Despite Flaws, U.S. Health Care the Best | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary

Despite Flaws, U.S. Health Care the Best | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'They come here because they know that despite its flaws, the U.S. health care system still provides the highest quality care in the world. Whether the disease is cancer, pneumonia, heart disease or AIDS, the chances of a patient surviving are far higher in the U.S. than in other countries.

According to a study published in the British medical journal The Lancet, the U.S. is at the top of the charts when it comes to surviving cancer. For example, more than two-thirds of women diagnosed with cancer will survive for at least five years in the U.S. That's 6 percentage points better than the next best country, Sweden.'

When Will Your Time Come? | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary

When Will Your Time Come? | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'Notice that the president, when arguing that his "jobs" bill is going to increase jobs, quotes the same economists who also said his "stimulus" would keep unemployment under 8 percent, rather than referring to those economists who were correct in saying it would fail.'

And Now for Obama's Ugandan Military Adventure | Gene Healy | Cato Institute: Commentary

And Now for Obama's Ugandan Military Adventure | Gene Healy | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'The Obama team has embraced the U.N. doctrine known as "Responsibility to Protect," which holds that the "international community" has an obligation to protect civilians from crimes against humanity — by force, if necessary — when their own governments cannot or will not.

That doctrine is at odds with the U.S. Constitution, which empowers Congress to set up a military establishment for the singular end of "the common defence ... of the United States."'

It's Time to Declare Peace in the War against Drugs | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary

It's Time to Declare Peace in the War against Drugs | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'Banning drugs raises their price, creates enormous profits for criminal entrepreneurs, thrusts even casual users into an illegal marketplace, encourages heavy users to commit property crimes to acquire higher-priced drugs, leaves violence the only means for dealers to resolve disputes, forces government to spend lavishly on enforcement, corrupts public officials and institutions, and undermines a free society. All of these effects are evident today and are reminiscent of Prohibition (of alcohol) in the early 20th Century.'

Why Government Spending Is Bad for Our Economy | Jim Powell | Cato Institute: Commentary

Why Government Spending Is Bad for Our Economy | Jim Powell | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'there isn't any net gain from government spending since it's offset by the taxes needed to pay for it, taxes that reduce private sector spending.'

'Our findings indicate that a 10% increase in government expenditures as a percent of GDP results in approximately a 1 percentage point reduction in GDP growth."'

Patently Absurd - Copyright Law Can Meet the Needs of Software Developers | Timothy B. Lee | Cato Institute: Commentary

Patently Absurd - Copyright Law Can Meet the Needs of Software Developers | Timothy B. Lee | Cato Institute: Commentary: It takes a systematic campaign of reeducation to persuade those engineers that filling out patent paperwork is a higher priority than improving the company's products.

Ron Paul’s ‘Plan to Restore America’ | Cato @ Liberty

Ron Paul’s ‘Plan to Restore America’ | Cato @ Liberty: 'Republican policymakers – including the current GOP field of presidential candidates – talk a good game about reducing spending, but very few are willing to spell out exactly what they’d cut. As NRO’s Kevin Williamson puts it in the title of his write-up on the plan, “Ron Paul Dropping a Reality Bomb on the GOP Field.”'

Bad for Taxpayers and Whales | Mark A. Calabria | Cato Institute: Commentary

Bad for Taxpayers and Whales | Mark A. Calabria | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'The destruction of Gulf Coast wetlands, which had acted as a buffer from hurricanes, magnified the impact of Hurricane Katrina. We can debate the role of Washington in protecting the environment, but at a minimum we can all agree we should not be actively subsidizing its destruction with tax dollars.

The flood insurance program not only places the environment in harm's way, but does the same to the very people it attempts to benefit. By under-pricing flood risk, the program makes it cheaper to live in a flood plain than it would be otherwise. Unquestionably, that distortion gives families who would not have done so an incentive to live in the path of a potential flood.'

Abolish the Air Marshals | David Rittgers | Cato Institute: Commentary

Abolish the Air Marshals | David Rittgers | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'The air marshals' deterrent effect has largely withered away because of a change in al Qaida tactics. The would-be shoe- and underwear-bombers were merely trying to blow up aircraft, not take control of the cockpit. Both were tackled by the passengers and crew of their target flights, not shot or apprehended by air marshals.'

The Current Wisdom: Imitation, Flattery and More Bad News for Climate Models | Patrick J. Michaels | Cato Institute: Commentary

The Current Wisdom: Imitation, Flattery and More Bad News for Climate Models | Patrick J. Michaels | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'But, no matter how you spin it, or where the analysis appears, this fact remains: over the last three decades, the climate model projections offered up thus far, have been, and continue to be, sizeable overestimates of reality. Give me all the excuses that you want, but if the excuses are indeed real, then obviously they are important drivers of the climate systems and therefore must be considered when offering up future climate projections. Failing to do so, as we have seen, leads to failing forecasts. And until significant improvements are made in the models (improvements that may very well result in a determination of a lower climate sensitivity), I see no compelling reason why we should bank on existing climate model projections for the future state/behavior of the climate.'