemningly. This is what militaries are for.)?

KABUL, Afghanistan — American troops raked a large passenger bus with gunfire near Kandahar on Monday morning, killing as many as five civilians and wounding 18, and sparking anger in a city where winning over Afghan support is considered pivotal to the war effort.

The American-led military command in Kabul called the killings a “tragic loss of life” and said troops fired not knowing the vehicle was a bus and believing that it posed a threat to a military convoy clearing roadside bombs from a highway.

The deaths triggered a vitriolic anti-American demonstration, infuriated officials and appeared likely to harm public opinion on the eve of the most important offensive of the war, in which tens of thousands of American and NATO troops will try to take control of the Kandahar region, the spiritual home of the Taliban, this summer.

Hundreds of demonstrators poured into the area around a station where the damaged bus was taken on the western outskirts of Kandahar. They blocked the road with burning tires for an hour and shouted, “Death to America” and “Death to infidels” while also condemning the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, according to people in the area.

This does not sounds like future friends of ours.

The Kandahar governor, Tooryalai Wesa, called for the commander of the military convoy who opened fire to be prosecuted under military law.

“If you want to stop the bus, it should be shot in the tires,” Mr. Wesa said. “Why shoot the people inside?”

This is a very good point. By no way would I criticize our troops actions, for I cannot image the pressure and daily fear they must deal with. Unfortunately, the Afghans are not going to be sympathetic to our troops when they fear our troops and have to worry about being killed for doing nothing wrong.

Two people who had been on the bus said that an American convoy 60 to 70 yards ahead opened fire as the bus began to pull to the side of the road to allow another military convoy to pass from behind.

“An American convoy was ahead of us and another convoy was following us, and we were going to pull off of the road, and suddenly the Americans opened fire,” said one, Nida Muhammad, a passenger who suffered a shoulder wound.

“We were not close to them, maybe 60 yards away from their convoy,” Mr. Muhammad said. A helicopter came for some wounded, he said.

“This bus wasn’t like an a suicide bomber, and we did not touch or come close to the convoy,” he said. “It seems they are opening fire on civilians intentionally.”

Again, I wouldn’t blame our troops, but it is not good if Afghans think we are “opening fire on civilians intentionally.” All blame should be directed towards our leaders at this point. To this day, there still seems to be no end in site. Our interests are not being served by a long and increasing unpopular occupation.

Civilians Killed as U.S. Troops Fire on Afghan Bus – NYTimes.com.

After all the stimulus, bailing out Wall Street to save Main Street, devaluing the dollar with the printing press, and TARP, Robert Reich tells us we are looking at a horrible job market for the foreseeable future.

The U.S. economy added 162,000 jobs in March. That sounds impressive until you look more closely. At least a third of them were temporary government hires to take the census—better than no job but hardly worth writing home about.

Reich doesn’t tell you that almost every month previously was basically all government jobs. What do those jobs produce? They produce absolutely nothing, which means all they are doing is consuming what would have otherwise went towards other economic activities that would have produced something, and when there is production, there are real jobs. Every dollar spent by the government is taken out of the real job creating private sector. Considering the current regime, it’s no wonder Reich is so bleak.

Since the start of the Great Recession in December 2007, the economy has shed 8.4 million jobs and failed to create another 2.7 million required by an ever-larger pool of potential workers. That leaves us more than 11 million jobs behind. (The number is worse if you include everyone working part-time who’d rather it be full-time, those working full-time at fewer hours, and people who are overqualified for the jobs they’re in.) This means even if we enjoy a vigorous recovery that produces, say, 300,000 net new jobs a month, we could be looking at five to eight years before catching up to where we were before the recession began.

Lovely. Add ObamaCare on top of that, and what will we be looking at? Maybe Reich’s five to eight years is taking into account how long it will take for companies to adapt to the new costs of doing business. Of course, that ignores the countless businesses that will never form and jobs never created because of the cost of ObamaCare. No worries though! They’ll have free health care!

Given how many Americans are unemployed or underemployed, it’s hard to see where we get sufficient demand to support a vigorous recovery. Outlays from the federal stimulus have already passed their peak (Did I miss the peak? Man I wanted to see the peak. I bet it was amazing considering how much it cost.) , and the Federal Reserve won’t keep interest rates near zero for very long (let’s hope not). Although consumers are beginning to come out of their holes, it will be many years before they can return to their pre-recession levels of spending. Most households rely on two wage earners, of whom at least one is now likely to be unemployed, underemployed or in danger of losing a job. And even households whose incomes have returned are likely to be residing in houses whose values haven’t—which means they can’t turn their homes into cash machines as they did before the recession.

This to me sounds like an admission that Keynesian economics and it’s economic manipulating tools have lost effect. In the past, they would create a false boom that would eventually bust. This is what happened in the DotCom bubble and then the housing bubble. While the Keynesians probably stood around in delight to the boom they manufactured, eventually they came crashing down on us in progressively worse busts. Now it seems the bust is so big, that their tools can’t create the false booms they once did. While I’m glad the tools aren’t working, because maybe we can get back to real growth, I’m sure they’ll keep trying and we’ll keep paying.

What’s likely to slow the jobs recovery most, however, is the indubitable reality that many of the jobs that have been lost will never return.

The Great Recession has accelerated a structural shift in the economy that had been slowly building for years. Companies have used the downturn to aggressively trim payrolls, making cuts they’ve been reluctant to make before. Outsourcing abroad has increased dramatically. Companies have discovered that new software and computer technologies have made many workers in Asia and Latin America almost as productive as Americans, and that the Internet allows far more work to be efficiently moved to another country without loss of control.

Companies have also cut costs by substituting more computerized equipment for labor. They’ve made greater use of numerically controlled machine tools, robotics and a wide range of office software.

Where have I heard this before? Maybe we should just throw all the technologies out. Then maybe we can pay some people to dig holes, while others are paid to fill them. It’s amazing that such a famous economist is so ignorant about technology. Technology doesn’t cost us jobs and drive business overseas. Technology increases productivity, which leads to more wealth and a better standard of living. We’ve had increasing technology throughout mankind, and it has always led to a higher standard of living. There are always going to be people harmed by the changes though, but then they will adjust, and their standard of living will be better as well. Just think of those poor horse carriage builders who were put out of work with the introduction of the automobile.

The problem with driving business overseas is a self inflicted wound. Our government continually piles burdens on business and citizens, which ultimately drives up the cost of each US based employee to the point where the foreign employee is much more competitive.

These cost-cutting moves have allowed many companies to show profits notwithstanding relatively poor sales. Alcoa, for example, had $1.5 billion in cash at the end of last year, double what it had on hand at the end of 2008. It managed this largely by cutting 28,000 jobs, 32% of its work force. But for workers, there’s no return. Those who have lost their jobs to foreign outsourcing or labor-replacing technologies are unlikely ever to get them back. And they have little hope of finding new jobs that pay as well. More than 40% of today’s unemployed have been without work for over six months, a higher proportion than at any time in 60 years.

And guess what, we are all better off for it. Would we be better off if Alcoa didn’t layoff employees, and 80,000 employees lost their jobs when the company went bust? As crappy as layoffs are, they are in the economic interests of the company and the society as a whole. They allow companies to stay in business, to keep the remaining workers employed, and to fight another day.

I guess to a statist like Reich companies should run themselves into the ground, so they can then stand around telling us how the free market has failed and the government needs to take over.

The only way many of today’s jobless are likely to retain their jobs or get new ones is by settling for much lower wages and benefits. The official unemployment numbers hide the extent to which American workers are already on this downward path. But if you look at income data you’ll see the drop.

Among those with jobs, more and more have accepted lower pay and benefits as a condition for keeping them. Or they have lost higher-paying jobs and are now in new ones that pay less. Or new hires are paid far lower wages than the old. (In January, Ford Motor Co. announced that it would add 1,200 jobs at its Chicago assembly plant but didn’t trumpet that the new workers will be paid half of what current workers were paid when they began.) Or they have become consultants or temporary workers whose pay is unsteady and benefits nonexistent.

Americans will once again be employed, but they will also be back on the downward escalator of declining pay they rode before the Great Recession.

Robert Reich: The Jobs Picture Still Looks Bleak – WSJ.com.

So Americans can look forward to declining pay with devalued dollars. Man, Reich is making me feel positive today. The reason you have declining pay in recessions is because the rise in pay during the previous boom wasn’t based on real productivity increases. It was based on false booms created by the Federal Reserve. People need to wake up and see the game that is played here. The government creates false booms and claims credit for it. It creates new government programs, because “In a wealthy nation, no one should go without ….”. Then when it all comes crashing down, government tells us the free market failed and we must implement  “insert deceiving name here”, because the “the government must save the free market from itself”

What Reich doesn’t tell you is Keynesian economics promotes declining wages in order to stimulate a recovery. It wants to devalue the currency, so that employees don’t realize they have taken a pay cut. While this might have worked in the past to trick workers, no one seems to be playing along anymore. Pay is still being devalued in real dollars, but companies are still cutting pay in nominal dollars.

With all this pessimism by Reich, can we at least get him to admit that the government can’t fix it, that is has made things worse, that the Fed needs to quit creating false booms, and finally that the government needs to stay the hell out of the economy? Ah, probably not.

In the first part of Federalist Paper XXXIX, Madison talked about what a republic is, and I posed the question “Are we a republic?” While in the first part Madison talks about what a republic is, in the second part of the paper he discusses whether our government is a national (democracy) government, where states no longer hold power, or whether our government is a federal government meaning it is divided into “sovereign States”.

“But it was not sufficient,” say the adversaries of the proposed Constitution, “for the convention to adhere to the republican form. They ought, with equal care, to have preserved the FEDERAL form, which regards the Union as a CONFEDERACY of sovereign states; instead of which, they have framed a NATIONAL government, which regards the Union as a CONSOLIDATION of the States.” And it is asked by what authority this bold and radical innovation was undertaken? The handle which has been made of this objection requires that it should be examined with some precision.

First, one must ask why those who just fought the revolutionary war wanted to preserve the “FEDERAL form”. The reason is individual states knew that their values, ideas, industry, etc were not the same. Just like individuals with different backgrounds value things differently, so did the states. They knew that if the states gave into a national government, they would have outright democracy where the majority rules over the minority. While you would still have democracy on the state level, those within the individual states would have similar backgrounds and interests. If on the other hand it was a national government, meaning a nationwide democracy, the highly populated states could force their values and economics on a larger number of lesser populated states. Quickly the more heavily populated states would control the government, and you would have tyranny. By keeping the “CONFEDERACY”, states could govern the way their people wanted to be governed. Southern states could have low tariffs to help export tobacco, while northern states could raise tariffs hoping to boost domestic industry. If the government is national, it would favor the populated states at the expense of lesser populated states.  It would and unfortunately it did raise tariffs, which was one of the reasons for the civil war. The southern economy suffered under tariffs that were put into place to support northern industry.

Without inquiring into the accuracy of the distinction on which the objection is founded, it will be necessary to a just estimate of its force, first, to ascertain the real character of the government in question; secondly, to inquire how far the convention were authorized to propose such a government; and thirdly, how far the duty they owed to their country could supply any defect of regular authority.

First. In order to ascertain the real character of the government, it may be considered in relation to the foundation on which it is to be established; to the sources from which its ordinary powers are to be drawn; to the operation of those powers; to the extent of them; and to the authority by which future changes in the government are to be introduced.

On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a NATIONAL, but a FEDERAL act.

That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a MAJORITY of the people of the Union, nor from that of a MAJORITY of the States. It must result from the UNANIMOUS assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.

Here Madison highlights that it is the states as “distinct and independent States” that are ratifying the Constitution. It is not automatically ratified by a majority, but it must be unanimous, meaning that is it not democratic. States, if they did not want to ratify the Constitution, would not be compelled into membership by the majority. It would appear that membership into the union is voluntary, which would mean that it is not democratic. Democracy is not voluntary for those who disagree with the majority.

The next relation is, to the sources from which the ordinary powers of government are to be derived. The House of Representatives will derive its powers from the people of America; and the people will be represented in the same proportion, and on the same principle, as they are in the legislature of a particular State. So far the government is NATIONAL, not FEDERAL. The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress. So far the government is FEDERAL, not NATIONAL. The executive power will be derived from a very compound source. The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters. The votes allotted to them are in a compound ratio, which considers them partly as distinct and coequal societies, partly as unequal members of the same society. The eventual election, again, is to be made by that branch of the legislature which consists of the national representatives; but in this particular act they are to be thrown into the form of individual delegations, from so many distinct and coequal bodies politic. From this aspect of the government it appears to be of a mixed character, presenting at least as many FEDERAL as NATIONAL features.

The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the NATIONAL, not the FEDERAL character; though perhaps not so completely as has been understood. In several cases, and particularly in the trial of controversies to which States may be parties, they must be viewed and proceeded against in their collective and political capacities only. So far the national countenance of the government on this side seems to be disfigured by a few federal features. But this blemish is perhaps unavoidable in any plan; and the operation of the government on the people, in their individual capacities, in its ordinary and most essential proceedings, may, on the whole, designate it, in this relation, a NATIONAL government.

Here Madison is just saying that the government powers will be exercised nationally, because they ultimately are laws on individuals. They would not be applied to individuals in one state and not another. Also, they would not be laws on the States.

But if the government be national with regard to the OPERATION of its powers, it changes its aspect again when we contemplate it in relation to the EXTENT of its powers. The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things, so far as they are objects of lawful government. Among a people consolidated into one nation, this supremacy is completely vested in the national legislature. Among communities united for particular purposes, it is vested partly in the general and partly in the municipal legislatures. In the former case, all local authorities are subordinate to the supreme; and may be controlled, directed, or abolished by it at pleasure. In the latter, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere. In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a NATIONAL one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects. It is true that in controversies relating to the boundary between the two jurisdictions, the tribunal which is ultimately to decide, is to be established under the general government. But this does not change the principle of the case. The decision is to be impartially made, according to the rules of the Constitution; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality. Some such tribunal is clearly essential to prevent an appeal to the sword and a dissolution of the compact; and that it ought to be established under the general rather than under the local governments, or, to speak more properly, that it could be safely established under the first alone, is a position not likely to be combated.

Here Madison lays out some great points about a national versus a federal government. In a national government, the national government is the ultimate power. It rules over all other governments, including local governments. It would have the power to abolish those governments and tell them how to operate. Under a federal government, the federal government is not all powerful. It cannot exercise power over states, municipalities, or even the local school board. This is why you see our government use other measures. It long ago found a way around this limitation. By stealing our incomes through the income tax, it is now able to to use that money to bribe states and local governments. If states and municipalities want federal funding, they have to submit to the federal government’s will and do what they tell them do to. If they don’t, they basically have their money stolen and handed to the other governments who bow down to their master. They are then bribing the other states to participate in what they disagreed with.

If we try the Constitution by its last relation to the authority by which amendments are to be made, we find it neither wholly NATIONAL nor wholly FEDERAL. Were it wholly national, the supreme and ultimate authority would reside in the MAJORITY of the people of the Union; and this authority would be competent at all times, like that of a majority of every national society, to alter or abolish its established government. Were it wholly federal, on the other hand, the concurrence of each State in the Union would be essential to every alteration that would be binding on all. The mode provided by the plan of the convention is not founded on either of these principles. In requiring more than a majority, and principles. In requiring more than a majority, and particularly in computing the proportion by STATES, not by CITIZENS, it departs from the NATIONAL and advances towards the FEDERAL character; in rendering the concurrence of less than the whole number of States sufficient, it loses again the FEDERAL and partakes of the NATIONAL character.

Lastly, Madison goes into how the government is changed. The amendment process is not federal, because it does not require each state to ratify it. It is not democratic either, because it requires more than a simple majority to ratify an amendment. Also, it is not ratified directly by the people. It is ratified by the states.

I think Madison points out in most instances it’s federal with some national hues to it. Unfortunately, I think he thought it would remain this way. We have moved further and further toward national government where every issue now becomes national. Every law, idea, etc is pushed to the national level and implemented on the whole of the people. We are no longer more federal than national, and while Madison’s argument was compelling at the time, I think those who opposed the Constitution were more prescient.

William F. Buckley, Jr. once said he’d rather entrust our government to the first 400 people in the phone book than the faculty of Harvard. What he meant was he trusts the common sense wisdom of the average American more than the political elites, who think they know best how everyone else should live. This video shows how true this is.

Also, while Republican party loyalists think the GOP believes in the Constitution and liberty, here is the GOP’s biggest stalwart showing how false that is.

From HotAir.com

The lady in the audience, who Tom Coburn basically ridicules in another part of this discussion as a brainwashed idiot who only watches Fox News, seems to understand how government works better than the senator. She simply points out that people can have their liberty taken from them and put in jail if they don’t buy insurance as our overlords have mandated. What’s Coburn’s reply? “Putting people in jail is not the intention.” Really? That makes me feel better. As long as that’s not the intention, who gives a rat’s ass what the outcome is.

I’m sure it wasn’t the intention of the slave master to kill his slave either. He just wanted him to work. When he refused to work, he beat him. Then when he tried to defend himself, the slave master just had to kill him.

He then goes on to say the intention is for the IRS to coerce you into abiding by your overlord’s dictates. This is different how? Does Coburn know what the IRS uses to back up it’s threats? If you do not pay your taxes what happens? Oh sure, they’ll start off by only fining you, but what happens if you insist on claiming your right to make your own choices about what you should do with your own money? You will quickly find yourself being arrested and sent to prison. Then what happens if you try to defend yourself against your imprisoners? Wonder what Coburn thinks would happen then? You would quickly find yourself dead, just as the slave who defies his slave master.

Every demand the government makes on you is backed up by that one underlying threat of taking your life from you. Sure they’d rather you comply without resorting to killing you, but if it becomes necessary, you will comply or die. If you do not comply, you’ll be fined. If you don’t pay your fines, you’ll be imprisoned. If you fight for your freedom from imprisonment, you will be killed. While most Americans think this is OK, because you should just have did what they told you, it is just proof that you are not free. You are a slave to the government, who just wants you to work like you’re told.

Today, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals actually stood up for the free market and property rights. Let’s hope this is a sign of things to come.

The DC circuit Court of Appeals gave the Obama administration a big dash of cold water on the limits of its authority to impose rules on communications networks today. In essence, the court recognized Comcast’s property rights to determine its own terms of service for Internet use, and the implications could affect Barack Obama’s plans to mandate broadband expansion as well:

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that the Federal Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks.

The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation’s largest cable company. It had challenged the FCC’s authority to impose so-called “net neutrality” obligations on broadband providers. …

The decision also has serious implications for the massive national broadband plan released by the FCC last month. The FCC needs clear authority to regulate broadband in order to push ahead with some its key recommendations, including a proposal to expand broadband by tapping the federal fund that subsidizes telephone service in poor and rural communities.

via Hot Air » Blog Archive » Breaking: Appeals court rejects FCC authority for Net Neutrality.

Net neutrality is a governmental trojan horse to take control of the internet. This is a win for the good guys. For those of you who may have missed my blog on why net neutrality is a bad idea, you can read it here.

Robert Ringer has a blog up about a coming US dictatorship.

In my article ”Saying Yes to the Party of No,” I commented on how pleased I’ve been to see Glenn Beck talking about a subject I’ve been writing about since the late seventies: a government-declared state of emergency leading to a ”temporary” dictatorship.

I have long believed that the mathematics of an insatiable entitlement society in the U.S. guarantees a runaway inflation, which likely would be followed by anarchy and chaos – a perfect excuse for government to resort to strong-armed totalitarian measures to ”restore order.” My model has always been Germany’s Weimar Republic in the 1920s, where runaway inflation brought Adolf Hitler to power.

I originally believed that the runaway-inflation scenario in the U.S. would play out in the early 1980s, but a combination of Ronald Reagan and an explosion in computers and electronic technology made possible by the remnants of our capitalist system headed it off.

And here’s my odds based on what I know and see today:

• The chances of a declared state of emergency and ensuing dictatorship prior to the 2010 elections: 25%
• The chances of a declared state of emergency and ensuing dictatorship prior to the 2012 elections: 50%
• The chances of the U.S. dollar becoming worthless within three years: 25%
• The chances of the U.S. dollar becoming worthless within ten years: 90%
• The chances of the Republicans cutting back on major entitlements if they regain power in the 2010 elections: Zero
• The chances of the Republicans cutting back on major entitlements if they win the presidency and an overwhelming majority in Congress in 2012: 5%
• The chances of the so-called tea-party people (i.e., everyday Americans who believe in liberty) winning out over the long haul: Hmm … let me procrastinate on that one a bit before I lay odds.

via Robert Ringer’s Voice of Sanity Blog.

So, what do you think the chances are? Unfortunately, I think too many Americans think this could never happen, which means more than likely it will. Americans have become lazy about freedom and assume its something that has always been there and always will be. History on the other hand is a long list of dictatorships, tyrannies. and empires.

Personally, I think the article is interesting, but irrelevant. Who cares if we are a dictatorship or not, if our government is already oppressive and tyrannical. A government that moves from securing your individual rights to engineering society, stealing from producers, and spreading empire is no longer a government of free people. To pursue those goals it becomes oppressive and tyrannical.

Because everything the government says is backed up by force, because it has a monopoly on force, government is oppressive by its very nature. Our Constitution was constructed to prevent oppression and tyranny, and it meant to direct the power of government towards individual liberty. That is what made America so great. Unfortunately, it has failed. After just a little over 200 years, the Constitution has been bent to justify tyranny. With the latest health care bill, the government has literally stuck a gun to every citizens head and said you will buy what I say or face the consequences.

Dictatorship or not, we already live under a government of despots.

How do we get cost savings in the free market? Do businesses say they are going to deny people products and services that consumers demand in order to save money? No. People save money by entrepreneurs competing to deliver better and cheaper products and services. If an entrepreneur sees that a company is charging too much, he or she will say “I can deliver that same service for less money and still make a profit.”, and they jump into the business (well unless the government sets up a road block). In doing so, they push down the cost of that product or service.

Also, if a product or service has low profit margins but is still extremely expensive, an entrepreneur will say, “Couldn’t this substitute product deliver the same effect at a lower cost?”, and they’d come up with a substitute. This happens all the time. Look a copper plumbing. All the competition in the world isn’t going to lower the price enough, so entrepreneurs developed substitutes for plumbing. Now they run piping with PEX, which is about 1/1oth the cost of copper.

So, if we want to lower health care costs, we should remove the government’s barriers and allow the free market to bring prices down. Instead, what are we doing? What is ObamaCare going to do to lower costs? Well, ask Paul Krugman, the lefts’ superhero economist.

How’s a real economist put it? Here’s Robert Wenzel from EconomicPolicyJournal.

BTW, I do agree with him that many are, in one area, overestimating the cost of ObamaCare. Between death panels and the general decline in life expectancy that is going to occur, the actuarial costs based on life expectancy will be too high. That said, the structure overall is designed to explode overall healthcare costs. When you have demanders of services who don’t have to pay the direct cost, they will demand and demand.

via EconomicPolicyJournal.com

While this is no shocker to those of us who know government is a completely ineffective, you would think this would make the most ardent defenders of the state question how effective government is.

About half of the more than 4,000 security cameras installed along New York City’s subways are not working.

At the same time, the cash-strapped Metropolitan Transportation Authority has cut the number of weekend police patrols on major bridges and tunnels.

Critics say the non-working cameras are a blind spot in the crime and terrorism safety net for the nation’s largest city.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Tuesday that the MTA needs more funding. But he says Albany lawmakers turned down a plan that would’ve eliminated most of the agency’s problems.

MTA officials say safety of riders is the top priority. They point out that about half of the cameras do work and about 900 more will work by June.

The problem of missing video came to light after two men were stabbed to death on the subway — and there was no camera installed in the station to catch an image of the killer. Darnell Morel and Ricardo Williams, both 24, were killed in a fight that started around 5 a.m. Sunday at the Christopher Street station, about four miles from the World Trade Center site.

via The Associated Press: Insecurity cams? About half in NYC don’t work.

Can you image a private security company pointing out, as if this is proof of their good work, that half of their cameras “do work”? Luckily for us, with private business, we abolish them by not using their services. With government, we are stuck with them. They have the guns.

Can’t wait till these morons run all of health care. It should be interesting being rushed into an emergency room. Your health care will be like playing a game. Do you get lucky and get put into the room with working equipment, or do you go to the room with the broken down equipment? Who knows! Maybe they can turn this into a reality show, so the government dependents can feel good about the disasterous system. I can hear it now. “I’m having a heart attack. I’m going to be on TV! “

Democrats were jumping ugly when Sarah Palin said under ObamaCare we would have death panels. What she didn’t mention is that we already have death panels. Every year people die while the FDA forces companies to funnel money into their coffers, so they can “protect” us.

But what if we don’t want protected? Shouldn’t we have a choice?

Last month, Stossel had a special on how the FDA’s claims of being our protectors. He highlighted that when the FDA states that a new drug that they just approved will save X number of lives per year, what they are really saying is their 10 to 15 year drug approval period costs X number of lives every year while they held up the drug for approval.

The incentives at the FDA are to drag out drug approvals despite the lives it costs. There is no public uproar for those who die waiting. There is only uproar for those who take a drug that has been approved and results in side effects. With this upside down incentive, the FDA more than likely costs more lives than it would other wise cost if drugs were not regulated at all.

“Well, that’s just the system.”, you say. “You can’t really call that a death panel.”

But what if you were dying, and you wanted to take a drug that has shown promise? What if the only way to get the drug was to beg your government to allow you to have it? Well that is the reality many people face. Because the FDA has a monopoly on approving drugs, those who are the most ill among us must beg for the chance to save their own lives. What do side effects matter when you are going to die anyway? At least with an experimental drug, you might have a chance. Without it, the result is already known. Why does the government decide you should not have that opportunity? Who gave them the wisdom to decide someone must die?

The reason they cannot let people have untested drugs is because people would quickly catch onto their game. Soon people would challenge the idea of the FDA altogether, and to prevent that, they must let people die, people like Anna Tomalis, a 13 year old girl who fought to the very end to make sure others would have the opportunity she was denied.

Here is a blog post about Anna Tomalis followed by Stossel’s show where he talks about her.

Last Friday, I attended the funeral of a remarkable 13-year-old girl named Anna Tomalis. For the past three years, Anna had been battling terminal cancer and, more recently, trying to get the Food and Drug Administration to grant a “compassionate use” exemption so she could try an experimental cancer drug now being jointly developed by the pharmaceutical companies ARIAD and Merck. Unfortunately, FDA rarely grants exemptions. If too many exemptions are granted, it would become harder to enroll patients in clinical trials, where they have as much as a 50-50 chance of getting a placebo. Anna was too young and too sick to be admitted to any of the clinical trials, so that wasn’t at issue here. But, of course, the whole point of FDA is to keep individuals from making their own decisions about which drugs to take. So, eventually, after months of delay, FDA finally approved Anna’s exemption, but it came too late. She died just three weeks after beginning treatment — too little time for the drug to have worked.

I got to meet Anna and her mother Liz a few months ago, through a patient advocacy organization called the Abigail Alliance For Better Access To Developmental Drugs, with which CEI works occasionally. And, I continued to correspond with them both by e-mail ever since. Though I certainly did not know Anna very well, the service was quite moving. Her father, Ron, for example, explained that Anna realized all along that her chances of survival weren’t good. But, keeping a good attitude about the whole thing, Anna insisted that she be buried in a hot pink casket. Since no one actually makes a hot pink casket, her parents had to buy a non-descript one and take it to an auto body shop to have it painted pink.

Anna also tried to use her impending death in order to promote a change in the law that would make it easier for critically ill patients to get compassionate use exemptions. Even though she realized she wouldn’t last long enough to benefit personally from such a change, she visited Washington several times in order to advocate for such a policy. My op-ed on the subject appeared in this past weekend edition of The Wall Street Journal, and can be read here.

via Anna Tomalis, R.I.P. | OpenMarket.org.

Some “Compassionate use” exemption. Why should free people have to ask their government for an exemption? Shouldn’t we decide if we want to take a risk, when we already know what’s going to happen without doing anything? There is no compassion in government. Anytime, you see something titled like this, you can guess the exact opposite is true. There is nothing compassionate about a cold bureaucrat who wields the power of the state. They will let nothing, even a little girl, challenge their position to wield that power.

Over the weekend, I was reading some of the Federalist Papers. In particular, I was reading Madison’s Federalist Paper XXXIX, which discusses whether the proposed Constitution would create a national government, basically a democracy where the majority rules, or a federal government, where the government in broken down into a “confederacy of sovereign States”. He begins by discussing whether the proposed government is a republican government.

The first question that offers itself is, whether the general form and aspect of the government be strictly republican. It is evident that no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the Revolution; or with that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government. If the plan of the convention, therefore, be found to depart from the republican character, its advocates must abandon it as no longer defensible.

After highlighting how many other nations claimed to be republics, while at the same time having all or parts of their government ruling over the people without the people bestowing those powers unto them, Madison explains that the Constitution is not just claiming to be a republic in words but in action.

If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is ESSENTIAL to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic. It is SUFFICIENT for such a government that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people; and that they hold their appointments by either of the tenures just specified; otherwise every government in the United States, as well as every other popular government that has been or can be well organized or well executed, would be degraded from the republican character.

So, how are we stacking up as a republic these days? Do we have people administering the offices for a limited period of time and good behavior? Does Ted Kennedy or Robert Byrd ring a bell as to if our officials serve for limited time periods and good behavior? Madison explains what happens when you do not have time limits on those serving, when he says it “would be degraded from the republican character”, meaning those serving would no longer represent the people.

Also, does our government get it’s powers from the “great body of society” or from “inconsiderable proportions, or a favored class”? Between Wall Street and the enslaved entitlement recipients, I’d say it now gets it’s powers from the latter. What does Madison say that leads to? If it’s the latter “a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic.” Sounds about right to me. While our government still claims to be a republic, it does not represent the people. It now has structured privileged classes that do not look out for the “great body of society” but enslaves a large enough portion to maintain the appearance of a republic, while at the same time favoring those who grease the palms of elected officials.