Project 21's Green Talks Jobs, Economy and New Unemployment Numbers

Today saw the release of April’s unemployment numbers.  It’s still not nearly as good as President Obama promised Americans in return for giving him the keys to the White House.

The official, seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate — the one that all the media reports on — went down slightly to 7.5 percent.  According to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, the rate “changed little” and only around 165,000 jobs were created during April.  To make matters worse, the U-6 rate that includes the underemployed and despondent who have given up looking for work actually increased to a seasonally-adjusted rate of 13.9 percent.

And President Obama’s most loyal constituency had only a mild decrease in their specific rate as black unemployment fell from 13.3 percent to 13.2 percent.  The unemployment rate for Hispanics is an above-average nine percent.  And unemployment for teenagers leapt from 33.8 percent to 40.5 percent.

As he does every month upon the release of the new unemployment data, Derryck Green — a member of the National Center’s Project 21 black leadership network — gives his perspective on the state of the economy.  Despite the slight improvement, Derryck notes this month that the overall health of the economy and the outlook of the American people does not bode well for a better future:

As unemployment numbers continue to drop only slightly, it appears President Obama will be relying on an extremely misleading indicator to claim the economy is getting stronger.

Since the unemployment numbers haven’t always told the true story of what’s happened to the U.S. economy, we must do a diligent survey of other, broader indicators if we want to accurately gauge the President’s stewardship of an American economy that is — when defined by gross domestic product (GDP) growth — the worst economy in 83 years.

Regarding GDP growth, it was reported that the economy grew at just 2.5 percent [http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/economy-grew-at-25-percent-in-1st-quarter-lower-than-forecast/2013/04/26/9a4e99dc-ae72-11e2-8bf6-e70cb6ae066e_story.html?wpmk=MK0000200] during the first quarter, much slower than expected.  One cause being attributed to this slow growth is a reduction in military and defense spending over the past two quarters.  According to the Congressional Budget Office, defense spending cuts overall over the course of the Obama Administration and those contained in the much-hyped sequestration may inhibit GDP growth for the next several years.

As it pertains to the jobless and underworked, we know that the actual unemployment rate is just below 14 percent.  When unemployment is viewed on a state-by-state basis, there are only six states that have a U-6 unemployment rate  that covers the underemployed, those discouraged and the jobless that is below ten percent.

Additionally, USA Today revealed last week that roughly 93 percent of American households lost wealth during President Obama’s first term.  Further, the Urban Institute collected data that reveals that, under Obama, Hispanic families have lost 44 percent of their wealth; black families lost 31 percent while white families lost 11 percent.

Families losing wealth doesn’t do much to support the notion of an economic recovery.

With the economy in a sustained rut, more people are finding themselves in poverty and enrolling themselves in the federal food stamp program (now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP).  Looking at two separate sources, it shows precisely how and why.  There’s no doubt that the recession and so-called recovery have hit many families much harder than others and as such, SNAP continues to provide sustenance for those truly in need.

But SNAP is being abused by folks who may not need its assistance.  According to The Washington Post, SNAP recruiters in Florida have monthly quotas to hit so as to ensure $6 billion dollars of federal money continues to pour into the state’s economy.

Furthermore — and what should concern folks even more — is that, according to Judicial Watch, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is working in conjunction with the Mexican Embassy to “widely broaden the SNAP program in the Mexican immigrant community, with no effort to restrict aid to, identify or apprehend illegal immigrants who may be on the food stamp rolls.”  The actual government flyer passed around the immigrant community reads, in bold-face type and underlined: “You need not divulge information regarding your immigration status in seeking this benefit for your children.”

Americans’ tax dollars at work.

What’s President Obama’s response to the ongoing economic stagnation?  One seems to be more golf.  The President has reportedly devoted more time to the golf course than he has to the economy.  Twice as much, actually.

Another of the President’s responses was an attempt to push gun control and comprehensive immigration reform at a time when only four percent of Americans considered gun control or immigration a top issue.  The most important issue to those polled was the economy at 24 percent.

Yet another response is to continue the Fed’s $85 billion-per-month purchasing of mortgage-backed securities.

Considering these and other economic realities, a course correction cannot be foreseen as happening anytime soon, especially with the train wreck tax effects of ObamaCare approaching.  With major corporations already laying off some employees and reducing the hours of others, there is real concern about the lack of domestic economic viability on the horizon.

If this is as good as it gets, President Obama seems to want Americans to think, concern and doubt about a much-needed economic recovery is justified.

top photo credit: iStockPhoto

ObamaCare's Medicaid Expansion--Reality Intercedes

Over at the Cato Institute, Michael Cannon writes that a new study in the New England Journal of Medicine, “throws a huge ‘STOP’ sign in front of ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion.”  Aaron Carroll and Austin Frakt disagree, saying that the study “didn’t show that Medicaid harms people, or that the ACA is a failure, or that anything supporters of Medicaid have said is a lie.”   So who’s correct?

First to recap, here’s Phil Klein’s great description of it:

In 2008, Oregon expanded its Medicaid program, but because the state could not cover everybody, lawmakers opened up a lottery that randomly drew 30,000 names from a waiting list of almost 90,000 and allowed them to apply for the program. This created a unique opportunity for health researchers, ultimately allowing them to compare the health outcomes of 6,387 low-income adults who were able to enroll in the program with 5,842 who were not selected.

The NEJM study found no improvement in the Medicaid population relative to the control population on measures of blood pressure, hypertension, cholesterol or glycated hemoglobin (a symptom of diabetes.)  It did find higher diagnoses of diabetes, improvement in depression, a drop in catastrophic costs, and mixed evidence on the use of preventive care.

Carroll and Frakt cite some of the latter as reason to continue the Medicaid expansion under ObamaCare (at least, that seems to be their implication.)  Let’s look at some of their arguments:

Improvements in mental health are still improvements in health outcomes. The rate of positive screens for depression dropped from 30% to 21% in the Medicaid group. The rate of medication use for depression went from 16.8% to 22.3%. It wasn’t statistically significant (though it was close, p=0.07).

But this finding raises more questions than answers.  What caused the drop in depression among those on Medicaid?  It doesn’t appear to be medication use, as that was not quite significant.  Do people simply become less depressed when they get health coverage?  And, if so, how serious is the depression to begin with?  Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t.  Surely, though, there are better ways to help their depression than putting them on a program as expensive and inefficient as Medicaid.

Next,

Preventive care matters. We’ve been cautious about the ability of prevention to save money. But some preventive care improves outcomes. More people on Medicaid got colonoscopies, cholesterol screenings, and prostate cancer screens (whether or not you support them). The percent of women over 50 who got mammograms doubled from 28.9% to 58.6%. Results once again weren’t always “statistically significant”, so people can claim “Medicaid failed”. But colonscopies in people over 50 went from 10.4% to 14.6% (p=0.33). Failure?

Sorry, but 0.33 is not statistically significant—that is, not any different than the control group.  The standard is .05, and Carroll and Frakt know that.  So, yes, that is a failure.  Medicaid also failed to achieve significant improvements in fecal occult-blood tests in people over 50 or flu shots in people over 50.  It did achieve a significant increase in cholesterol screening, pap smears, mammograms in women over 50 and PSA tests in men over 50.  As noted about, results for preventive care were mixed.

But if cholesterol screening did increase under Medicaid, why was there no improvement in lowering cholesterol levels?  In part because their was no improvement in use of cholesterol lowering drugs.  Why not?  Probably because that requires follow-up from physicians to remind people to take their drugs regularly.  And Medicaid’s reimbursements rates are seldom enough to even cover the cost of a doctors visit and testing, let along follow up.

Next, 

Financial hardship matters. Here Medicaid shined. It hugely reduced out of pocket spending, catastrophic expenditures, medical debt, and the need to borrow money or skip payments.

Medicaid reduced the number of people in the worst shape—catastrophic expenses—by almost 4.5 percentage points.  But only 5.5% of the control group were in that category to begin with.  As Michael Cannon notes, “If Medicaid partisans are still determined to do something…they could design smaller, lower-cost, more targeted efforts to reduce depression and financial strain among the poor.”

One other point that Frakt and Carroll do not bring up.  Regarding the improvements in diabetes diagnosis and use of diabetes medication—how does one square those results with the fact that glycated hemoglobin levels failed to improve among those with Medicaid?  For starters, medication usage among diabetics only improve about 5.4 percentage points.  Perhaps a much bigger improvement in medication use is needed before hemoglobin levels improve.  Next, diabetics often need a lot of education on their condition, coordination of care, and reminders to take their medication.  As I noted above Medicaid’s reimbursement rates don’t even pay enough to cover the cost of the doctors visit.

Frakt and Carroll seem to be engaging in a bit of bad faith when they say, “If they’re arguing that insurance coverage shouldn’t be accessible to poor Americans in any form, we don’t agree.”  It was wise of them to put the “if” at the beginning of the sentence, because who is arguing that?  Certainly not Cannon or Phil Klein or anyone else I can think of—and not me either.  Perhaps they could point to someone who is actually saying that.  

Finally, Frakt and Carroll say, “If they are arguing that Medicaid needs to be reformed in some way, we’re open to that.”  Good that they’re open to that, but are we likely to get reform if states go ahead with Medicaid expansion and get dependent on the federal dollars, or if they don’t?   Once its expanded, the interest groups that depend on those dollars fight tooth and nail against reform.  That’s what has made it so difficult to turn the program into block grants in recent years.  

 Image: iStock Photo

Project 21 Members Discuss National Day of Prayer

Today, as on every first Thursday of May, the National Day of Prayer is being observed.

Originally suggested by the Continental Congress is 1775, the modern National Day of Prayer was enacted in 1952.

As described on the web site of the National Day of Prayer Task Force, a privately-funded organization that promotes the Day, the purpose of the Day is meant for an appeal to “people of all faiths to pray for the nation.”  According to the Task Force, past observances have brought together over two million people annually at events in 30,000 government buildings, schools, churches, businesses and private homes across America.

Members of the Project 21 black leadership network are proud to be among those millions celebrating this year’s National Day of Prayer.  And they see this year as more meaningful than most due to the hardships our nation has recently endured.

Demetrius Minor, a college and career coordinator who is also an evangelist and motivational speaker and who is currently preparing for further religious studies at ministerial training center, said:

These events are certainly a synopsis of our religious culture.  It serves as a reminder of how important these traditions are in Christendom and the need to commemorate them.

But prayer cannot simply be condensed into a single day.  It is not something that can be dusted off a shelf once and year and expected to perform at its highest magnitude.  Prayer must be a lifestyle.

I am not desensitized by the traditional events surrounding the National Day of Prayer. The spiritual unity that is witnessed during this day is beneficial and definitely needed. This lone event, however, does not account for a personal relationship with God and an active prayer life.

Prayer can change and alter any situation.  When God sees an adamant desire by one to communicate with him, he feels compelled to intervene on our behalf.  It is the power that makes an alcoholic feel an eradication for his desire of drunkenness.  It is the power of prayer that can take a wounded heart of a depressed soul and set it free.  The power of prayer faces no limits or boundaries.  It is not bound by natural obstacles or setbacks.

We will never learn to grow in our faith and relationship with God by simply waiting for a National Day of Prayer event to speak with him. Prayer must certainly be a lifestyle.  It should be something we yearn to do.  Prayer must be a lifestyle.

Council Nedd II, the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Missionary Church and chairman of In God We Trust pro-faith in government organization, said:

As we go in to this National Day of Prayer, the events of the last few weeks are most likely in the forefront of most of our minds.  The tragedy and tumult of recent times is undoubtedly helping people reconnect with religion.

So why does a national tragedy have to occur in order for the nation — as individuals — to find a value in prayer?  Do people ever stop and think that more faith and more prayer and more reliance on God might prevent some of these catastrophic events from happening?

Derryck Green, who is currently pursuing a doctorate in theology and ministry in southern California, said:

Today, as Americans participate in the National Day of Prayer, we should be mindful that our prayers — regardless of our religious tradition — reflect our thankfulness for the blessings that God has bestowed upon our nation.

At the same time, all is not well in our nation.  As such, and as I Timothy 2:2 counsels, our prayers and intercessions should be made for all people.  This includes those in authority — no matter what their political affiliations are — so that we may live in peace.  Let us humbly pray for our nation, our military and civic and religious leaders that God may grant them mercy, much needed courage, very much needed wisdom and guidance.

Let us also pray to God and ask that he forgive of our sins individually as well as corporately as a nation.  We should ask God to remove the many manifestations of impurity that finds its way into our lives, and hinder us from personifying the righteousness and justice that he desires.  Americans should also fervently pray that God restores our land from the infirmities that afflict our nation.
It is my hope, as noted in Jeremiah 29:12-13, that we earnestly and sincerely seek God in prayer — not only that he may hear us, but also that we may find him.

May God continue bless and restore our lives and our nation as we humble ourselves before him today.

top photo credit: iStockPhoto

Project 21's Nedd: Sharpton No Longer Seems Wedded to Religion Beliefs

Earlier this week, Jason Collins — a mediocre player in the NBA — likely garnered himself at least one more year of play and a spot in the NBA’s Hall of Fame by announcing that he is homosexual.

Reverend Al Sharpton, never one miss an opportunity to toe the extremely liberal line, took to the pages of the Huffington Post web site to declare Collins a “role model” as well as salute “the courage and candor of Mr. Collins” and his “incredible contribution to this country both on and off the basketball court.”

All that because Collins told Sports Illustrated he likes guys.

But Sharpton didn’t stop with platitudes for Collins.  He used the announcement to go completely off the rails and against his religious background by using the Collins coming out party as a means of criticizing the institution of marriage.

In his commentary, Sharpton wrote:

Many of my fellow members of the Church think that marriage is sacred between a man and a woman according to the Bible, but if that’s the basis, then why do we allow secular judges to conduct marriage when we don’t know what the judge’s personal beliefs are, if any?…  The answer is, we really don’t believe that ourselves and we live in a nation where we do have separation of Church and state.  Therefore, why should anyone get to decide which partners are afforded legal rights and which partners are not?

Council Nedd II, the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Missionary Church and a member of the Project 21 black leadership network, faults Sharpton’s understanding of the religious underpinnings of marriage:

For Al Sharpton to say that marriage isn’t sacred tells me that he has completed his transition from ordained minister in the church of God to become a full-blown media personality.

Any first-year student at a local Bible college will not dispute the sanctity of holy matrimony.  Even a religious novice should have enough acumen to make a distinction between a civil joining of two people and two people making vows to God before their friends and relatives.

Sharpton asks why churches don’t conduct divorces?  The church did conduct divorces for about the first 1,700 years of Christian history.  In England, one still cannot remarry in a church without a proper decree of nulity from the church.  This is why they have so many civil partnerships in England.  In the Philippines, one cannot divorce without the specific permission of the Roman Catholic Church.

There is this book Al Sharpton might have heard about called the Bible.  In this book, Christ says render unto Caesar that which is Caesars.  The state, for its own reason, has usurped and placed its authority above that of the church.

How can Al Sharpton side with Caesar over scripture regarding the sacrament of marriage?

Health Care Odds & Ends

Some interesting pieces on health care policy, in no particular order:

1. “Obamacare’s backers and critics increasingly seem to agree that the president’s health law is in for a rocky start,” writes Peter Suderman at Reason.  He reviews Ezra Klein and Jonathan Cohn’s admissions about this, and concludes: “Does this sound like something that has the potential to be a ‘huge train wreck’? I’ll leave that to others to decide. But at the very least, it sounds as if the Obamacare implementation process is in for a derailment or two.” What I found interesting about Klein and Cohn’s analysis is the omission of the effect ObamaCare regulations is having on jobs, something NCPPR has chronicled here and here and here and here and here.

2. One person who did look at the effect ObamaCare would have on jobs—and also insurance rates, loss of insurance, and other problems—is Dan Kessler of the Hoover Institution.  He concludes: “In total, it appears that there will be 30 million to 40 million people damaged in some fashion by the Affordable Care Act—more than one in 10 Americans. When that reality becomes clearer, the law is going to start losing its friends in the media, who are inclined to support the president and his initiatives.”   Not so sure about that second sentence, but the first is more than enough to make politicians nervous.

3. Speaking of ObamaCare and jobs, a new survey of small businesses by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce finds that 72% agree that “the recent healthcare law makes it harder for my business to hire more employees” (51% strongly agree, 21% somewhat agree.) Additionally, “Support for the law is very low among small businesses surveyed (21%), and almost eight-out-of-ten (77%) of small businesses surveyed support its repeal.”

While we’re at it, it’s a good time to mention this slightly oldie-but-goodie, the Federal Reserve’s Beige Book from March.  It noted that “Employers in several Districts cited the unknown effects of the Affordable Care Act as reasons for planned layoffs and reluctance to hire more staff.”  And under Consumer Spending and Tourism it stated, “Many District contacts commented on the expired payroll tax holiday and the Affordable Care Act as having restrained sales growth.” 

4. “Almost All Americans Lack Health Insurance.”  That was the provocative title of a piece at the Huffington Post by Dr. Beth Haynes.  She states “very few Americans have health insurance… because what people call health insurance really isn’t insurance at all.”  She continues: “So what is it we have that we call health insurance but isn’t? We have the prepayment of medical expenses. We expect our “insurance” to cover predictable, relatively inexpensive events like health maintenance checks, minor illnesses and injuries — and to pay for them with minimal out of pocket spending. Under Obamacare, these expectations will be mandated by law.”  Read it all.

5. Back in November, the Wall Street Journal ran a story with the headline “Health-Care Law Spurs a Shift to Part-Time Workers.”  Oh well, Wall Street Journal, typical anti-ObamaCare story that newspaper would run, right? Well, things must have been getting a bit more worrisome when the New York Times ran a story a few weeks ago with the headline, “Part Time Work Become Full-Time Wait for Better Job,” that also mentioned the impact of ObamaCare.  Now comes a story from Monday with the headline, “As Health Law Changes Loom, A Shift To Part-Time Workers.”  Things must be getting pretty bad out there, because that story comes from National Proletariat Public Radio.

Image: iStock Photo

ObamaCare: Where's The Lefty Outrage? Part V

The evidence keeps piling up that ObamaCare is going to have some very unpleasant effects for employees and employers.  And the left stays silent.  

To wit:

-Adjunct professors at Virginia’s community colleges are going to see their weekly hours cut from 45 to 29 or less to come under the ObamaCare definition of a full-time employee being 30 hours a week or more (employers have to provide insurance to full-time employees or pay a fine.) It will hit about one-quarter of the 9,100 adjuncts in the Virginia system.  Ann Hubbard is one who will see the credit hours she teaches cut from 45 to 27.  In response she has set up a Facebook page where “adjuncts and their allies can find out how to write to [Chancellor] DuBois, [Governor] McDonnell or even President Barack Obama appealing for an exemption that would allow them to teach full loads without forcing the state to add them to its health plan.”

-Tim Wulf, who owns a chain of Jimmy John’s sandwich shops in Northern Nevada, has “realized his staff of more than 100 put him right in the bull’s-eye for the ObamaCare mandate.”  The article continues:

So Mr. Wulf says he began cutting workers 18 months ago — and not because business was bad. He sold one of his three stores, retrained workers to handle more duties and invested in labor-saving technologies. Automated online ordering, for example, replaced the equivalent of two full-time workers. (Where are they working now, do you suppose?) Given the number of part-timers working at any sandwich shop, Mr. Wulf managed to reduce his workforce to 42 full-time equivalent workers.

-You’ve probably heard of some big employers wondering whether it will be cheaper to drop their insurance and put their employees in the exchanges.  Well, guess who’s considering that now?  It would be the government of Washington State:

In a quest to save money, political leaders in Washington state are exploring a proposal that would shift some government workers out of their current health plans and onto the insurance exchange developed under President Barack Obama’s health care law.

Lawmakers believe the change, which could affect thousands of part-time state employees and education workers, would save the state $120 million over the next two years. It would consequently push more health care costs onto the federal government because many of the low-income workers would likely qualify for federal subsidies.

Well, what do you expect from a state with a heartless, right-wing, Republican Governor like Jay Inslee…oh wait.

-Finally, Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus recently said, “Government regulations such as Obamacare are destroying small business.”

Funny thing, there are no calls from the left for a boycott of Home Depot.  That’s sure different than the treatment Darden Restaurants received.  In fact, not a peep from Salon, Daily KOS, MSNBC, Mother Jones, the Huffington Post and the other usual suspect about Marcus’ remarks, let alone a call for a boycott.   In fact, none of those sites mention the Virginia adjunct professors, Jimmy John’s or Washington State.

The strategy seems to be see nothing bad about ObamaCare, hear nothing bad, speak nothing bad.  At this point, that may be the only strategy they have left.

Photo: iStock Photo

Why Is IPAB M.I.A.?

The Independent Payment Advisory Board, also known affectionately as the death panel, may be in its early death throes.  From my article at the American Spectator:

If a government actuary conducts an analysis but the committee that is supposed to receive that analysis doesn’t exist, does the analysis make a sound?

The Chief Actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services may soon be asking himself that question. Under Obamacare he is required to determine by this Tuesday, April 30, whether the projected growth rate in Medicare for 2015 will exceed the targeted Medicare growth rate. If the projected growth rate exceeds the target, then Obamacare’s Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) is supposed to develop a proposal to bring Medicare’s expenditures back in line with the target.

The only problem is that IPAB doesn’t yet exist.

That probably won’t be the only deadline IPAB will miss.

Read it all here.

Project 21’s Minor Reflects on the Legacy of George W. Bush

Project 21 member Demetrius Minor saw history in the making as an intern in the George W. Bush Administration.  With today’s dedication of the George W. Bush Presidential Center in Dallas, Texas, Demetrius shares these words about the Bush presidency:

I want to congratulate President George W. Bush and his wife, Laura, on the dedication of his presidential library and museum.

I had the distinct privilege to serve as a White House intern during the Bush Administration in 2006.  It was an honor to serve a leader who had bravery, courage and principles.  He was strong and gracious, and his impeccable character was a reflection of his staff and personnel.

George W. Bush’s love for America was a beacon of hope and strength during some of her most challenging and difficult days.  Today is a solemn reminder that our nation owes a debt of thanks for the firm leadership that was displayed by our 43rd president.

Jeff Stier, Pfizer CEO Criticize "Academic Detailing" in Health Care

Jeff Stier, director of the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Risk Analysis Division, asks Pfizer CEO Ian Read about his company’s position on “academic detailing.”  Academic detailing empowers academics selected by the government to guide how medical care and prescription drugs are delivered to patients, Jeff points out the program currently lacks transparency and creates a conflict of interest because the government seeks both quality care while demanding the cheapest costs.  Jeff further points out the system as it is currently set up could endanger patients because a standardized program might put patients prone to certain medical side effects at risk if only certain drugs are mandated under the new regulatory regime.

Pfizer CEO Ian Read replied that the beliefs of the National Center and Pfizer “100-percent coincide” and government efforts to run health care could result in an unfortunate “waste of money.”  Read also noted, regarding the issue of transparency, that the government’s representatives will not be bound by the same rules and standards that the medical industry is bound to, which could also cause problems.

This exchange took place at the Pfizer annual meeting of shareholders on 4/25/13.

Johnson and Johnson CEO Says Medical Device Tax Should Be "Reconsidered"

Justin Danhof of the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project questions Johnson and Johnson chairman and CEO Alex Gorsky about the company’s decision to drop its support of the American Legislation Exchange Council and to comment a National Center proposal to end the ObamaCare medical device tax and offset it by also ending wind power subsidies.  This exchange took place at the company’s 4/25/13 annual meeting of shareholders.

In response to Justin’s question, Gorsky said he made the decision to drop support of ALEC — an organization Johnson and Johnson worked with on business issues before ALEC was targeted by organized leftist groups as racist for its support of voter ID legislation — because ALEC was “no longer consistent” with Johnson and Johnson’s much-heralded credo.

On the medical device tax, Gorsky said that Johnson and Johnson was “working with other trade organizations” to improve ObamaCare, and about the tax that there are “definitely components of it that should be reconsidered” because the tax may stifle innovation and affect employment.

Government Health Care: What You Get Will Depend On Your Political Clout, Part II

As noted yesterday, the problem with the government run health-care system is that the people who are in most need of health care, the sick, seldom have the political clout necessary to change health care policy that adversely impacts them.  

Two reasons for this are: 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.

Yesterday I examined cases where sick people or their caretakers had some understanding that government policy—specifically, Medicare policy—was negatively impacting their care but lacked the numbers or were too ill to impact the political system.

Today let’s look at the two other reasons why the sick lack political clout:  3. They may be completely unaware of how government health care policy has affected their plight, in which case they will not feel the need to vote or organize to change health care policy; and 4. They’re dead, in which case they definitely won’t be organizing and, unless they are laid to rest in Chicago, they won’t be voting.

Consider the Medicare cuts that Congress made to hospitals as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.  While many of these cuts were scaled back after 2000, the cuts made from 1997 to 2000 had relatively long-lasting effects, according to a paper by Vivian Y. Wu and Yu-Chu Shen.  They found that hopsitals in urban areas that endured larger cuts had worse mortality rates from 2001-2005 for heart attack patients relative to hopsitals that faced smaller cuts.

Now, the patients who died from heart attacks related to the Medicare cuts won’t be around to do anything about it, obviously.  The relatives and friends of the deceased could try to take action against Congress—say, lobby against Medicare cuts done this way—but what are the chances that they will ever know that Medicare’s policy had a hand in their loved one’s death?  They were almost surely unaware that their loved one was treated at a hopsital that endured a large Medicare cut.  And chances are slim they will ever read Wu and Shen’s paper.

And even if they did become aware of it, whom could they hold accountable now?  Many of the politicians who were in Congress that voted for the Balanced Budget Act in 1997 are now gone from office.

In short, government-run health care works against the sick because it makes it very difficult for the sick to hold policymakers accountable.  My advice to you if ObamaCare is never repealed: Don’t get sick.

Image: iStock Photo

Congress Creates Privileged Class Under ObamaCare

A Politico story that has apparently jumped the gun claims Congress is trying to exempt itself from ObamaCare. Ezra Klein dispels that, but then goes on to miss something, well, kind of important:

…the federal government is the largest employer in the country. So Grassley’s amendment means that the largest employer in the country is required to put some of its employees — the ones working for Congress — on the exchanges. But the exchanges don’t have any procedures for handling premium contributions for large employers.

That’s where the problem comes in. This was an offhand amendment that was supposed to be rejected. It’s not clear that the federal government has the authority to pay for congressional staffers on the exchanges, the way it pays for them now in the federal benefits program. That could lead to a lot of staffers quitting Congress because they can’t afford to shoulder 100 percent of their premiums….

But no one is discussing “exempting” congressional staffers from Obamacare. They’re discussing creating some method through which the federal government can keep making its current contribution to the health insurance of congressional staffers.

While Congress may not be exempting itself from ObamaCare, Klein misses the fact that Congress is creating a special privilege for its staffers.  No other employer can make a contribution to his employees’ insurance should hisemployees purchase it on the exchange in 2014.  (Small business were supposed to be able to do this via the SHOP program, but that has been postponed until at least 2015).  The soonest a big business would be able to make a contribution to an employee’s insurance would be 2017.

Unless, of course, you are staffer working on Capitol Hill.  In that case you will be getting what no other purchaser in the exchange will be getting in 2014, an employer contribution—assuming Congress has its way.

There’s a term for that: It’s “Privileged Class.”

Photo: iStock Photo

Government Health Care: What You Get Will Depend On Your Political Clout

One of the biggest drawbacks of any government-run health care system is that the health care you get is more likely to be determined by political clout than medical need.  That’s a problem because the the sickest people are the ones who are most in need and most likely to lack political clout.

The reasons they lack such clout are:

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.

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.

3. They may be completely unaware of how government health care policy has affected their plight, in which case they will not feel a need to vote or organize to change health care policy.

4. They’re dead, in which case they definitely won’t be organizing and, unless they are laid to rest in Chicago, they won’t be voting.

For today, let’s look at an example involving one and two, saving three and four for tomorrow.

Until recently, Medicare would only pay for physical, occupational or speech therapy if the therapy satisfied the “improvement standard.”  The improvement standard required that the patient must be showing improvement while undergoing therapy.  If he wasn’t, therapy would be discontinued.

At one time, the improvement standard may have made sense.  Most patients who received therapy underwent it for an injury, say, to a knee or hand.  The rationale for the therapy was that it was might succeed in improving the function of the injured body part, possibly restoring it to its pre-injury state.

But medical professionals often find that over time a treatment intended for a particular illness has multiple uses.  Therapy is no exception.

In the last 20 years or so studies have found many uses for therapy.  According to a review of the medical literature, no therapy treatment has yet proven effective in stopping multiple sclerosis (MS), but some treatments have proven useful in treating the symptoms.  For example, a recent article examining primary-progressive MS found that therapy and other rehabilitative treatments can slow its progression by minimizing problems that result from decreased mobility or by compensating for a loss of function.  A “meta-analysis” of the effect of occupational therapy on MS patients found that it was generally effective in improving muscle strength, range of motion, walking, and daily tasks like bathing and dressing.  Another study of MS patients found that extensive therapy did little to improve patients’ impairment but did help them maintain their activity level.

Other studies have shown that therapy benefits patients suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease.  Alzheimer’s patients in a walking program showed improvement in activities of daily living and a slower decline in mental activities.  Another article showed improvements in balance and a slowing of cognitive decline using physiotherapy, occupational therapy and physical education.  Various types of speech therapy also improve health outcomes for dementia patients.

The results of such studies offer hope, but many of the benefits listed above do not necessarily satisfy the improvement standard.  Improving muscle strength or the ability to carry out daily activities might qualify.  But things like “slowing the progression,” “treating the symptoms,” and “slowing cognitive decline,” probably would not.

Case in point was Clay Bell, a Detroit-area man who suffered from primary-progressive MS, the worst form of the disease.  Being disabled, he was covered by Medicare. By the time I interviewed him, he was paralyzed from the neck down.  About a year prior, he still had some limited mobility in his arms and legs, thanks to physical and occupational therapy.  However, therapy was not going to improve his condition.  It would only slow the decline, so Medicare cut it off.  After he was cut off, his decline came very quickly.

Patients with primary progressive MS are some of the most likely to run afoul of the improvement standard.  Estimates vary, but somewhere between 250,000 and 400,000 Americans suffer from MS.  Primary-progressive accounts for 10 to 15 percent of those, or 25,000 to 60,000.  Even if their physical limitations didn’t present serious obstacles to political organization, their numbers at most average to about 137 per congressional district and 1,200 per state—hardly enough to have much impact on House or Senate elections.

There are far more Alzheimer’s patients, an estimated 5.4 million in the U.S.  Exactly how many of them run afoul of the improvement standard is not known, but if it was even one-fifth, they might have the numbers to influence Congress.  But, of course, Alzheimer’s patients also suffer from mental impairment.  People who suffer from confusion, memory loss, and problems with attention and language difficulties, sadly, aren’t going to be a political force to be reckoned with.

Fortunately, the “improvement standard” was recently overturned.  The Center for Medicare Advocacy filed a class action lawsuit against it, arguing that the standard was not based on any actual legislation or regulation. Apparently the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services realized that it did not have a case.  CMS settled, and now qualifying for therapy will be based “on whether the beneficiary needs skilled care.”

Unfortunately that came too late for Clay Bell, who passed away in May 2012.  How many other people with MS or dementia saw their health decline or died prematurely because of the improvement standard?  That’s something that may never be known.  What will be the next treatment that could help a group of Medicare beneficiaries that Medicare won’t pay for because the group lacks sufficient political clout?  We don’t know, but given the way Medicare functions it is inevitable.

Photo: iStock Photo

The Internet Sales Tax Is About Helping Local Businesses The Way Bernie Madoff Was About Helping His Investors

A bill with the Orwellian name “Marketplace Fairness Act” that imposes a sales tax on internet retailers looks like it is going to be passed by the Senate.

As it wends its way through Congress, you’ll hear plenty of rhetoric like this:  The bill “will level the playing field for local small business retailers that are in competition every day with large out-of-state online companies,” said President Obama.

I believe that, don’t you?  Undoubtedly, the money collected will go to help local business lower their costs so they can better compete with online retailers.  You’ll see state and local government use the revenue from the internet tax to cut sales taxes and maybe even property taxes for local businesses.

The logical flaw in that argument, though, seems to be that state and local governments could do those things now without internet sales tax revenue.  So, why don’t they?  Well, that would mean those governments would get less revenue.  And governments are not about anything if they’re not about getting more revenue.

And that, of course, is the purpose of the internet sale tax.  As Sen Dick. Durbin (D-Ill) said, “What it means is a lot of money for states and localities.”  Kudos to Durbin for his honesty.  

You can bet that the money will be spent on state and local politicians’ interests that help them get reelected, especially the salary, pensions and health care costs of government workers.  Local retailers will be lucky to see a dime of it.  Instead, they are being used in a scam to squeeze more money out of the taxpayers.  For more on this, here’s what I wrote about the internet sales tax at Investor’s Business Daily a few months back:

This is nothing short of a racket. To see this, one just has to examine how the tax is going to be collected. If, say, a person in Texas purchases an item online from a company in Rhode Island, the company has to compute the sales tax for Texas, apply it to the item, charge it to the customer as part of the price, and then remit the tax to the state of Texas. And the company in Rhode Island has to do this for every state.

That means retailers have to keep track of many different sales tax jurisdictions, a once near-Herculean task. But a website supporting the “Marketplace Fairness Act” actually makes a reasonable point. Because of computer technology, this is “no longer an insurmountable technical, administrative, or financial burden.” Well, it’s no longer an insurmountable burden. The cost the businesses have to pay for such technology is still a cost and, hence, a burden.

But here’s why it is a racket. If making the process simple is really the goal, then why not simply apply the sales tax where the online retailer is located? The company in Rhode Island would simply add the state’s 7% sales tax to all of its items, and the consumer would pay that every time he purchased something online from the company.

That’s the way it works now every time we take a trip to another state and make purchases there. When I go to Maryland, I pay the 6% Maryland sales tax on anything I buy there. The taxes go into the coffers of the state of Maryland. The businesses I buy from do not remit the sales taxes to Virginia, my state of residence.

Doing it that way would be much simpler and less costly than companies having to buy software that enables them to apply the sales tax in multiple states. Of course, that might force states to compete for the business of online retailers. Big online retailers would be inclined to locate in states like Delaware which has no sales tax. Or they would be inclined to locate in states with low sales taxes and regulations that were far more business friendly. Regardless, states would have to compete for online businesses, and governments generally like competition the way a vampire likes garlic.

So, the federal and state governments want to do it in a more convoluted way which, as governments will do, they call “simple.” Most importantly, doing it this way ensures that every state gets a cut of the boodle.

And once most state governments get their hands on this money, let the spending begin!

One of the funniest moments to come out of this entire boondoggle occurred when ex-Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour took the the pages of NRO to promote it. Now flacking for the Retail Industry Leaders Association, Barbour claimed, “The Marketplace Fairness Act is something all conservatives should be proud to support.”

Sending more money to near-bankrupt states like California, New York and Illinois is something conservatives should be proud to support? What was Mr. Barbour sprinkling on his breakfast cereal?

Bernie Madoff scammed many people out of millions of dollars.  Congress is about to scam us out of billions.  The difference?  Madoff didn’t dress up his scam as a matter of “fairness” and helping “local business.”

Photo: iStock Photo

New York Post Book Review: The Food Police

In a book review of Jayson Lusk’s “The Food Police” in today’s New York Post, I write,

Activists have spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to influence what food we eat, where we buy it and where it should be grown. But their trendy preferences clash with economic realities and the science of healthy eating.

Lusk is correct that “today, food policies are increasingly motivated by ideology” and “the fashionable agenda of a new food elite,” rather than whether the policies actually make us healthier.

Lusk properly blames celebrity chefs, activists, the popular press and politicians for being “the self-appointed saviors of our food system.” They say we sin by violating their commandments: “Thou shalt not eat at McDonald’s, buy eggs from chickens raised in cages, buy tomatoes from Mexico or feed your infant nonorganic baby food.

There can be no lack of faith in the elite’s dictates. There are no difficult trade-offs and no gray areas. Thou shalt sacrifice taste for nutrition, convenience for sustainability and low prices for social justice.”

A model program championed by food elitists is taking place in New York City, where Mayor Bloomberg’s Health Department distributes hundreds of thousands of dollars in “Health Bucks” vouchers. These new entitlements, given to city social-service nonprofits, may only be used at pricey farmers markets — not at produce sections of supermarkets, or heaven forbid, in the frozen-food section.

Although allowing voucher recipients to buy cheaper fruits and veggies in stores would increase the amount of produce purchased, the Health Department instead brags that the program “encourages shoppers to spend more of their monthly Food Stamp allotment on fresh produce from the [farmers] market.”

But programs like Health Bucks, Lusk argues, will likely worsen the nutritional problem it is meant to solve.

Farmers markets selling local produce are only useful in harvest months. The program purposefully diverts consumers from supermarkets and bodegas — which activists allege don’t supply quality and affordable produce now. Come winter, when the farmers markets are left with nothing but jelly and artesian breads, customers will be left in a jam; those that return to the supermarkets may find the bodgegas have largely abandoned vegetables — not able to compete with organic arugula the city provides gratis.

Across the Hudson, the New Jersey Department of Agriculture’s “Jersey Fresh” advertising campaign has spent an annual average of nearly $1 million of state and federal taxpayer money promoting locally grown food. The program is typical of government spending, which distorts decision-making by pushing locally grown produce at the expense of other convenient and affordable food. New Jersey residents should buy local produce when it tastes good and is priced right, not because there’s any intrinsic virtue to it being local.

Programs such as Health Bucks and Jersey Fresh embody the food elitism Lusk describes. “The conclusion that local food is healthier is a non sequitur,” he writes. And going green isn’t black and white. “It depends on what local food you eat, when you eat it and what you do with the extra time and money you don’t spend seeking out local products. In short, eating local has nothing to do with eating healthily.”

For example, explains Lusk, some produce is “most nutrient-rich immediately after being picked ripe. But large growers and processors often quickly freeze just-picked produce to preserve freshness. In fact, frozen vegetables are typically more nutrient-dense than fresh veggies that have been off the vine for several days.” So ironically, the vegetables in Lean Cuisine dinners that the food elite look down their noses at likely provide more nutrients than say, a government subsidized heirloom string bean from a chic Union Square Farmers Market.

And of course, low-calorie options in prepared dinners are convenient alternatives to high calorie fast-food fare. As food policy expert Julie Gunlock of the Independent Women’s Forum writes, “If the goal is to stay healthy, no one should deny that frozen vegetables are one of the best options. Yet because of the foodie culture which demands faithful adherence to the ‘fresh and local’ mantra, those most in need of affordable and undeniably healthy food are being discouraged from eating it.”

Wind Turbines: New Study Documents High Bird and Bat Kills

A golden eagle watches the sun rise. Yes, wind turbines kill golden eagles.The Wildlife Society Bulletin just published a selection of studies on Wind Energy and Wildlife Conservation including an important new study by Dr. K. Shawn Smallwood, “Comparing Bird and Bat Fatality-Rate Estimates Among North American Wind Energy Projects.”

Smallwood earned his Ph.D. in Ecology at the University of California, Davis, has authored nearly 200 papers and reports, and serves as Associate Editor of The Journal of Wildlife Management.

He is an expert on bird collisions with wind turbines and has investigated bird fatalities caused by electrocutions and line strikes along electric distribution lines throughout California.

In his new study, Smallwood states:

I estimated 888,000 bat and 573,000 bird fatalities/year (including 83,000 raptor fatalities) at 51,630 megawatt (MW) of installed wind-energy capacity in the United States in 2012.

He explains:

Projecting estimates of [bird fatalities per megawatt per year] to the estimated installed capacity of wind energy in the United States in 2012, I estimated annual fatalities of about 651,000–888,000 bats (with and without the 19 wind projects in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, respectively), nearly 83,000 raptors, and about 573,000 birds of all types. … Including fatality rate estimates from the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area lowered the 2012 fatality projection across the United States by 27% for bats and increased it by 78% for raptors.

Smallwood explains why wind turbine-related bird and bat moratality estimates came in low in the past:You have to appreciate the beauty of the kestrel, aka the sparrow hawk. Yes, wind turbines kill kestrels.

Erickson et al. (2005) estimated annual deaths of 20,000–37,000 birds, including 933 raptors, at the 6,374 MW of capacity that had been installed in the United States by the end of 2003. After taking measures to estimate comparable fatality rates among wind energy projects, I estimated 888,000 bat and 573,000 bird fatalities/year, including 83,000 raptor fatalities, at 51,630 MW of installed wind-energy capacity in the United States. My fatality rate estimate was 20 X greater than Erickson et al.’s estimate for all birds and 89 X greater for raptors, even though the installed capacity of wind energy increased only 8.1-fold from 2003 to 2012. My increased estimates were likely due to improved estimation methods and many more wind-energy projects having been monitored and found to cause higher fatality rates than averaged by Erickson et al. (2001, 2005).

Smallwood asks for scientific transparency, noting that:

Beginning in 2010, an increasing number of fatality monitoring reports have been kept confidential. Transparency is important to science, however, so this trend needs to be reversed. Furthermore, reports of fatality rate estimates need to be peer reviewed. Only a small fraction of the available reports have been peer reviewed, mainly those funded by public agencies.

Bats love eating mosquitoes - and we love them for it! And, yes, wind turbines kill bats.Why is this important to everyone? Well, wildlife belongs to the people, to all of us. And, as any fisherman, trapper or hunter knows, good estimates of takes and abundance are vital to monitoring wildlife and ecosystem health. And bats help control insects and mosquitoes while we sleep, a service Twilight fans, and all of us, really appreciate.

Note that Smallwood’s study is limited to wind turbines only and does not include bird mortality related to the miles of lines being strung to deliver wind and solar energy to people. We are building a whole new grid for delivering wind power, another grid for solar!

The California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research Program funded Smallwood’s study but does not yet offer it on its website.

Let’s hope that, in the interest of transparency, the State of California will soon post the Smallwood study on its site so the taxpayers who paid for it can read it.

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

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

Photos: iStockPhoto.com

Congress Updating The Antiquated Antiquities Act of 1906

The House Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation, held a fascinating hearing on efforts to update the antiquated Antiquities Act of 1906. Congressman Rob Bishop of Utah did an excellent job chairing the hearing.

Ted Turner’s privately-owned ranch, Montana, Summer 2007.The room was packed, standing-room-only.  I was wedged between a DC-based staffer from The Wilderness Society and the “National Monuments Campaign Communications Director” of the Conservation Lands Foundation.  In a sea of suits, the Stetson stood out, as did the cowboys who took time off from the range to travel all the way to DC.

Commissioner John Jones of Carbon County, Utah testified:

We’ve lived in actual fear of this raw Executive power ever since President Clinton and Vice President Gore … flew to Arizona’s Grand Canyon National Park, & with the stroke of a pen, designated the 1.9 million acre Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument [in Utah] – one of the largest monuments ever designated.

This blatant political move has subsequently devastated the economies of Kane and Garfield Counties and lifestyles of the people who live there, greatly damaged the reputation of my beloved democratic party in rural Utah, and has demolished the Department of Interior’s credibility in a state in which they are the majority landowner.

Most importantly, if recreation and tourism, which are supposed to accompany the designation of national monuments, are such an economic benefit to local communities, why is the school system in Escalante, Utah in the heart of the Grand Staircase, about to close due to a continual decline in local population since the monument was created?

Please don’t insult rural communities with the notion that the mere designation of National Monuments and the restrictions on the land which follow are in any way a substitute for long-term wise use of the resources and the solid high wage jobs and economic certainty which those resources provide.

He added:

One man’s signature changed our lives completely…

Congressman Steve Daines of Montana commented on our “dying small towns,” stating:

It’s the community, not just the land, that creates the value of the resource.

If we keep going this direction, we’ll be using the Antiquities Act in 20 years to “preserve” the empty buildings, the remains, left behind in all the small towns the Act’s extinguishing.

A bit of Americana that is NOT antiquated.If you’re interested in real-life examples of what happens when  Constitutional “checks and balances” fail, watch the full hearing.  If you’re pressed for time, my recommendations include the exchanges at 02:12:30 to 02:18:29; 2:22:42 to 02:24:18; and 02:26:24 to the close.  

Those who support the Antiquities Act status quo have issued an enthusiastic economic report and are tweeting by #monumentsmatter.

Rural residents and counties should engage in this conversation and consider submitting info on tax receipts from before and after an Antiquities Act designation.  And anyone can submit formal testimony into the record. 

Jim Streeter, Staff Director for the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation, can help with any questions.  He’s at (202) 226-7736, James.Streeter@mail.house.gov.

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

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

Photos: Top photo: Teresa Platt; Bottom photo: iStockPhoto.com

ObamaCare: Where's The Lefty Outrage? Part IV

First it was eateries like Darden Restaurants, PapaJohn’s and Wendy’s that were struggling with ObamaCare’s regulations.  Then it was some universities and colleges, the Virginia state government, and even a few unions.

The latest victim?  Movie theaters:

Regal Entertainment Group, which operates more than 500 theaters in 38 states, last month rolled back shifts for non-salaried workers to 30 hours per week, putting them under the threshold at which employers are required to provide health insurance. The Nashville-based company said in a letter to managers that the move was a direct result of ObamaCare.

And, as usual, narry a peep from the political left.  No comment on Regal over at Huffington Post, Salon, Daily KOS, The Nation, etc.  

Nor was there any left-wing griping back in late March when the International Franchise Association released an analysis showing that over three million full-time jobs could be cut back or eliminated due to the employer mandate.

And it seemed very strange that economist Mark Zandi, usually a supporter of Obama’s economic policies, was not branded a “traitor” (or worse) by the left when he suggested that ObamaCare might be responsible for the weak job numbers in March:

As the evidence keeps piling up that many businesses will have to cut employee hours to avoid the ObamaCare rule that an employer must provide insurance to any employee working more than 30 hours per work, the lefties have gone silent.  When you think about it, though, the tactic makes sense.  If they kept criticizing businesses and others that are struggling with ObamaCare, some of their readers might notice that ObamaCare seems to be creating problems.  Can’t have that!

What a difference it was just a few months ago when they savaged Darden and PapaJohn’s.  Well, those two were the first to complain about ObamaCare and, as the saying goes, the first through the wall always gets bloody.

UPDATE: From the WSJ: “The United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers is believed to be the first union to initially support the law and later call for its repeal.”  The reason:

The roofers’ union’s current insurance plan caps lifetime medical bill payouts at $2 million for active members and $50,000 for retirees. Next year, the plan has to remove those caps in order to comply with the health law. Other aspects of the retiree plan must become more generous in order to meet the law’s minimum essential coverage requirements next year. All that will increase the cost of insuring members, Mr. Robinson said, and has prompted the union to weigh eliminating the retiree plan.

Adding to those cost concerns is a new $63-per-enrollee fee on health plans that pays insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions next year. Looking ahead to 2018, when the law levies an excise tax on high-value insurance plans, Mr. Robinson predicts that at least some of the union’s plans will get hit by it.

Here’s betting the political left pays it no mind.  HT: Michelle Malkin

Photos: iStockPhoto.com

Arizona Urges Congress To Update The ESA

Members of the Arizona State Legislature recently passed Concurrent Resolution 1013 urging the U.S. Congress to update the Endangered Species Act (ESA):

…to improve its effectiveness in protecting and recovering Arizona’s threatened and endangered species.

Discussing the pros and cons of the ESA, endangered bighorn sheep butt heads.The ESA, passed in 1973, was last amended in 1988 and reauthorized in 1992. The Arizona State Legislature calls the ESA:

…outdated, unworkable and unsuccessful for its intended purpose of species recovery.

While States hold management responsibility for wild plants and animals within their borders, once a species is ESA listed, the federal government exerts control.  Attempts to transfer responsibility back to the States have met with resistance and lawsuits. 

Wyoming attorney Karen Budd-Falen reported there were 1,374 species listed as 
threatened or endangered as of May 2010:

…everything, even bugs, 
worms, plants, snakes, spiders, bogs, moss, mice, rats and other 
species.

The State of Arizona’s 2013 Concurrent Resolution stated that now, “more than 2,000 species later,” only 1% have been delisted.  Fully 60% of critical habitat is on private lands. 

The Arizona Resolution urges Congress to update the ESA:

…to improve its effectiveness…while rewarding landowner and lessee involvement, promoting productivity, ensuring vibrant and sustainable natural resources for future generations and relieving Arizona from burdensome regulatory measures that have been harmful to this State and ineffective in furthering the intent of the Act.

The Members of the Arizona State Legislature state:

Arizona communities have been negatively impacted by implementation actions of the ESA, leading to catastrophic wildfires, public lands road closures, undue regulatory burdens on agriculture and mining, increased budgetary stress on military installations and general uncertainty for Arizona industries.

Success, say the Members of the Arizona State Legislature, is reliant on citizens embracing the ESA “free from fear of retribution or litigation.”

The not-so-endangered North American lawyer.

While it appears the ESA is not very effective at increasing species abundance, some have clearly embraced it.

The ESA has become a lucractive profit center for lawyers. Between 2000 and 2009, reports Budd-Falen:

…in just 12 states and the District of Columbia, 14 environmental groups filed 180 federal court complaints to get species listed under the ESA and were paid $11,743,287 in attorneys fees and costs.  …there are listed ESA species in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and the U.S. Territories.  Consider how much in attorneys fees have been paid if all litigation in all states is considered.

Those attempting to reform the ESA might want to ask:

Quo bene? 

Who gains?  It is the endangered flora and fauna?  Or the not-so-endangered North American lawyer?

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

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

Photos: iStockPhoto.com

National Center Extends Sympathy to Victims in Boston

Justin Danhof

Justin Danhof, general counsel for the National Center for Public Policy Research, director of our Free Enterprise Project, and co-blogger on this blog, was at the finish line at the Boston Marathon today when the bombs went off.

Justin was there with his family to cheer on his father, who was finishing the race.

Thankfully, neither Justin nor anyone in his family was injured.

The National Center staff extends its sympathy to the families of those who were killed today, and support for the many wounded. We also are grateful that the number of casualties was not higher.

We are praying for all the victims, and that justice is done.