Social Media
National Center Presents
Category Archives

The official blog of the National Center for Public Policy Research, covering news, current events and public policy from a conservative, free-market and pro-Constitution perspective.

501 Capitol Court, NE
Washington, D.C. 20002
(202) 543-4110
Fax (202) 543-5975

Monthly Archives
Twitter feeds

Why a Leading Climatologist Changed Her Mind About Climate Change

GeorgiaTechLogoWInterested in the global warming/climate change/climate disruption debate, even slightly?

If so, I recommend this short, very readable and informative interview of Dr. Judith Curry, climatologist and chairman of Georgia Tech's School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, by Tony Thomas for Australia's Quadrant Magazine.

The interview begins:

TONY THOMAS: If the skeptic/orthodox spectrum is a range from 1 (intense skeptic) to 10 (intensely IPCC orthodox), where on the scale would you put yourself

(a) as at 2009

(b) as at 2014,

and why has there been a shift (if any)?

JUDITH CURRY: In early 2009, I would have rated myself as 7; at this point I would rate myself as a 3...

Read on find out why.

Hat tip: Climate Depot.


Stopping The ObamaCare Enrollment Report Makes Perfect Sense--Politically

When it came out that the Dept. of Health and Human Services was, for at least the time being, discontinuing the monthly exchange enrollment reports, Cato’s Michael Cannon said “HHS Has Lost Their Minds.”

There is a case to be made for that.  As Cannon notes:

[Charles] Gaba offers several reasons why HHS should keep issuing (at least) monthly enrollment figures. Even though the “open enrollment” period for the Exchanges has closed, Native Americans and those with “qualifying life events” can enroll at any time. Medicaid and SHOP Exchange enrollment are also year-round. People can also dis-enroll throughout the year for all sorts of reasons.

But from a political perspective, it makes a lot of sense.  Assuming that the higher ups in the Obama Administration approved this move by HHS (a pretty safe assumption), it is a move that benefits the Democrats in the November election.  Without more enrollment reports, it will be much harder to challenge the “8 million people enrolled in the exchanges” talking point.  

Preserving that talking point may seem like a desperate move, but Obama and the Democrats don’t have much else.  All the reporting on rate shock and deductible shock has torpedoed any claim that costs on the exchange are better.  Coverage on “skinny networks” has deprived ObamaCare supporters of the argument that the quality of exchange plans are better.  The enrollment number is all they’ve got left.

And even that might not work.  Every time Democrats bring up the 8 million figure in the fall, the media might point out that we don’t know the actual number since HHS discontinued the reports.  On the other hand, the Obama Administration is probably gambling that the press won’t push that line too much, and history suggests the odds on that are good.

Discontinuing the reports is deceptive and unethical.  Unfortunately, it may also be good politics. 


A Study In Contrasts

If Mexico had the same policies as the U.S., U.S. Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi wouldn't just have been released from prison, but given a path toward Mexican citizenship.

'Covert Rationing' Is A Feature Of Single-Payer Health Care

About a week ago Elizabeth Price Foley wrote a very nice piece entitled “VA Scandals Raise The Specter Of Healthcare Rationing” at the Daily Caller.  However, this one paragraph caught my eye:

Rationing care can take many forms. It can be overt, like the Canadian or British health care systems, which have unambiguous, publicly-announced waiting times and coverage denials for certain procedures. Or rationing can be more subtle, with little or no public participation. This latter, covert form of rationing is what the VA has adopted.

In recent years, though, Great Britain’s NHS has engaged in plenty of covert rationing in addition to the overt kind.  (I suspect Foley knows this and was merely making a distinction and not implying officials in Britain’s NHS don’t try to hide its rationing when they can.)

As the below stories show, NHS administrators seem to live in a culture of hiding information that reflects poorly on them—British hospitals even hide data on patient dissatisfaction with the food.

So, why do the people who run hospitals in the NHS hide data on waiting lists and the like?  For starters, their patients aren’t their customers.  In other markets, if a business inconveniences their customers too much, the customers take their money elsewhere.  The business eventually shapes up or goes under.  With the NHS, the funding comes from government and it keeps coming, regardless of how poorly patients are treated. 

There might be some consequences if the politicians see ever-increasing waiting times.  However, politicians are not likely to interview actual patients but will instead rely on data in government reports.  If you fudge the data the politicians see, then politicians may think the NHS is doing better than it is, and as a NHS administrator you are off the hook—heck, you might even be in line for a promotion.

Unless, of course, someone blows the whistle and the press gets a hold of it.  In that case a few heads can roll.  But notice that in the previous paragraph I wrote there “might” be consequences.  Read this story about the 1,200 deaths due to incompetence at Mid-Staffordshire NHS Trust.  At the time, “Not a single official [had] been disciplined.”

With that said, below are excerpts from stories about “covert rationing” in the NHS.  And keep in mind these came on the heals of a government crackdown on “hidden waiting times” back in 2011.

-Daily Mail, April 28, 2014:

Errors in hospital waiting list times have undermined public confidence in the data, claims a public spending watchdog. 

The Public Accounts Committee called for independent audits in future after spot checks found one in four hospitals recording false waiting list times.”


-BBC, February 12, 2014:

Colchester Hospital chief ‘to get grip’ after cancer scandal.

The interim head of a hospital says she will focus on getting a “grip” on its problems after staff said they were bullied into falsifying patient data.

police inquiry began at Colchester Hospital after a health watchdog found “inaccuracies” with waiting time data relating to cancer treatment.

Seven whistle-blowing investigations are currently under way at the hospital, the the BBC has learned.


-BBC, January 23, 2014:

NHS waiting time data for elective surgery ‘unreliable’.

Patients in England cannot rely on information on waiting times for non-emergency operations, such as knee and hip replacements, a watchdog says.

The National Audit Office (NAO) found wrong and inconsistent recording after reviewing 650 cases in seven trusts.

The watchdog said it was unable to discern whether this was deliberate, but overall the practices concealed delays rather than over-recorded waits.

-Telegraph, February 21, 2013:

Audit Scotland found the proportion of patients marked as “socially unavailable” to attend appointments had risen from 11 per cent to more than 30 per cent as ministers imposed more stringent deadlines….

While official figures showed only three per cent of in-patients were waiting longer than the target nine weeks in June 2011, auditors found that the real figure was 23 per cent when periods of ‘unavailability’ were included.

Audit Scotland could not state definitively that boards had deliberately fiddled the system to meet their targets because there are few records stating why patients were deemed to be unavailable.


In Single-Payer Health Care, Quality Is NOT Job 1

A few weeks ago, I came across this blog post at KevinMD about one physician’s experience working in Sweden’s single-payer system:
There was, in my view, a culture of giving less than you were able to, a lack of urgency, and a patient-unfriendly set of barriers. One example: Most clinics took phone calls only for an hour or two in the morning. After that, there was no patient access; no additions were made to providers’ schedules, even if some patients didn’t keep their appointments, not that there was a way to call and make a same-day cancellation.
That jogged my memory and after some searching I found this diary by Patricia Balsom who was dying of cancer while under the “care” of Britain’s National Health Service.  Here are a few excerpts:

Left leg started to swell around 7.45pm. Called the out-of-hours doctor service. Two hours later we called again. The girl on the phone said she thought we just wanted advice, as this was a line for seriously ill patients. We told her I was terminally ill. She asked if we needed a doctor, and we asked her if she was medically qualified. She said she was not. 
That was not her only “phone” difficulty:
We called at 9am about my blood tests. A district nurse came and took blood at 10.45am. She insisted that Mick took the blood sample to Hillingdon Hospital because she “didn’t have time” to take it herself. (What if I was alone and we didn’t have a car?) She told me the hospital would contact me in the afternoon with the results. Didn’t explain what I was supposed to do with them. Waited all afternoon and evening, and no call came.
How well an entity fields phone calls is a pretty basic standard of quality.  Businesses that answer calls promptly or return them in a timely fashion usually get good marks from customers.  It appears that single-payer systems fail even that basic test.
And here are some of Mrs. Balsom’s final thoughts on the NHS:
I feel Hillingdon Hospital are making whatever time I have left so much more stressful than it need be. They are cheating me out of quality time with people I care about….I don’t feel as if anyone in the NHS is really in charge of my case. 
Read it all.

Why Humana Said 'No'

In late April I attended the Humana shareholder meeting and asked, in part, “if the situation arises where Humana qualifies for taxpayer money through the risk corridor*, can we get your promise that you will reject it?”

Humana’s CEO, Bruce Broussard replied, “No, we will not make that promise.”

Now we know why.  According to Jay Cost of the Weekly Standard,

Humana alone expects to receive between $575 and $750 million from the “Three R” programs—risk adjustment, reinsurance, and risk corridors—that serve as a backstop for the insurers. To put this into perspective, this sum is about half of Humana’s 2013 profit. 

Changes to the Three R’s help explain why premiums are going up. About half of Humana’s Three R’s money is coming from the reinsurance fund, which is set to decrease across the entire exchanges from $10 billion in 2014 to $6 billion in 2015. Per Broussard, this is a “big part” of the story in the expected increases in premiums. That cash enabled them to keep prices below what they otherwise would have been; remove it, and premiums have to rise.  

It’s not clear what percentage the risk corridor money accounts for, but it’s probably substantial.  If it were even 25 percent of the “three R’s money”, that would be over 10 percent of its profit.

Finally, Cost absolutely nails it in this last paragraph (bold added):

For now, federal subsidies are so generous that, for insurers, what would otherwise count as a loss now counts as a victory. And for consumers, the price they pay for their policies is well below the actual costs for those policies. That is not a “market,” and thus the claims that this “market” is “working” are meaningless. A working market does not require a $10 billion federal reinsurance guarantee, with a potentially limitless amount of risk corridor cash to follow. 

*SIDENOTE: WHAT IS THE RISK CORRIDOR?  The risk corridor provisions require companies that make a profit on the exchanges to use some of those profits to help insurers who take a loss on the exchanges.  However, if there are more insurers who are losers on the exchange than there are ones who make a profit, the taxpayers then step in to help the insurers who have incurred losses.  For more on the risk corridors and the other 2 R’s, go here.


Segregation is Gone, but Schools Still Saddled with Special Interest Politics

This coming Saturday, May 17, is the 60th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court handing down its groundbreaking civil rights decision in the case of Brown v. Board of Education.  That decision led to the desegregation of America’s government-run schools and provided a jolt of confidence and energy into a burgeoning civil rights movement. 

Other Project 21 members were featured in a press release published earlier this week to  marking the upcoming anniversary, but new Project 21 member Dr. Michael Dozier provided a longer statement that commemorates the anniversary that deserves to stand by itself.

Dr. Dozier wrote:

I reflect with pride upon the monumental achievement that led to the end of segregation in our nation’s school systems.  The 1954 landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education was a victory for the civil rights movement that helped define a path for equality.

I can recall the grainy film of Ruby Bridges, the brave yet innocent six-year-old black girl who proudly marched past crowds of bigots in Louisiana in 1960 as they hurled insults and threats in her direction.  In doing so, she became the first black child to attend a previously all-white elementary school in the South.

When Oliver Brown earlier sued the Board of Education in Topeka, Kansas, he was fighting for the opportunity to provide his children with an education on par with that of white children.  He was successful — at least to the degree that segregation was no longer legal.

Sadly, however, education is once again no longer an equal prospect.  Rather, special interest groups maintain inordinate control of government run-schools.  The mandated curriculum they push is geared toward promoting a social agenda.

Today’s education no longer seems to focus on the fundamental knowledge our children need to achieve the rights our forefathers scribed in the Constitution.  Instead, it hastens the end of American exceptionalism.

Because of this change in American public school systems, it is likely many young black children lack the knowledge of why Brown v. Board of Education was the catalyst that gave them the opportunity to achieve every dream they could imagine.  They do not realize that a new form of oppression and segregation has entered the hallowed halls of our education system, leading to the failure and social disintegration of our schools.  They do not know how we have squandered the opportunities granted to us lately that was earned through the blood and tears shed by many of our ancestors as the result of allowing liberal social dogmas to dictate our path.

The Brown v. Board of Education decision was supposed to give blacks greater opportunities and advancements, but we — as a people — have retrogressed.  We failed to learn from our past.  Now, we are destined to relive it.

George Santayana wrote in his book, Reason in Common Sense, that: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Lowering the bar based upon race, gender or financial standing leads to ignorance, intolerance and disparity.  It is obviously not what Oliver Brown had in mind when he bravely stood his ground.

Let’s pray that all Americans open their eyes and begin standing up and fighting this new form of fascism.


ObamaCare Death Spiraling--The Young Enrollees Aren't That Healthy

New evidence further strengthens the case that the ObamaCare exchanges are headed for a death spiral.  

First, a new McKinsey report confirms that the young invincibles (or, at least the 18-29-year-old portion of them) are the least likely among all age groups to have paid their first premium (p.6):  

As I’ve noted before, the 18-34-year-olds will probably account for a disproportionate share of the group that does not pay their premiums.  That means the crucial 18-34-year-old demographic will be even smaller than the 28 percent of exchange sign-ups recently reported by HHS.  As that number decreases, the risk of a death spiral increases.  (For even more on the age imbalance of the exchanges in certain states, see this American Action Forum report.)

Next, a few insurers are releasing their rate hikes for next year.  From Virginia:

…the Anthem HealthKeepers Inc. plan offered by a unit of WellPoint Inc. said it would raise premiums by an average of 8.5% across its individual plans in Virginia, which cover about 110,000 people and are sold on the online insurance exchange set up by the health law, as well as directly to consumers.

….The Virginia filings show other health plans proposing rate increases ranging from 3.3% for Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of the Mid-Atlantic States, Inc., with around 10,000 members in the state, to 14.9% for CareFirst BlueChoice Inc., which said it had about 32,000 members. CareFirst said in its filing that it had seen the average age of its enrollees rise by several years. Neither WellPoint nor Kaiser immediately commented Sunday.

From Washington state:

Molina Healthcare (MOH), with 2,000 enrollees in Washington, aims to cut premiums by 6.8%. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan seeks just a 0.6% rise. But those carriers account for just 3% of state’s combined enrollment.

Meanwhile, Group Health Cooperative filed for an 11.2% rate increase for its nearly 24,000 exchange enrollees, about 16% of Washington’s total.

Weighting proposed rates by the size of the exchange operator suggests an average 8.8% hike.

Are those the types of increases that will likely drive younger and healthier people to leave the exchanges?  Only time will tell, but the fact that these increase are considerably higher than inflation (thus far about 1.77 percent in 2014) is a bad sign.

Another bad sign is the overall health of exchange enrollees.  Here are the results of a survey from Gallup:


Among the all U.S. adults, 50 percent report they are either in excellent or very good health.  The corresponding percentage for exchange enrollees is 37.  

That problem is showing itself in North Carolina:

“Not as many of the state’s young and healthy enrolled as expected,” Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina announced in a press release. The company expected 50 percent of its Obamacare exchange customers to be younger than 35, but just 32 percent of customers are below age 35 and just 25 percent are between the ages of 18 and 34.

 ….Even worse, the insurer believes that its few young invincible sign-ups are less healthy than expected as well.

“Early self-reported data indicates that BCBSNC’s young ACA customers (ages 18-34) are less healthy and seeking more medical treatment than we typically see in this age group,” according to the statement.

Blue Cross of North Carolina probably won’t be the last insurer faced with this problem.

When ObamaCare critics, myself included, talked about not enough young and healthy signing up, we too often used young as synonymous with healthy because young people usually are healthier.  But the viability of a health insurance risk pool depends on enough healthy people signing up.  And the big problem for the ObamaCare exchanges is that they may actually be attracting young people who are less healthy on average.  


Project 21’s Martin Says #BringBackOurStrongForeignPolicy

So far, #bringbackourgirls has not secured the release of the hundreds of Nigerian schoolgirls kidnapped by the Boko Haram terrorist group.  No matter who flashes the hashtag – be it First Lady Michelle Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron or nearly-naked fashion models – these African Islamists seem unwilling to listen to the sound reasoning of a blank sheet of paper and a marker.

It also begs the question: do Islamist militants even tweet?

Upping the ante of late, Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan has offered to negotiate and even swap imprisoned militants for the girls.  America has sent “advisors,” planes and drones to assist in finding the girls.

With the lack of progress thus far, Nigerian troops have engaged and killed Boko Haram members.  Even Nigerian civilians are fighting back.

In other words: it’s on.

Why is Boko Haram kidnapping and killing Nigeria’s children in the first place?  It’s a hatred of the west, principally.  “Boko Haram” translates into “western education is a sin.”  They are kidnapping boys.  They are kidnapping girls.  In a nutshell, they believe in Sharia law that essentially says women should be at home tending to the needs of their husbands and not learning math.

It’s a series of hate crimes.

So why is the shocking kidnapping of all these innocent girls the thing that has finally made the world spring to attention about these radicals?  More importantly, why did the U.S. State Department pointedly choose not to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization until just recently – despite the attacks on boys, girls, Christians and Muslims?

Under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s leadership, the State Department resisted labeling Boko Haram a terrorist group.  It eventually was – in 2013, during John Kerry’s tenure.

During their era of innocence in American eyes, Boko Haram even openly threatened to kill the U.S. ambassador to Nigeria.  And that was before Benghazi!

This is a bit much for Kevin Martin, a member of the National Center’s Project 21 black leadership network.  A Navy veteran who traveled in the Muslim world while serving our nation, Kevin is aghast at the way the Obama Administration – and the Clinton State Department, in particular – allowed the Boko Haram threat to go unaddressed and to fester.

Kevin said:

Boko Haram is a very dangerous Islamic terrorist group that has been destabilizing northern Nigeria for years.  Their terrorist actions over the last four years include mass murder, kidnapping and forced conversions to Islam.  There are thousands of victims of their actions and many more grieving family members and friends.

While some Americans are only now discovering the extend of Boko Haram’s past crimes through social media’s #bringbackourgirls – and, even then, it is mostly restricted to efforts highlighting the group’s kidnapping of more than 200 Nigerian school girls – the truth of the matter is that the Obama Administration had the chance to label Boko Haram a terrorist group as far back as 2011 and refused to do so.

It’s apparent that this neglect was because of the politically correct fear of labeling a group of African Islamists as terrorists.

But the facts are clear.  Since 2011, Boko Haram has grown stronger.  This is especially the case following the Libyan civil war, when the group was allegedly able to obtain several types of heavy weapons – including MANPAD anti-aircraft weaponry.  Possession of such armament essentially puts Boko Haram on par with Nigerian military.

While some conservatives – including me – question the effectiveness of the social media activism of Michelle Obama and others, the real question that remains is this: why, when the Obama Administration and the State Department had the chance, did it refuse to label Boko Haram as a terrorist group.

The Obama Administration inaction of a few years back – under the leadership of Hillary Clinton – likely only emboldened Boko Haram – which lead up to this particular kidnapping that has given them the worldwide attention they have obviously been seeking.

top photo credit: iStockPhoto


Don't Get Your Science News from Last Week Tonight with John Oliver

Though really, what sane person would get his science news from This Week Tonight with John Oliver?

But just in case some of you don't know any better, Oliver's recent skit, "Climate Change Debate," had a glaring error -- sadly, one that makes the skit substantially less funny.

So if you haven't seen it yet, you might want to watch it first, and then find out about the error.

OK, here's the error. Oliver's writers apparently are under the impression that global warming "skeptics" are at odds with the 97% of scientists who are said to agree that humans cause global warming. That's not so. The skeptics are among the 97% of scientists who agree that humans cause global warming.

That's how the percentage gets nearly to one hundred.

How can that be, you say? Neither Jon Stewart nor Rachel Maddow ever said any such thing.

Last Week Tonight with John OliverDon't expect to get science news from a comedy show.

Jon Stewart is selling comedy and Rachel Maddow is selling liberalism, that's how. They aren't science educators, and don't pretend to be.

Here's the deal. Despite all the contentiousness of the global warming debate, there really is not much debate that the Earth has warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 1800s, and that the Earth warmed during various decades since (and cooled during others, and didn't change much in still others). So scientists -- alarmists and skeptics alike -- pretty much agree that there has been global warming.

So, if the global warming theory is defined as "the Earth has warmed and humans have caused it," do skeptics believe humans have caused it?

Most skeptics believe humans have caused some of it and nature has caused the rest of it. Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer, for example, a very prominent skeptic and a key man behind the UAH dataset (which provides the ongoing atmospheric temperature records used by alarmist and skeptic scientists alike), believes humans have caused about half of observed warming. That puts him firmly among the 97% of scientists who believe, as John Oliver puts it, that "climate change exists." That also makes him a skeptic, because he does not agree with alarmists that warming is overwhelmingly human-caused and he does not believe human-caused global warming will inevitably cause a catastrophe.

Yet the ignorance and nastiness of the global warming debate is such that, according to Google, the alarmists and allied left-wing propaganda groups such as Think Progress have have called Dr. Spencer a "denier" no less than 34,000 times.


So if Dr. Roy Spencer, skeptic, had been in John Oliver's skit, he would have been seated with Bill Nye (preferably in his place, as Nye doesn't seem to know the North Pole from the South, and isn't a scientist anyway) as one of the 97 scientists. And many of his skeptic friends would have been there with him.

The debate, dear friends, is not whether the planet has done any warming over the last 140 years or so, or even in the late 20th Century, or even whether humans have caused any of that observed warming. The debate is over whether humans have caused the overwhelming amount of said warming (or even all of it), as alarmist scientists and activists like Al Gore believe, and whether said warming inevitably will cause a catastrophe for humankind (as the alarmists and activists also believe).

If you think about it, you'll realize the 97% figure always did sound a bit fishy. Out side of North Korean elections, when do 97% percent of people ever agree on anything?

Only when the question is asked so broadly, nearly everyone agrees.


Leftist PC Police Threaten Free Speech

In the space of just a few weeks, the quality of American freedom has been cheapened and its future made uncertain by a renewed assault of left-wing radicals bent on having their own way — and running roughshod over all other opinions in the process.  It’s political correctness all over again.

To follow are the some of the most high-profile recent examples of this re-invigorated, authoritarian thought police of the far-left:

  • Former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice felt compelled to turn down an invitation to speak at the commencement of Rutgers University and receive an honorary degree because of campus protests against her diplomacy during the George W. Bush Administration.
  • A private conversation made public, in which owner Donald Sterling made inappropriate racial remarks to his then-girlfriend, led to the NBA banning Sterling from professional basketball for life and leaving him in a position where Sterling may essentially be forced to sell the Los Angeles Clippers team that he owned and nurtured for decades (possibly to investment groups that include those who protested him).
  • After it was revealed he made a donation to a California referendum campaign to define marriage as solely between a man and a woman (a referendum that won by a large margin of victory in 2008), software CEO Brendan Eich was forced out of his job at Mozilla.
  • Similarly, the Benham brothers found their upcoming reality show about house flipping cancelled before an episode was ever aired because of one of the brothers in particular and the family in general being outspoken against homosexuality and abortion.  It is reported that the basic cable network HGTV was “bullied” into removing the show from its schedule by gay activists.

This intolerance is political.  It is issue-driven.  It is meant to ensure a leftist agenda prevails despite legality, logic or popular support.

In Washington, despite liberal declarations in 2008 that America was entering a “post-racial” era, the race card seems to be played more than every.  Free speech through political contributions (from conservatives, at least) is under fire even though the U.S. Supreme Court, for one, continues to invalidate onerous campaign finance restrictions.  Adherence to traditional values, and being outspoken about it, for instance, can put a target on someone’s back.

Kevin Martin, a member of the National Center’s Project 21 black leadership network, condemns this resurgence of political correctness and intolerance of a diversity of viewpoints that now seems to permeate American society, saying:

As more Americans sour on President Obama’s failed brand of progressive politics, a very vocal minority of hardcore partisans wants to shoot down any support for traditional ideas in our constitutional republic.

This radical fringe — which remains unrestrained by others who share their beliefs but either don’t wish or are afraid to attempt to check their zeal — thinks it has the right to be the thought police of America.

While sternly denying corporate identity when Mitt Romney or the U.S. Supreme Court recognized it, these people now bestow a similar personhood on government.  More precisely, they now appear to seek to personalize policy in such a way that opposition to the will of the government can get someone tagged as racist because the government — in their view — is now Barack Obama.

Anyone who believes our government should be held accountable also seems likely to be similarly smeared by these people as a racist.

Furthermore, this cadre of radicals does not limit its policing of thought to one’s feelings on government.  Whatever it seeks to redefine, it wants to set the prevailing opinion that must be held by all.  Americans who have spoken out on the issues of traditional marriage, for example, have found themselves attacked, protested and forced out of public and private positions they have earned on merit because they dare to hold views counter to the mob.

These radicals have also sought to imprint their opinions on America through the media, public institutions and schools.  Anyone who is found to hold beliefs counter to theirs are often smeared as racist, traditionalist, nativist, sexist or homophobic because what this small minority has not yet been able to do is stop the exchange of ideas that Americans have come to appreciate and is still guaranteed by our Constitution.

photo credit: iStockPhoto


Think Progress is Wrong to Claim Protecting Lands for Future Generations is a "Uniquely American" Idea

Royal National ParkIf Think Progress is right that preserving natural lands for future generations is a "uniquely American" idea, then Royal National Park in Australia, created in 1879 and shown here, must not exist.

I've been writing about Think Progress' announcement Friday of a new series dedicated to convincing Americans that anyone who believes our federal government should own less than 28 percent of our national land area is a wild-eyed right-wing fringe radical.

Friday I noted how unfair it is that western states have far less control over their own land area than eastern and midwestern states. Saturday I pointed out that Think Progress' belief that federal land ownership is equivalent to public access is charmingly naive at the level of Mary Poppins.

Today, smaller fare: I merely suggest that Think Progress is wrong to claim that leaving large tracts of public lands in a more-or-less natural state is a "uniquely American idea."

I'm easily as devout a patriot as anyone at Think Progress, but really, its "only in America" attitude about national parks and wilderness areas is a bit unsubstantiated. Other countries really do have parks and protected lands.

Australia created its first national park during the same decade we created ours, in the 1870s.

And Canada, for example, seems quite sure it has "vast expanses of intact natural areas," some of which are government-owned lands while others are privately owned. Canada created its first national park in 1885 -- after the creation of Yellowstone in 1872, to be sure, but not much after.

So does the USA have the greatest amount of protected land area? Maybe that's what Think Progress meant?

Nope. Russia has more (1,523,570 sq. km to our 1,383,174).

How about the greatest percentage of its land area under protection?

Nope. Germany has more (40.5% to our 14.8%). We're not even second (UK, 24.4%), or third (Japan, 16.3%), or fourth (France, 15.1%).

Other countries with protected natural lands include but are not limited to Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Italy, Greece and Sweden, with quite a few others.

Where did Think Progress get the idea that having "places held in trust" for future generations to enjoy is "uniquely American"?

Did it make it up?


Think Progress is Wrong to Equate Federal Ownership of Land with Public Access to Those Lands

Troublesome Wilderness Study AreaThis is the Troublesome Wilderness Study Area in Colorado, owned by the federal government. If you want to see it in person, you'll have to walk.

I wrote yesterday of the left-wing special interest group Think Progress' rather silly belief that in owning 28 percent of the nation's land area, the federal government owns exactly the right amount of land (or possibly not enough?) and that if the feds owned any less, dangerous harm to America's heritage would result.

Today I point out the ignorance of Think Progress in believing:

By seizing public lands [from the federal government], special interests are* infringing upon a uniquely American idea: that there are places held in trust for all Americans – present and future – to hike, fish, camp, hunt, and enjoy.

And also in believing federal land ownership is synonymous with access to said lands by the public, by writing, "Public lands are a place for all Americans."

Think Progress, meet your comrades in the environmental movement. Clearly, you have not been introduced, as getting humans off many federal lands is one of its goals. See here or here or here or here or here or elsewhere.

Approximately one-third of U.S. Forest Service System lands, equalling 58.5 million acres, are "roadless." That's a land area larger than Great Britain, and it means as it sounds: if you want to enjoy them, or fish and camp on them as Think Progress suggests is their purpose, you'll have to walk.

Some further 4 million acres of federal lands in the Rocky Mountains are similarly inaccessible. They are either totally surrounded by private land or no roads exist on which they can be accessed.

78 countries are smaller than that.

Who loses fishing and camping access to these lands if they are sold?

Hikers. Really energetic hikers. They are the only ones who can get in.

And let me remind Think Progress that no one except the feds had access to many federal lands during the 2013 government shutdown -- you know, the one President Obama forced because he did not want to delay implementation of ObamaCare, right before he delayed implementation of ObamaCare?

If the feds don't own the lands, people can have access to them no matter what hijinks are going on in Washington.

*It is unclear who exactly Think Progress believes is presently seizing public lands. The only land seizure I know of recently is in Ukraine.


Never Compliment a Liberal for Getting Something Right - It Just Makes Them Want to be Wrong Again

SalonandSlateLogosLast week, I applauded Salon magazine for having the integrity to point out that its fellow liberal magazine, Slate, didn't know what it was talking about.

Slate claimed conservative opposition to Common Core is solely based on the fact that Common Core is connected with the left.

Salon disagreed with Slate, saying many liberals dislike Common Core and that many of those who oppose it, regardless of their politics, dislike it on the merits.

I ended my piece complimenting Salon with these words:

Understanding issues and analyzing actual concerns takes more work than writing pieces with a simplistic left-good; right-bad meme. Maybe that's too much to expect from Slate.

But perhaps there's hope. If you had asked me yesterday, I would have said it was too much for Salon.

I spoke too soon. Salon published another piece, contradicting the one I complimented. Now it agrees with Slate.

Never compliment a liberal for getting something right. It seems to make them want to be wrong again.

The left just isn't comfortable with being right.


Think Progress is Wrong to Claim the Federal Government Should Own 28% or More of America's Lands


Ever fearful that someone other than our Washington overlords might have some power and influence, the ever-creative Think Progress announced today a new series intended to demonize anyone who believes it makes sense for the federal government to own less land than 28 percent of America's land area.

A premise behind its concern appears to be that only the federal government can manage land wisely: that government manages it better than private citizens and the feds manage land better than states or localities.

Think Progress genuinely appears to believe that local and state governments are run by yokels who would pave over Yosemite, given half a chance (does that sounds like something Gov. Jerry Brown would do to you?), and that if a private citizen owns something wonderful, he can be counted on to destroy it.

If the feds are so great at land management, why does the National Park Service -- manager of the lands we value most above all -- have a $11.5 billion maintenance backlog?

Don't blame the recession: The maintenance backlog has been a serious problem for many years.

One way to address the maintenance backlog would be to limit federal "ownership" of land only to that land with unique qualities -- the lands the American people truly want preserved -- and that land used for military purposes. The rest could be sold to the states in which they are found, to be managed by those closest to them, and with the greatest motivation to see that they are managed well. Some of those lands, in turn, could be sold by the states, giving the states and localities access to property tax revenue from private landowners.

There is simply no reason for 81 percent of Nevada and 66.5 percent of Utah to be "owned" by the federal government.

It's also unfair that 93 percent of all federal land is owned in just 13 states. Why should Idaho (61.7% federal control) have substantially less control over its land than Kansas (.06% federal control) or Iowa (.03% federal control) or Nebraska (1.1% federal control)? Is Idaho really that different than Kansas, Iowa or Nebraska?

And why is it fair for western states to have far, far less control over their lands than eastern states?


New Study Shows Link Between Health Insurance And Mortality

A new study in the Annals of Internal Medicine researches the expansion of insurance under RomneyCare in Massachusetts and finds a link between insurance status and mortality.  Specifically, the study (henceforth the Sommers-2014 study) found that about every “830 adults gaining health insurance [prevented] 1 death per year.”

Thus, we have another entry into the debate over whether there is a link between having insurance and mortality.  And unlike the silly Wilper-2009 study, this one is a pretty solid study, using a quasi-experimental design.  Basically, the researchers compared a set of counties in Massachusetts with similar counties in other states both before and after RomneyCare came into effect in 2006.  The mortality rate in the Massachusetts counties dropped 2.9% post-RomneyCare relative to the other counties.

That said, there are only two studies in this debate that use the best type of study design, the randomized controlled trial, and both of those studies found no link between insurance status and mortality.  (If you want to know more about difference in study design, this power-point presentation is pretty good.) Both of those studies have their shortcomings, though, including small sample size and abbreviated period of study.  The Sommers-2014 study had relatively large sample size and was able to study affects over four years.

However, the Sommers-2014 study has its shortcomings too.  Phil Klein at the Washington Examiner notes that Massachusetts has the most per capita physicians of any state in the nation and has some very high quality medical institutions.  Klein writes:

So it’s possible that what the Massachusetts study picked up is not necessarily that increasing health insurance coverage decreases mortality in general, but doing so in an area with a vast pre-existing medical infrastructure with a high concentration of skilled doctors and world-class medical facilities is what makes the difference.

Another shortcoming in the Sommers-2014 study is that its unit of analysis is counties, not individuals.  Because of this, the study can’t measure the impact of health status, smoking status and body mass index.  A 2009 study by Dr. Richard Kronik found that excluding those factors increases the strength of the relationship between insurance status and mortality.  Include them and the relationship all but evaporates.

In fairness, the Sommers-2014 study did compare counties that were very similar in their demographic characteristics such as age, median income, employment and poverty rates, and so forth.  Thus, it’s possible that health status, smoking status and body mass index are also relatively similar in all counties in the study.  But since they aren’t measured, we ultimately don’t know, and it leaves open the question whether the study’s findings on insurance status and mortality would weaken or disappear if those factors were included.


If Politicians Care About Liberty, They Need To Fight For It--And Too Many Republicans On The E&C Committee Don't Know How To Do It

A little over a week ago I wrote, “Alas, the GOP is not called the stupid party for nothing.  If Republicans are really serious about restoring liberty in health care, then they need better tactics than talking without first thinking and preemptive surrender.”  

Case in point was yesterday’s House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on ObamaCare enrollment. Watching it wasn’t painful.  It was excruciating.

Republicans let the Democrats walk all over them.  The Democrats touted the “8 million enrolled” figure unchallenged, even though the insurance industry officials brought up to testify said between 10 and 20 percent of pre-March sign-ups had not paid their premiums.  I never heard one Republican counter with something like, “Well, if 10 to 20 percent don’t end up paying their premiums, we aren’t going to have 8 million enrollees, are we?  Indeed, if it closer to 20 percent, then the final number won’t even reach Obama’s goal of 7 million.” Granted, I stopped listening three-quarters of the way through, but I’d bet good money no GOP member said anything like that in the part I missed.

As usual, the Democrats’ attack dog, Henry Waxman, laid down an effective barrage of things that the GOP had been wrong about on ObamaCare.  It was effective, in part, because no one fired back.  For example, Waxman dismissed the GOP claim that ObamaCare would cost jobs.  Someone should have pointed out the Congressional Budget Office report that said ObamaCare would reduce work hours to the equivalent of 2.5 million jobs.  Waxman also claimed that the premiums on the exchange had come in lower than the CBO estimate.  Couldn’t one of the Republican members noted that the premiums are much higher than what was available on the actual individual market in 2013?

As I wrote in that same post a week ago, “While committee hearings are nominally for the purpose of gathering information, they’ve increasingly become used to score political points.  Republicans need to acknowledge that and use some of their time in that hearing to launch attacks against ObamaCare.”

Time for GOP members of the E&C Committee to step up their game.  A lot.


On a different note, yesterday I commented on the phenomena of “duplicates” in the exchange.  Duplicates are individuals who, due to website glitches, signed-up more than one time.  Yesterday I wrote, “If only 80 percent of enrollees pay premiums, then enrollment will be around 6.4 million, not 8 million.  The number of duplicates (and we don’t know how many duplicates there are) will further erode that number.”  

Upon further reflection, the number of duplicates won’t further erode the enrollment number because they are already part of the rate of non-payment of premiums.  In other words, suppose Mr. Smith opened three accounts, signed up for insurance in all three, but is paying a premium on only one.  The insurers are receiving no premiums for the two “duplicate” sign-ups, and thus the duplicates are probably included in the total number of sign-ups who have not paid their premiums. 


Donald Sterling-NAACP Link Further Hurts Reputation of Civil Rights Lobby

Virtually everyone knows about the race controversy that will cost Donald Sterling the ownership of the Los Angeles Clippers professional basketball team.  It’s more than likely, however, that fewer people are aware of the relationship between Sterling and the Los Angeles chapter of the NAACP.

Despite past legal action and accusations that called Sterling’s character into question, particularly regarding race, the local NAACP gave Sterling a lifetime achievement award in 2009 and planned to give him another similar high honor this coming May 15.

Sterling has been a major donor to liberal causes, including the NAACP.  And, as California NAACP president Alice Huffman admitted to USA Today, big donors can get awards.  Apparently, they can get such awards without much vetting of their past (or present).

This apparent pay-for-play behavior cost the NAACP’s LA chapter president, Leon Jenkins, his position in the group.  Jenkins, a disbarred lawyer and disgraced former judge already raised eyebrows among his peers, but the Sterling controversy finally led to his exit.  He apologized for “the negative exposure I have caused” the NAACP.

Kevin Martin, a member of the National Center’s Project 21 black leadership network, notes that this toxic relationship between Sterling and the NAACP reveals the potential for terrible damage as it leads to the assumption that the once-unimpeachable civil rights lobby may now be available for purchase:

With the Los Angeles chapter of the NAACP having given Donald Sterling a major lifetime humanitarian award in the past – and its willingness to do so again this month, until controversy overtook events after Sterling’s racial comments dominated the news – it proves to me what concerned blacks and others have largely held to themselves for a long time: the credibility of the NAACP could be for sale to the highest bidder.

When Sterling was last feted by the NAACP’s Los Angeles affiliate, he was in the midst of negotiations with the U.S. Department of Justice over accusations he discriminated against minorities in apartment rentals.  This year, he was set to share the stage with the mayor of Los Angeles and Al Sharpton even though there was the factor of this settlement with the Justice Department and further accusations that his ownership style with the Clippers created a “plantation mentality.”

When the people demanded action in the wake of the comments Sterling made to his then-girlfriend becoming public knowledge, what the NAACP planned to do became very relevant because it appears to show that they were willing to look the other way for years as long as Sterling donated to progressive causes.

The outrage from the civil rights establishment to the Los Angeles NAACP and now-former chapter president Leon Jenkins could be seen as a calculated response to the exposure of the real and inappropriate connection between Donald Sterling and the political left.


Project 21’s Cooper Comments on Congressional Contempt Charge for Lois Lerner

Lois Lerner, the former IRS manager considered to be a key player in the alleged targeting of conservative organizations, was charged with contempt of Congress for her unwillingness to assist congressional investigators.  Lerner asserted her innocence before a congressional hearing last year, and simultaneously attempted invoke her 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination to avoid testifying before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Horace Cooper, the co-chairman of the National Center’s Project 21 black leadership network and a former staff member for the congressional leadership, is commenting on the bipartisan 231-187 vote for the charge that will now likely move the Lerner case to the U.S. Department of Justice and a court where it can be determined whether or not she must testify about her involvement in any unethical partisan agenda at the nation’s tax-collecting agency:

Tonight, a bipartisan majority in the House of Representatives voted to formally hold Lois Lerner in contempt and request that the U.S. Department of Justice name a special counsel to prosecute her alleged crimes.

Every American should be able to expect that they will not be mistreated by the IRS, and that they certainly shouldn’t have to fear that they will be targeted solely because of their political views.

The power of the IRS is significant and, for most Americans, it is an agency that can engender fear because of how it can affect a person’s life.  It is incumbent upon those civil servants to act with care and high regard for the right of all Americans to hold whatever beliefs they may choose.

This vote makes clear that Ms. Lerner’s breach was serious and likely violated federal law.  She and any others who aided her in these apparently egregious acts of political targeting must be held accountable.

Political freedom is a value that we can all come together in support of — left, right and middle.  I commend the congressmen who stood up for the liberty of all Americans to participate, or not, in the political arena free from reprisal.


Holder Urged to Act Quickly on House Request for Criminal Contempt Probe in IRS Case

A guest post by Horace Cooper, attorney, legal commentator and Project 21 co-chairman:

Today the House of Representatives voted to hold Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress and to formally request that the DOJ begin a criminal probe of her actions.

This vote is the culmination of nearly a year of investigation by the House Oversight Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee into IRS abuses. The evidence uncovered so far makes clear that numerous right-of-center organizations and think-tanks were subjected to special scrutiny by IRS and, in the process, it is likely that federal laws were broken. Last month the Ways and Committee voted to formally request that the DOJ begin a criminal investigation of Ms. Lerner and the Oversight Committee voted to hold her in contempt.

Ms. Lerner now has the dubious distinction of being one of a dozen executive branch officials since the 1970s -- including Health, Education and Welfare Secretary Joe Califano, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch -- to be held in contempt by a Congressional committee.

I commend the House for taking aggressive steps to hold Lois Lerner accountable. Today's announcement makes it clear that wrongdoing cannot be ignored by the Justice Department or the White House. It is in the interest of every American that we have an IRS that doesn't single out groups or individual for mistreatment based on their political views -- this isn't just dangerous, it is UnAmerican.

Today's action signals that the House is serious about its determination to get to the root of the illegal use of the IRS to punish conservatives generally and opponents of the White House in particular. I urge Mr. Holder to act quickly.

Page 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 ... 280 Next 20 Entries »