Project 21's Nedd on Equating Gay Marriage to Past Civil Rights Struggles

Project 21 member Council Nedd II, the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Missionary Church, is speaking out against those in the black community who to compare the fight for on-demand and legal same-sex marriage with the efforts of the civil rights movement to ensure equal rights for black Americans.

For example, black gay political commentator Jonathan Capehart wrote in the Washington Post about the gay marriage issues: “[W]e’re talking about a civil rights issue and what African-Americans continue to struggle with is exactly what lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are struggling with today.”

In particular, however, Council is concerned about those who are using the trappings of the pulpit to demand the overturn of popular democratic votes for gay marriage (Proposition 8 in California) and federal recognition of gay marriage (opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act) by claiming it is a religious issue.  The Reverend Al Sharpton recently wrote in a commentary published by The Grio that, under Prop 8 and DOMA, “gay and lesbian couples are treated as second-class citizens” and that blacks should by “standing together in the face of oppression” with homosexual activists.

Sharpton was also instrumental in trying to organize black ministers in favor of a gay marriage referendum in Maryland in 2012.

Council does not agree with the notion that fighting discrimination based on skin color is the same as crusading for interests based on sexual preference.  He says:

Gay is not the new black.

The pastors and ministers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ who have decided to support gay marriage are no different than the rabbis in the Bible who did Rome’s bidding.

They must reconcile it with themselves.  The same God they preached about for generations — the one who got my forefathers out of the bondage of slavery and through the Jim Crow and the civil rights eras — is now suddenly wrong?

Are they really now going to preach that we can ignore God’s inspired word when it suits our political purposes?

Judas tried that, and look where it got him.   I don’t need 30 pieces of silver that badly.  I will just preach the Gospel.

Council Nedd Responds to AHA

Project 21 received a note from the American Humanist Association asking for a correction and an apparent clarification to a recent New Visions Commentary — “Atheist Bullies” — written by member Archbishop Council Nedd II.

Council replies:

My apologies to the American Humanist Association.  I noted in my piece that the AHA erected a billboard “in Moscow” as part of their offensive KidsWithoutGod.com ad campaign.  So not to confuse anyone, the billboard went up in Moscow, Idaho (population 24,000) and not Moscow, Russia (population 10.5 million).

The AHA also noted that, contrary to my claim that their bus ad campaign was “huge” and featured thousands of ads: “The AHA did not purchase tens of thousands, but rather around 200 ads.”  They also only bought bus ads in Washington, D.C.

As regretful as I am about any mistakes in my writing, perceived or actual, being allowed to correct and clarify my comments now more clearly illustrates my main point about atheists being bullies.

In my commentary, I said: “If it was a dialogue the atheists wanted, why not choose places with more opportunity for true engagement.”  A billboard in the very religiously diverse Moscow, Russia would surely, in my opinion, have generated far more productive discussion about the utility of faith than where it actually was posted in a small city tucked away in the American Pacific Northwest that has a much lower religious affiliation than the nation as a whole.  Pardon me, but that’s singing to the choir (at least it would if they went to church).

I am now more solid in my belief that AHA’s true goal for their ad campaign is not to affect real discussion.  Instead, I believe they are merely trying to shock a few people with hopes of also earning a squib on MSNBC or CNN.

32% Premium Increase, Temp Firm Mutual Funds, And Other Fun With ObamaCare

1. The Society of Actuaries has a new report out showing that premiums in the individual market will rise on average almost 32% by 2017 due to ObamaCare.  

The results vary by state.  Five lucky states will see decreases, those being the states—New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont and New Jersey—that already have the highest premiums (see p.8).

Forty-five states plus the District of Columbia will see increases, and of those 43 will see double-digit hikes.  The two biggest losers are Ohio and Wisconsin, both which will see premium increases of at least 80%.

Some ObamaCare proponents have accused opponents of wanting to deny people affordable insurance.  By the looks of it, the proponents of ObamaCare are supporting a law that’s going to do a pretty good job of that regardless.

2. The Washington Post reports that ObamaCare could be a boon for temporary-staffing companies.  The reason: “Starting in January, employers with at least 50 workers must offer affordable coverage or pay a penalty. To stay under this limit, some are considering outsourcing jobs to specialists such as Kelly Services, Manpower, Robert Half and Randstad, whose stock prices have soared.”  

An article at Investor’s Business Daily notes that the outlook for such firms is quite bullish and the “20 stocks in IBD’s Commercial Services-Staffing group are trading at a five-year high.” J.D. Tuccille at Reason suggests that the “stock market vote of confidence seems based, at least in part, on the fact that temp workers aren’t included in the [ObamaCare]’s mandated coverage.”

However, much credit is due to Jim Fink of Investing Daily who predicted this back in July of last year.  He wrote, “In my never-ending quest to turn the sour lemons of Obamacare into sweet lemonade for Investing Daily readers, I think I’ve hit pay dirt. Specifically, there is a great investment opportunity in staffing companies.”

I’m going to contact the companies that handle my IRA’s to see if there are mutual funds that specialize in the stocks of temporary-staffing companies…will let you know. 

3. The Washington Examiner finds another “winner” in the ObamaCare Tax-Free Loan for Health Care Co-Ops Sweepstakes!  The Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services gave a $112 million loan to CoOportunity Health in Iowa.  CoOportunity was founded by Stephen Ringlee, whose last three business ventures went belly up.  

Ringlee is in good company.  Freelancers Insurance Company received a $340 million loan to set up co-ops in New York, New Jersey and Oregon, despite being rated the worst insurer by regulators in New York for two years running.  A Florida company received a $129 million loan to start a co-op in Ohio called Coordinated Health Plans of Ohio.  The man chosen to run Coordinated Health Plans of Ohio, Brett Baby, had “previously started an Ohio health insurance company that lasted only a year before state regulators shut it down in 2009.”

CORRECTION:  In the first item, I incorrectly refer to the increases as “increases in premiums.”  Rather, they are increases in the claims costs that insurance companies will pay in the individual market.  That, however, is often linked to the premiums that individuals will pay, as rising claim costs usually result in higher premiums.  Regardless, sorry for the error.

Photo: iStockPhoto.com

Project 21’s Green: Supreme Court DOMA’s Case Really About Death Taxes

Derryck Green, a member of the National Center’s Project 21 black leadership network, offers a unique perspective on the case of United States v. Edith Windsor.  This case is being argued before the U.S. Supreme Court today.

The case is dominating headlines because it is being used by gay rights advocates to press for the legalization of same-sex marriage.  Derryck, however, finds the case important and the defendants case to be compelling for a different reason than pretty much everyone else.

Instead, Derryck sees the base concerns of Edith Windsor as something affecting more than the small percentage of Americans who claim to be marriage-minded homosexuals.  A concern about intrusive and excessive government taxation — particularly death taxes — is a much broader concern that deserves more attention when contemplating this case.

Derryck says:

Yesterday, it was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court that Proposition 8 — the amendment to the California state constitution that recognizes marriages are recognized as only between a man and a woman (and rightly so) — is unconstitutional.

Today, the justices are hearing a case challenging the constitutionality of DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act.  DOMA is a federal law prohibiting same-sex couples from receiving a number of federal remunerations that include tax breaks and pension benefits.

The case was brought before the Court because the plaintiff, Edith Windsor, was required to pay over $350,000 to the federal government in estate taxes after her partner of 40 years passed away.  Since the federal government didn’t recognize their “marriage,” the IRS came calling to collect.

With respect to Ms. Windsor and all who are in this position, the emotional toll of losing a loved one is tough enough.  The stress of the situation is only compounded when the IRS is involved.  But what happened to Ms. Windsor isn’t an opportunity for the Supreme Court to redefine marriage by any stretch.

What this case should bring attention to is the high level of estate taxes — the top rate being 40 percent.  If Ms. Windsor really wanted to be an influential agent of change, she would aggressively advocate for an easy and legal transfer of wealth with a reduced percentage of taxes paid in the process.

Americans already pay too much in taxes at virtually every level of government while they are alive.  The thought of people dealing with the pain of losing a loved one and then being forced to endure the anxiety of paying taxes on what is bequeathed to them, at a level set by the government, is a cause for righteous indignation.

Ms. Windsor would have much more support across America championing the cause of lowering estate taxes and the contractual transfer of wealth and property rather than using this opportunity as an attempt to redefine a social institution as old as history itself.

It seems to me that this gives a clarifying insight into the motives behind challenging DOMA’s constitutionality.

Unfortunately, this is simply one more missed opportunity to have a qualitative and lasting impact on American society in the shortsighted and narcissistic era of “change” and “equality.” 

Don't Delay ObamaCare

Chris Conover has written a piece in National Review Online this morning arguing for a one-year delay in implementing ObamaCare.

I admit that I’m a bit reluctant to respond, since I admire Conover a lot (if you are remotely interested in health care and don’t have a copy of his American Health Economy Illustrated, get one.)

Nevertheless, here is the summary of Conover’s case:  ”First, it would save a boatload of money, thereby greatly improving the odds of reaching a mutually acceptable budget deal. Second, the federal government isn’t ready. Third, the states aren’t ready. Fourth, employers aren’t ready. Finally, the people aren’t ready.”

If the federal government and the states that are developing their own exchanges aren’t ready, that’s all the more reason to not delay ObamaCare.  ObamaCare has been an exercise in charlatanism from the get-go, from promising to spend more while balancing the budget at the same time, to claiming that no one would lose their health insurance or doctor.  If the architects of ObamaCare promised to have the exchanges up and running by October 2013, then it’s on them.  When the exchanges prove to be a disaster, then the charlatans get exposed in a big way.  It teaches the American Public that people promising the government can run the health-care system are not to be trusted.  Delaying ObamaCare only lets the charlatans continue the charade.  I can see no good reason to grant them a reprieve.

Conover is not the first to connect delaying ObamaCare to improving the odds of a budget deal.  James Capretta and Jeffrey Anderson made a similar argument back in January when pushing for a two-year delay.  It’s not clear from either piece why improving a budget deal is that important in this context.  Shouldn’t the delay of ObamaCare lead to the repeal of ObamaCare?  Getting a budget deal might be a nice side benefit, but it shouldn’t be a major selling point.  Then again, it might not be such a nice selling point.  A budget deal gives Obama the opportunity to grab the mantle of bipartisanship, which may give him more political capital to sell ObamaCare.  

As for employers and the American people, those are perhaps the two best arguments for a delay and are groups we should be rightly concerned about.  Unfortunately, those will have to wait for when I’m less pressed for time.

Photo: iStockPhoto.com

"O'Reilly Factor": Project 21's Horace Cooper Talks West Philly Abortion Doc's Trial

Commenting on the 3/22/13 edition of Fox News Channel’s “The O’Reilly Factor” about the ongoing murder trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell — in which the defense lawyer in the case played the race card to imply his client is being attacked because of his race and is really a community hero — Project 21 co-chairman Horace Cooper said of Gosnell’s alleged behavior: “If this isn’t preying on innocent people who were poor and uneducated, I don’t know what it looks like.”

Gosnell, the operator of an abortion clinic in West Philadelphia, is charged with killing one woman and six live-born babies.  Horace pointed out to host Bill O’Reilly that overwhelming evidence shows Gosnell engaged in brutal abortion practices with an uncertified staff that could legitimately be compared to the horror movie “The Silence of the Lambs.”

Horace said in particular about the race card being used in Gosnell’s defense: “This kind of butchery, to be hidden by the race card, we at Project 21 were just outstandingly offended that any person would be this depraved and dark of heart.”

Center for American Progress Lie, Spin or Whackjob Exaggeration of the Day

The Center for American Progress and its various allied organizations commit so many lies, spins or exaggerations each day that it would take a department of analysts working diligently to correct them all.

Maybe some day someone will establish an "Accuracy Room" setup where scores of analysts correct the record (or maybe the Center for American Progress will get fact checkers), but in the meantime, in the interest of advising people to get a second, reliable source before believing any information provided by the various "Progress" organizations, we're launching a new blog series, "Center for American Progress Lie, Spin or Whackjob Exaggeration of the Day."

Our first entry comes from the March 22 edition of "The Progress Report," published by the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

In it, its authors, identified only as "Think Progress War Room," claim:

Sens. Fischer (R-NE), Cruz (R-TX), Johanns (R-NE), and Enzi (R-WY) introduced an amendment to put your boss in your bedroom by allowing them to deny you birth control coverage based on their beliefs, not yours.

The opposite is true:

1) The amendment would have removed bosses from bedrooms by eliminating the federal regulation requiring employers to pay part of each employee's compensation in insurance covering birth control and early abortion services and supplies. For example, it would have blocked new federal restrictions prohibiting employers with a religion-based objection to contraception or abortion from compensating employees with cash, instead of insurance covering contraception and early abortion.

2) The amendment would have done nothing whatsoever to empower employers to stop their employees from acquiring birth control or abortion insurance coverage, drugs, devices, services or procedures.

So on the two claims, that the amendment would put bosses in bedrooms and permit bosses to deny you birth control coverage, the Center for American Progress is 0-2.

The amendment, which was offered to the Senate federal budget resolution on March 22, failed 44-55 on a mostly party-line vote. Most Republicans voted for it, and most Democrats, against. Senators Collins (ME), Kirk (IL), Manchin (WV), Murkowski (AK) and Pryor (AR) crossed their respective party lines. Both independents voted against.

'Pirate' Leader of U.S. Charity Evades Arrest by Jumping Ship

The leader of a U.S. “green” charity, a Discovery Channel TV star, is on the lam.  Rod McGuirk of the Associated Press reports that the Washington state-based Sea Shepherd Conservation Society:

…which a U.S. federal court last month labeled ‘pirates,’ said [its leader, Paul] Watson, a 62-year-old Canadian, had left the fleet before it reached Australia for fear of arrest.

Watson is wanted for various crimes around the world:

…Interpol, the France-based international police organization, said on its website that Watson is wanted by Japan for ‘hooliganism/vandalism/damage, life and health.’ Watson is also wanted by Costa Rica for allegedly endangering a fishing vessel crew in 2002. He fled from Germany in July after being arrested at the behest of the Costa Rican government.

Watson’s made a career out of attacking those working within the law, while insisting they are breaking it. Illegal fishermen, illegal whalers, illegal sealers, illegal researchers, illegal loggers. The list goes on and on. Watson the vigilante, believes his actions are authorized by the United Nations’ “World Charter for Nature.”

Says Watson:

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.

What kind of a person defends tree spiking?

Paul Watson has a home and office in lovely Friday Harbor, a lucrative contract with Discovery Channel for his Whale Wars series plus tax-exempt “charitable” status sanctioned by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

Comments the Associated Press:

…On setting out on his latest anti-whaling campaign in December, Watson said he was unlikely to return to the U.S. because American authorities would likely turn him over to Japan.

Never mind Japan.  Watson’s in violation of a U.S. federal court injunction ordering him to play safe at sea.  As I reported:

On February 26th, a large Sea Shepherd Conservation Society vessel placed itself squarely between a Japanese research vessel and its tender during an at-sea refueling.  Footage airing on Australian TV revealed how the dangerous stunt put all hands at risk in the Antarctic’s frigid Southern Ocean.

Wherever Watson goes now, that country has a duty to turn him over to U.S. law enforcement.

Is the IRS watching?  Because Paul Watson’s running out of countries.

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

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

Photo: Discovery Channel

Horace Cooper of Project 21 on “O’Reilly” Tonight

Project 21 co-chairman Horace Cooper is scheduled to be a guest tonight on the Fox News Channel’s “The O’Reilly Factor.”

Horace will be talking about the ongoing trial of West Philadelphia abortion clinic operator Dr. Kermit Gosnell, whose lawyer is defending him against charges of murdering one woman and six babies by calling him a victim of a racist “prosecutorial lynching.”

Project 21 put out a press release earlier this week on the despicable act of the race card being played in this gruesome case, with Project 21 member Derryck Green saying:

Are there no depths to which those employing the race card won’t sink?  Even when attempting to defend against the brutality of infanticide, race has unfortunately become an issue.  That Dr. Gosnell’s defense attorney would say that the charges against his client are “an elitist, racist prosecution” and that his client is a victim of “a prosecutorial lynching” is worthy of the antics of Johnnie Cochran.

A subsequent article in the Daily Caller about Project 21’s opposition to the use of race in this criminal trial can be found by clicking here.

“The O’Reilly Factor” can be seen on the Fox News Channel at 8:00PM eastern, with replays at 11:00PM eastern and 4:00AM eastern.  Check local listings for the Fox News Channel on cable.  Fox News can be found at channel 360 on DirecTV, channel 205 on Dish and channel 118 on Fios.  It can be listened to on satellite channels 131 on Sirius and 120 on XM.

Project 21's Charles Butler Discusses CPAC Diversity

Project 21 member Charles Butler talks about conservative outreach to blacks and other minorities and the recent Conservative Political Action Conference on the 3/17/13 edition of “Washington Watch” on the TVOne network.

Commenting on the diversity that could be found at CPAC’s annual meeting of conservative activists, lawmakers and opinion leaders, Charles said: “This year, I’ve seen more blacks, more Asians and a lot of Hispanics… that have basically taken over the program” and have had a great influence on the conference’s agenda.

While other panelists got mired in partisan politics, Charles discussed more broadly how blacks should naturally be more conservative.  He told how he has been able to make blacks in his community gravitate more toward conservatism, despite the inherent anti-conservative bias of the media and false stereotypes perpetrated by liberals.  Charles explained: “We’re talking about morals, values [and] outlook.  And when we line this up… people said, ‘well, you know, I guess I’m conservative.’  Yes, you are a conservative!”

ObamaCare's "Slippery Slope" Could Threaten Job Security of Unfit

On the 3/21/13 edition of CNBC’s “Street Signs,” Jeff Stier — the director of the National Center’s Risk Analysis Division — talks about a collision of health and privacy issues in the workplace that have resulted since the introduction of ObamaCare.

CVS Caremark, the drug store chain, is imposing a $50-a-month penalty on employees who refuse to be weighed, measured and have their blood drawn as part of a company-sponsored wellness program. Jeff points out that, even though this is a private company likely within its rights to impose some restrictions on its employees, this is “a slippery slope.” He said this is “an unintended consequence of ObamaCare that health care costs are going up and companies are trying to do more” to keep from having to pay out more in order to comply with government mandates.

Addressing the notion that judging employees on their lifestyle choices could be discriminatory, Jeff criticizes Meme Roth of National Action Against Obesity for approving of “selective” hiring practices for those considered to be making bad choices while considering selective hiring based on race, gender or class to be discriminatory.

ObamaCare: Where's The Lefty Outrage? Part III

As noted in two previous blog posts, much of the political left has gone silent as the evidence has piled up that businesses and even some universities are going to have to cut back on workers hours due to ObamaCare regulations.  By comparison, when businesses like PapaJohn’s and Darden Restaurants made noise about ObamaCare the left went near apoplectic.

Well, the evidence just keeps piling up.  Now some small businesses are trying to avoid the costs of ObamaCare by self-insuring.  (See John Berlau’s excellent article on that.)  ObamaCare booster Wendell Potter got his dander up over the matter, but other than that, not a peep from anyone else.  

Inc.com recently ran an article with the headline “4 Strategies For The Coming Of ObamaCare.”  It included four stories of business dealing with how to get around the new costs they were facing:

*Sun-King Brewing has 60 full-time employees, which means the employers will have to either pay a $60,000 fine or $150,000 to $200,000 in premiums.  “That’s enough for a couple of tanks to make a lot more beer,” says VP Clay Robinson.  They are also considering boosting employees’ pay so they can buy insurance on the exchange through the Small Business Health Option Program (SHOP).  Someone needs to tell them that since they are Indiana, the exchange there will be run by the federal government which recently admitted that the SHOP program won’t be ready on federal exchanges until 2015.

*Oren Elliot Products is looking at dropping the insurance it provides to its 43 employees.  Premiums rose about 12% for this year, and may rise another 15% in 2014 because ObamaCare regulations “will force insurers to cover preexisting conditions and forbid them from considering medical history when calculating premiums.”  

*Kavaliro Staffing face an increase in “the percentage of employee premium costs it is paying in order to meet the [ObamaCare]’s minimum value requirements. The law will also force Kavaliro—which relies heavily on contract employees who work remotely—to be extravigilant about monitoring contractors’ hours, in order to avoid penalties for improperly counting workers.”

*Maiden Media Group claims that it is ready for ObamaCare.  ObamaCare helped the company hold down costs because its employees under age 26 were able to get on to their parents plan leaving only five employees on Maiden Media Group’s plan.  Of course, once those employees turn 26, it will be a different story.  And as co-founder Tusar Barik said, ”When we get past 50 employees, we may have a different mentality.”

Mike Ruffer, a Five Guys franchisee in North Carolina, is trying to figure out how to pay for the $60,000 in new ObamaCare costs that he faces.  He is looking at whether he can fire enough workers or reduce enough hours to get around ObamaCare’s regulations.  He added that many Five Guys franchisees are in a similar situation.

The Huffington Post gave Ruffer a bit of grief for this, claiming that:

What’s incredibly ironic about Ruffer’s decision is that Obama is at least partially responsible for the very success of Five Guys. In 2009, the president gave the then little-known fast food chain a lot of publicity when he took a group of West Wing staffers to lunch at one of their stores in Washington D.C., a trip that was documented on national TV. 

As I recall, Five Guys was well on its way to success before Obama was elected president.  If the not-so-subtle implication is that Five Guys should support ObamaCare because Obama frequented one of their restaurants, perhaps Ben Cohen would have been obligated to support the Iraq War if George W. Bush had publicly eaten a few pints of Chunky Monkey?

Finally, there are the unions.  A recent article in the Wall Street Journal profiled unions that are trying to get subsidies for the insurance for some of their low wage workers.  At present, subsidies only apply to insurance bought on an exchange, not for insurance provided by employers or unions.  If the unions don’t get that, some are threatening to drop their lower wage workers from the company insurance and put them on the exchanges:

Marc Norberg, assistant to the general president at the sheet-metal workers union international office, said it is examining whether to eventually move members onto subsidized medical coverage provided by what is known as health-care exchanges run by the states or Washington. The union would still offer ancillary health benefits….

The International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150 of Countryside, Ill., which represents construction workers and insures about 65,000 people, is also examining whether some lower-earning workers would eventually be better off leaving the union-sponsored plan and instead getting federally subsidized insurance.

While left-leaning pundits haven’t been criticizing the unions yet for threatening to defect on ObamaCare, surely a condemnation is coming.  Yeah, right.

Photo: iStockPhoto.com

Elizabeth Warren's Efforts At Spreading Ignorance Very Productive

Massachusetts continues its proud tradition of electing quality candidates to the U.S. Senate.  At a hearing the other day, Sen. Elizabeth Warren blurted out this little gem:

If we started in 1960, and we said that, as productivity goes up — that is, as workers are producing more — then the minimum wage is going to go up the same. And, if that were the case, the minimum wage today would be about $22 an hour. So, my question, Mr. Dube, is what happened to the other $14.75?

Oh dear.  

The correct answer to Warren’s question is that the other $14.75 probably didn’t exist.  The reason can be found in Warren’s belief that productivity is solely a function of workers’ skills (not a total surprise, given some of the other things she believes.)  Well, it’s not.

Increases in productivity come from a wide variety of factors, improvement in workers’ skills being only one.  Innovation, investment and competition are some others.  However, it is only improvements in workers’ skills that lead to wage increases.

Wages are based on the value that an employee has to his employer.  Now, if an employee takes a class on how to operate his computer more efficiently, that will likely improve his productivity.  It also increases his value to his employer, who may pay him a higher wage.  And if he doesn’t, well, the market will eventually recognize the employee’s value—that is, another employer will see his value and hire him away by offering to pay him more.

But the computer itself has been a major factor in the increase in productivity.  Computers make information travel faster, make organizing files easier, make doing research easier, etc, etc.  Yet the creation and improvement of the computer was an innovation—by itself, it had little to do with worker’s gaining skills.

Then there were the employers who decided to buy the computers to improve their businesses.  That, of course, is investment.  It also improves productivity, but it doesn’t do much to improve employee skills and thus doesn’t do much to increase their wages.

There are other problems with Warren’s—ahem—reasoning that other bloggers have pointed out, and so I’ll only briefly mention them here.  Erika Johnson at Hot Air points out that if increases in productivity were linked directly to wages, then the massive increases we’ve seen in productivity in farming should lead to enormous wage gains for farmers.  Of course to pay those wages would mean that the prices we pay for groceries would be much, much higher than they are now—not a desirable result.

Robert Wenzel notes that Warren apparently makes the erroneous assumption that productivity gains are uniform across the economy:

Warren is using a macro number that averages productivity over the entire jobs population. This should be viewed with even greater skepticism than her productivity claims. There is simply no basis for the view that productivity gains increase at the same rate over the entire jobs population. A hamburger flipper and a floor sweeper may see no productivity gains, while someone designing new cars may see a huge gain in productivity because of new software that makes design much easier.

Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics backs that up.  From 2002 to 2011, the food services industry, which has a lot of minimum wage workers, has seen productivity improve by just under 6%.  But computers and electronic products, an industry not known for lots of minimum wage workers, has seen a 72% increase in productivity in that same time.

And if ignorance is the output, then the U.S. Senate had a productivity increase of 10,347% last Thursday.

Harry Reid Blames Himself for Explosion to Killed Seven Marines

"...I believe, we should just go ahead with the sequester," Harry Reid told Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "Situation Room" on February 26.

His endorsement of the sequester was conditioned on the Republicans' continued opposition to additional tax hikes, but he knew Republicans couldn't agree to another round of tax hikes just weeks after agreeing to over $600 billion in new taxes.

This was Reid's sequester.

Today, the Senate Majority leader implied that the explosion at the ammunition depot in Nevada that claimed seven lives was due to the sequester.

"These men and women, our Marines were training there in Hawthorne... But one of the things in sequester is we cut back in training and maintenance."

Well, Mr. Majority Leader, you got your sequester. Now, seven Marines are dead as a result -- Reid's implication, not mine.

Hope you can live with the guilt, Harry.

Dangers of Nanny State are to More than Just Our Liberties

That's the conclusion of the Washington Examiner in a story by Michal Conger this afternoon about a CPAC panel on the nanny state sponsored by the Independent Women's Forum and featuring, among others, the National Center's own Jeff Stier.

The Examiner quotes Jeff noting some negative unintended consequences of the nanny state:

Negative unintended consequences of nanny-state regulation are not uncommon, said Jeff Stier, a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research.

"The nanny state isn't even very good at protecting the environment or public health," he said.

Stier described ineffective and expensive policies the administration has used to push is agenda, and how they have proved detrimental.

Schools are paying 30 to 50 percent more for organic fruits and vegetables in their healthy school lunches, for instance, even as the administration points to the cuts in funding school lunches will take because of sequestration.

"It's irresponsible," said Stier.

Panelist Angela Logomasini of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, according to the Examiner, said that San Francisco's plastic bag ban also had unintended negative consequences:

The city banned plastic bags because of their alleged environmental dangers, deciding for shoppers that reusable cloth shopping bags would be safer for them and for the earth.

Instead, the cloth bags spread diseases, and hospital admissions for food-borne illness rose 25 percent in the city.

Panelist Julie Gunlock of the Independent Women's Forum, the Examiner says, believes the nanny staters' goal is to scare the public into being more willing to submit to regulations.

The Examiner wasn't the only outlet to cover Jeff's remarks. Supplementing a near-constant stream of radio and TV interviews for Jeff was this tweet from a Media Matters employee:

Max Greenberg could be tweeting a message to his followers that they shouldn't imply that the National Center is pro-industry, but in light of the remote possibility that he's trying to imply via sarcasm that the National Center's work regarding the Pebble mine (which Jeff Stier has nothing to do with) is funded by industry, we responded as follows.

No response yet, but it has only been six hours. We note that no one from Media Matters has ever contacted our organization to ask if our Pebble Mine work is funded by industry, so the likelihood that Media Matters was implying that is probably minimal. We're sure they're quite responsible in that regard.

Unlike, perhaps, climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State, who a few months ago tweeted the following apparent attempt to make it appear that the Colorado Springs Gazette had reported that the National Center is receiving funding from the Koch brothers. It has never done so.

At the National Center, we assume liberals make up things about our funding whenever they can't rebut what we're saying. So by that standard and others, we congratulate Jeff on a fine performance on IWF's CPAC panel today.

National Center at CPAC

If you are attending the Conservative Political Action Conference this week at the National Harbor resort near Washington, D.C., be sure to check out the large number of National Center staff and volunteers who will be speaking and working at the 40^th annual gathering of conservative activists and luminaries.

On Friday at 11:00AM, Jeff Stier — the director of the National Center’s Risk Analysis Division — will be participating in a panel discussion that will be held in the Potomac Ballroom.  On the panel, entitled “How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Plastic Water Bottles, Fracking, Genetically Modified Foods and Big Gulp Sodas,” Jeff will discuss how irrational fears and the nanny-state policies they produce are not actually making our society a better, healthier and less-risky place.  Jeff will be joined by other regulatory policy experts from other fine organizations such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Independent Women’s Forum.

Also on Friday, Project 21 member Charles Butler will be participating in the panel discussion entitled “Fatherless America: The Headwaters of Poverty, Crime and Social Dysfunction.”  This panel will be held at 3:00PM in the National Harbor 2 & 3 conference rooms.  Moderated by another Project 21 member — Niger Innis of the Congress of Racial Equality — Charles joins social policy experts such as Dr. Richard Land of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission to talk about how welfare state policies are helping to destroy the traditional family, and the black family in America in particular.

During the Saturday session, catch Horace Cooper — an adjunct fellow of the National Center and co-chairman of the National Center’s Project 21 black leadership network — on the “Emerging Issues for Conservatives, 2013” panel to be held at 1:00PM in the Chesapeake A-C conference rooms.  Joined by Peter Roff of U.S. News and World Report and Fox News Channel contributor Jim Pinkerton, Horace will talk at least in part about his recent paper “Coming to a Car Near You?  The Department of Transportation’s Creepy Black Box.”  That paper highlights the potential threat to privacy that is posed by proposed regulations to mandate that all new cars carry very methodical recording packages which may be able to track driving performance as well as where someone actually drives.

On top of all of that, National Center staff will be making regular visits to CPAC’s “Radio Row” throughout the event to interview face-to-face with the many hosts they regularly talk to over the phone.  National Center policy experts such as Free Enterprise Project director Justin Danhof and senior fellow David Hogberg, as well as Project 21 co-chairman Cherylyn Harley LeBon and member Hughey Newsome, will be conducting scheduled interviews and many special “drop-by” chats with the many media personalities from across the nation who have come to town to broadcast from CPAC.

Silly Small Businesses! Health Insurance Decisions Are For The Anointed

It’s not clear if Wendell Potter was a man of the left before he jumped ship from an insurance company to become one of ObamaCare’s biggest apologists.  If not, he’s certainly absorbed many of the left’s mannerisms since then.

At issue is the growing practice of small businesses “self-insuring” to avoid some of the costlier mandates of ObamaCare.  As Competitive Enterprise Institute’s John Berlau puts it, self-insuring “offers both smaller firms and younger employees a chance to escape the costs of subsidizing everyone else’s insurance” on the ObamaCare exchanges.  Previously it was very difficult for small firms to self-insure because with such a small number of employees paying into the insurance pool, the insurance pool would be too small to cover the costs if one or two employees became gravely ill.  But now small employers can buy “stop-loss” policies which will cover the costs above a certain amount if one employees runs up big health care costs.

Potter is incensed because this could undermine the very purpose of ObamaCare, which is forcing the the young and healthy to subsidize the sick and the old.  Potter doesn’t describe it in those terms.  Rather, like a good lefty polemicist, he pulls a sleight of hand and writes that ObamaCare is supposed “to make coverage more affordable and available to all of us, not just the young and healthy”—implying that it is supposed to make it affordable to the young and healthy.  But Potter almost slips up when he further writes that it’s “essential that the exchanges attract younger healthier people who get sick less in order to keep coverage for others affordable.”  He’s careful, though, never to say that this arrangement will mean that the young and healthy will pay more, even though they will as a recent analysis in Contingencies demonstrated.  

What’s happening here is that small businesses are trying to provide insurance to their employees by avoiding costly ObamaCare regulations.  Describing it that way, though, casts it in a positive light, so Potter trots out the lefty trope of the greedy Big Insurers vs. the people:

…insurers have turned once again to the Chamber [of Commerce], this time to wage a behind-the-scenes campaign aimed at state insurance commissioners. If they succeed, insurers will be able to sell a highly profitable insurance product to a highly targeted group of small employers — those with mostly young and healthy workers….

The key to this fight are those state insurance commissioners. Their organization, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, just wrapped up its fall meeting in Washington, where consumer advocates were pitted against lobbyists for big insurers and their old friend, the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber has taken the lead in pressuring the NAIC to make it easy for insurers to sell stop-loss coverage to small businesses wanting to avoid many of the ACA’s consumer protections. Those protections aren’t a small matter; they would, among other things, prohibit insurers from charging people higher premiums because of their gender, age and health status. Buying stop-loss coverage would also allow employers to largely side-step any regulation at the state level….

This would be an almost irresistible deal for small employers with mostly young, healthy male workers.

First notice that Potter refers to the prohibitions on age and health rating as “consumer protections” instead of what they really are, costly regulations.  Of course, by referring to them as consumer protections he obscures the fact that they will raise the cost of premiums, especially for the young and healthy.  

Finally notice that he calls the deal “irresistible” for small employers.  Those big insurers are offering a very seductive product, and small business just can’t be trusted to do the right thing.  Potter never acknowledges that perhaps small business owners have given this considerable thought and decided it is the best way to keep their employees insured while at the same time keep their businesses running.  Of course not.  Like all good leftists, Potter wants the wise, anointed ones in government to make those decisions for small businesses:

This “has the potential to cause the collapse of the exchanges and completely circumvent the intent of Congress. The intent of Congress was to make coverage more affordable and available to all of us, not just the young and healthy.”

Yes, naturally, we are all supposed to subjugate ourselves to the intent of Congress.  The wise, noble and omniscient 535 men and women who are our moral and intellectual betters.  That the roughly 300 million other people in the nation might have their own ideas about how to best procure health insurance and would look for ways around government regulations; and that Congress would neither have enough knowledge or foresight to envision how ObamaCare might turn out despite their intentions, well, there is a book about that type of thinking and it would be so nice if members of Congress actually read it.  Heck, it would be a big improvement if Potter actually thumbed its pages.

Alas, don’t count on it.  Potter and his ilk are too busy saving small businesses from themselves.

A Message from the Queen...

…sent on the occasion of 100th Anniversary of the income tax.

"You have taxation WITH representation. How's that working out for ya?"

P.S. Yes, we know the anniversary was in February, but it takes a while for a message to cross the Atlantic.

Electronic Health Records Heading For Iceberg. HHS Says 'Full Steam Ahead!'

Last week the Dept. of Health and Human Services announced its “2013 agenda to bring down costs and improve quality of care through implementation of health information technology.”  That included “setting the goal of 50 percent of physician offices using electronic health records…and 80 percent of eligible hospitals receiving meaningful use incentive payments by the end of 2013.”

That’s the great thing about government bureaucrats:  they get to spend other people’s money on such projects, which means they don’t have to worry about whether the projects are working.  Thus far, the federal government’s push for electronic health records (EHRs) has left something to be desired.

For starters, EHRs don’t seem to be saving money as promised.  According to a New York Times article, EHRs have made it easier for physicians and hospitals to “upcode”—that is, to bill for services that are reimbursed at a higher rate, even if they aren’t entirely justified.  Hospitals “that received government incentives to adopt electronic records showed a 47 percent rise in Medicare payments at higher levels from 2006 to 2010…compared with a 32 percent rise in hospitals that have not received any government incentives,” according to the article.

On the physician side, installing EHRs costs money, and there is no guarantee that they will boost physicians’ incomes.  Indeed, they may be quite deterimental to doctors’ bottom lines.  A recent  Health Affairs article found that “the average physician would lose $43,743 over five years” after investing in EHRs.

Finally, EHRs are supposed to improve the quality for patients by helping them avoid drug interactions and unnecessary tests.  That is, if the physicians pay enough attention to the EHRs.  Politico reports on a JAMA Internal Medicine article that studied physicians’ use of EHRs at the Veterans Administration hospitals.  Politico notes that EHRs “may cause doctors the unintended side effect of information overload. The survey of primary-care practitioners from the Department of Veterans Affairs shows nearly one-third of those using the EHR system reported having missed or failed to follow up on key electronic alerts about patient test results.”

Given the lackluster results, the wise course for HHS would be to take a wait and see attitude before setting anymore EHR goals.  And you can bet that is exactly what HHS won’t do: “The goals build on the significant progress HHS and its partners have already made on expanding health information technology use.  EHR adoption has tripled since 2010, increasing to 44 percent in 2012 and computerized physician order entry has more than doubled (increased 168 percent) since 2008.”  

Photo: iStockPhoto.com

It Costs A Million To Answer The Million-Dollar Question: “Is This Fishery Sustainable?”

The Maine lobster fishery predates the founding of the United States of America.  Its scientific management regime is run by the State of Maine and paid for by tax dollars.  Still, answering the million-dollar question, “Is this fishery sustainable?” cost a cool million dollars.

The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)’s certification program took fully five years and almost $300,000 to complete the paperwork to label just this one lobster fishery “sustainable.”  The price to keep the label for the next five years?  Another half a million to a million.

All this work was done to satisfy an uneasy public, worn down by years of “save the oceans” campaigns.  Unless lobsters carry the MSC label, Walmart won’t stock them.  Which begs the question: Lobster is so plentiful that even Walmart is stocking it in bulk?  Who’s next?  McDonald’s?

Beyond Walmart, other markets, especially in Europe, closed their doors to legally harvested lobster unless it had the MSC seal of approval.  To regain access, the lobstermen had to pay the MSC-certified certifiers. 

If this expensive and time-consuming process does not result in an increase in market share for Maine lobster, it’s probably not worth it, explained Patrice McCarron, the executive director of the Maine Lobstermen’s Association.

While the number of Maine lobstermen holding licenses has remained steady at approximately 6,700 for more than half a century, 2012 landings hit a record-breaking 63,000 short tons, over 125 million pounds, with a wholesale value of almost $350 million.

But what if landings, currently at record highs, decline and MSC revokes certification over concerns that the fishery is in trouble?  Lobsterman Jon Carter of Bar Harbor, a member of Maine’s Lobster Advisory Council, worries that such a blacklisting could leave the industry in worse shape than if it had never been certified. 

Said Carter:

The American lobster fishermen are afraid of this process.

Maine lobstermen have long maintained minimum and maximum catch sizes and generations of Maine lobstermen have cut small V-notch marks in the tails of the prolific egg-producing females, returning them to the sea to ensure a future supply of lobster.  The story of their forward-thinking conservation effort is beautifully told in Trevor Corson’s The Secret Life of Lobsters: How Fishermen and Scientists Are Unraveling the Mysteries of Our Favorite Crustacean.

Beyond stewardship, lobstermen currently benefit from water temperatures conducive to the survival of juvenile lobster.  And groundfish, believed to be major predators on juvenile lobster, have declined, a change cited as possibly responsible for the increase in lobster in the Gulf of Maine.

But as long as lows follow highs, lobster landings will decrease someday. When that happens, one can only hope that MSC doesn’t simply yank the label and close markets to hard working lobstermen.  They deserve better than that.

——————————————————————————

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

Photo: iStockPhoto.com.