Some Shocking Consistency

…from the editorial board of the LA Times:

…if the court would identify an important individual right — in this case, the right to bear arms — and then deny that it applied to the states, those who never accepted the incorporation doctrine might try to “de-incorporate” other rights. That’s not a risk worth taking.

A lot of the gun grabbers want to have it both ways — that the Second Amendment shouldn’t be incorporated, but that other rights do. At least the Times recognizes the inconsistency of this, even if they don’t understand the meaning and purpose of the amendment.

This Will Be Entertaining

Mickey Kaus (who I talked to for a while at a party in Santa Monica a few weeks ago, though he didn’t mention this plan at the time) is running for the Democrat Senate nomination against Her Highness, Babs Boxer. It would be hilarious if he beats her.

[Update a few minutes later]

As Mickey says, the LA Weekly spoiled his campaign rollout. I wonder how they got the scoop?

[Late morning update]

I’d pay good money to watch him shred her in a debate. The IQ difference would be at least forty points.

[Early afternoon update]

I hope he calls her “Ma’am” when they get together. I hear she really likes that. 😉

An Open Letter To Two NPR Reporters

Worth reposting here:

Ms. Chana Joffe-Walt and Mr. David Kestenbaum
All Things Considered
National Public Radio

Dear Ms. Joffe-Walt and Mr. Kestenbaum:

Your excellent February 26, 2010, report on the history of how government officials chose the different methods that Medicare has used over the years to determine doctors’ pay is frightening because…

… in your report, Joe Califano, a chief architect of Medicare, admits that the first method of determining doctors’ pay was chosen for political reasons, namely, to buy doctors’ support for Medicare.

… you report that Mr. Califano, LBJ, and Congress were genuinely surprised by the rapid cost increases sparked by this first method.

… you reveal that much of the treatment that Medicare paid for was previously provided free by physicians; that is, Medicare crowded out a sizable chunk of private-sector philanthropy.

… you tell how attempts to change this first method of paying doctors were deeply influenced by skilled lobbyists working on behalf of doctors.

… in describing the development of the method currently used for determining doctors’ pay, you (perhaps without realizing it) reveal that this current method is the product of a comically childish labor-theory-of-value analysis – the same sort of analysis that is at the foundation of Marxian economics.

… your report ends with the admission that, because the current method isn’t working so well, Uncle Sam – 45 years after Medicare was launched – is still searching for a sound method for determining physicians’ pay.

Given this history, what reason is there to suppose that Obamacare is a good idea?

Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030

Because this time, it will be different.

Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!