Who is John Galt?

what if old people had babies?

Consider the origin of the term, "caesarean section."  Presumably, Mama Caesar did not survive.  And yet the human population suggests that for every mother who died in childbirth, other mothers delivered more than one healthy baby.

It's a matter of risk.  Most women can deliver babies.  Doctors monitor them closely, often finding reasons to be concerned which ultimately turn out to be nothing.  Nature has already stacked the odds in a woman's favor -- the doctor usually just provides security, certainty.

But that's a lot of attention to be paying to women, one after another, across the country, 24/7/365, considering that only a minority will actually need some kind of life-saving intervention.  You might say that sort of care is "inefficient."  After all, there are midwives for this sort of business, aren't there?

And there's a political side to this.  These are young women.  With entire lives, careers, and hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax revenue ahead of them.  Families to raise.  They're significant, vital.  They're necessary.

History shows that most of them will survive childbirth without a doctor.  And some will die even with one; fewer, still, will die because of their doctor.  But there are a lot of resources which stand at the ready, and we will commit heroics to save a mother and her newborn.  Life is that important.

Dying is part of life, too.  The elderly have to die eventually, but that doesn't mean they ever have to die right now.  Heroics won't stop death, but they can often put it off for a time, even if it never seems long enough.

And yet, politically, those heroics -- arguably as effective as all those resources that attend a healthy childbirth without actually contributing anything -- are somehow less necessary.

I noted that doctors watch expectant mothers closely, looking for things to be concerned about.  And yet boards tell us not to screen so often or so early for breast cancer.  Looking too closely, or too frequently, for prostate cancers wastes money.  Our system is even accused of "wasting" care on cancers that might otherwise self-remit -- this is even used to refute our statistically superior cancer survival rates.  Our numbers are "skewed" by finding and treating cancers that would never present on their own.  We look too hard.

I can't say any choice is always wrong.  And they don't call them "tough decisions" for nothing.  But I have a problem -- a real problem -- with liberals' idea that we just pretend we're not making a choice.  Their plan is not free -- they're just relying on small, under-represented minorities of the population to pay for it.  As usual.

Extending lives costs money.  That money -- and the care it might buy -- could be used to help other patients.  Democrats see that trade, and they want to make it.  Starting with the lives that are least "necessary."

Do you want that trade, too?

Do you even see it?

mccotter: boycott the summit

Found via BigGovernment.com, on RedState.  Thaddeus McCotter explains the "trap" of Obama's healthcare summit:

The summit’s goal is to persuade the public that the Republican minority is “forcing” the Democrats’ heavy-handed tactics to foist this abominable bill upon Americans.

clever

Hat tip to Donald Luskin.

"majority rule"

I'm tired of all this complaining about the filibuster, but I'm even more tired of this idiotic belief that a majority is some kind of critical mass.

People with an IQ over 150 are a small minority, but I'm far more interested in their ideas.  Business owners are a small minority, but they're still the ones we depend on for jobs, and the ones with the best incentives for keeping their own business afloat.

The United States was (were, really) never intended to be a democracy.  Yes, the founders recognized the significance of a majority -- that's why they created the House of Representatives.  But it's a complete misunderstanding of our government to believe that the Senate should therefore be ruled by a majority.

Going back to original intent, the Senate was never supposed to be selected by popular vote in the first place -- prior to the 17th Amendment, Senators were selected by state legislatures.

Second, Senate seats are not apportioned by population anyway.  Each state has two senators, no matter how large or small.  Just because all states have equal say does not imply that a simple majority is some kind of magic number.

Third, the Constitution says nothing about how the Senate must operate -- only that it sets its own rules.

There are three branches to the federal government.  The president is not elected by majority rule, and supreme court justices certainly aren't, either.  The president can overrule Congressional majorities with a veto, but that can also be overridden by even larger majorities in both houses.  The simple majority is only the beginning.

Passing the Senate should be an even greater challenge.    The Senate is not just another House of Representatives -- its very goal is to give legislation a more rigorous test than it would ever get in the majority-rule House.  They don't call it "the world's greatest deliberative body" for nothing.  Technically, it takes a majority vote to get something into the Senate.  Actually getting it through should be harder.

And all that deliberation isn't for entertainment.  It's an opportunity to amend and improve the bill.  If your bill can't be amended, then search it for a partisan agenda.  Universal healthcare may be liberals' ultimate "reform," but to conservatives it's a poison pill.  If your legislation can't even be amended to pass the Senate, maybe the problem's with your legislation.

item 1: remove the mandate

Congressional Republicans are being asked to join the healthcare reform debate with the Democrats' bill, already completed, as a baseline.

They need to close ranks around the mandate, and demand that it be removed from the bill.  This needs to be the Republicans' highest priority, and they should refuse to move on to anything else until it's been done.

And the argument Republicans should use, to make their case, is that the American people are free, and that the federal government does not have the authority to impose the mandate under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.  And they can do this while cheerfully acknowledging the Democrats' good (but woefully misguided) intentions.

climate tragedies

Okay, suppose you're a crazy liberal obsessed with concerned about global warming.  Every day, a little evidence turns up to suggest that things are not as bad as global warming alarmists have been saying.  The question is: How are you supposed to feel about this?

I mean, if you're a rational person, and you're worried about a climate apocalypse, then anything that turns the balance of available data against the gloom-and-doom forecast is a good thing, right?

But how do you think liberals really feel when they learn that global warming "science" is made up?

Try it this way:  Maybe you're a liberal, and you actually like big government regulating all the wealth that you think mankind should feel guilty about.  Sure, climate-saving measures overlap with your Master Plan, but that's just a perk, right?  I mean, the real point is drowning polar bears, rising sea levels, evaporating glaciers, record temperatures and the hockey stick graph, isn't it?

So I guess if you learn that the polar bears were just swimming, and that their population is growing, that could be a good thing.  Unless, of course, you fear that we could all remain complacent about the rising sea levels, record temperatures and the hockey stick graph, right?  After all, if you care about those things, you might be a little troubled by news that the polar bears are okay.  At the very worst, it's good-news/bad-news, and it still threatens the Master Plan.

Then you find out that the whole sea-level thing's not so bad, either.  We're centuries from drowning.  That's a relief, right?  Unless of course, it fosters complacency about evaporating glaciers, record temperatures and the hockey stick graph.  And, ultimately, the Master Plan.

You see where this is going.  So the question is, which are the fools who really believe the global warming stuff a little too much, and which are the ones who are really in it for the Master Plan?

Well, your first clue is that the ones who really care will be relieved by good news, and the ones who care about the Master Plan will say anything to keep the scheme alive.

And the problem is that the Master Plan is much more important to many more people than it should be. 

Perhaps even enough to reach that critical mass "scientists" call "consensus."

Oh, I almost forgot -- this is very powerful stuff.  Imagine going up to a tree hugger liberal every time some aspect of climate change is debunked, and asking them two questions:  First, "Do you feel relieved at this news?"  And, second, "Why or why not?"

Because you already know how he's going to feel about it, even if he says he's relieved.  But I'm willing to bet that he's never stopped to ponder why.

It'll make them think.  And God knows they need that.

on milk

You're hearing about this because it came up at the Galt household this weekend.  Therefore you must suffer -- but I suspect some of you might have something to say on the matter.

I'm pretty squeamish about using milk after five days before the expiration date.  You might think you can stick your nose in the carton and decide "this milk isn't sour yet."  But I smell milk that's a little more sour every day -- and for me the expiration date is around the day it smells "not very fresh anymore."

On February 7th, Mrs. Galt brings home a half gallon dated February 20th, and she puts it in the fridge behind the jug dated February 10th.  Am I really supposed to use the February 10th milk while the best milk in the house is slowly souring in the back of the fridge?  I don't think so.

Am I wasting milk by pouring the February 10th jug down the drain?  Are we saying that the lost goodness of the February 20th milk -- assuming a moratorium on drinking it until, say, February 11th -- isn't wasted too?

In her defense, the wonderful Mrs. Galt does not give me a hard time about this.  But it is a source of some amusement in the Galt house.  So I thought I'd share it with you.

ultimatum and compromise

Democrats are threatening to use reconciliation to amend and pass healthcare reform if Republicans do not play ball at the upcoming "bipartisan summit."  I will explain why this is a bluff.

Quite simply, any inputs from Republicans will be seen by Dems as "worsening" the bill.  Democrats don't actually want anything Republicans might add to the legislation.

This leaves the Democrats with two choices: Pass the existing legislation using reconciliation, or pass even worse legislation that may ultimately require reconciliation as well.  Given those two options, why would Democrats work with Republicans?

The answer is: Because the bill doesn't have enough Democrat votes to pass via reconciliation.  If it did, they would have already passed it.  By introducing Republican ideas, Dems hope to either hope to win some Republican votes, or to convince some Democrat holdouts that only reconciliation will pass the bill.

Without Republicans, reconciliation is just too high a hurdle for the House.  The original House bill, in November, was passed with 220 votes -- all the liberals, around 15 "Blue Dogs," and one Republican.  Over 35 Blue Dogs voted against it.  Since then, Murtha and Wexler are gone, and Cao (the Republican) is unlikely to vote for it again.

Meanwhile, the bill has gotten significantly more unpopular, abortion restrictions have been gutted, and the tax provisions have changed.  Furthermore, Republicans are climbing on the generic ballot and Scott Brown has taken Ted Kennedy's bluest seat in the Senate.

With a sense in red and purple states that Democrats are trying to ram their healthcare reform through, Pelosi probably does not have all of her original Blue Dogs.  Getting back to 218 votes is already an uphill battle.  She probably can't get 218 votes in favor of the bill, and she certainly doesn't have that many now.

Besides, if the Dems could pass it without making Republican concessions, they would.  Democrats don't have the votes in the House for reconciliation, and I think Republicans recognize this.

the role of pork

A pork-laden stimulus jobs bill with an excellent chance of passing the Senate has been thrown out in favor of a pared-down bill.  Senate Dems will now use this bill as some sort of "bipartisanship" political football to test Republican goodwill.

Bipartisanship depends on common ground.  If enough politicians believe a bill will accomplish something they want, then it will pass.  Even better, if supporters on both sides believe the bill will work as advertised to achieve a goal both sides want.

Writing a jobs bill is a little more complicated than simply declaring that there must be more jobs.  The two sides couldn't be in more disagreement over where jobs actually come from, and therefore it's unlikely that they'll agree on what policies will promote employment. 

This is where pork comes in.  When the majority is satisfied that a bill will actually work, it begins shopping for votes across the aisle so the bill can pass.  (After all, Dems are not going to find a lot of Republicans who actually believe their plans will create jobs.)  If Democrats are unwilling to include the minority's ideas in the legislation, then they can try buying votes with pork.  In this case, a Republican may not believe the bill will create any jobs, but he could still vote for it if Democrats will agree to pay for some popular project back in his home state.

Such maneuvering would be unnecessary if both sides agreed on more fundamentals.  Once, John F. Kennedy lowered income taxes -- a lot.  Democrats could rally Republicans around ideas like that.  But today's Democrats simply don't believe the same theories, and they certainly have different priorities.  Even where they believe lower taxes on the wealthy would spur economic growth, they'd refuse to do it today on ideological grounds -- the liberal desire for equality of wealth rules out solutions that might benefit the wealthy.

The Watergate break-in was all about Republicans who, hoping to match Democrats' ideas, were trying to get an advance peek at them.  Think about it: There was once enough overlap in the two parties' fundamental understanding of how America works that one side might actually consider stealing ideas from the other.  File that concept under "history."

in the long run, keynes is dead.

Hat tip to CafeHayek.  I wouldn't be surprised if the cost of "snowmageddon" turns out to be in the billions, but make no mistake about it: that cost is a cost.  Here's someone who explains how Keynesians see that same cost as "stimulus." 

Bastiat first described the broken window fallacy over 150 years ago.  Apparently, it wasn't translated into English in time to help John Maynard Keynes.  Fortunately, it's been translated since then, and so we don't all have to make the same mistake today.

When you pay to have your streets plowed (or your city's snow plows repaired), it's true that certain workers do get welcome employment.  But if you're the taxpayer footing the bill, it's not like you weren't going to use your money to buy something else.

Suppose you were going to buy some nice steaks instead of having your street plowed.  Bastiat's point was that in addition to the plow driver getting paid, you not only have to go without steak, but the butcher shop now goes without a sale, too.

Keyesians believe it would be stimulus if the government just paid people to dig ditches.  The scary part is that an actual demand for ditches never enters into the equation.  Philosopically, Keynesian stimulus is just welfare with a couple of unusual means tests: You must be able to work, and obviously you can't show up to dig ditches if you already have a real job somewhere else.

For purely political reasons, Keynesians try to keep the work a little more constructive than just digging ditches -- using the workers for public works projects, for example, or perhaps contracting them out as cheap/free labor for contributors' projects.  But to the Keyesian, if we simply divided the labor into two teams -- one of which dug ditches while the other filled them back in -- that would suffice.  It's the job, not the productivity, which matters to Keynes.