More evidence that we are governed by supergeniuses

This morning the good gentlemen at Powerline direct us to some particularly egregious misuses of stimulus funds. From a list compiled by the Freedom Foundation of Minnesota:

University of Minnesota - $190,464 to study sex reversal in mice:
When taxpayers were promised that economic stimulus funds would be spent only on the most critical public projects, few would have predicted that one of those projects would involve sex reversal in mice. But that's exactly what the University of Minnesota received nearly $200,000 to study.

Rodent sexuality is apparently a hot topic these days -- another ten grand went to a Dartmouth study of "sexual arousal in anesthetized female rats." And you thought "stimulus package" referred to the economy! One can be confident that these expenditures have saved or created innumerable jobs in the crucial anesthetized-and/or-transsexual-rodent sector of the American economy.

Everybody knows that old saying that legislation is like sausage; you wouldn't want to see either being made. But that's unfair to the Jimmy Deans of the world. When they make sausage, the end product tastes good. By contrast, the stuff that comes out of the Pelosi / Reid grinder leaves a foul taste in your mouth.

Blamer-in-chief humor

What did they expect?

This morning on MSNBC on Morning Joe, a group of pundits were going on and on about how terrible it was that the health care bill turned out to be one big payoff to the health insurance industry and big pharma.

But what did they expect? There is a direct correlation between size of government and corruption. As the government gets bigger and more intrusive, it becomes a much better investment for companies and industry to spend money lobbying and bribing politicians than it does to invest in other productive activities, like developing new and better products or providing better value to customers.

One of the pundits was Carl Bernstein, and he was arguing that the only solution was public financing of political campaigns. But who would then decide who gets that public financing, and how exactly will that process not get corrupted?

The best, and perhaps only way to reduce corruption and the influence of money in politics is to shrink the size of government.

Blamer-in-chief's disapproval rating climbs to 46%

Wow, even I am surprised.


Of course, Obama continued his blame-a-thon yesterday, blaming the Bush administration for the budget outlook. That was after last week's radio address, where he blamed the economic crisis entirely on the private sector.

President Bush inherited an awful economy, as well as an Afghanistan that was in such bad shape that it was being used by Al Qaeda as a base from which to launch terrorist attacks against the US. Despite these challenges, I don't recall him whining for 11 months about what a mess he was left with.

And President Obama is launching all of these attacks knowing full well that President Bush will not respond or defend himself. What leadership!

Medicare denial rates higher than private insurer's

One argument often cited in support of single payer health care or the need for a public option is the idea that health insurance companies have an incentive to reject legitimate claims because they are motivated by profit. I find that argument similar to saying that because WalMart is motivated by profit, that it has an incentive to not honor its return policy, or that Apple has an incentive to not honor IPOD warranties, or that McDonalds has an incentive to serve its customers spoiled food because it might save them a few bucks. The reason that this is not necessarily true is because profit motivated companies have an incentive to protect their reputations, and health care insurance companies are for the most part, no different.

And if the proponents of government health care are correct, then why, according to the AMA's National Health Insurer Report Card, does Medicare apparently reject claims at a higher rate than private insurers? And why did Aetna, who rejected 6.5% of its claims in 2008, in 2009 reject only 1.81% of claims in 2009? Did Aetna all of a sudden become less concerned with profits?

Super Genius in Chief pleased to be on the precipice

"From the discussions we had, it's clear that we are on the precipice of an achievement that has eluded Congresses and presidents for decades."
--President Obama, after meeting with Senate Democrats on the health care bill, Dec. 15, 2009.

MIRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY: "1: a very steep or overhanging place; 2: a hazardous situation; broadly : brink"
--Reply by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's office.

Here's another way to look at it.

Unfortunately, if this bill passes, and it does the damage to health care, the economy, and the federal budget that I expect it will, I doubt the Democrats will ever suffer any consequences, politically. In fact, once it's in place, nationalized healthcare's failures will be taken as signs that we haven't gone far enough, that the federal role must expand even further. Though the smartest politician in the history of the universe may be delighted as he dances over the cliff, it's the rest of us who will take the fall.

"Extraordinary Measures"

Last night I attended a screening of the film Extraordinary Measures starring Harrison Ford, Brendan Fraser, and Keri Russell, set for release on January 22, 2010. It's a remarkable real life story of human action, pursuit of self interest, entrepreneurial skill, scientific ingenuity, and the indispensable role of profit maximizing financiers and corporate executives, and how it all comes together to produce a medical miracle. Yes, the business types were at times portrayed as unlikeable, but missing were the villainous corporations and heroic trial lawyers. And thankfully, government bureaucrats and politicians were no where to be found. See trailer below.

My Next Congressman?

Below is a video of a remarkable speech made by Congressional Candidate Lt. Col. Allen West that is going viral.



The speech includes some pretty strong rhetoric, including talk of a "producing class vs an entitlement class" and the idea of "taking the country back" and grabbing your "bayonets". I guess he is just another one of those "teabagging rednecks", as Janeane Garofalo likes to say.

I reviewed his website (which could use some work), and it is clear that he is a fairly consistent small government conservative, except for the fact that he is in favor of nationalizing the windstorm insurance market, a proposal also known as "bailouts for beach houses". Given the geography of the district, which hugs the coast from Northern Palm Beach county down into Broward County, I guess he can be forgiven. The other thing that is striking about the website is that it includes an entire section on Israel. Again, being outspokenly pro-Israel is perhaps another pre-requisite for winning this seat. On foreign policy, he is decidedly hawkish, calling for an end to the "PC non-sense" when it comes to fighting the war on terror, while also arguing that "we must get away from occupation warfare and nation building".

He is certainly one to watch.

Joe Barton

The Congressman who sponsored the ridiculous legislation to regulate the BCS national championship made this speech on the floor of the House regarding health care. It is both hilarious and infuriating in light of his NCAA football power grab.

Among his best lines are: "we don't believe in mandates", "we believe in individual choice", "we believe in the American system of free enterprise", and "I vote for more freedom".

If you really believe these things, then why in the world are you meddling in the affairs of the NCAA? I didn't realize Congress had the authority to regulate the use of the term "National Champion". If you don't like it, then exercise some freedom and don't watch it.

House Panel: Belichick Should Have Punted

Just kidding. A House Energy and Commerce Committee subcommittee didn't really chastise the Patriot's coach for going for it on 4th and 2 against the Colts.

But they did just approve a bill requiring the NCAA to institute a playoff system to determine the college football champion.

What a bunch of jerks. Why can't these people just do their jobs?

Michael Steele on Harry Reid's "slaveowner" comment

Harry Reid recently compared the opponents of the health care takeover to those who opposed the end of slavery and giving women the right to vote:

When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough.'

Michael Steele was asked about Harry Reid's comments this morning on Morning Joe, and he said that Reid is "out of touch" and that the remarks are "unfortunate". Donny Deutsch followed up by asking Steele, "I still don't understand why the analogy that Reid made is wrong? He is just saying that any time we have 'dramatic change', that there is going to be resistance. What is wrong with what he said?"

Steele dodged the question by saying "I am not going to dignify that question with a response". Deutsch then openly mocked him for not being able to provide an answer. The video is below:

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

Thinking of a bumper sticker I recently saw, this would have been my answer:

There was dramatic change in Cuba in 1959, was that good change? And were those who were opposed to that change, those who were "clinging" to the principles of freedom and private property and free markets, were they also just dragging their feet and getting in the way of progress? If you want to talk about progress, why don't we go down to Cuba and see what kind of "progress" you get when the government takes over the economy.

Maybe that answer is over the top, but not any more so than Reid's original analogy. In any case, Steele has got to do a better job articulating an opposing point of view.

And by the way, here is that bumper sticker:

Climate Justice in Copenhagen

Bruce Bawer is covering the UN Climate Change conference in Copenhagen. Here's how he begins today's report:

Well, here I am at the Vatican in Rome, where thousands of pilgrims from every corner of the earth crowd St. Peter’s Square, their eyes trained on the glorious basilica within which the College of Cardinals is gathering in secret conclave to settle the all-important question: Who will stand in the shoes of the fisherman?

Oops, sorry, I got a little confused there for a second. In fact I’ve just arrived in Copenhagen. But you’ll have to excuse my mistake, because it’s already clear that being here during the next few days is going to be very much like attending some kind of massive religious gathering.

Later in the piece, Bawer admits that "doesn’t feel so much like the Vatican as it does, say, Havana or Pyongyang."

Stroll around awhile and you’ll keep encountering giant banners or posters or displays designed to ensure that the great unwashed don’t lose sight of the orthodoxy to which they’re expected to pay mindless obeisance. On the side of one church, for example, a banner three stories high proclaims that it’s “TIME FOR CLIMATE JUSTICE.” There are also endless outsized placards — inspired, I suspect, by Barack Obama’s campaign rhetoric – bearing the unfortunate coinage “HOPENHAGEN.” Barfsville. I don’t remember where, if anyplace, I’ve ever seen so many huge, fancy banners. Not to mention the big, splashy, World’s Fair-style displays — among them a giant globe in City Hall Park — which certainly must be using up plenty of electricity. Wasting resources is OK, it seems, when you’re engaged in a noble struggle against wasting resources.

That last line gets at an ironic feature of the summit is that the summit has an astoundingly enormous carbon footprint--larger than all of Morocco in 2006, and presumably larger even than Al Gore's home. One London columnist notes that the summit-goers are expected to use 140 private jets and 1,200 limousines (only five of which are hybrids, due in part to Denmark's high taxes on such vehicles).

Actually the wastefulness of the summit would be ironic, except that it seems to be par for the course for global environmentalists.

My SUV, My Self

In what seems like a parody of consumerism, Land Rover has announced a special edition of its 2010 Range Rover Sport called Autobiography. The folks at AutoBlog have the details:

Most of the appeal of the package is inside. All of the seating surfaces are covered in beautiful two-tone leather, and the Autobiography logo can be found in the wood door inserts and the embossed headrests. The exterior gets a few special touches as well, including body-colored lower door panels, an extended roof spoiler, and special 20-inch alloy wheels.

Just 250 examples of the Range Rover Sport Autobiography will be built, all in Santorini Black with the 5.0-liter supercharged V8 as standard. Pricing is listed as an imposing $88,545, but we can see that in its exclusive circle, enough Land Rover buyers will likely be willing to cough up a $14,000 premium to have their own Autobiography, even if it's only a leather, wheel, and trim package.

Pricey, but then again it's a luxury SUV that sums up one's entire life story. I wonder if there'll be an even snootier version called the Memoir.

Obama's "job-killing agenda"

We can debate financial regulation and monetary policy all day, but in the end, we have a jobs problem. Ralph R. Reiland in the Pittsburg Gazette reminds us that the jobs problem ultimately comes back to basic principles of supply and demand that every college Freshman learns in Econ 101.

The administration's economic agenda is basically a suicide mission that treats job creation like cigarettes -- something to discourage through increased regulations, more central controls and higher taxation.

He continues:

So how can Obama maintain that economic recovery and more jobs will be delivered through his administration's agenda of higher costs on business via carbon taxes, higher energy prices for consumers and employers, the cancellation of secret ballots for workers in union-organizing drives, mandated hikes in the minimum wage, higher payroll taxes on business to fund the proposed health care mandates, a new surtax of 5 points on the incomes of the nation's key job creators, a higher inheritance tax that directly drains capital from the small business sector that's creating most of the new jobs in the economy, and a 69 percent increase in the tax on capital gains, a clear disincentive to new investment and new job development?

It's either a complete lack of understanding of even the basics in freshmen economics or a refusal to accept the reality of how the world works -- a blind devotion to what's been proven to be a failed ideology, a kamikaze mission, a last-ditch effort to intentionally go down in flames as a spotless devotee of statism and collectivism.