Huffington Post: Ignore the Environmental Activists

Sometimes, you have to take the battle to their turf.

In a piece for the Huffington Post today, I make the case that while green groups seek to ban newer and better pesticides because they allegedly harm bees, the groups ignore what scientists say could be the real culprits responsible for declining bee populations.

This doesn’t just raise questions about the activists’ real agenda, it answers them.

Bees pollinate a host of important crops, from fruits and nuts such as oranges, blueberries, apples and almonds, to row crops such cotton, canola, and soy. But the last few decades have been tough for bee populations, which have experienced larger than normal winter die-offs.

Some raise the specter of massive colony collapses spreading around the world. This even has its own acronym, CCD, which stands for Colony Collapse Disorder. While bee health is critically important, and there’s a real problem, those who suggest that the sky is falling and we’ll run out of food because of CCD have another agenda. And it has nothing to do with bees.

Radical environmental activist groups like the Sierra Club are using such fears to target a relatively new class of pesticide called neonicotinoids - or “neonics” for short - which they claim are responsible for CCD.

If the activists get their way, however, the complex and costly problem of disappearing bees will continue longer than necessary. Instead, activists should put their (hefty) resources into addressing the most likely causes identified by leading scientists.

As far as the bees, the greens, and their pesticide conspiracy goes, the evidence points more strongly to less obvious culprits. Although an unnecessary pesticide ban would cost farmers, as well as all of us who enjoy their bounty, scientists suggest it would leave the real bee killers on the loose longer.

The irony is that neonicotinoids were developed in part to replace older classes of pesticides that green groups vilified for being too toxic. Rather than being sprayed, the neonics are often used as a seed treatment — a coating on the seed — that can lower the amount of pesticide used by ten or twenty times or more.

That’s one reason the often risk-averse Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Agriculture (USDA) haven’t been eager to jump on the activists’ bandwagon and ban these innovative pesticides. The two agencies recognize the importance of bees to agriculture, and are taking the problem seriously.

Yet green groups, including Beyond Pesticides and the Pesticide Action Network (PAN), have filed suit against the EPA to ban neonicotinoids. (No, they haven’t called for a return to the older pesticides neonicotinoids more efficiently replaced.) One can’t keep from wondering whether bee protection is the primary mission of these activist groups. Or, perhaps, they are using bees (as well as their co-plaintiff beekeepers) as pawns in their anti-chemical campaign.

Protecting bees is more complicated than banning the latest agricultural chemical. So says the conclusion of a comprehensive report on bee health, jointly released this month by the USDA and the EPA. “The forces impacting honeybee health are complex,” said USDA Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan. The report, a culmination of a National Stakeholders Conference on Honey Bee Health, conducted by federal researchers in conjunction with Pennsylvania State University scientists, sought to pull together the most up-to-date science on issues of bee health.The report cited many factors that could be contributing to declining bee health. By far, they found the biggest threat to bees is a parasitic mite appropriately named the varroa destructor.

Varroa mites — which have become endemic through much of the world - attach themselves to bees, sucking their blood and acting as a vector for deadly and crippling viruses. Traditionally, beekeepers have responded to these devastating infestations by dousing their hives with mite-killing — and highly toxic — pesticides, but the destructor mites are becoming increasingly resistant to the poisons, and the higher and higher doses of miticides being used are in themselves harmful to the bees.

If varroa were the only problem, it would be bad enough. But as the report notes, bee infections are proliferating. In fact, at least 34 different viruses, bacteria, fungi, mites, predators and other pathogens are currently affecting bee health.

Clearly, an ideological crusade against a class of decreased-toxicity pesticides isn’t going to help this situation — especially as real world experience has demonstrated that neonics aren’t a problem. Beekeepers in Western Canada, for instance, take their bees into the middle of the massive canola farms in that region — which are major users of neonics — because the canola helps make such great honey. How’s that for sweet irony?

Perhaps the most striking real-world proof is Australia, where bees are thriving and where beekeepers enjoy a profitable export business in the healthy bees they breed — even though neonics are widely used there. What Australia doesn’t have — and this is the key — is the varroa mite. While the parasite has spread almost everywhere else in the world, Australia’s strict import controls and inspections have so far kept their island continent free of infection.

In the meantime, scientists are proposing research where it could really do some good:

“Increasing the overall genetic diversity of honey bees will lead to healthier and hardier bees,” according to bee breeder-geneticist Susan Cobey of the University of California, Davis, and Washington State University.” And as is true of any living being, nutrition matters. It “has a major impact on individual bee and colony longevity,” according to the USDA, since “a nutrition-poor diet can make bees more susceptible to harm from disease and parasites.”

The final recommendations from the government report for improving bee health involve more information and better communication. Research into whether pesticides play a role in bee decline has been inconclusive. The report calls for a better understanding on real-world exposure to pesticides and the effect of those exposures on bee health. The report’s focus on “real-world exposure” is a not-so-subtle jab at activists who point to laboratory experiments where bees are harmed from being drenched in high levels of pesticides, unlike any levels they are exposed to in agriculture. Recent field studies, however which track real-world exposures of bees to pesticides fail to implicate neonics as an important factor in bee decines.

If the activists really wanted to solve the bee problem, instead of reflexively railing against pesticides, there are all sorts of things they could do which are based on the scientific recommendations.

For instance, the Sierra Club could organize a popular Run for The Bees, a 5k to support research to find a sustainable way to kill varroa mites, without killing the bees too.

And why stop there? If the Pesticide Action Network wanted to contribute to bee health, the science suggests their efforts would be more effective if they were to host a Bee a Good Eater initiative, which would educate beekeepers about proper bee nutrition. Perhaps they could lobby the First Lady’s Let’s Move campaign to get involved. That would really create a buzz.

And finally, given the importance of bee genetic diversity, I encourage Beyond Pesticides to invite their members to host weekly “bee socials” in their backyards. Nature-loving activists could cheer as bees of varying backgrounds are brought together to do what (birds and) bees are known to do.

The humor of these approaches may sting, but the point remains: if green groups were truly concerned about bee health, they’d vigorously advocate for advances pointed to by the nation’s leading scientists in the field. None of that expertise calls for pesticides bans.

The green groups’ approach to bee health doesn’t just raise questions about their agenda, it answers them. So long as there’s political hay to be made, they’d just as soon let the bees keep on dying.

 

Health Care Odds & Ends: Single-Payer Edition

If ObamaCare proves to be a complicated mess, you can bet that many on the left will be pushing for a single-payer health care system to replace it. Thus, this Odds & Ends is dedicated to the, ahem, wonders of a single-payer system.  Consider it a prelude to blog posts next week that will be dedicated almost exclusively to single-payer topics

1. From the Hull Daily Mail in Britain: “Why is Rory, 7, waiting for life-saving heart surgery after 18 months?”  Rory Morris needs a replacement heart valve.  After a year’s wait, he was scheduled for an operation at the Leeds General Infirmary heart unit.  His operation was delayed when he developed a chest infection and then was further delayed when “the heart unit was plunged into controversy and closed for a week because of fears over unusually high death rates.  It meant Rory could not be readmitted.” Read it all here.

2. Emergency rooms—known as Accident and Emergency (A&E) departments—in Britain are in crisis.  The heads of 18 A&E departments sent a letter to the National Health Service warning that “increasing demand through A&E has led to toxic overcrowding, with patients left being treated in corridors while staff are facing ‘institutional exhaustion’.”  One of the letter signers is Magnus Harrison, head of A&E at University Hospital of North Staffordshire. Despite the problems at UHNS, the response from officials has been, “Move along now, nothing to see here.”  According to The Sentinel,  “UHNS operational director Vanessa Gardener told last month’s board meeting that staff were continuing to deliver safe A&E services and that complaints had fallen.”  And, of course, the politicians are engaged in their second most favorite indoor sport over the matter, that of finger-pointing. 

3. Turning to our single-payer neighbor up north, an adolescent girl who is suffering from severe depression and anxiety “is on months-long waiting lists for psychiatric treatment.”  Her mother was recently able to get her into Hull Secure Services, but she smuggled in a razor and cut herself ten times.  After that incident, the mother wrote to Health Minister Fred Horne, 

A couple of months ago you sent me a letter saying that you had a 10-year plan in place. My daughter could very well be dead by then, if she keeps going the way she has been. If that is the case I will be holding you and your policies accountable. I have had to fight to get her access to even the most basic of resources to keep her safe in a maze of unavailable, disconnected, poorly funded and confusing services. I am exhausted, afraid for my daughter’s safety, and extremely pissed off. I expect you to do something now, not 10 years from now. Get off your ass and fix it.

4. Also in Canada, the province of New Brunswick is having trouble staffing enough doctors.  In fact, the “New Brunswick Medical Society says there are more than 50,000 people without a family doctor in the province.” Apparently, though, the province is actually discouraging more physicians from working in New Brunswick by limiting how many receive “billing numbers”, something every physician in Canada needs to get paid by the government.  A government making the problem worse?  Go figure.

5. Australia’s single-payer system is setting a new record—for number of patients on the waiting list.  The waiting list for elective surgery has now exceeded 50,000 for the first time ever in the state of Victoria.  Somehow, though, the Aussies don’t seem to proud about the milestone.  

Oh, and looking over the website for Physicians for a National Health Program, the single-payer advocacy group in the U.S., there is no mention of these stories.  Can’t imagine why.

6. Okay, now for a few non-single-payer stories.  From the Wall Street Journal, apparently some bigger employers have found a loophole in ObamaCare that allows them to provide cheap insurance while avoiding the fine for not providing adequate coverage.  The plans,

cover minimal requirements such as preventive services, but often little more. Some of the plans wouldn’t cover surgery, X-rays or prenatal care at all….Federal officials say this type of plan, in concept, would appear to qualify as acceptable minimum coverage under the law, and let most employers avoid an across-the-workforce $2,000-per-worker penalty for firms that offer nothing….Administration officials confirmed in interviews that the skinny plans, in concept, would be sufficient to avoid the across-the-workforce penalty. Several expressed surprise that employers would consider the approach.

I suspect Administration officials will be surprised about a great many things as this law rolls out.

7. Finally, another loophole in the law could result in doctors not getting paid for treatment, and, yes, more unions are increasingly unhappy with the law, saying that it doesn’t give them enough special treatment is unfair to them.

Photo: iStock Photo

Project 21’s Green on Chicago School Closures: Won’t Someone Think of the Children?

In Chicago, Mayor Rahm Emanuel just moved to close 49 government-run schools.  This will lead to thousands of city kids – mostly poor and minority students – being forced to relocate to new classrooms as early as this fall.

The Chicago Board of Education – an entity that is tightly-controlled by the Emanuel Administration – voted unanimously for the closures.

It was inevitable.  It was a foregone conclusion not just because of the make-up of the Board, but because Chicago’s economic problems are forcing the city to make tough downsizing decisions.

All of this comes, on the heels of Chicago’s teachers receiving a 17.6 percent raise in pay as the result of a contentious strike last fall.  And, to virtually no one’s surprise, the Chicago Teachers Union is a big critic of the coming contraction.

Derryck Green, a member of the National Center’s Project 21 black leadership network, is also critical of the Chicago school closings.  But Derryck is mad for a completely different reason than Big Labor.  Derryck sees the unions as a catalyst that caused the closures and not a victim of the crisis.  He doesn’t think organized labor should be surprised and aghast about what their activities have likely wrought.

Derryck said:

Chicago’s Board of Education decided to close 49 public schools due to “declining enrollment” as well as for failing to meet a certain level of academic success.  The closures were also enacted to close the city’s $1 billion dollar deficit.

This school closure is the largest by one district in the nation.  Chicago has the nation’s third-largest school district.

Keep in mind that Chicago is also the same city that, several months ago, gave a considerable raise to the city’s teachers after a strike by and tense contract negotiations with the Chicago Teachers Union.   The city’s teachers – who made on average $76,000 per year going into the strike –  received a 17.6 percent pay increase spread over the next four years.  This doesn’t include other salary increases and benefits such as cost-of-living wage increases.

As a result of the negotiations, the teachers were additionally able to overcome merit-pay accountability, a lack of increased teacher evaluation and safeguarded a recall policy for those teachers who were laid off –  prior to now, at least – due to school closures.

The renegotiated contract between the CTU and the city is expected to cost Chicago an additional $74 million per year, contributing mightily to the city’s billion-dollar deficit. 

It must be nice getting paid with no accountability related to job performance.

So Chicago’s mayor, Rahm Emanuel, negotiated with the CTU for an increase in teacher pay and benefits knowing the city was deeply in debt.  This would be laughable if it didn’t affect so many disadvantaged children.  So would the fact that the CTU marched in protest of the school closures – as if their renegotiated and inflated contract had no impact on the decision. 

By the way, the only reason this despicable union likely marched in protest of the upcoming school closings isn’t because of the many poor children affected.  The CTU is likely marching because the teachers they represent lost their jobs – nothing more, nothing less.

Teachers unions are called that for a very explicit reason – they represent teachers, not students. 

It’s disgusting that these leeches would use the very children affected by the school closures as political shields to deflect their complicity in this fiasco.

If that weren’t enough, Mayor Emanuel has plans to contribute over $30 million of taxpayer money to help finance a new stadium for DePaul University.

I always thought liberals cared about the poor, blacks and education in general.  In this case, there was a perfect storm in which liberals had to choose between themselves and their interests, the poor, the children and an opportunity to collect more tax revenue.

Unfortunately, these same poor and disenfranchised folks – black and otherwise – who will be hurt the most by all of this will probably continue to support the same charlatans again and again.

Again, it would laughable if this pathetic situation weren’t hurting the children.

Nice Try Democrats, But Oregonians Will Experience 'Rate Shock'

Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee have released a report refuting “rate shock,” the claim that the costs of premiums on the exchange will be much higher than they currently are in the individual market. The poster-boy of the report is the Oregon exchange, for which the authors claim:

Virtually all purchasers will have the option of switching to a lower-cost plan. Under the Affordable Care Act, consumers can use the new health insurance exchanges to switch easily to a new insurer while still maintaining key benefits and protections. This provides an opportunity for consumers to save money by shopping for the plans with the lowest premiums or best benefits for them. On average, current purchasers in Oregon could reduce their premium by an average of 32%, saving $1,370 annually, by switching from their current bronze-comparable plan to the lowest cost bronze plan in 2014. Current purchasers of silver-comparable plans could reduce their premiums by an average of 24%, saving $1,200 per year, by switching to the lowest cost silver plan in 2014. In both cases, consumers would be paying lower premiums and receiving higher quality coverage. 

The Democrats’ study is comparing proposed bronze plans to ones that are currently in the market and have similar in benefits.  In other words, an apples-to-apples comparison.  However, that fails to look at the entire picture.  Some people have lower cost oranges.  What happens to them when they have to switch to higher cost apples?

For example, under the proposed plans for the Oregon Exchange, the cheapest bronze plan for a 21-year-old has a monthly premium of $132.  Using HealthCare.gov, one can find the current insurance options for a 21-year-old Oregonian.  That reveals 82 plans that are cheaper than the bronze plan on the exchange.  This table shows the ten cheapest options: 

All of these plans come with lifetime coverage limits which will be illegal under ObamaCare come 2014.  So anyone having one of these plans will have to switch to more expensive insurance.

As the table shows, the cheapest plan has a premium of $36 a month.  It’s an increase of about 266% to switch to the $132 bronze plan.

Of course, that is without the tax credit subsidy.  For the 21-year-old male with the $36 plan, the tax credit will have to cover about 73%—about $96—of the bronze plan’s monthly premium for him to break even.  Using the subsidy calculator at the Kaiser Family Foundation, it is possible to figure out what income one has to make to qualify for a subsidy that will cover 73% of a bronze plan.  According to the KFF calculator, the highest income a 21-year-old can have to qualify for that level of subsidy is $21,436 annually.  Anything over that, and he pays more to move from the lowest cost plan in the current market to the lowest cost bronze plan on the exchange.

Or look at a 40-year-old male.  The lowest cost bronze plan on the Oregon exchange is $169 a month.  Looking on HealthCare.gov, there are 28 plans in Oregon at present that are cheaper than that.  The following table again shows the cheapest ten.  

 

The cheapest has a monthly premium of $73.  To move from that to the $169 bronze plan is an increase of about 132%.  A 40-year-old with the current $73 plan will need a subsidy that covers 57% of the bronze plan premium to break even.  The KFF calculator shows that $27,274 is the highest income a 40-year-old can have to qualify for a subsidy that is 57% of a bronze plan.  If he earns more than that, his rates are going up.

Thus, to get a fuller picture of the impact of the exchanges, we first need to know how many people are currently in plans that cost less than what is offered on the exchange.  Then we must figure out how how many of them will pay more for the exchange insurance after their tax subsidy is accounted for.  That will give us a much better idea of “rate shock.”   Someone needs to do that study—just don’t hold your breath waiting for the Democrats on Energy and Commerce to do it.

Photo: iStock Photo

Exposed:Obama Administration's Selective Law Enforcement

In a piece for the Hoover Institution’s journal, Defining Ideas, Dr. Henry I. Miller and I highlight yet another abuse of power in the Obama Administration.

As questions swirl around the IRS scandal, we expose the administration’s selective law enforcement.

Why is the Obama administration turning a blind eye to criminal activity?

The facts are straight forward,

In May of last year, the New York Times did something extraordinary: On the front page, the paper not only ran a photo of a Massachusetts woman in flagrante delicto committing multiple federal and state felonies and civil torts, but also identified her and the scene of the crime. You would think an ensuing investigation and prosecution would be a slam-dunk, but federal regulators and law enforcement officials have been nowhere to be found. 

 The crimes? This woman and other activists were defacing food labels to “warn” consumers about alleged dangers of genetically modified foods.

This is far from a harmless prank. Federal law prohibits “The alteration, mutilation, destruction, obliteration, or removal of the whole or any part of the labeling of, or the doing of any other act with respect to, a food, drug, device, or cosmetic, if such act is done while such article is held for sale (whether or not the first sale) after shipment in interstate commerce and results in such article being adulterated or misbranded.”

In plain English, homemade, ad hoc warning labels like those described in the Times’ expose make the products “misbranded,” and they can no longer be sold legally.

Placing your own “warning” label on a food product for sale constitutes several serious crimes in addition to the violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Vigilante labeling also violates state laws, including “criminal trespass”—an unlawful act causing injury to the person, property, or rights of another—as well as vandalism and criminal defacement. And because these actions are being promoted and perpetrated by a group (www.labelityourself.org), we can throw in criminal conspiracy charges as well.

There’s still more—there are, for instance, the violations of civil law, such as “trespass to chattels,” which is interference with another person’s lawful possession of personal property that has a prospective economic value. Finally, the manufacturer of the food could bring an action for “dilution” —weakening of its brand or trademark.

In case the Obama administration’s law enforcement officials didn’t read their New York Times the day the crimes were reported, we personally reported the criminal acts to the FBI’s Boston office (in the region where the transgressions took place), as well as to the FDA Commissioner and the head of the agency’s Center for Food Safety and Nutrition, who have jurisdiction over the federal violations.

We have not received even an acknowledgement, let alone substantive follow-up. We cannot help wondering whether the inaction reflects the Obama administration’s demonstrated anti-genetic engineering bias, its sympathy with food activists, or both. (The incident happened too long ago to blame the sequester.)

Why ignore prima facie evidence of federal crimes? There is reason to believe that politics is involved in this selective (non-)enforcement. Food activism is especially concentrated in blue states such as Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, and California. (The New York Times’ front-page story showed Cynthia LaPier of Great Barrington, Mass., slapping “Warning, May Contain GMO’s” labels on food products in a local market.)

The administration’s failure to enforce laws on the books is especially troublesome given that the issue of labeling genetically engineered foods is being deliberated by legislators and voters around the country. Just last year, California’s voters, who are hardly known for being conservative, rejected Proposition 37, the green movement’s model for mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. The administration’s inaction sends a message that if you can’t win at the ballot box, it is okay to take matters into your own hands. It’s no surprise, then, that activists have been threatening to escalate their “guerilla-labeling” efforts.

Partisan political motives behind the failure of regulators and the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute the labeling vigilantes would not be an isolated example. Americans learned recently that the IRS discriminated against conservative groups while determining whether they were entitled to tax-exempt status; there is also the case of the EPA, which waived Freedom of Information request fees for “green” organizations, but not for conservative groups; and the Department of Justice overlooked flagrant intimidation of white voters by Black Panthers at the polls during the 2008 election.

The piece continues with a discussion about genetically modified foods,

Some background is necessary to understand the motivation for the vigilante labeling. There are widespread misapprehensions about the modern techniques of genetic engineering—also known as biotechnology, recombinant DNA technology, or genetic modification (GM)—which offer plant breeders the tools to make old crop plants do spectacular new things. These technologies increase crop yields and offer a variety of crop-specific benefits, including better nutrients, improved resistance to pests, drought-tolerance, and other characteristics that allow farmers to grow more with fewer inputs and less environmental impact. The practice is opposed mostly by progressives who embrace an idyllic view of a nature unspoiled by technology and tend to dislike corporate-driven innovation.

The scientific community has long recognized that the “new” techniques—now four decades old—are essentially an extension, or refinement, of earlier methods for genetic modification, and that gene transfer or modification by molecular techniques does not, per se, confer risk. In fact, because of the greater precision, agricultural scientists have more confidence about safety. After the cultivation of more than 3 billion acres of genetically engineered crops worldwide in some three dozen countries and the consumption in North America alone of more than three trillion servings of foods that contain ingredients from them, there has not been a single documented case of injury to a person or disruption of an ecosystem.

On the basis of both the scientific and regulatory precedents, the FDA decided in 1992 that food labels do not need to include information about the use of the newer genetic engineering techniques. Federal regulation requires that food labels be truthful and not misleading and prohibits label statements that are likely to be misunderstood by consumers even if they are strictly accurate. Following long-standing precedents in food regulation, the FDA requires special labeling only when a new food raises questions of safety, nutrition, or proper usage.

Instead of educating or serving a legitimate consumers’ “need to know” certain information, regulators believe that mandatory labels on genetically engineered food would imply a warning, or at least would likely be misconstrued by consumers as a suggestion that the product differs in some material way (such as safety or nutrition) even if it does not.

In the 1992 policy announcement, the FDA said that it would require foods—whatever technology was used to make them—to be reviewed by regulators and possibly labeled if they raise questions related to nutrition or safe use. Examples cited in the announcement include the presence of substances new to the food supply, allergens presented in an unusual or unexpected way (such as a peanut protein in wheat), or increased levels of toxins found normally in foods. 

In congressional testimony in 2003, the FDA Commissioner further explained the agency’s position:

FDA does not require labeling to indicate whether or not a food or food ingredient is a [genetically engineered] product, just as it does not require labeling to indicate which conventional breeding technique was used in developing a food plant. Rather, any significant differences in the food itself have to be disclosed in labeling. If genetic modifications materially change the composition of a food product, these changes must be reflected in the food’s labeling. This would include its nutritional content (for example, more oleic acid, or greater amino acid or lysine content) or requirements for storage, preparation, or cooking, which might impact the food’s safety characteristics or nutritional qualities. For example, one soybean variety was modified to alter the levels of oleic acid in the beans. Because the oil from this soybean is significantly different when compared to conventional soybean oil, we advised the company to adopt a new name for that oil, a name that reflects the intended change.

He went on to say that the FDA still did “not have data or other information to form a basis for concluding that the fact that a food (or its ingredients) was produced using [genetic engineering] is material within the meaning of 201(n) [of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act] and therefore, constitutes information that must be disclosed as part of a [genetically engineered] product’s labeling. Hence, we believe that we have neither a scientific nor a legal basis to require such labeling” (emphasis added).

Moreover, the federal courts have found that mandatory labeling to identify “genetically engineered” products, whether imposed at the state or federal level, would violate the constitutional guarantee of commercial free speech. They specifically rejected the notion that that consumers have a “right to know” non-material information.

Undaunted by the science or the law, pro-labeling activists continue to argue that consumers have a “right to know” the “genetic status” of their food; just tell people if their corn flakes have been genetically engineered and let them decide what to buy, they say. Their protestations notwithstanding, it is clear that the activists are not really in favor of consumers having choices. During the campaigning in California on Proposition 37, they made no bones about mandatory labeling being merely the first step toward the complete elimination of such foods—and their benefits—from the marketplace. 

Besides, consumers already have plenty of information about the “genetic status” of the foods they buy. From 2000-09 alone, roughly 7,000 new foods and beverages with voluntary “GE-free” labeling debuted in U.S. supermarkets. Among these are countless dairy products that proudly tout their non-GE pedigrees. In addition, the organic industry boasts that certified foods cannot contain GE ingredients, and various food companies and activist groups have created websites, pocket guides, and even smart phone apps that direct purchasers to GE-free products. With all this information freely available, consumers already have what they need to choose, proving once again that market forces often are better than government fiat at sorting out these sorts of issues. 

As we explain, this is not the first time the administration’s bias against safe genetically modified foods has reared its ugly head. 

By mid-April 2012, after an excruciating (and excessive) eight-year review, the FDA was ready to take the final step to approve a genetically engineered, farmed salmon that reaches mature size faster than its unmodified cohorts but is otherwise indistinguishable from them.

The release of the needed Environmental Assessment was, however, blocked by the White House for eight months (and as this article went to press, the salmon still had not been approved). As American Enterprise Institute fellow and science writer Jon Entine chronicled in December 2012 following an exhaustive investigation, according to sources within the government, the delay “came after discussions late last spring between Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sibelius’ [sic] office and officials linked to Valerie Jarrett at the Executive Office [of the President], who were debating the political implications of approving the [genetically engineered] salmon. Genetically modified plants and animals are controversial among the president’s political base, which was thought critical to his reelection efforts during a low point in the president’s popularity.” That says it all. 

Entine concluded: “The White House blocked it for brazenly political reasons. That’s a subversion of the scientific process and of the government’s supposedly independent approval process, which does no one any good.” A similar sort of politically motivated subversion may be responsible for the feds’ decision to give the high-profile labeling vigilantes a free pass.

The government’s failure to enforce the law undermines the provisions of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act; allows activists’ illegal activities to misinform consumers; makes safe and wholesome foods unsellable; and sends the message that if you cannot persuade policymakers through the democratic process, the government will look the other way as you commit crimes to achieve your political agenda.

What ever happened to the rule of law?

2.2% Of Cancer Patients File For Bankruptcy

Most people would be inclined to yawn at the above headline.  Thus, in reporting on this new study in Health Affairs, journalists wrote headlines such as “Cancer patients more than twice as likely to go bankrupt, study shows,” and “Cancer increases bankruptcy risk, even for insured.”

Those headlines are not inaccurate.  The study did find “that cancer patients were 2.65 time more likely to go bankrupt than people without cancer.”  However, such headlines may result in more alarmism than is warranted because they don’t tell the whole story.  They only tell us our risk of going bankrupt if we get cancer compared to not getting it.  We don’t know what is the risk that you’ll actually go bankrupt if you get cancer—at least not from those articles.*

Here are the numbers: of 197,840 patients with cancer, 4,408 went bankrupt.  That’s a rate of 2.2%  If just over 2 percent of cancer patients are going bankrupt, that means that our health care system does a reasonably good job of protecting cancer patients from catastrpophic costs.

But that’s not something you got from the media coverage of the study.  Alarmism sells papers, and that’s why it is often worth digging into the numbers to get the full story.

*The second article did mention the raw numbers on cancer and bankruptcy, but did not mention the percentage or that the chances you’ll go bankrupt if you get cancer are relatively small.

Photo: iStock Photo

Who Says Conservatives Can't Solve Public Health Problems?

Just because conservatives think the government ought to stay out of our kitchens, doesn’t mean we don’t have positive ways to address obesity. We do. 

In an op-ed in Tuesday’s Washington Examiner, Dr. Henry I. Miller joins me in contrasting the left-wing approach to obesity, which, as you’ll read, has become rather creepy, to a conservative approach based on free markets and innovation. 

We explain,

Obesity is a public health time bomb. But is curbing it primarily the responsibility of the government? The food police think so. Along the way, their extreme rhetoric demonizes industry and characterizes food marketers as little better than child molesters.

Read the full piece here.

Black Conservatives Call Obama’s Morehouse Commencement Speech “Divisive,” More of the Blame Game

As the commencement speaker at the all-male and historically black Morehouse College in Atlanta this past weekend, President Barack Obama used what should be a moment of celebration and honor to preach what can only be considered more of the same politics of division that seem to be the hallmark of his presidency.

While praising the graduates, Obama nonetheless seemed to suggest that it was more luck and divine intervention than intellect and ambition that got him to the White House and might be the salvation of Morehouse graduates.  The Ivy League-educated former community organizer made sure the new grads were aware that — in his apparent opinion — “the bitter legacies of slavery and segregation” are not over and that not “for the grace of God” he might be in prison, unemployed or unable to take care of Michelle, Malia and Sasha.

Obama expected that “many” of the grads “know what it’s like to be an outsider, to be marginalized, to feel the sting of discrimination.”  To show that he did not mean to single out blacks, Obama complained about immigration policies that allegedly target Hispanics and unfair policies and attitudes that harm Muslims and homosexuals.

This Obama speech is being criticized by members of the National Center’s Project 21 black leadership network, who consider the President’s words to be overly fractious and inappropriate for the venue.

Project 21 member Jerome Hudson, for instance, said:

President Obama should be ashamed of himself.

Obama’s speech at Morehouse College was needlessly divisive, sophomoric and served as a 30-minute race rant that recalls his former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright.  It was not an uplifting message of pride and achievement one expects from a president in this situation.

It would be nice if, for once, President Obama could resist the urge to brazenly slander Americans as anti-immigration, Muslim-hating homophobes.  He apparently cannot, and I’m tired of his hypocritical drivel. 

Lisa Fritsch, another Project 21 member, added:

Once again, President Obama has shown off his prowess at giving advice that he himself does not follow and empathizing with situations he has never endured.

God’s grace is the reason so many of us have found success in life — but not landing in prison, abandoning one’s children and being a criminal also has a great deal to do with making a choice.

On one hand, President Obama tells these promising black men to make good choices.  But, soon after, he justifies bad choices by blaming racism and poverty.  Funny that Obama doesn’t mention that they will be able to blame his presidential agenda— namely ObamaCare — as the reason for having a hard time finding employment.

Oh well, there is always all those millions of people from China and Brazil — and our stain of discrimination to explain that pitfall.

Arctic Council Meeting Proves It's A Circular World

Nunavut, over 725,000 square miles.The Arctic Council, an intergovernmental organization, held its eighth annual meeting this week in Sweden. 

History was made when Nunavut’s Leona Aglukkaq took over the helm of the Arctic Council, becoming the first Inuk ever to lead the Council.

Artic Council members include Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States.  Nations granted observer status to the Arctic Council meeting were China, India, Italy, Japan, Singapore and South Korea.  

The Council denied observer status to Greenpeace, along with other non-governmental organizations such as energy industry groups. 

And Canada blocked observer status for the European Union due to an ongoing dispute over a ban on trade in seal products including seal meat, seal oils and natural fiber clothing.

Seal pelts at auction in Canada.Oddly, the ban gives synthetic clothing made from fossil fuels an edge in the EU marketplace over natural fiber clothing made by those living in Canada and Nunavut. 

One cannot hold a meeting on the Arctic without discussing changes in climate — reportedly driven, says the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UNIPCC), by man releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, primarily from fossil fuels. 

And so discussion ensued regarding short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) including hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).  U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Affairs Minister Sergey Lavrov signed a declaration calling for an amendment to the Montreal Protocol treaty to phase out HFCs.

HFCs are synthetic greenhouse gases used as refrigerants and in air conditioning systems.  They were substituted for the ozone-depleting gases (CFCs and HCFCs) that were phased out under the Montreal Protocol, a U.N. treaty in force since the 1980s.  

Ironically, the U.N. World Food Program ignores the ban and still uses the gases in 80% of its air conditioning systems. 

Meanwhile, law abiding U.S. grocery stores are attempting to comply with the constantly changing laws.  They pass these compliance costs along to the consumer in the price of our food. Reported Supermarket News:

The food industry has known for some time that HFCs could be subjected to regulation and phaseout in the manner of HCFCs.  Retailers have been understandably miffed that, having replaced HCFCs with HFCs, they may now have to replace HFCs.   But the good news is that the HFC replacements include less costly natural refrigerants — notably CO₂, which in this context is environmentally friendly — that will not have to be replaced again. And the transcritical refrigeration technology that uses only CO₂ has arrived in the U.S., with at least two retailers — Whole Food Market and Angelo’s Caputo’s Fresh Markets — planning one-store tests this year.

The familiar frozen foods section, soon to be home to CO2. Yes, you read that correctly.  Whole Foods is replacing its HFCs, the synthetic greenhouse gases, with a natural greenhouse gas, CO2, “which in this context is environmentally friendly” and the CO2 “will not have to be replaced again,” concludes Supermarket News.

I wouldn’t bet the store on that.

It’s a circular world and, sometimes, so is politics.

——————————————————————————

Teresa Platt is the Director of the Environment and Enterprise Institute at the National Center for Public Policy Research.  She also blogs at www.teresaplatt.com.

Photo of seal pelts: Dion Dakins, Carino Processing Limited, Newfoundland, Canada.

All others: iStockPhoto.com

NAACP Leader’s Double-Standard on Alleged IRS Abuse

If there is anyone in the world who should have some sympathy for what the Tea Party movement and like-minded conservative organizations are going through right now with the IRS, it should be NAACP chairman emeritus Julian Bond.

Even though the NAACP spent a lot of time and money in a failed effort to demonize Tea Party activists over the past few years, including alleging them to be racist, the NAACP should supportive of the complaints of the Tea Party right now because they endured their own brush with the IRS back in 2004.

Back in July of 2004, at the NAACP’s annual convention, then-chairman Bond pointedly criticized then-President George W. Bush — who was up for re-election the following November — and the Republican Party to which he belonged in a major convention address.  Among other things, Bond said Republicans appeal to “the dark underside of American culture” that “reject[s] democracy and equality.”  Bond further encouraged blacks to “work for regime change” and “be registered, organized and mobilized.”

For those NAACP chapters that wouldn’t play along, Bond said “[a]ny NAACP branch that isn’t registering voters ought to turn in its charter.”

Approximately four months later, the IRS informed the NAACP that Bond’s speech may have “intervened in a political campaign.”

Bond complained that the IRS investigation was “an attempt to silence the NAACP” before the election.  He complained: “They are saying if you criticize the president we are going to take your tax exemption away from you.”

Now, however, when it seems that organizations on the right are under investigation and are having their applications for tax-exempt status held up by the IRS for simply opposing President Obama and supporting the Constitution (among other conservative principles), can Julian Bond see the parallel?  Can he see across political divisions to speak out against what he considered wrong when it happened to him?

Of course not.

Asked about the ever-growing Tea Party-IRS scandal plaguing the Obama Administration while on MSNBC this past May 14, Bond said “there are no parallels between the two” investigations.”  Calling the Tea Party “admittedly racist” (really?).  He further went on to repurpose an old slur by calling the Tea Party “the Taliban wing of American politics.”  He used the same slur back in 2001 — just before the Twin Towers fell — to describe Bush Administration’s political appointees.

The man who, in 2005, said “I thought the right to condemn a president of the United States came to every American, whether he or she heads a tax-exempt organization or not” now says “I don’t think there’s a double standard at all” when asked if he can understand what Tea Party leaders are going through.

This obvious double-standard — whether Julian Bond will admit it or not — is shocking to members of the National Center’s Project 21 black leadership network.

For instance, Project 21 co-chairman Horace Cooper, a former congressional leadership staffer and constitutional law professor, said:

NAACP chairman emeritus Julian Bond’s recent statement that Tea Party activists deserve the IRS abuse they have endured over the last two years is beyond the pale.

During the last administration, the shoe was on the other foot when Bond decried the IRS for opening up a preliminary audit of the NAACP.  At the time, he called it “an attempt to silence the NAACP.”

Let me be clear, no group — right or left — deserves to have the hellfire of the IRS rained down on them.
For Julian Bond to call out his political opponents for IRS scrutiny is dangerous and Nixonian.

The hypocrisy here is mind-boggling.  Regardless of who the president is, we as a nation must be vigilant to ensure that the IRS and its venomous powers aren’t unleashed on people or groups merely because of their point of view.

Any bona fide leader of a civil rights group would especially understand this principle.

Similarly, Project 21 member Kevin Martin, a Tea Party activist in suburban Maryland, said:

Julian Bond seems to be okay with the IRS engaging in political profiling when it’s the Tea Party movement and like-minded organizations in the crosshairs.  Are we to assume he also approves of the newfound probes of religious and minority groups as well?

As the scandal widens and the diversity of targeted groups grows, perhaps we should check back with him from time to time to gauge his level of approval.

Right now, Julian Bond uses the title of civil rights activist as his calling card.  But, at the same time, he is essentially encouraging the tactics of a power-hungry administration looking to silence its opponents through illegitimate means.

The very fact that Julian Bond now approves of a situation he once decried when his own group was under scrutiny would indicate that he is likely nothing more than the same kind of power-hungry partisan.  He will apparently defend government tyranny as long as his political allies are running that government.

This is the hypocrisy that conservatives like me have been trying to point out.  After years of complaining about every little perceived scandal of the Bush Administration — from Valerie Plame to the U.S. attorney dismissals to tapping the phones of suspected international terrorists — showing no outrage over the scandals involving the IRS and the Associated Press and Benghazi hurts the credibility of the political left and Julian Bond in particular.

Charles Butler, a radio host and community activist in Chicago, added:

As a young man, when I was a community activist and received a great deal of criticism from those seeking to maintain the status quo, my parents showed great wisdom when they told me to “consider the source” of the criticism.

Those people back then didn’t merit my concern or my respect.  The same can be said today about the NAACP’s Julian Bond.  In fact, I think he has been a questionable source all of the time.

I consider Julian Bond to be out of touch with traditional black America.  I think he’s a socialist.  I believe his past leadership as chairman of the NAACP alienated many blacks and left the group in worse shape than when he joined it.  That’s why I resigned from a local chapter in San Diego during his tenure and haven’t been back.

I see that a storied and glorious civil rights icon has been greatly damaged by the direction in which Bond took it.

Julian Bond was the target of personal attacks in the past from personal and political critics for alleged drug abuse.  As chairman of the NAACP, his actions brought about an IRS investigation based on the notion that he turned the group partisan.  He vociferously denied and fought these charges as lies and character assassination.

Yet, when questioned if he has any empathy for others he might not agree with suffering from the same apparent sort of abuse, he seemed enthusiastic about it rather than horrified.

This reveals Julian Bond’s dark side, and it calls his civil rights credentials into question.

The Health Care You Get Will Depend On Your Political Clout--Specialty Drug Edition

A previous blog post pointed out that one of the drawbacks of any government-run health-care system is that the care you get will depend in part on how much political power you have.  This is particularly bad news for those who are really sick.  They tend to lack political clout because: 1. The very sick are relatively few in number, which means they amount to a very limited number of voters, too limited to have much impact on elections; and 2. They are too sick to engage in the type of political activities such as organizing, protesting, etc., necessary to bring about change in health care policy.

Apparently some people who need expensive “specialty drugs” are about to find that out the hard way under ObamaCare:

To try to keep premiums low, some states are allowing insurers to charge patients a hefty share of the cost for expensive medications used to treat cancer, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and other life-altering chronic diseases.

Such “specialty drugs” can cost thousands of dollars a month, and in California, patients would pay up to 30 percent of the cost. For one widely used cancer drug, Gleevec, the patient could pay more than $2,000 for a month’s supply, says the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society.

It’s not entirely clear how many people take specialty drugs.  The best statistic appears to come from this study by the Center for Studying Health System Change which estimates that “specialty drugs are prescribed for only one in every 100 commercial health plan enrollees.”

To apply that to enrollees in the exchanges, we’ll add the number of people who, according to the Census Bureau, bought their insurance directly (i.e. didn’t get it from their employer) to those who are uninsured. The first is about 30,244,000 and the second is 48,613,000 for a total of 78,857,000.  One in 100 of those equals 788,570, and that is how we get a rough estimate of the number of people in the exchanges who will need specialty drugs.*

So, how much political power is that?   Well, divide it by 435 House Districts and you get about 1,813 potential voters.  Most House elections are decided by margins considerably larger than that.   Divide it by 50 states and you get about 15,771 votes.  In 2012 only two Senate elections, North Dakota and Nevada, were decided by margins less than that.

And forgive me for repeating myself here, but let’s not forget that people aren’t taking specialty drugs unless they’re quite ill.  That means they probably aren’t organizing get-out-the-vote drives, protests, lobbying efforts, etc.

We’ll be seeing a lot more of this in ObamaCare in the months and years to come.

*Of course, not all of those people will go into the exchanges.  Even with the exchanges, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that about 30 million will remain uninsured.  The analysis also assumes that the uninsured will use specialty drugs at the same rate as those who have coverage, which may not prove to be the case.  What that means, however, is that even fewer people on the exchanges will use specialty drugs, thereby reducing what little political clout they have even further.

Photo: iStock Photo 

The IRS, Charlie Manson And Pirates Versus Patriots

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is discouraging “patriots” working to “make America a better place” while giving Charlie Manson’s followers and “pirates” tax-exempt status.

The IRS sanctioned Sea Shepherd’s “pirates” as a tax-exempt charity in 1982 and gave Charlie Manson’s Air Trees Water and Animals (ATWA) tax-exempt status in 2012 - for the second time.  ATWA was first issued tax exempt status in 1997 but after the families of Manson’s murder victims and others complained in 1999, ATWA lost its charitable status. Temporarily, it seems.

In an article entitled “In defense of tree-spiking” published by the Earth First! Journal in 1990, Sea Shepherd’s leader, Paul Watson, said:

I was the person who first thought up the tactic of tree-spiking and as such I feel obligated to defend this child of my imagination.

In 2013, the 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco labeled Sea Shepherd “pirates”  and the group announced its leader Paul Watson had jumped ship to avoid arrest. 

But Sea Shepherd’s status as an IRS-sanctioned charity seems secure. 

Beyond “pirates” supporting tree-spiking, the IRS believes Charlie Manson’s supporters are worthy of tax-exempt charitable status. 

The California Secretary of State’s website reveals Charlie’s group Air Trees Water and Animals, ATWA, once suspended, went active again in 2011: 

The IRS followed California in 2012 when it granted ATWA tax exempt charitable status (EIN 77-0405193) and, with the IRS’s blessing, ATWA is now busy raising money from the public on its website and Facebook.

The IRS describes ATWA’s work promoting Charlie Manson’s philosophy as: 

Environmental Quality Protection, Beautification.

At least Manson’s followers were smart enough to not say they wanted “to make America a better place.”

So, if you’re a “patriot” working “to make America a better place,” you’ll have trouble clearing IRS scrutiny.  

But if you’re a pirate promoting tree spiking or a Charlie Manson groupie, you’ll sail right through.

Go figure.

——————————————————————————————————————

Teresa Platt is the Director of the Environment and Enterprise Institute at the National Center for Public Policy Research.

Top Photo: iStockPhoto.com; Sea Shepherd’s pirate flag: Discovery Channel; Chart: California Secretary of State; Charlie Manson’s August 1996 Mugshot: California State Prison, Corcoran.

About That 'Shorter' ObamaCare Application

Grace-Marie Turner of the Galen Institute has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal showing that the supposed reducition in the size of the form for applying for insurance on the ObamaCare exchanges is not quite what it seems:

During his news conference last week, the president sounded defensive in trying to tamp down fears of an impending ObamaCare train wreck. One positive note was his boast about whittling down from 21 pages to three the application for subsidies that individuals have to file. But even that may need some defending.

The three-page application is for people who don’t get health insurance at work and are seeking coverage and subsidies for themselves. One big reason the new form is shorter: the type is smaller, with less space for answers.

The much-derided 21-page application was for families. It is now down to 11 pages, thanks to a trick. Eight pages in the longer application called for filling in information for four additional family members. The new form cuts these pages but says that if you have children, “make a copy of Step 2: Person 2 (pages 4 and 5) and complete.” The work required of the applicant remains the same.

She also notes that there is a follow-up application that is still in the draft stage that amounts to 61 pages.  

It seems that the Obama Administration is taking its inspiration on paperwork from this Ditech commerical:

Black Conservatives Discuss Guilty Verdict in the Gosnell Abortion Murders Case

Abortionist Kermit Gosnell was found guilty of first-degree murder today in the cases of three children who were born alive and later put to death during illegal late-term abortions that were conducted in his West Philadelphia clinic.

In a practice said to be routine when such botched abortions occurred at his below-standards clinic, Gosnell was convicted of cutting the spinal cords of babies with a pair of scissors to cause their deaths.

Gosnell was also found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the death by drug overdose of an adult patient.  Further, eight other employees at Gosnell’s clinic already pleaded guilty to murder and lesser charges.

The jury in the Gosnell case will reconvene on Tuesday to consider if the evidence in the conviction is enough to sentence Gosnell to death.

Members of the National Center’s Project 21 black leadership network – who spoke out early in the case when Gosnell’s attorney attempted to play the race card to his client’s advantage – are commenting about the verdict and what it says about Americans in these turbulent times.

Project 21 member Derryck Green, one of the members commenting on the race card, said upon news of the Gosnell verdict:

The guilt of Kermit Gosnell has been confirmed by a jury of his peers.

Convicted of three counts of murder in the first degree, whether he’s sentenced to life in prison or the more fitting punishment – in keeping with Genesis 9:5-6 – of the death penalty.

Whatever the sentence, Gosnell will no longer be free to continue the morbid and soulless evil of infanticide – when he delivered live, viable infants and intentionally murdered them under the deceptive guises of “choice” or a “woman’s right.”

The jury should be commended for discounting the charade of defense attorney Jack McMahon, who blamed the prosecution of his client on racial discrimination in a sad attempt at deflecting attention away from his client’s moral depravity for which he was charged.

Hopefully, this case forces Americans to re-evaluate the ethics, morality and the religious and theological implications of human life as well as the viability of infants and the need to protect them.  As a society, we are in desperate need of re-evaluating the justifications – emotional as well as those steeped in reason – of the immorality of abortion, legality notwithstanding.

This testimony heard in this case, the media blackout of it and Planned Parenthood’s relative silence in light of it demonstrates the logical conclusion of abortion on demand.

May God bless the souls of every child whose life has been cut short resulting from the facade of a woman’s “right to choose.”

Project 21 member Lisa Fritsch, an author and radio talk show host (and a mother), adds:

The kind of evil the Kermit Gosnell and those working in his clinic committed against innocent babies in particular and humanity in general is very difficult to accept.

No matter how many charges they find him guilty of, there is no earthly justice that can correct or punish what he has done.  One can only hope that this will open our nation’s eyes as to how bold evil can get if left unchecked.

Stacy Swimp, a member of Project 21 who will be participating in a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday about the impact of abortion on black America, declared:  

It is time for government to do what is right in God’s eyes.

The Word of God makes two unequivocal points pertinent to the discussion of the abortion industry.  The first is Psalm 51:5, which says that life begins at conception: “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.”  The second, Exodus 20:13, says that abortion is murder: “Thou shalt not murder.”

The abortion industry begat the mass-murderer named Kermit Gosnell.  The rejection of God by our government begat the abortion industry and created an inroad for evil men and women such as Gosnell and Margaret Sanger to bring about the mass murder of God’s precious creation of the unborn.

The United States Constitution does provide protection for the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to unborn persons.  It is now time for our nation’s government to do what is right in the eyes of God and protect the right to life for unborn Americans.

Our great nation should never again have to bear the horrific tragedies brought about by the likes of Kermit Gosnell.

Health Care Odds & Ends

 1. Having previously given grief to PapaJohn’s and Five Guys for complaining about how ObamaCare regulations will hurt business and jobs, the Huffington Post has now reported what only the fiercest ObamaCare partisans won’t admit:  ObamaCare is going to reduce the hours of a lot of workers.  A study from UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education, not exactly a right-wing think tank, finds ObamaCare “will put some 2.3 million workers at the greatest risk of reduced hours.”  And that may be on the low side.  As the study notes:

While the penalty only applies to firms with more than 50 full-time equivalent employees, due to data limitations we show all results for workers in firms with more than 100 total employees. Thus, the tables may slightly understate the number of potentially affected workers. 

While we’re on the topic, it’s not just fast-food restaurants anymore, or universities and colleges, or state governments.  Now, the Head Start program in Oregon is worried about ObamaCare:   “To reduce Obamacare costs, [Nancy Nordyk, director of the Head Start program in southern Oregon] will likely reduce full-time staffing, perhaps lay people off, and spend more hours on paperwork. “The bookkeeping information for it will be substantial because if you make a mistake, there’s quite a big [financial] penalty,” Nordyk said.

2. The New England Journal of Medicine study has sent shock waves through the health-policy community, especially those parts that believe in expanding Medicaid.  (See previous blog post here.)  The New York Times, at its Room for Debate site, solicits the thoughts of Michael Cannon, Grace-Marie Turner, Austin Frakt, Drew Altman and Robert Reich.

While Frakt, Altman and Reich make some interesting points, they also swing away at straw men, especially the suggestion that Medicaid be converted “to catastrophic-only coverage.”  Has someone on the political right suggested that?  Neither Reich nor Frakt, who make the charge, provide links to anyone.

As Cannon puts it: “The notion that Medicaid should provide only catastrophic coverage likewise misses the point. Congress should have to produce evidence of benefit before it forces taxpayers to fund any such program. Yet there’s no reliable evidence that government-provided catastrophic coverage would improve enrollees’ health, either.”

While Turner surely doesn’t speak for every person in favor of free-market based health care, she probably speaks for a lot of them when she writes:

We need to modernize the program to free recipients from the Medicaid ghetto so they can have the dignity of private coverage. The Healthy Indiana Plan is one creative option that has been highly popular. Citizens earning up to 200 percent of poverty start out with a POWER account they can use to purchase routine care, and catastrophic coverage kicks in for bigger medical bills.

3. More on Medicaid.  Two new studies on Medicaid from the Galen Institute.  Grace-Marie Turner and Avik Roy examine why states should not expand Medicaid, while Chris Jacobs explores alternatives to Medicaid that states can pursue.   Finally, my old haunt in Iowa, the Public Interest Institute, explains why states should avoid both the exchanges and the Medicaid expansion. 

4. Will the recent slow-down in health-care spending continue?  Well, it’s a tie, with two studies saying yes, and two saying no.  More here. 

5. Do hospitals “cost-shift” to private insurance when Medicare rates are too low?  This study in Health Affairs says no.  In fact, quite the opposite:  ”…hospitals facing cuts in Medicare payment rates may also cut the payment rates they seek from private payers to attract more privately insured patients.”  You mean hospitals can compete on price?  Paging Steven Brill…

Image: iStock Photo 

Black Conservatives Comment on Upcoming Benghazi Hearing

On Wednesday, three State Department whistleblowers are scheduled to testify before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.  They will discuss the events of September 11, 2012 as they relate to the terrorist attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya that left four Americans – including the U.S. ambassador to Libya – dead.

In particular, these witnesses are expected to testify about how political considerations loomed over the entire affair.  In the immediate aftermath of the massacre, the Obama Administration was slow to call it an act of terrorism – instead blaming a short film uploaded to YouTube that was being protested in other Muslim countries.  Since then, information has leaked out that shows the White House knew a lot more a lot sooner than was originally suggested.  And the talking points, like the ones used by American ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, went through a thorough editing process that seemed more geared for pre-election damage control than sharing real information.

Members of the National Center’s Project 21 black leadership network are speaking out about the hearing and the Benghazi debacle.

Project 21 member Darryn “Dutch” Martin, a former State Department diplomat who served on the African continent, said:

I firmly believe that the congressional hearings on the Benghazi scandal will make Watergate look like a walk in the park.

Whereas nobody died during Watergate, four Americans – including our ambassador to Libya – were killed in a planned terrorist attack.  It was not the result of some spontaneous anti-American demonstration as first claimed by the Obama Administration.

I consider the whistleblowers who stepped forward to testify to be patriots.  They are honoring the memories of those Americans whose lives were lost last September 11 by coming forward and letting the truth be known.

Project 21 co-chairman and former congressional leadership staff member Horace Cooper said:

So many falsehoods, and so little time.

The truth about the loss of lives of a U.S. ambassador and other brave Americans will not go away.  Almost everything the Obama Administration told us about the terrorist attack has proven to be false.

We were told that it was all about a movie.  That’s false.  They said it was a spontaneous protest.  That’s false.  They said there was no evidence of al Qaeda or terrorism.  False.  They said they did all they could to help the victims.  False.  They said they did not prevent help from coming.  False.

Hopefully, the hearings will let the American people and especially the families of those killed at least understand what really happened.  Then it’s our job to hold the responsible parties accountable.

Cherylyn Harley LeBon, the other co-chairman of Project 21 and a former counsel for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, added:

This congressional hearing will hopefully provide clarity and perhaps some closure for the families of the Benghazi victims.

Despite claims from the Obama Administration that a thorough investigation has occurred, testimony is apparently forthcoming which is contrary to White House assertions.  In fact, a U.S. diplomat alleges that the reluctance to send Special Forces may have deprived wounded Americans in Benghazi of first aid.

The families and rest of America really deserve honest answers.

Project 21 member Demetrius Minor said:

The apparent White House cover-up of the Benghazi murders that occurred last September is beyond appalling.

It should make every American uncomfortable that lies are still constantly being told while the truth has remained clandestine.

Kevin Martin, a Project 21 member and veteran of the U.S. Navy, pointed out:

Finally, after more than eight months of blockage, Congress will hear from whistleblowers expected to expose efforts by the then-Hillary Clinton-led Department of State to deliberately mislead the public about the reasons behind the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012.

Evidence has come to light that points to a well-coordinated attack carried out by al Qaeda loyalists in Libya, the disapproval of a military response to the attacks by the Obama Administration and a public relations effort that ignored facts in an attempt to convince the American public that Islamic anger over a little-known YouTube video caused the attack.  It also appears the State Department sought to intimidate witnesses into silence or forbid them to talk to congressional investigators in what may be a coordinated cover-up effort. 

I hope that partisan politics will not get in the way of finding out the truth behind that tragic chain of events that lead to the death of a U.S. ambassador, a civil employee and two brave former SEALS, who willfully disobeyed orders in a brave and honorable effort to defend our interests in Benghazi, Libya.

IPAB's Non-Existence Is A Problem Too

Over at the Washington Post, Sarah Kliff notes that the Independent Payment Advisory Board is out of the woods for now:

“IPAB would only come into effect when Medicare’s per-enrollee spending grew faster than the average of overall price growth…a few days ago, acting chief actuary Paul Spitalnic made his determination: Medicare cost growth would not be high enough to call the IPAB into action….And that’s the reason that, at least in its first year, the Independent Payment Advisory Board won’t be doing much at all. And it’s possible this could persist for a few years, as the the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services projects relatively low growth in per-enrollee spending for the next few years.”

Well, that’s part of the reason.  The other part is that there is no IPAB because President Obama has failed to nominate anyone yet.  Interestingly, Kliff doesn’t mention that.

Nor does this completely end the non-existent IPAB’s responsibilities for now.  On January 15, 2014, it is supposed to release an advisory report to Congress on Medicare.  Chances are that deadline will be missed too.

According to my count, there are about 128 working days left in the Senate calendar for this year.  Probably enough time to hold hearings and confirmation votes on IPAB nominees, but the window is closing.  And, so far, there is no indication that President Obama is about to make the nominations.

If not this year, will he make the nominees in 2014?  Risk a major public relations fiasco during an election year? Yeah, right.

That means the soonest he’d make the nominees is 2015.  Which means that the non-existent IPAB will miss at least four deadlines:  The actuary’s analysis from last Tuesday which IPAB has already missed.  The next actuarial analysis on April 30, 2014.  And the two advisory opinions on Medicare, one on January 15, 2014 and the other on January 15, 2015.

As IPAB misses more and more of those deadlines, it will become obvious to all but the most dedicated ObamaCare partisans:  IPAB is unworkable.

Image: iStockPhoto

Project 21 Members Echo Justice Thomas Comments on Elitist Expectations for Blacks

During a recent interview with C-Span, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas took the Washington establishment and the media to task for their intense love of President Obama and virtually everything he does while — at the same time — exhibiting mostly disdain for black conservatives and their opinions.

Asked if he ever expected to see a black person elected to the American presidency during his lifetime, Thomas replied that what he “always knew is that it would have to be a black president who was approved by the elites and the media.”

Thomas added that “any black person who says something that is not the prescribed things that they expect from a black person will be picked apart.”

And Clarence Thomas, of all people, should know.  For his own conservative beliefs, he went through a brutal Senate confirmation battle related to his nomination to the Court in 1991.  And he’s endured vicious treatment at the hands of liberals ever since.

Black conservatives with the Project 21 black leadership network echo Justice Thomas on his views of the D.C. elite, the media and their supporters and can relate to the demands on black conservatives to the liberal line.

For example, Project 21 member Darryn “Dutch” Martin, a former member of the diplomatic corps who now lives in D.C., said:

One need only compare the horrible way that Justice Thomas is treated by the mainstream media over his entire career to the media’s “walk-on-water” treatment of President Obama during his entire tenure in office.  One can see a glaring difference.  Justice Thomas has probably been called every nasty name in the book over his entire tenure on the High Court — many times by the mainstream media.  Yet Chris Matthews apparently still hasn’t gotten over that “thrill up his leg” he got when Barack Obama was first running for the White House in 2008. 

Project 21 member Lisa Fritsch, an author and radio host who lives in Austin, Texas, also sees the need for blacks to toe a political line as an even broader demand of the elite.  Lisa believes that all blacks are expected to behave in the same manner of groupthink, from the highest to the lowest levels of black America.  She said:

It is more than what the media expects.  It is what they have demanded of blacks: that we group think and hate conservatives. 

This feeling of a need on the part of the liberal establishment for a legion of like-minded blacks is echoed by Project 21 member Jimmie L. Hollis, a veteran of the U.S. Air Force and tea party activist in southern New Jersey.  Citing pressures in the black community to conform to liberal political ideology, Jimmie said:

I agree with Justice Thomas.  As long as blacks toe the politically correct line and stay within the liberal guidelines of speech and actions, they will win the approval and the smiles of the liberal elites.

Project 21 EXCLUSIVE: Interview with Township Official Called the N-Word by Colleague

Controversy still rages in Buena Vista Township, Michigan, where the white town clerk is under fire for calling a black town supervisor the n-word in a conversation with the interim town manager.  In an exclusive set of interviews made for the Project 21 black leadership network, targeted Buena Vista Township supervisor Dwayne Parker and interim township manager Dexter Mitchell talk with Project 21 member Stacy Swimp about how they are coping with the situation, how they think it can end and whether or not they can still work with offending Buena Vista Township clerk Gloria Platko.

In a January phone call between Platko and Mitchell that was taped by Mitchell (an action that is legal in Michigan), Platko expressed her utter contempt for Parker.  Platko sought to dismiss Mitchell’s suggestion that she and Parker “sit down” and try to work out their problems.

That’s when Platko was recorded saying: “You know what I think of Mr. Parker right now, and I know you’re not going to like this, but he is just an arrogant nigger.  And I’m sorry to say it that way, but that’s the way I feel.”

Mitchell made the contents of the call public at a township board meeting on April 22.  Platko insists her problems with Parker are “not a race thing.”  She said she’s “entirely sorry to this entire community,” but she also said “I will defend any black person in this township except Dwayne Parker.  He’s a lowlife.”

At a April 30 special public meeting that addressed Platko’s comments, five of the six voting members of the township board voted in favor of a symbolic resolution calling upon Platko to resign from the clerk’s position.  Platko was the sole voting member not in attendance.  Parker voted for Platko’s resignation.

Groups such as the Saginaw chapter of the NAACP and the Michigan Democratic Party also want Platko to resign.  Platko, Mitchell and Parker are all reportedly affiliated with the Democratic Party.

In the exclusive Project 21 interview, interim township manager Dexter Mitchell tells Project 21’s Swimp he recorded the phone call with Platko as a “defense mechanism” to show he was truly working for a peaceful resolution and not playing “gotcha” against Platko – a charge that Platko subsequently made against Mitchell.

Speaking on the veracity of Platko’s statement and the damage it caused, Mitchell said:

I immediately told her that the action that she did was wrong… My boss just told me that I’m just going to say something that I know you’re not going to like, and now my boss is telling me I don’t care if you don’t like it – I’m gonna say it anyway… If you know I’m not gonna like it, why do you say it?

Mitchell says he has spoken with his pastor about how to deal with the prospect of forgiving Platko and continuing to work with her.  He hopes, as a result of his making Platko’s comments public and allowing people to discuss the issue, the township “gets to the root of its problems and starts to build itself.”

Despite voting in favor of Platko’s resignation, Parker – in his interview with Project 21’s Swimp – said:

[T]he business of the township and government is first and foremost in my life… So, therefore, as long as she’s on the board, I will continue to work with her.

With Parker’s hailing from the South, he told Swimp that he recognizes the use of the n-word as “brutal and dangerous now” just like it was in the past.  Regarding Platko’s use of the n-word in particular and in her position of power, Parker added:

In this society,… these words are not tolerable – particularly when you are an elected governmental official.  It’s just not appropriate behavior, and for an individual of senior age should know better.

Platko is 69.  Parker is 52.

Asked for a reason behind Platko’s animosity toward him, Parker said “I really don’t know.”  He nonetheless wants to focus on governing, saying, “I was taught to forgive.”

Environmental Activist Scare Debunked

In a piece for the Huffington Post, Dr. Henry I. Miller and I take on the Environmental Working Group for scaring the public about the safety of fruits and vegetables. We also take on the scare-hungry media for reporting on the junk-science as if it had any merit.

We write,

“Many of the ‘healthiest foods’ we eat may not be as healthy as we think” was the lede of a recent Channel 11news story out of Pittsburgh. It was based on the Environmental Working Group’s just released 2013 “Dirty Dozen” report on pesticide residues on produce, which is trotted out every year by the NGO. These misleading pseudo-analyses frighten consumers and actually discourage them from buying healthy fruits and vegetables.

The news story continues, “Pesticides are meant to kill pests, but the residue isn’t meant to be eaten, and it could be harmful to your health.” Actually, the only truth in that statement is that “pesticides are meant to kill pests.” The rest of it is false, according to the United States Department of Agriculture, which unambiguously states that “U.S. food does not pose a safety concern based upon pesticide residues.”

EWG argues that they don’t actually tell people not to eat the “Dirty Dozen,” just that it is better to buy the organic versions if you can. Why? Presumably, because there’s some sort of danger from the “dirty” ones.  

So did EWG put out a public statement distancing itself from the Channel 11 story? Of course not. And as we report,

such news stories are the very reason EWG releases the report each year — to generate coverage that inhibits people from eating produce that isn’t organic. Unless of course, the produce is on the relatively new list, “The Clean Fifteen,” which contain the lowest level of pesticides, according to EWG.

Is the report based on sound science? Not exactly.

EWG tries to make their “Shopper’s Guide” appear legitimate by relying on samples taken and tested by the USDA and FDA. According to an article in The Huffington Post, “The EWG looked at six measures of pesticide contamination, gave each measurement a score from one to 100 and compiled the results.

But what was their methodology, if you could call it that? “In government tests analyzed by the Environmental Working Group, detectable pesticide residues were found on 67 percent of food samples after they had been washed or peeled. We found striking differences between the number of pesticides and amount of residues detected on Dirty Dozen Plus™ and Clean Fifteen™ foods.” (Yes, they’ve trademarked the names.)

In essence their approach is (in our words), “Some produce had more residue and some had less. We put the ones with most on a list and called them ‘dirty’ and the ones with least and made a different list and called them ‘clean.’”

This type of gimmick should result in an “F” in a 4th grade science fair, not adoring coverage in major media.

Federal agencies agree that pesticide residues, even from those topping the dirty dozen list, are not in the least harmful at the levels they occur. If you think the government agencies are in cahoots with “big agriculture” and you shouldn’t believe them, consider that even the first lady in her “Let’s Move” campaign advocates consumption of more fruits and vegetables, and hasn’t insisted they be organic.

 Read the full column, and feel free to weigh in on Huffington Post comments section.