Amy Ridenour's National Center BlogAmy Ridenour's National Center Bloghttp://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2014-03-10T16:27:25ZSquarespaceHealth Care Odds & Endshttp://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2014/3/10/health-care-odds-ends.htmlDavid Hogberg2014-03-10T16:21:58Z2014-03-10T16:21:58Z1. ObamaCare Beginning To Worry Insurers.

Insurance companies that participate in the exchange are worried that the exchanges won’t be viable for long.  The recent announcement by the Obama Administration that people could keep their health plans through 2015 has only added to the troubles as insurers were hoping those people would see their plans cancelled this year and then join the exchange.

From the Washington Examiner:

Though the department [of Health and Human Services] has reported that 4 million have signed up for health care plans through one of the program’s new insurance exchanges, that number drops to 3 million when individuals who haven’t kept up with paying premiums are included (about 20 percent never paid the first month’s premiums, and an additional 2 to 5 percent haven’t paid the second month’s premium, Laszewski writes, citing insurance carriers).

That isn’t enough to create a sustainable risk pool with a critical mass of young and healthy enrollees to offset the cost of covering older and sicker individuals who are now guaranteed an offer of coverage.

Well, NCPPR warned them about these problems a while ago.  Sometimes being right is a real pain.

2. Unions Also Worried About ObamaCare.

Here is the key paragraph from an analysis by UNITE!, a union that represents people who work in the hospitality industry, airports, food service and so on: 

Ironically, the Administration’s own signature healthcare victory poses one of the most immediate challenges to redressing inequality. Yes, the Affordable Care Act will help many more Americans gain some health insurance coverage, a significant step forward for equality. At the same time, without smart fixes, the ACA threatens the middle class with higher premiums, loss  of hours, and a shift to part-time work and less comprehensive coverage. 
Read more about it here.

 

3. Testimony Before The Senate HELP Committee Tomorrow

I’ll be testifying before the Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging, which is part of Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.  The topic is “Access and Cost: What the U.S. Health Care System Can Learn from Other Countries.”  It will take place between 10am and noon EDT, and you should be able to view a webcast here.  What will I say?  Well, here is a sneak peek at some of the testimony I’ve submitted:

I think the best lessons we can take from other nations is what NOT to do to our health care system.  The most important lesson is that we should avoid putting more and more of our health care system under the control of politicians.  Politicians, like everyone else, face a system of incentives and constraints.  Specifically, most politicians want to get re-elected and that will have a substantial impact on health care policy. Groups that have political clout, that can influence a politician’s reelection chances, are more likely to get good treatment under government-run health care systems.  Groups that lack such clout are more likely to be neglected by politicians and receive inferior care.

Unfortunately, people who are quite sick—those who need an operation or cancer treatment or have a serious chronic condition—usually lack such political clout.  First, the very sick are relatively few in number, which means they amount to a very limited number of voters, too limited to have much impact on elections. Second, they are too sick to engage in the type of political activities such as organizing, protesting, etc., that can bring about change in health care policy.  Furthermore, they may be completely unaware of how government health care policy has affected their plight, in which case they will not feel a need to vote or organize to change health care policy.  Ultimately, under a government system, those with the most medical need are the most likely to have difficulty getting the care they need. 

Or, you can see the whole testimony here.

 

4. And For Something Totally Unrelated To Health Care.

Here is Rosey Grier, one of the defensive linemen of the then-Los Angeles Rams known as the “Fearsome Four”:

And here is Grier singing “It’s All Right to Cry”:

Hat tip, Kyle Smith.

 

]]>Rutgers Administration, Project 21 Members, Stand with Condoleezza Ricehttp://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2014/3/9/rutgers-administration-project-21-members-stand-with-condole.htmlDavid W. Almasi2014-03-10T01:27:47Z2014-03-10T01:27:47ZAs the president of Rutgers University in New Jersey stands by the decision to ask former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to be the commencement speaker at the school’s New Brunswick campus, members of the National Center’s Project 21 black leadership network are criticizing members of the Rutgers faculty, student body and others who want to trample free expression and the free exchange of ideas by cancelling Rice’s invitation.

In an open letter, Rutgers president Robert Barchi wrote that the planned May 18 speech will not be cancelled, and that “we cannot protect free speech or academic freedom by denying others the right to an opposing view, or by excluding those with whom they may disagree.”

The school’s Faculty Council passed a resolution that demanded Rice be turned away from the Rutgers-New Brunswick commencement because she “played a prominent role in the administration’s efforts to mislead the American people about the presence of mass destruction” weapons prior to the U.S.-led liberation of Iraq during the presidency of George W. Bush.

In a commentary condemning the actions of intolerant liberals in the Rutgers-Rice controversy, liberal political commentator and noted civil rights era historian Juan Williams wrote:

The facts are right.  The conclusion is wrong…

Liberals are shockingly quick to demean and dismiss brilliant black people like Rice, [noted surgeon Ben] Carson, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, U.S. Senator Tim Scott (R-SC), Professor Walter E. Williams and economist Thomas Sowell because they don’t fit into the role they have carved out for a black person in America.

Black Americans must be obedient liberals of all things or risk being called a race traitor or Uncle Tom.

In 2011, the Rutgers system was rocked by another controversy regarding campus speeches.  That year, the school was discovered to have paid $32,000 to have MTV’s “Jersey Shore” star Nicole “Snooki” Polizzi to speak – $2,000 more than noted black author Toni Morrison received to speak at commencement.  Rice will be paid $35,000 and receive an honorary degree.

Noting that the Rutgers faculty failed to show such outrage about the 2011 Snooki speech and Morrison’s commencement address, Project 21 member Darryn “Dutch” Martin suggested these educators, in particular, should think more about academics than activism.  Dutch said:

Dr. Condoleezza Rice’s academic and professional accomplishments – as a college professor and a university provost, as well as being the nation’s first black female National Security Advisor and Secretary of State – are exemplary to say the least.

But the Rutgers University Faculty Council at the New Brunswick campus feels she doesn’t represent “exemplary citizenship” and wouldn’t “inspire” the school’s new graduates.  However, the same university faculty apparently had no problem at all paying a one-time community college student who became a trashy reality TV star – Nicole “Snooki” Polizzi –  $32,000 in 2011 to tell students to “[s]tudy hard, but party harder” and that “being tan” was her inspiration.

American higher education is supposed to be the one place where vigorous debate and the free flow of dissenting viewpoints should be encouraged and held as sacred.  Yet, in opposing Dr. Rice in this way – while paying Snooki slightly more than Nobel laureate Toni Morrison was paid as commencement speaker the same year – the Rutgers University faculty is irrevocably tarnishing their school’s reputation.

Apparently, a fame-hungry girl of questionable values from New Jersey with no real discernable marketable skills or formal education who spent several seasons on “Jersey Shore” carousing, getting drunk and having run-ins with the law isn’t quite as bad as serving under a conservative president.

The Faculty Council at Rutgers should forever hang its collective head in shame.

Project 21 member Nadra Enzi, added:

It’s tragic that radicals at Rutgers University, the home of everyman Paul Robeson – a progressive and civil rights superlative – tried to “Lib Crow” an exemplar such as former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice!

It shows, yet again, how nakedly racist the allegedly anti-racist liberals in academia appears to be when encountering blacks who achieve outside their narrow wavelength.

The sheets I see showing during this telling episode don’t look like graduation gowns!

]]>Meet Sir Richard Branson: Concentration Camp Commandanthttp://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2014/3/8/meet-sir-richard-branson-concentration-camp-commandant.htmlDavid A. Ridenour2014-03-08T03:25:53Z2014-03-08T03:25:53Z

I wonder if Sir Richard Branson, when he called us "deniers" in response to our activism at the Apple shareholder meeting (a suggestion that we’re like holocaust deniers), realized that under a scenario in which we are akin to holocaust deniers, he's akin to a concentration camp commandant?

In Branson's scenario so, too, is Tim Cook, whom Branson praised.

(For those who do not know it, the term "deniers" is meant to associate people who do not believe humankind is responsible for catastrophic global warming with holocaust deniers. Those who do not believe in the global warming theory, do not believe any global warming that may occur will be catastrophic, or do not believe humanity is mostly responsible for any warming that takes place thus are said not only to be incorrect by those who do believe those things, but morally wrong -- equivalent to deniers of the holocaust -- for not believing in them. For more information and examples, go here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, or here).

Both of these men have directed operations responsible for enormous carbon emissions -- far more than have most of us.

If Branson wants to stop what he apparently thinks is an atrocity, CO2 emissions, he can close the Virgin companies down immediately.

]]>About Those February Jobs Numbershttp://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2014/3/7/about-those-february-jobs-numbers.htmlDavid W. Almasi2014-03-07T17:49:59Z2014-03-07T17:49:59ZIf things are getting better, why doesn’t it feel like it… and why doesn’t the supporting information seem to support the official unemployment rate?

It’s the first Friday of the month, and that means the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics released its report on the jobless numbers for the previous month.

In February, the unemployment rate went up slightly to 6.7 percent, but it is part of a troubling stagnant trend.  Once again, the key word for the BLS is “unchanged.”

It’s gone up a tenth of a point since last month, which is easy to believe.  But that fact that it is still fairly low considering all of the other factors involved makes things harder to swallow.

For example, the labor force participation rate is unchanged (there’s that word) at an abysmal and almost record-low 63 percent.  And the alternative U-6 rate that also covers those who are unemployed or have given up looking for work is very high at 12.6 percent.

For yet another month, it would also seem that President Obama’s most loyal constituencies were the ones really left wanting when it comes to jobs.  Black unemployment is still quite high at 12 percent.  Black teen unemployment is at 32.4 percent.  The Hispanic jobless rate is 8.1 percent.  All of these loyal, key constituencies are on the hind-end of an already anemic Obama recovery.

It’s certainly impolitic, but — overall — it’s just plain bad for these demographics in particular and the American workforces as a whole.

And the latest budget is yet another disappointment.  Austerity does not appear to be in the President’s vocabulary as the proposed budget spends tens of billions more than last year and offers no substantial way to pay for more welfare state expansion outside of the obvious taxes on the job creating class and from a military that is finding it harder and harder to defend the homeland and our interests abroad as the appeal to do more with less can no longer be considered humanly possible.

But the unemployment rate is allegedly below seven percent by their estimates.  Happy days are here again!

Really?  Really?!

In his monthly “About Those Jobs Numbers…” analysis of the state of the Obama economy, Project 21 member Derryck Green remains pessimistic.  Derryck’s pessimism is justified, as he paints a picture of a president apparently wholly uninterested in economic matters and distracted by the many scandals derail his legacy and play havoc with the normal and expected affairs of state.

Derryck said:

Because the Obama Administration is in perpetual damage control mode these days — attempting to manage the repercussions of the President’s ongoing and mounting missteps — the economy seems all but forgotten.

Domesitcally, these blunders include — but are not limited to — the continuing and unanswered questions surrounding possible IRS political intimidation.  There’s also the man-made distraction that is Attorney General Eric Holder — who recently encouraged his state-based counterparts to disregard their oaths to their respective state constitutions and not defend laws they personally disagree.  He also wants states to lift bans that would allow convicted felons voting privileges.

And there’s yet another ObamaCare implementation modification and a two-year delay to the imposition of the individual mandate.

On the world stage, White House blunders include the repercussions of Syria’s civil war and the humanitarian disaster that occurred while Obama professed (but later walked back) red line of tolerance for Assad’s murderous assault on his own people.  Then there’s Iran’s disruption of Middle East politics and mocking of the President’s threat of military force to contain Iran as well as Putin’s attempt to expand the Russian empire.

Again, because of the President’s contribution to these distractions, the economy is the forgotten man.  The economy receives scant mention by the media and not taken seriously by the President or his economic advisors.

So now we have word that unemployment may be on the rise again.  The new official rate went up to 6.7 percent.  About 10.5 million of our fellow Americans are looking for jobs in a tough market.  Of those, 3.8 million — a more than 200,000-person increase since last month — are considered “long-term unemployed” because they’ve been jobless for more than 27 weeks.

The labor force participation rate is stagnant at 63 percent — a low that harkens back to the Carter era.  That’s surely not a comparison that the President want to hear.

This week was also the release of Obama’s proposed budget for the 2015 fiscal year.  It was a minor news story.  The fanfare of past presidents’ budgets was lacking.  It seems the dismal track record of previous Obama budgets makes the sixth one a non-story.

While the national unemployment rate rose, the rate for blacks and Hispanics fell ever so slightly — but it’s still way above the national rate.  While the Obama Administration may desperately try to cherry-pick this and spin it as more so-called evidence of an economy slowly gaining momentum, it cannot be forgotten that the nation’s GDP was revised downward to a 2.4 percent annual growth pace in the fourth quarter, not the 3.2 percent that was initially reported.  Oops!

Five years after the President’s celebrated almost $900 billion “stimulus” package, there are still more people out of the workforce today than when he took office in January of 2009.

There are more people receiving food stamps and federal disability than when he took office as well.  The annual average labor force participation rate reached a 35-year low, averaging 63.2 percent for 2013.

All of this is indicative of the fact that this economic “recovery” — if one still wants to call it that — is the weakest since the Second World War.

The Congressional Budget Office’s recently released report describes the reality in detail.  It notes that the sluggish recovery, the inverse relation of the unemployment rate drop to the high numbers of disaffected, potential employees who’ve left the labor force (including high numbers of long-term unemployed) and low demand for goods and services is partially responsible for the slow growth of payrolls — and it is expected to negatively affect the nation’s economy for at least a decade.

Month after month, the economic indicators become increasingly ominous — yet very little seems to have been done to address the problems.  The nation is in a vulnerable position and in need of real leadership.  But such leadership apparently cannot be found with the person now disrespectfully reclining in the Oval Office with his feet up on the desk.

Consider the President’s recently released, nearly $4 trillion dollar budget that his partisan allies will undoubtedly use as a campaign platform during their mid-term election campaigns.  The President wants more tax increases, with projected revenue of more than a trillion dollars.  He wants to decrease the size and pay for members of our military (even though food stamp use among our soldiers, sailor and airmen has increased during his tenure).

Obama wants to create and fund more social programs like universal preschool, and he wants to extend unemployment insurance.  There are even outrageous budget sub-topics, such as ending homelessness, increasing minimum wage and immigration reform.

If that wasn’t unserious enough, the President’s budget also calls for a $1 billion-dollar, “resilience fund” that would combat the negative effects of climate change.  This would, in essence, give the EPA the money and power to impose the President’s regulation-heavy agenda on the country — causing energy costs to increase, cheating the economy of over $2 trillion over the next 20 or more years.

In no way can Obama’s budget be considered a sober attempt to deal with the economic difficulties facing America — many of which he directly contributed to.  In other words, there is zero substance in it.  And this is also perfectly reflective of the man in the top post.

It would appear to be clear that the state of the nation’s economy matters very little to the President.

Obama hasn’t been held accountable for the nation’s poor economic situation thus far, and it’s suspect that very little will change regarding that fact in the forseeable future. 

top and bottom photo credits: iStockPhoto

]]>Black Conservatives Discuss Barack’s Budgethttp://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2014/3/6/black-conservatives-discuss-baracks-budget.htmlDavid W. Almasi2014-03-06T19:46:55Z2014-03-06T19:46:55ZMany reports about President Obama’s proposed budget for the 2015 fiscal year suggest that it is more of a stunt meant to affect the outcome of the 2014 mid-term elections than the fulfillment of a solemn constitutional obligation.

At nearly $4 trillion in size, the Obama budget released earlier this week increases federal spending by around $56 billion.

It’s a populist strategy rooted in class warfare.  It will more likely divide Americans than a tool for uniting the nation.

While Obama calls it “a road map for creating jobs, with good wages and expanding opportunities…,” Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) — the chairman of the House Budget Committee — said the budget isn’t serious and it “a campaign brochure.”  Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) called it Obama’s “most irresponsible budget yet.”

According to an analysis by the Heritage Foundation, the Obama budget busts the caps meant to restrain spending while most of the cuts will be borne by the military.  There are increased allocations to sustain the welfare state, and more burdens are put upon America’s earners.

Members of the National Center’s Project 21 [http://nationalcenter.org/P21Index.html] black leadership network are also talking about the prospects of the Obama budget proposal and the political ends they feel it was written to achieve.

Project 21 member Hughey Newsome, for instance, a financial analyst and a regular columnist for the Daily Caller web site, said:

It is clear that President Obama has chosen the partisan path over attempting for bipartisanship with his latest budget proposal.

With a $1.8 billion tax increase, cuts to the military and no serious attempt to curb the effect of entitlements, it is clear that the President is de-prioritizing agenda items that are responsible and important in order to make room for items that are important to his party’s base.  One example of this is an increase in the Earned Income Tax Credit.

It is disappointing that the President has chosen this route, making an agreement both sides can agree upon more difficult to reach.

Project 21 member Dr. B.B. Robinson, the founder of BlackEconomics.org web site, who feels the budget does nothing to deal with increasing debt, added:

The Obama budget proposes a front-loaded and intricate maze of programs called the “Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative,” which is heavily weighted toward the future.

While the budget does include programs designed to address current adverse conditions faced by the working poor, these programs are relatively small and secondary.

As for the long-run, assuming that underlying economic assumptions hold, the fact remains that the nation will begin to spend more on net interest payments — debt service — in 2020 than on discretionary defense or nondefense programs. 

photo credit: iStockPhoto

]]>Despite “Nuclear Option” in Senate, Adegbile Nomination Was Radioactivehttp://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2014/3/6/despite-nuclear-option-in-senate-adegbile-nomination-was-rad.htmlDavid W. Almasi2014-03-06T16:48:44Z2014-03-06T16:48:44ZIt wasn’t supposed to happen this way — not during President Obama’s “year of action.”

Yesterday, a bipartisan coalition of senators defeated the nomination of radical lawyer Debo Adegbile, Obama’s choice to run the civil rights practice at the U.S. Department of Justice, by a vote of 47-52.

While there are plenty of aspects of Adegbile’s career to make lovers of the Constitution cringe, the issue that really turned the former NAACP general counsel into a lightning rod of controversy was his previous advocacy for convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal.

Because of Adegbile’s work while at the NAACP on behalf of Jamal, who was convicted of the 1981 murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner, Adegbile’s nomination was adamantly opposed by police organizations such as the Fraternal Order of Police and the National Association of Police Officials.  Groups supporting the failed nomination included the NAACP and the AFL-CIO, among others.

According the Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), the nomination failed to advance despite a “full-court press” by the White House.

This was the first time an Obama nominee failed to win a cloture vote since Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) made dramatic changes to the way the Senate operates — lowering the number of votes needed to invoke cloture from 60 votes to 51.  This move impairs the minority party’s ability to filibuster presidential nominations (with the alleged exception of nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court).

Eight Democrat senators joined with all Senate Republicans when they opposed the advancement of the Adegbile nomination.  One of those eight was Reid — whose “no” vote, however, was a procedural move that allows him to bring the nomination up for a vote at a later date.  Several of the liberal senators who voted against President Obama’s will are up for re-election.

In the wake of this stunning defeat for the President, an obviously outraged Obama said the vote to not invoke cloture and thus bring the nomination to a final confirmation vote was a “travesty based on wildly unfair character attacks against a good and qualified public servant.”

But, noting that people such as Adegbile choose their clients, Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) said that Adegbile, in working for the cop-killer Jamal, “decided to join a political cause… and, in my view, by doing so he demonstrated his own contempt for — and frankly a willingness to undermine — the criminal justice system of the United States.”

Toomey’s summation of the radicalism that undermined the Adegbile nomination and brought about its bipartisan defeat is shared by legal experts and leaders of the National Center’s Project 21 black leadership network.

Project 21 members noted that Obama’s stunning overreach and even the willingness of his supporters to bend the rules to their favor still has its limits.

Project 21 co-chairman Cherylyn Harley LeBon, a former senior counsel with the Senate Judiciary Committee, commented on how Senate rule changes meant to enact the Obama agenda with more ease still failed to favor such an extreme pick.  She said:

Liberals always said there would be no winners in a nuclear war, and Harry Reid’s use of the “nuclear option” in the Senate seems to have proved them right.

By forcing his caucus to publicly commit to a radical nominee such as Debo Adegbile with a vote rather than being able to find political cover behind the filibuster rules he recently jettisoned, Reid left vulnerable members to choose between cowering or letting their constituents see their true colors.  When push came to shove in the Senate, the White House lost.

This is also a teachable moment for President Obama that trying to trump the legislative norms for governing is a double-edged sword.

Project 21 co-chairman Horace Cooper, a former congressional leadership staffer and former professor of constitutional law, added:

I want to commend the United States Senate for rejecting this nominee.

Debo Adegbile’s record shows that he was wrong on the law and wrong for America.

President Obama should respect this decision and nominate an individual who supports victims’ rights and equality for all, not simply someone as divisive as this nominee.

photo credit: iStockPhoto

]]>Apple Transparency, Green Goals Questioned by National Center on Cavuto Showhttp://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2014/3/6/apple-transparency-green-goals-questioned-by-national-center.htmlDavid W. Almasi2014-03-06T15:24:35Z2014-03-06T15:24:35Z

After being castigated by Apple CEO Tim Cook at the company’s annual shareholder meeting, Justin Danhof of the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project took to the Fox Business Network’s “Cavuto” to tell host Neil Cavuto — also a Apple shareholder — that Cook could not stand being asked “a very basic question” about the logic behind company expenses related to green activism.

Justin noted that Cook “went off the rails” when he probed Cook further at the meeting about whether Apple would consider alternative energy investment profitable and in the company’s and shareholders’ best interests if the investments weren’t subsidized by taxpayers.

In the conversation with Cavuto on 3/5/14, Justin added about Apple that “a lot of their green initiatives really are greenwashing because taxpayers foot the bill.”  This green myth is perpetuated by having former Vice President Al Gore on the Apple board of directors and former Obama Administration EPA administrator Lisa Jackson as an Apple employee as the company aggressively pursues profits.

]]>Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof to Discuss Apple Meeting on Cavuto Tonighthttp://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2014/3/6/free-enterprise-project-director-justin-danhof-to-discuss-ap.htmlAmy Ridenour2014-03-06T00:21:56Z2014-03-06T00:21:56ZThe National Center's Free Enterprise Project Director, Justin Danhof, will appear on the Fox Business Network's Cavuto Show tonight at 8 PM eastern to discuss what we did at the Apple shareholder meeting and why.

Tune in!

]]>So What Were We Doing at Apple and Why Did Tim Cook Get So Mad?http://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2014/3/5/so-what-were-we-doing-at-apple-and-why-did-tim-cook-get-so-m.htmlAmy Ridenour2014-03-05T05:27:20Z2014-03-05T05:27:20ZSilver Apple Logo WhiteI hadn't yet been able to find the time to write a properly comprehensive post on what we were doing at the Apple Computer shareholder meeting last Friday, but with something like a thousand news media articles out there getting the story either wrong or incomplete, I don't want to leave our story untold.

The Guardian newspaper sent us three questions on Monday for an article, it said, to run Tuesday. I answered them by email and in so doing touched on at least some parts of this story that are largely uncovered.

As Tuesday has come and gone, I figure I've given the Guardian fair time to use the words first, if it wanted to, so I'm going to post its three questions, and my answers. After that, I've added a bit more detail that goes beyond what the Guardian asked, but which should give anyone following this story -- and that includes you, Apple fans -- some food for thought.

The three questions:

1) Will [National Center Free Enterprise Project Director Justin] Danhof [who represented the National Center for Public Policy Research at the shareholder meeting] be withdrawing any investments from Apple? Will any other NCPPR figures?

2) Do you plan to continue campaigning on this issue against Tim Cook, and if so what measures will you consider next?

3) You mention that over 95% of all climate models have over-forecast the extent of global warming - any chance you can give me a source for that?

And the question with my answers:

1) Will Danhof be withdrawing any investments from Apple? Will any other NCPPR figures?

Neither the National Center for Public Policy Research nor its top executives have any plans to sell our shares in Apple. We've been an Apple-only office since 1985 and do not intend to abandon the company in any respect despite CEO Tim Cook's invitation to do so. Cook does not have the authority to determine who is allowed to be a shareholder.

2) Do you plan to continue campaigning on this issue against Tim Cook, and if so what measures will you consider next?

We are not campaigning against Tim Cook; we are campaigning for transparency and competitive markets and we will continue.

Tim Cook's agitated response at the shareholder meeting was somewhat surprising. Apple cares greatly about return on investment, and Tim Cook knows it. In fact, while we asked that Apple undertake no projects specifically to fight global warming that are unrelated to business goals - a very reasonable pledge we were able to get from General Electric - we actually have no evidence Apple is doing any such thing. It is a very profit-focused company. But as our shareholder proposal made clear, we sought transparency on this and related issues, which is a reasonable request for a shareholder to make.

We wonder if Mr. Cook's outrage was feigned. What constitutes a "green" company is subjective, but it is hard to imagine that Apple qualifies. Minimalist packaging is a big priority within the sustainability movement. Apple's packaging is beautiful, but not minimalist.

In 2012, Apple withdrew from the industry-funded Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) sustainability registry when many believed the then-new line of MacBook Pros would not meet EPEAT's standards. Days later, Apple rejoined EPEAT, and somehow earned EPEAT's top "gold" certification for its new laptop. How was Apple able to earn this approval? Would a smaller company have been treated the same? Minus the transparency we sought with our shareholder proposal, who knows?

And then there's cap-and-trade. Apple was all for reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions through a cap-and-trade law. But Apple does a very substantial amount of its manufacturing in China, which would not have been subject to the law. Would the same be true for all current and future Apple competitors?

Apple is extremely good at looking green. This is what the famous environmental groups call "greenwashing." Why is Al Gore on its board? Because of his technology and innovation expertise or because he helps make Apple look green? Why did Apple hire the Obama Administration's scandal-plagued Environmental Protection Agency chief? Was it because executives who circumvent transparency laws are highly prized, or because hiring her helped make Apple look green?

Observers should remind themselves that Apple manufactures devices that use a lot of energy and Apple works hard to assure that customers will want to replace them every few years, if not sooner. Apple's business plan includes making its products disposable. Is this a sustainability strategy, or a return-on-investment strategy?

Don't get us wrong. We love Apple products. Our office has used them exclusively since 1985, far longer than Tim Cook has been employed there. We even stuck with Apple through the 90s, wondering for a time if we would be the last Apple users anywhere. But Apple is a profit-making company, not an environmental organization, and Tim Cook's statement to us that we can get out of his company's stock if we don't agree with his non-profit priorities ignores that Apple is all about profits.

Tim Cook didn't get paid some $40 million in 2013 because he's an environmentalist, but he is more valuable to Apple when he plays one on TV. As such, Tim Cook's statement may simply have been public relations. He looked nice and green, standing there, indignant that someone might think one of the world's most successful companies should focus on... business success.

But does Apple walk this talk? And since Apple is considered to be "cool," does the media even expect it to?

We asked for nothing that would hurt the environment. In fact, once they got over the fact that it is so-called "global warming deniers" (though we reject that the nasty Holocaust-referencing slur) like the National Center for Public Policy Research that was proposing it, even environmental groups presumably would like our call for transparency regarding trade associations that presumably are pro-green, but which are quite secretive, and which run the risk of favoring big companies over small ones, without regard to the environment.

CMIP5 90 models global Tsfc vs obs thru 2013 Roy Spencer3) You mention that over 95% of all climate models have over-forecast the extent of global warming - any chance you can give me a source for that?

Of course we can give you a source for my statement about the climate models. I am referring to an analysis by climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer. He put a description of his analysis on his website at:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/

In case you are not familiar with Dr. Spencer, he is regarded as a "skeptic," but he does believe some portion of global warming is due to human influences (he just isn't prepared to say how much). When various persons report that 97% of all climate scientists believe in global warming/climate change (the wording used varies), Dr. Spencer's work is included among, not outside of, the 97% they refer to. His bio and email address is included on the website and he is known to be a person who is open to answering questions about his findings.

That's it for the Guardian's questions and answers. I still recommend British writer Tim Worstall's article on all this, as I believe he got closer to what is going on here than almost everybody else (I haven't read every article on this story and don't want to be unfair to anyone).

I'll also end this post with a closing thought. Last year, we flew a member of our board of directors to the Apple shareholder meeting to ask Tim Cook a question about trade association "sustainability" activities that officially are about being green but which in practice threaten competitiveness and give big businesses an unfair edge over smaller companies. Tim Cook only took five questions (one about bathrooms!) and ignored ours. So we issued a press release. Did anyone care? Mostly, not.

So for the 2014 shareholder meeting, we submitted a shareholder proposal calling for reasonable transparency for these trade association activities, and we asked Tim Cook a question (which wasn't easy; after calling on our representative Cook tried to pick someone else immediately after recognizing him, but our guy got his question out fast) to find out where Apple really stands. There are many calm and professional ways Cook could have answered our question, but he instead choose to lose his temper, pretend we objected to things like the development of accessibility tools for the blind (we don't object and never mentioned the subject), and duck much of what we asked.

Why is that? In our view, it isn't because Apple is too green. It is because it is brilliant at greenwashing. Tim Cook got a question that -- had he answered it -- could have illustrated the difference between Apple's green reputation and Real World Apple.

Tim Cook didn't like that question, so he scolded us and played the green card, and got out of giving a straight answer.

And based on the amount of email we've gotten since Friday with the words "F--k you" in them, a lot of you fell for it.

We suggest that you ask yourselves: Why did Apple's management oppose our shareholder resolution [resolution #9 at the link], which called for transparency in its relationships with trade associations and sustainability registries such as EPEAT?

]]>Richard Branson, Jet-Fuel Burner, Criticizes Us on Climatehttp://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2014/3/4/richard-branson-jet-fuel-burner-criticizes-us-on-climate.htmlAmy Ridenour2014-03-04T21:12:43Z2014-03-04T21:12:43ZRichardBranson National Center for Public Policy Research 030414

Big talk from a guy who got rich burning jet fuel.

We hear he wants to go to the moon or Mars or something now. Solar-powered rocket?

]]>We Asked Apple's Tim Cook a Question and He Got Mad and We Think This is Whyhttp://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2014/3/3/we-asked-apples-tim-cook-a-question-and-he-got-mad-and-we-th.htmlAmy Ridenour2014-03-03T22:42:25Z2014-03-03T22:42:25Z

Responding to one of many media inquiries, I've written a somewhat detailed explanation of what our thinking is about Apple and what was behind both our shareholder proposal and question -- the question that Apple CEO Cook responded to with anger, and which has now gotten press coverage on every continent except Antarctica.

I'll be posting that tomorrow after the newspaper in question has a chance to quote from it (if it wants to), but in the meantime, I refer everyone to an article by the British writer Tim Worstall that, we believe, explains what happened -- why Tim Cook got so mad, and why he said a few things that not only were non-responsive to the question, but also not particularly wise things for a corporate CEO to say -- perfectly.

The article: "Apple’s Tim Cook And His Dilemma Over Sustainability And Climate Change."

We'll be saying more tomorrow, but Tim Worstall "gets it."

]]>Project 21 Members Predicted First Lady’s Food Fanaticismhttp://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2014/3/3/project-21-members-predicted-first-ladys-food-fanaticism.htmlDavid W. Almasi2014-03-03T22:18:35Z2014-03-03T22:18:35ZCelebrating the fourth anniversary of her “Let’s Move!” kid nutrition and fitness regulatory crusade, First Lady Michelle Obama used last week as a springboard from which she launched more new ways to further regulate away Americans’ food freedom.

This sort of nanny state parochialism has never gone over well with members of the National Center’s Project 21 black leadership network.  In fact, they saw much of this coming from a mile away, and have warned against such radicalism.

Obama, in one instance, while heralding the unveiling of a new content-labeling regime possibly affecting over 700,000 food products – an action that could cost billions – had the audacity to belittle the shopping powers of the American family.  In suggesting that it’s too difficult for discerning shoppers to understand current food labels, Obama condescendingly suggested:

But unless you had a thesaurus, a calculator, a microscope or a degree in nutrition, you were out of luck.  So you felt defeated, and you just gave up and went back to buying the same stuff you always buy.

And that’s a familiar scenario for far too many families and parents trying to do the right thing for their kids – and it’s simply not acceptable.

Project 21 co-chairman Cherylyn Harley LeBon, a working mother who is largely responsible for the meals for her husband and two small children, previously wrote about how nanny state prerogatives for fresh and local offerings, and a demonization of processed, frozen and canned items, can create new hassles and undue burdens for heads of household without the luxury of a lot of time or money to spare.

Responding to pressures by food activists “to purchase ‘locally grown’ products or ‘eat fresh,’” Cherylyn wrote in a New Visions Commentary in March of 2013 that “a one-size-fits-all approach to eating is simply not financially feasible, nor is it physically possible for many Americans.”

Cherylyn added:

[T]he last thing on any mother’s mind is likely having to make another stop at the farmers’ market for fresh vegetables.  For many obvious reasons, the produce section of their neighborhood grocery chain is the best option.

Although elitists foodies will probably beg to differ, another healthy and affordable option for families is to browse the frozen food section in a local grocery store…

Similarly, I am a big fan of eating fresh and healthy meals.  But every family must define “fresh” and “healthy” for their family.

Back in May of 2012, responding to the assault on government-approved lean finely-textured beef – dubbed “pink slime” by its critics – Cherylyn responded in another New Visions Commentary that the campaign against the meat mixture ignores its cost and nutritional benefits:

Grocers and meat processors can appropriately label their hamburger and allow families to make their own decisions.  If we allow the food elitists to define the narrative, it may be the consumers who are left without a choice and with fewer options and higher prices.

Also last week, Obama discussed additional federal standards for food at government-run schools.  One of the main features of the new Department of Agriculture edicts is a ban on drink vending machines from beverage makers such as Coca-Cola and Pepsi spotlighting their own flagship carbonated beverages.

In hyping the new rules – which have not yet been finalized – Obama crowed: “We need veggies to make our bodies efficient.  Roll my chicken in a wrap and don’t jam it in a nugget.”

As if she knew in advance, Project 21 Robin Carter-Martin was nonetheless sharply criticized by liberal critics – including one member of Congress – on the PBS program “To The Contrary” when discussing Obama’s initial foray into food restrictions back in March of 2010.  While not brazenly opposed to the Obama initiative at the time, Robin was wary of the federal government someday regulating to such a degree that it overrode school district decisions and even her own choices for what was packed in her kids’ lunches.

While Obama Administration orders still do not officially micromanage schoolkids’ lunches – homemade or provided by schools – cases of overzealous administrators manhandling meals have been reported.

And it’s obvious from this video clip of the program that this level of intervention was not anticipated by Robin’s counterparts – particularly congressional Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), who told Martin that “the federal government… can’t say to the local school board what they have to put in their vending machines.”

]]>ObamaCare Exchanges: Less Choice, Higher Priceshttp://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2014/3/3/obamacare-exchanges-less-choice-higher-prices.htmlDavid Hogberg2014-03-03T19:49:45Z2014-03-03T19:49:45ZYou may recall this apology from President Obama to people who lost their insurance.  At about the 45 second mark he claims the insurance on the exchanges will be cheaper and there will be more choice of policies:

I have a new study out today titled “ObamaCare Exchanges: Less Choice, Higher Prices,” that tests those claims.  In short, they don’t hold up.

The study examines the choices and prices of insurance that a single 27-year-old and a 57-year-old couple has on the exchanges and then compares those to what was available in 2013 on eHealthinsurance.com (“eHealth) and Finder.healthcare.gov (“Finder).  Here is what the study found for the choice of insurance for a single 27-year-old:

A 27-year-old male had, on average, ten more policies to choose from on eHealth versus the exchange and 31 more on Finder. A 27-year-old female had an average of ten more insurance options on eHealth and 38 on Finder. There were an average of nine more policies on eHealth and 19 more on Finder for a 57-year-old couple.

Across all areas examined, the exchanges have resulted in a substantial reduction in choice. For 27-year-olds, there were 442 fewer policies on the exchanges versus eHealth, a drop of 18 percent. There were 1,306 fewer policies on the exchange versus Finder for 27-year-old males and 1,716 fewer for females, declines of 38 percent and 46 percent, respectively. For 57-year-old couples, there were 406 fewer policies on the exchanges compared to eHealth and 855 fewer versus Finder, drops of 18 percent and 31 percent, respectively. 

The study examines choice and price across metropolitan areas in 45 states.  In most areas, consumers had access to many policies on eHealth and Finder that were cheaper than the lowest price policy on the exchange. That includes even some people who had access to subsidies, such as a 27-year-old making $25,000 annually:

 

Thus far the exchanges have resulted in fewer choices and higher prices for consumers shopping for insurance. That will get worse if and when the exchanges start moving toward a death spiral.

For more, go here.

]]>It's Time to Limit Food Stamps to Nutritious Foodshttp://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2014/3/3/its-time-to-limit-food-stamps-to-nutritious-foods.htmlDavid A. Ridenour2014-03-03T01:21:24Z2014-03-03T01:21:24Z

Fox News' Jesse Watters recently did the nation a tremendous service by introducing us to Jason Greenslate, a Cadillac Escalade-driving musician who has used the SNAP program to purchase such premium foods as lobster.

His interview can be found here.

It's way past time that restrictions are placed on what can be purchased on the taxpayers' dime.

Unfortunately, this kind of abuse isn't isolated; nor is it new.

During the late 1970s and early 1980s, my mother worked for Safeway and saw a lot of abuse.

I remember that one day she was absolutely fuming because one of her customers used Food Stamps to purchase filet mignon. You might say that the food stamp program caused her to SNAP.

I should note that my mom was a single mother and our total annual household income was about $12,000 at the time. That was about 180% of the poverty threshold at the time (1980).

To add a little perspective, the Obama Administration believes that families with incomes of up to 400% of the poverty threshold are poor enough to receive subsidies to buy ObamaCare policies.

Mom usually couldn't afford to buy steak, much less filet mignon, and yet she was forced to pay taxes so others could have that privilege.

When we had "steak," it was most often something my mom called "poor man's steak," a chuck roast cut into thin slices, marinated and then broiled.

But this wasn't the worst case she saw.

One time a customer bought fresh jumbo shrimp with food stamps.

It was bad enough that it was the most expensive shrimp available at the store (around $15 per pound, if you bought it today).

But he didn't even plan on eating it. He told her he planned to use it as fishing bait!

I saw food stamp waste, too, while working at a convenience store.

Back then, the food stamp program didn't use an electronic benefits transfer (EBT) card, but coupons in $1, $5, and $10 denominations. Users would receive change back in cash for any amount under $1.

One customer would buy a single piece of 2-cent candy (yes, there used to be such a thing) and then use the change to buy beer.

My manager eventually imposed a ban on such sales. She told the customers that she'd sell them an apple, a banana or some other food item, but not candy that they were clearly only purchasing for the purpose of getting the change.

Her prohibition didn't last long. One customer filed a complaint with the state Agricultural Department, which told her to either allow customers to abuse the program in this way or our store would lose its authorization to accept food stamps.

Food Stamps Cards USDA Photo SNAP W

The problem with the program isn't just that it allows people to buy food that most of the taxpayers can't afford, but that in the name of providing supplemental nutrition for the nation's poor it underwrites purchases of food with very little nutritional content, such as soda pop, candy, ho hos, and potato chips. Where's Michelle Obama when you need her?

I have nothing against people buying such things with their own money and I don't blame such foods for America's expanding waistlines. Eaten in moderation, this food is perfectly fine. Twinkies don't kill people; people kill people.

That said, this "food" has limited nutritional content and offers less value both to the families needing food and to the taxpayer footing the bill. More than $4 billion of the food stamp program is spent each year on soda pop alone, for example.

The foods that qualify for purchase through SNAP should be very limited. Let's start by excluding everything in the snack food, cookie, and soda isles. Then eliminate most of the products in the frozen food cases.

Except for plain vegetables, fruits, and uncooked meats, most of what one finds here are snack foods or microwave-to-table foods.

This is convenience food and I don't find it convenient to have to pay for others' convenience.

When I was growing up, we seldom had TV dinners because our dollar went so much further by doing something quite unusual - cooking. That's what that big square thing in your kitchen with circular things on top was designed for, believe it or not.

I'd also bar sales of premium meats, cheeses and other products through the SNAP program.

Now, I'm sure there are some people - including some self-described libertarians - who will say that my proposal would take away consumer choice or violate human dignity.

If the limited choices offered were good enough for my family using our own money, it ought to be good enough for people buying it with taxpayer money.

]]>Meet Harry Reid: Health Climate Change Denierhttp://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2014/3/1/meet-harry-reid-health-climate-change-denier.htmlDavid A. Ridenour2014-03-02T02:03:58Z2014-03-02T02:03:58Z

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the other day that, despite all the "good news, there's plenty of horror stories being told. All of the are untrue, but they're being told all over America."

ObamaCare is causing a catastrophic change to our health care climate and Harry Reid is denying it. Denier!

No, we don't have a hockey stick to support this (and, come to think of it, neither do alarmists who concocted something more like a horse-hockey stick to "prove" anthropogenic climate change.)

We have proof more like a baseball bat right to the groin... reality.

Not theory, not models, but actual observed changes to our health care system.

There's this: Millions Americans have been informed that their insurance policies are being discontinued BECAUSE they don't meet ObamaCare requirements.

Need proof? Take a look at this letter all the employees of my organization received.

My family's new plan came with a 55% higher price tag and higher co-payments.

And there are much more dramatic and tragic stories such as this one, which details how ObamaCare caused a 49-year-old woman to lose coverage for cancer medication.

Senator Reid has walked his comments back a bit, by saying that nearly all the horror stories are false and suggesting that he was referring only to the ObamaCare horror stories being circulated by Charles and David Koch, whom Reid has called "un-American"... or "un-Aryan"... I forget which.

Reid apparently doesn't believe the Kochs are entitled to express their opinions and exercise their rights like everyone else. He wants to make them the scapegoat for problems he created... not all that dissimilar from a tactic used by a certain European regime 70+ years ago.

Reid owes an apology not only to the millions of Americans who have been harmed by ObamaCare AND to the Kochs, whom he has slandered.

He owes one to his Senate colleagues as his insistence that all ObamaCare horror stories are lies impugned the character of many of them, a violation of Senate rules.

]]>First Lady’s New Food Labels Found Unfithttp://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2014/2/28/first-ladys-new-food-labels-found-unfit.htmlDavid W. Almasi2014-02-28T21:10:22Z2014-02-28T21:10:22ZJeff Stier, director of the National Center’s Risk Analysis Division, said the new food labels unveiled by First Lady Michelle Obama are “not going to teach nutritional literacy.”

Instead, during an interview with Buck Sexton on 2/27/14 edition of “Real News” on Glenn Beck’s The Blaze TV channel, Stier suggested that the left, government and big business colluding on a new layer of federal regulations regarding food is “bad news” for the average American consumer.

Calling more listing requirements — including bolder print, amounts of sugar and new listings of serving sizes that will affect more that 700,000 products — a misguided strategy, Stier rhetorically asked about dietary decisions, “can individuals or the government solve this problem?”

Obviously, Stier sees personal choices made by the individual as the best means of dealing with personal dietary issues.

He also pointed out the alleged $2 billion price tag affixed to the new labeling regime, suggesting it will actually cost a whole lot more given the fact that government estimates usually fall quite short of total costs.

]]>Liberal Judges Favor Foreign Festival Over American Flaghttp://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2014/2/28/liberal-judges-favor-foreign-festival-over-american-flag.htmlDavid W. Almasi2014-02-28T19:53:31Z2014-02-28T19:53:31ZA three-judge panel comprised of members of the ardently-liberal federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that “[s]chool officials have greater constitutional latitude to suppress student speech than to punish it.”  The decision supports school officials at a government-run Northern California high school who demanded that students wearing American flag shirts remove them so as to not offend other students who were celebrating the Mexican holiday of Cinco de Mayo.

In the 2010 incident, officials at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill Unified School District outside of San Jose ordered students to remove or turn the American flag clothing they were wearing inside out.  Those students who refused that day were sent home (but not otherwise punished).  Officials said they feared that the safety of the students was at risk from other students who were celebrating the Mexican holiday marking the 1862 Battle of Puebla.

The 9th Circuit panel ruled unanimously against the students’ free speech rights, writing that the actions of school officials was “tailored to avert violence and focused on student safety.”  The lawyer for the flag-wearing student says he plans to appeal the decision.

Members of the National Center’s Project 21 black leadership network oppose the decision 9th Circuit, noting that the judges “fumbled” the First Amendment.

Project 21 co-chairman Horace Cooper said:

Demonstrating once again why the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has the reputation for being the most liberal circuit in the country, the judges there fumbled yet another case.  Here, it involved the First Amendment.

In this latest ruling, the 9th Circuit decided that Northern California high school administrators can lawfully order students wearing American flag T-shirts to turn the garments inside out or force them to leave campus during the Mexican heritage celebration of Cinco de Mayo.

This decision couldn’t be more wrong.

The issue in this case isn’t whether there are circumstances when the dress or attire of young people creates a dangerous environment — it is whether the administrators can create the very environment they now claim will lead to violence.

The U.S. Supreme Court has authorized limits on expression by students in the name of safety, but they’ve never said that students forfeit their rights of expression because the school had decided to engage in speech or expression that the students disagree with.

If school leaders truly believe that students wearing American flag or other patriotic gear will lead to violence from others, then the school should really reconsider holding the Cinco de Mayo event instead.

Project 21 member Shelby Emmett added:

I’m shaking my head over this.

So, now, if people are celebrating another nation’s independence on American soil, American kids can’t wear clothing with their own flag on it due to a fear of violence?

Nope, sorry.  If this was my school district, I’d have my kid pulled out of this school so quick — and my tax dollars as well!

]]>Can The Employer-Based Tax Exclusion Be Reformed?http://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2014/2/28/can-the-employer-based-tax-exclusion-be-reformed.htmlDavid Hogberg2014-02-28T18:05:13Z2014-02-28T18:05:13ZOne of the biggest problems with the U.S. health care system is the tax exclusion for employer-provided insurance. It causes numerous inefficiencies, not the least of which is the purchase of more health insurance than is optimal resulting in higher health care costs.

But reforming it creates political problems.  If a politician suggests getting rid of it, he’ll quickly be attacked as someone who will cause those who get coverage through their employers to lose their insurance.  Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) and then-Senator Bob Bennett of Utah proposed a health care bill in 2007 that changed the tax exclusion to a standard deduction for individuals.  That’s one reason their reform never got much political traction.

Here are a few ideas, perhaps only half-baked at this point, on how the tax exclusion can be reformed.

My proposal begins with giving employers the option of keeping their insurance with the tax exclusion or switching to a system of tax-free employee health accounts (EHA).  With an EHA, an employer would deposit the amount of money he would otherwise use to pay health insurance for an employee.  The employee could then use the EHA for any health care purpose including buying insurance.  The money in the EHA would belong exclusively to the employee.  He could bring it with him from job to job.

My proposal would give employers further flexibility by allowing them to offer each employee both access to the an insurance plan with the tax exclusion or an EHA.  In this scenario employees who liked their employer plan could stay in it, while employees who did not could take the EHA and purchase insurance they found to be more suitable.  New employees who came to the company and already had insurance they liked could opt for the EHA and use it to keep paying premiums on their policy, thereby enhancing portability.

I suspect that most employers would not take the EHA option initially.  Most employees with employer-provided insurance would keep it, if for no other reason to avoid employee backlash.  Over time, though, employers would want to get out of the health insurance game and would convert to EHAs, especially if health insurance costs started escalating very quickly which, under the current system, they eventually will.  Employees would become more agreeable to switching to EHAs as the rising price of health insurance caused the share they pay toward their coverage to grow.  

More details of this proposal have to be worked out.  For the time being, I’d like to hear the reaction of readers to this.

]]>Doctors' Lobbyists Are Still Lobbyistshttp://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2014/2/26/doctors-lobbyists-are-still-lobbyists.htmlDavid Hogberg2014-02-26T17:36:29Z2014-02-26T17:36:29ZOrganized groups of physicians here in D.C. are often referred to as “association” or “academy,” such as the American Medical Association or the American Academy of Pediatrics.  But a rose by any other name is still a lobbying group.  And like most lobbying groups, they will often pressure the federal government for laws and regulations that impair the competition.

Speaking of the America Academy of Pediatrics, the AAP has fired a shot across the bow of retail health clinics:

Retail health clinics that are popping up in drugstores and other outlets shouldn’t be used for children’s primary-care needs, the American Academy of Pediatrics said, arguing that such facilities don’t provide the continuity of care that pediatricians do.

While retail clinics may be more convenient and less costly, the AAP said they are detrimental to the concept of a “medical home,” where patients have a personal physician who knows them well and coordinates all their care.

Thus far, AAP has only made arguments against using retail clinics as a substitute for a “medical home” for children.  And it is certainly free to do so.  

There doesn’t appear to be any evidence that children are getting worse care at retail clinics, as the AAP helpfully notes: “Data on outcomes specifically looking at pediatric patients are limited, but minor illnesses, such as acute pharyngitis, demonstrate no significant issues with early return visits to pri- mary care physicians.”  In fact, the studies that AAP cites show retail clinics produce pretty good outcomes.

But I doubt the AAP’s effort will end at persuasion or that it will let data deter it from using government to go after retail clinics. For example, the statement released by the AAP states that it has laid out principles that retail clinics “should be subject [to] because of concern regarding the medical care received by pediatric patients in these settings.”

Note the use of the passive voice, a common tactic lobbying groups use when they don’t want to say who will be responsible for doing the “subjecting.”  Will it be the retail clinics who subject themselves, or will it be the government?  

Ultimately, it should be parents who make the decision as to where their children get treated, since no one else—not pediatricians, not “academies,” and certainly not politicians—has a greater interest than parents in seeing that their children receive proper medical care.

But don’t expect the AAP to respect the wishes of parents.  After all, more children treated at retail clinics means fewer treated by pediatricians.  That could also mean fewer dues paying members of the AAP.  It is probably only a matter of time before the AAP calls for stricter government regulations on retail clinics.

]]>Biden Abuses Black History Month Observance to Push Politics, Hurt Voter Protectionshttp://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2014/2/26/biden-abuses-black-history-month-observance-to-push-politics.htmlDavid W. Almasi2014-02-26T15:46:58Z2014-02-26T15:46:58ZIn an affront to the original intent of Black History Month, Vice President Joe Biden used an event at his official residence to launch into a race-baiting political tirade against commonsense protections for balloting.

At the February 24 event — which was attended by Obama apparatchiks and partisans such as White House advisor Valerie Jarrett, Congressman John Conyers (D-MI), Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Sacramento’s Mayor Kevin Johnson (D) — Biden criticized the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Shelby County v. Holder (a case, supported by the National Center’s Project 21 black leadership network, that properly aligned the Voting Rights Act with 21st century American society) and voter protection laws passed in states such as North Carolina, Alabama and Texas.

Disparaging the justices and these democratically-enacted state-level laws, Biden declared:

I thought it was done — finally, finally done… These guys never go away.  Hatred never, never goes away.  The zealotry of those who wish to limit the franchise cannot be smothered by reason.

Putting a definitive and hard-nosed political spin on his comments, and bolstering current Obama Administration efforts to nullify existing ballot protection measures such as asking voters to prove their identity with valid identification before receiving a ballot, Biden added:

This fight has been too long, this fight has been too hard, to do anything other than win — not on the margins, but flat out win.

Project 21 co-chairman Horace Cooper, a former professor of constitutional law who is a frequent commentator on voting rights issues and even made the case for voter ID laws with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, called Biden’s unseemly tirade an attempt to distract the public from the policy failures of the Obama Administration.

Cooper also added that the White House is culpable for not prosecuting real examples of voter fraud when presented with them:

Vice President Biden’s remarks calling voter ID laws evidence of “hatred” and “zealotry” are not only false, but — like his “put ya’ll back in chains” comment during the 2012 election— his recent remarks make clear that the Obama Administration is desperate to distract voters, especially blacks, from Obama’s devastating economic record by trying to equate legitimate measures to protect voters with the kinds of activities his own political party pushed for over a hundred years.

In just five years, this White House’s economic policies have been more destructive for blacks than more than 50 years of Jim Crow laws ever did.  Instead of changing course, however, the Vice President cynically pretends that voter ID is the problem black America must worry about more.

This administration has also been completely indifferent to actual instances of voter fraud, including dropping the slam dunk case involving the New Black Panthers.  Its failure to engage in any serious effort to prevent voter fraud in places such as Chicago and Milwaukee is troubling.

Echoing his paper on voter fraud issues for the National Center, “Victims of Voter Fraud: Poor and Disadvantaged are Most Likely to Have Their Vote Stolen,” Cooper added:

Here’s the truth: blacks and lower income Americans are the most likely victims of voter fraud.

]]>Project 21 Member Speaks for Traditional Marriage, Gets Called the N-Wordhttp://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2014/2/25/project-21-member-speaks-for-traditional-marriage-gets-calle.htmlDavid W. Almasi2014-02-25T20:50:00Z2014-02-25T20:50:00ZAfter planning and participating in a press conference of pastors opposed to redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, Project 21 member Stacy Swimp received an anonymous voicemail in which he was called the n-word.

On February 24, Stacy and dozens of pastors gathered in Detroit to speak out in favor of traditional marriage.  A trial begins in Michigan on February 25 that could overturn a 2004 amendment to the state’s constitution defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman.  That amendment was approved by 59 percent of state voters at that time.

Stacy was a key organizer of the conference and spoke during it.

After the press conference ended, Stacy received a voicemail in which the caller referred to him as a “fat, buck-toothed [n-word]” for allegedly “preaching… against someone else’s rights.”

Project 21 members being called the n-word or similar for their beliefs is nothing new.  In fact, a Project 21 member once asked NAACP senior vice president Hilary Shelton to “issue a statement condemning those individuals.”

Of course, the NAACP never did anything, despite having received a large packet of evidence of instances of abuses of black conservative due to their opinions and their skin color.

]]>Stier Speaks Against E-Cig Strictures in City of Angelshttp://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2014/2/25/stier-speaks-against-e-cig-strictures-in-city-of-angels.htmlDavid W. Almasi2014-02-25T18:28:44Z2014-02-25T18:28:44ZJeff Stier, director of the National Center’s Risk Analysis Division, testified before the Los Angeles City Council on February 24 against putting unnecessary restrictions on the use of e-cigarettes.

As he waited for his chance to testify, Jeff was also able to make the case against taking away tools that can help smokers quit with KABC-TV.

]]>Health Care Odds & Ends: Quick Editionhttp://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2014/2/25/health-care-odds-ends-quick-edition.htmlDavid Hogberg2014-02-25T16:41:02Z2014-02-25T16:41:02Z1. ObamaCare Shows How To Create Jobs Without Creating Any New Wealth.  

 The Wall Street Journal takes stock of the impact ObamaCare will have on various sectors of the economy.  One area set to see growth are those that specialize in helping businesses navigate regulations: “At the same time, employment-benefit and IT companies, such as Virtusa Corp. and Automatic Data Processing Inc. say they are seeing more business as they help clients comply with the [ObamaCare]’s demands.”

Would businesses spend money to hire other businesses to help them comply with ObamaCare if it didn’t exist?  Of course not.  They’d invest it in expanding their businesses, developing new products and technology, and the like.  In short, the things that create new wealth, and, ultimately, new jobs.  Spending money to comply with regulations only shifts money around, from companies that produce wealth to companies that exist to maneuver companies through the regulatory maze.

It may even destroy wealth. Businesses that have the resources to hire regulatory-compliance companies will likely fare better than businesses that can devote fewer resources for such a purpose or have no such resources at all.  Those businesses will have a harder time staying afloat, and should they go under, whatever innovation, jobs, etc. they bring to the market will no longer be there.

2. ObamaCare Will Reduce Your Premiums By $2,500…Uh, Scratch That.

Remember this promise?

As I’ve noted here and here, the Kasier Permanente policy that National Center for Public Policy Research has is being cancelled because of ObamaCare.  The total annual premium increase for us if we choose the policy Kaiser recommends as a replacement will cost an additional $2,577.

We’re not the only small business.  A new report from the Office of the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services finds that for businesses with fewer than 50 employees, “that 65 percent of the small firms are expected to experience increases in their premium rates while the remaining 35 percent are anticipated to have rate reductions.”   

And what do you wanna bet that most of the businesses seeing rate reductions won’t see ones of $2,500?

More here. 

]]>If You Like Your Cancer Medication, You Can Keep Your...Er, Never Mindhttp://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2014/2/24/if-you-like-your-cancer-medication-you-can-keep-yourer-never.htmlDavid Hogberg2014-02-24T17:49:29Z2014-02-24T17:49:29ZOver the weekend Stephen Blackwood told the rather harrowing story of his mother and her experience with ObamaCare.  “Carcinoid, a form of neuroendocrine cancer,” Blackwood writes in the Wall Street Journal, “is a terminal disease but generally responds well to treatment by Sandostatin, a drug that slows tumor growth and reduces (but does not eliminate) the symptoms of fatigue, nausea and gastrointestinal dysfunction. My mother received a painful shot twice a month and often couldn’t sit comfortably for days afterward.”

But late last year, his mother’s ordeal began:

And then in November, along with millions of other Americans, she lost her health insurance. She’d had a Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan for nearly 20 years. It was expensive, but given that it covered her very expensive treatment, it was a terrific plan. It gave her access to any specialist or surgeon, and to the Sandostatin and other medications that were keeping her alive.

And then, because our lawmakers and president thought they could do better, she had nothing. Her old plan, now considered illegal under the new health law, had been canceled.

When they finally found a plan with Humana that looked like it would cover Sandostatin, she called Humana.  It turned out that the enrollment agents didn’t have access to the drug formularies and so could not confirm that Humana covered Sandostatin.  

[The enrollment agents] said the only way to find out in detail what was in the plan was to buy the plan. (Does that remind you of anyone?)

With no other options, she bought the plan and was approved on Nov. 22. Because by January the plan was still not showing up on her online Humana account, however, she repeatedly called to confirm that it was active. The agents told her not to worry, she was definitely covered.

Then on Feb. 12, just before going into (yet another) surgery, she was informed by Humana that it would not, in fact, cover her Sandostatin, or other cancer-related medications. The cost of the Sandostatin alone, since Jan. 1, was $14,000, and the company was refusing to pay.

Read it all here.

By the way, didn’t someone tell us that people like Blackwood’s mom that if they were losing their “substandard” plan to just shop around on the exchange?

Over in California, Chris Dunn of Senora has has a similiar surreal experience trying to find a back surgeon with his new Blue Cross plan that he purchased via CoveredCalifornia.  Turns out the plan has a very restricted network.  When he called the one back surgeon listed as on his network, the surgeon’s office said they were not taking any policies on Covered California.  See it all here.

]]>Pastors Join Together to Protect Traditional Marriage in Michiganhttp://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2014/2/21/pastors-join-together-to-protect-traditional-marriage-in-mic.htmlDavid W. Almasi2014-02-21T16:48:53Z2014-02-21T16:48:53ZProject 21 member Stacy Swimp is set to join with over 100 black pastors from the Detroit area to denounce the intent of a pending court case to effectively undermine the voting rights of Michigan citizens.

Stacy and the pastors are scheduled to hold their press conference on Monday, February 24 at 10:00AM eastern at the First Baptist World Changers Church (22575 West Eight Mile Road, Detroit).

In the case of DeBoer v. Snyder, Judge Bernard Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan is set to determine the constitutionality of the Michigan Marriage Protection Amendment that was passed by Michigan voters in 2004.  Arguments are expected to focus on whether or not the Amendment violates the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.

While the DeBoer case originally dealt only with a lesbian couple seeking to adopt each other’s children, Judge Friedman determined that the case could be expanded to challenge for the Marriage Protection Amendment.  That amendment was added to the state’s constitution in 2004 after being approved by 59 percent of Michigan voters.

Commenting on the case, Stacy said:

Regarding marriage protection, the issue was resolved by Michigan voters a decade ago.  A majority of voters in our state decided to take a stand for marriage being solely between a man and a woman.  But this case might allow Judge Friedman to overturn the will of Michigan voters.

In a Detroit Free Press poll taken in September of 2004, two-thirds of black voters supported Michigan’s Marriage Protection Amendment.  Election results showed that a majority of voters in the cities of Detroit, Flint, Saginaw and Benton Harbor — the major population centers for black voters — all voted in favor of the amendment.

Additionally, the Reverend Dr. Roland A. Caldwell of Burnette Inspirational Ministry called the lawsuit of the amendment an “unjust threat to our voting rights.”

]]>Project 21’s Horace Cooper Discussed Felon Voting With CNNhttp://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2014/2/20/project-21s-horace-cooper-discussed-felon-voting-with-cnn.htmlDavid W. Almasi2014-02-20T22:32:46Z2014-02-20T22:32:46ZProject 21 co-chairman Horace Cooper was interviewed for CNN’s “The Situation Room” about allowing felons to regain voting privileges after they have technically repaid their debt to society.  Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has expressed interest in possible reinstatement of such voting privileges in Kentucky (at least, maybe, for non-violent offenders).

This position puts Senator Paul closer to the beliefs held by Obama Attorney General Eric Holder than the Tea Party.

Despite a 20-minute interview that Horace said touched on aspects of the felon voting issue that included discussion about the views of the victims as to whether released convicts are rehabilitated and whether there should be more focus on making schools and broken families an issue in why felons are being created in the first place, CNN went for the line about the personal political implications for Senator Paul taking such a stand.

Here’s the CNN report: 

 

]]>Our New Policy May Be Worse Toohttp://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2014/2/20/our-new-policy-may-be-worse-too.htmlDavid Hogberg2014-02-20T20:10:35Z2014-02-20T20:10:35ZI have an article today in the American Spectator looking at whether small-group health insurance cancellations will get the media attention that the cancellation of individual policies received.  In it I note that my fellow National Center for Public Policy Research employees and I will lose our current policy with Kaiser Permanente due to ObamaCare:

Our Kaiser policy, which NCPPR has had since 1996, comes up for renewal on April 1, at which point we will have to switch to a new and probably more expensive one. If we switch to the platinum plan that Kaiser is recommending for us, our premiums will increase by about 6 percent. That’s not horrible, especially when compared to what other small groups are facing, but it’s not exactly welcome news either.

What I didn’t get a chance to explore in the Spectator article is whether the new policy that Kaiser is recommending is any better.  Our current plan is a DC Small Group $5/$10/$0 IP/$0 Rx Ded.  The new plan that Kaiser recommends is a DC Small Group Platinum 0/20 Dental.  So, if we choose that plan, what are we getting for (1) the loss of our current plan, and (2) the roughly 6 percent premium increase?

 Here is a chart comparing the benefits that change from the current plan to the new one.  Blue font means the benefit is better in the new plan, while red font means it is worse.

Two other changes:  The current plan covers infertility treatment while the new one does not, and dental care for adults is included in the new plan but not the current one.

So are we better off?  If one of us at NCPPR has a year with a lot of health care costs, the lower OOP limit in the new policy is good.  But if one of us needs to see a primary-care physician or a specialist a few times, then the new policy is not better.

In short, it seems like a wash at best for us.  And that is another reason why ObamaCare is in such trouble.  If the law is going to force many people to lose plans they like, most of those people would at least prefer to get new plans that are better than the old ones.  But it’s not at all clear that’s happening—and quite a bit of evidence that it is not.  However, the Obama Administration and other ObamaCare supporters appear to be in denial about that.  Maybe the denial will end come November.  Then again, ObamaCare has been one big exercise in self-deception for its proponents, so who knows?

]]>John Meredith Speaks About Vandalism of His Father’s Ole Miss Statuehttp://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2014/2/19/john-meredith-speaks-about-vandalism-of-his-fathers-ole-miss.htmlDavid W. Almasi2014-02-19T22:08:23Z2014-02-19T22:08:23ZProject 21 member John Meredith released a statement about the vandalism of the statue depicting his civil rights icon father, James Meredith, that is located on the campus of the University of Mississippi.

In the early morning hours of Sunday, February 16, a construction contractor working on the Ole Miss campus reported that he heard two men yelling out racial slurs.  Afterward, the contractor said he later found that the life-like bronze statue of James Meredith — the first black student at the school — had a rope noose around its neck and a pre-2003 Georgia state flag covering its face.  That flag contains a version of the Confederate battle flag.

James Meredith’s integration of Ole Miss in 1962, which began with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling favoring his enrollment at the previously all-white school and ended with presidential intervention to quell deadly rioting, was a major turning point in the civil rights era.  The statue of James Meredith was unveiled in 2006 and has never before been vandalized.  The Ole Miss Alumni Association is offering a $25,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of any perpetrators.  The FBI is working with campus law enforcement as the act is being investigated as a possible hate crime.

James Meredith, now 80 and an advocate of early childhood education of basic societal tenets such as the Golden Rule, Ten Commandments and Lord’s Prayer, told the Los Angeles Times: “That just clearly shows that we’re not training our children like the Bible says.  They don’t know right and wrong, good and bad and how to apply it to life.”

His son, John Meredith, a founding member of the National Center’s Project 21 black leadership network, said about the vandalism and the response:

While this type of abhorrent vandalism is deplorable, I think the University of Mississippi is to be commended for its handling of the incident.

The speed and determination it has moved with in pursuing justice for this act, coupled with the generous reward offered toward the apprehension of the perpetrators by the alumni association, shows the institution no longer tolerates hateful behavior on its campus or in its name.  

]]>Alter: Obama 'Fumbled' Debut Of ObamaCarehttp://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2014/2/19/alter-obama-fumbled-debut-of-obamacare.htmlDavid Hogberg2014-02-19T17:25:58Z2014-02-19T17:25:58ZLiberal Jonathan Alter examines the lead up to the roll out of HealthCare.gov, and concludes that:

…whatever happens to the ACA, the many mistakes made with the rollout have tarnished the president’s reputation for competence. Obama will always have to live with the fact that he “fumbled” — his word — the debut of his signature program and his best bet to define his legacy.

Alter’s article if Foreign Affairs is the best run-down yet of how HealthCare.gov went wrong and how much of the disaster can be traced back to President Obama’s incompetence.  It is well worth the read, even though you have to wade through liberal tripe like this:

Thanks to the ACA, which took effect on January 1 of this year, the U.S. government has finally joined most other industrialized nations in offering its citizens health security. The reform, by many estimates, will save tens of thousands of lives as Americans reap the benefits of such provisions as greatly expanded preventive medicine and a prohibition on insurance companies’ discriminating against those with preexisting conditions. The era when millions of Americans were bankrupted by medical expenses will end. If the law works as planned, it will also contain health-care costs, reducing the U.S. budget deficit. And by freeing employees from the perpetual fear of losing their health insurance, the ACA should, in theory at least, make it easier for them to leave their jobs to start new businesses, boosting domestic and global growth.

No, millions of Americans did not go bankrupt because of medical bills.  And that supposed “health security” of other nations often means long wait times for surgery. Anyway, if you can get passed paragraphs like that, the rest of the article makes for fascinating reading.

One last thing.  Alter appears to think that the government can actually manage the health care system.  I’d encourage him to put “The Use of Knowledge in Society” and “The Fatal Conceit” on his reading list, but doubt it would do much good.

]]>Project 21 Members React to Report on Estimated Minimum Wage Increase Job Losseshttp://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2014/2/19/project-21-members-react-to-report-on-estimated-minimum-wage.htmlDavid W. Almasi2014-02-19T15:41:21Z2014-02-19T15:41:21ZA new report issued by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office suggests that around 500,000 jobs — perhaps as many as a million — could be destroyed between now and 2016 as a result of a mandated raise in the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10.

Forcing such as job-killing measure on small businesses, naturally, is the top weapon in the liberal class warfare strategy as this year’s campaign season begins to heat up.  Obama asked for it in his State of the Union address in January, and has begun campaigning for it across America.  Legislation has been proposed in Congress.

Members of the National Center’s Project 21 black leadership network are speaking out against this job-killing imposition on private employers, pointing out that the end result is likely to hurt Obama’s most loyal constituency — black Americans — the most.

Project 21 co-chairman Horace Cooper, a former official at the U.S. Department of Labor, said:

Despite President Obama’s assurances, the evidence is clear: minimum wage hikes kill jobs.

Now, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says this latest proposal will cost about a half-million jobs.  The poor and minorities will undoubtedly be the hardest hit.

Mr. President, if you like your minimum wage plan, you can keep it.

Project 21 member Derryck Green added:

The Congressional Budget Office released another report exposing the adverse effects of the President’s job-destroying, economic agenda.

Last week, the CBO revealed that ObamaCare will also likely destroy the equivalent of 2.5 million jobs.  This week, the CBO notes that potential minimum wage increases might destroy at least a half-million more jobs — obviously hurting the working poor in the process. 

Is the Obama Administration planning to celebrate all these additional “free agents” who are no longer “job-locked” as a result of his policies?

]]>