Big government tamps down all optimism associated with springtime. As if the April 15 deadline for filing tax returns with the Internal Revenue Service wasn’t stressful enough, now comes the season of federally mandated K–12 standardized testing.
Not many citizens are bold enough to opt out of paying taxes, but many families once again are considering opting out of the worrisome student assessments linked to Common Core national standards. The parental blogosphere is buzzing with talk of how to submit refusal letters to school officials and whether it’s best to keep students at home on test days or to trust they won’t be forced to just “sit and stare” while their classmates take untimed examinations.
In 2015, 640,000 students in 14 states that reported their numbers sat out the standardized tests, according to FairTest, a Massachusetts-based nonprofit that long has opposed abuses in testing. Most remarkably, the opt-out rate reached 20 percent in New York State.
Some things have changed this year. John King, the adamantly pro-Common Core state education commissioner who greatly riled New York parents and teachers, is now the U.S. Secretary of Education, having been nominated by President Barack Obama and confirmed by the Republican-led Senate, by a 49–40 vote.
Additional changes are related to the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which was advertised by its sponsors as restoring local control over many education-related matters, such as testing, that No Child Left Behind had stripped away. ESSA became the federal education law of the land in December.
Parents are already discovering the advertising was false and the pressures to conform to the federal design are more intense and personal than ever. That reality could increase resentment and lead to even more refusals.
ESSA not only continues the federal mandate for testing of students in grades 3–8 and once in high school, but also the required 95 percent participation rate. What’s new is the U.S. Department of Education will hold state departments of education responsible for squelching local test refusals. Thus, wrote standards expert Sandra Stotsky in the March 16 edition of NewBostonPost, an online newspaper, “ESSA turns state departments of education into school bullies.”
U.S. parents across the blogosphere have reported countless state and local educrats are warning that if parents refuse the assessments, they will face dire consequences, such as low-income children losing their ESSA funding; their own children being unable to graduate because they haven’t passed a “college readiness” test; and falling qualitative rankings of their children’s schools, which the educrats say would result from a low participation rate.
Most threats are nothing more than hot air. Stotsky says no state legislature has mandated such a so-called readiness test, and it is unlikely any will, and while former Education Secretary Arne Duncan did imply a year ago that states could be docked federal funding when participation rates fall below 95 percent, nothing ever came of that bluster. Does King aspire to be even more of an enemy of parental rights than Duncan?
As they consider taking a stand against experimental and time-consuming assessments, nothing worries parents more than the thought of their children being harshly and unfairly punished. The concern is not limited to public school patrons. On the Stop Common Core in New York Catholic Schools website, a participant quoted a principal saying a kid refusing the testing would be given a book and made to stay on the testing site for the duration without leaving.
Not all principals and superintendents are that belligerent. In fact, some are cooperating in setting up alternative learning opportunities for dissenters. Another site, Save Our Schools New Jersey, compiled “naughty or nice” lists of school districts. “Nice” are those that “treat parents who refuse and their children with respect,” while the “naughty” ones “bully parents and students to accommodate the [New Jersey Department of Education].”
If states really wanted to take charge, they could enact laws expressly recognizing the right of parents to opt their children out of standardized testing to which they have not consented. Eight belong on the honor roll for already having done so: California, Colorado, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin.
It was fitting for The Heartland Institute‘s President and CEO Joe Bast to feature Yaron Brook President of the Ayn Rand Institute, in a discussion of his new book, “Equal Is Unfair: America’s Misguided Fight Against Income Inequality.” Both organizations are fighting for the principles of freedom and liberty as set forth by our Founding Fathers.
The event was the third held in Heartland’s newly-named Andrew Breitbart Freedom Center at its Arlington Heights, Illinois, headquarters on Wednesday, March 23. The words “Andrew Breitbart Freedom Center” are emblazoned on the awning leading into the venue itself and is likewise printed predominately on the front wall of the gathering place.
During the afternoon discussion, Brook explored the question as to whether the American Dream is failing as the rich become richer and leave the rest to struggle just to keep their heads above water.
Born and raised in Israel, Brooks admitted he was a Socialist until age 16. In 1987, Dr. Brook moved to the United States where he received his MBA and PhD in finance from the University of Texas in Austin. He became an American citizen in 2003. Brook has been a columnist at Forbes.com, and his articles have been featured in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Investor’s Business Daily, and many other publications.
Yaron Brook was introduced by Jim Lakely, Director of Communication at Heartland.
Preferring not to stand behind a podium, Dr. Brooks used the entire platform space from which to advance his thoughts and ideas. With microphone in hand, Brook’s initial comment was to reference inequality as the issue of our time, at least according to President Obama and the Pope. Accordingly, the claim is that inequality is responsible for almost all the ills of the day, specifically when it comes to the big gap between rich and poor. It was none other than Karl Marx who made the allegation that owners of capital just become more and more wealthy. A fallacy, because capital doesn’t grow automatically on its own, it must be invested in order for it to grow.
Yet there are those who say we must tax the wealthy at an income tax rate of 80%, with no loopholes. And what about the idea of a 10% Global Wealth Tax which would surely generate lots of money. The catch: the money realized would not be given to the poor. Instead, its stated purpose is to shrink income inequality — to penalize those who have in order to knock them down.
Tactics used by the Left
The American people generally don’t envy those who have more than they do. The Left, however, is trying to use inequality to stir up resentment by promoting inequality as a bad thing. To Bernie Sanders this nation has a millionaire and billionaire problem, and we must deal with it.
What about the assumption that wealth is a social issue. When referred to as a collective pie, the pie must be divided equally. But the pie is not a collective pie. You make the pie, and if you make it you expect fairness. Therefore the idea of an individual pie must be defended, in contrast to those who say you didn’t build it or make it so sharing must occur.
In order for society to grow and prosper there must first be an entrepreneur who initiates an idea. Next must come the money from a capitalist who is willing to invest in an idea that might not succeed. Workers must be hired, but they are not willing to work for ten years without pay, the time is might take for the business to succeed and become profitable.
To be remembered is that we don’t live in a zero sum world. Why then is the Left winning the battle? It is because the Right doesn’t fight back to refute what the Left is spewing forth as truth.
Cronyism is often cited as the way individuals become rich. In the economic context it’s through privilege reserved for those who fill their pocket by taking advantage of special favors from the government. But as widespread as cronyism is Mr. Brooks sees no evidence that it is the dominant cause of economic equality.
Often noted is that poor people don’t have many opportunities to advance economically as they work at low paying jobs, but raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour and more would only limit the number of jobs available to them, thus many poor people would be denied even the first upward step on the ladder toward a better life.
Consider also how licensing laws and regulation loom as impediments for people to open small businesses. The process can take much time and money. Regulations therefore function as job killers.
Education is definitely an important criteria for advancement. Without an education job opportunities are definitely limited. Being handed a welfare check only destroys pride in self and the ability to engage in economic opportunity.
Given all the technological advances, the quality of life for the middle class is better today than it was in the 70’s, but slow economic growth is limiting the number of poor individuals who should be joining the middle class.
Philosophy Drives the Left
What spurs the Left to believe that inequity must be fought through tax hikes, wealth redistribution schemes, and a far higher minimum wage? It’s based on the Left’s philosophy where equality becomes the standard by which justice is determined. Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge was cited as a glaring example of how the philosophy of equality was taken to an extreme. In the end pure evil resulted when brutality and violence were used to stamp out any hint of individualism. Over three years one and a half million people, out of a population of seven million, were sacrificed by Pol Pot as he attempted to create a Utopia where complete equality existed.
Today this nation faces a choice between two moral values. One view speaks of justice occurring when each individual has an equal right to pursue his own happiness and success and then is able to keep whatever wealth income and opportunities he earns because of his pursuit. This is in direct contrast to the social justice view of the Left, where government must restrict freedom to make individuals economically equal, and if a person produces too much, his hopes and dreams should be sacrificed for the sake of those who haven’t produced.
If the American Dream is to be saved so a more just and prosperous society can be created, the collectivist-egalitarian doctrine advanced by the Left must be rejected. Championed instead must be the individualist idea of moral justice that celebrates human achievement and frees human ability.
The threat facing the American dream is not one of economic quality. Instead, it’s a war that centers on political inequality in which two moral views of justice are competing for control. May the individualist idea that celebrates human achievement and frees human ability be victorious. This is a must if the American Dream is to be kept alive for future generations.
Following Dr. Brook’s presentation, questions were directed to him from the audience and also submitted by those listening to Heartland’s live-stream pod broadcast.
There was on Monday a quintessential example of the horrendously bad thinking of those opposed to all things intellectual property. An op-ed totally disconnected from Reality – and chock full of thought-free, pathetic anti-property platitudes.
It is sad that so many remain steadfastly impervious to facts. But they do, so we will address this latest bit of inanity – so that the many who remain receptive to Reality may be properly informed.
We speak now of Truthout’s Dean Baker extrusion Think Trump’s 45 Percent Tariffs Are Bad? Try Obama’s 10,000 Percent Tariffs. Which mangles much of the English language – in service of much muddled thinking. Baker begins:
“Lately the media have been going wild mocking Donald Trump’s plans to put 45 percent tariffs on imports from China. They are partly right. It’s not clever to indiscriminately impose large tariffs on major trading partners in violation of existing trade agreements….
“But what is even more striking is the selective concern over tariffs. While Trump wants to put large tariffs on imports from some of our major trading partners, President Obama is actively pushing to have far larger tariffs imposed on a wide range of goods in his trade deals, most importantly the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Measures in the TPP pushed by US negotiators will raise the price of many items by several thousand percent above the free market price.”
Tariffs are, of course, taxes. We conservatives don’t like taxes – so this may be an attempted appeal to our sensibilities. A 10,000% tariff? That would be awful. Except to what Baker refers – isn’t any sort of tax at all.
“If you missed this discussion, it’s because these trade barriers are referred to as ‘intellectual property,’ which takes the form of patent and copyright protection.”
If we missed the discussion – it’s because this guy is misusing the terminology. Intellectual property protection is not a tax. It is a fundamental component of a free market economy. It is specifically afforded protections in our Constitution. President Abraham Lincoln “called the introduction of patent laws one of the three most important developments ‘in the world’s history,’ along with the discovery of America and the perfection of printing.”
Intellectual property protection is government protecting productive people – and their productions. A tax is unproductive government taking money from productive people to do unproductive things. See the difference?
“But markets don’t care what term politicians use to describe a government imposed barrier.”
Actually, markets care a great deal. If you kill tariffs and taxes – markets flourish. If you kill intellectual property protection – there will soon be no markets at all. Because for markets to have things to trade – there must first be the ideas for those things. If those ideas aren’t protected – those things will never come to market.
“If a price increase of 10,000 percent sounds high, you haven’t been paying attention to what the drug industry charges for its new drugs. For example, the list price for the Hepatitis C drug Sovaldi is $84,000 for a three-month course of treatment. A recent analysis found that Indian manufacturers can profitably produce the drug for just $200 per three-month course of treatment, suggesting a tariff equivalent of more than 40,000 percent.”
Spoken like a man who has obviously never actually produced anything. Yes, the second pill costs pennies. But the first one costs billions of dollars.
Because you don’t just magically, instantaneously arrive at an effective medication. You have lots of very smart, very expensive people doing lots and lots of development – and conducting lots and lots of very expensive tests. Much of which results in absolutely nothing – except failed attempts and ineffective products.
Finally, the magic concoction of effort, trial, error and perseverance – marinated by LOTS of money – eventually delivers a successful concoction. A success – on which the producers must recoup the billions they spent failing.
Lost on Baker is the Genesis of all of this effort and expenditure – the intellectual property protection that makes it all possible. If at the end these people can’t protect what they’ve produced – they will never begin.
Why go to all the time, trouble and inordinate expense – if you don’t get to keep what you create?
Mr. Baker goes on, and ON (and ON…) – but you by now get the idea that he has no idea of what he is speaking.
Taxes…are taxes. And are impediments to markets optimally functioning.
Intellectual property protection (patents, copyrights, trademarks)…is NOT taxes. And is crucial to markets even existing – let alone optimally functioning.
I’m sure you see the difference. Here’s hoping Mr. Baker now does.
In The Tank Podcast (ep32): Commonwealth Foundation, Regulation Impacts, and Chicago Teachers Strike
John Nothdurft and Donny Kendal bring you episode #32 of the In The Tank Podcast. This weekly podcast features (as always) interviews, debates, and roundtable discussions that explore the work of think tanks across the country. The show is available for download as part of the Heartland Daily Podcast every Friday. Today’s podcast features work from the Commonwealth Institute, the Mercatus Center, the Pelican Institute, and the Illinois Policy Institute.
Better Know a Think Tank
In this weeks segment, Donny and John welcome Elizabeth Stelle, Director of Policy Analysis at the Commonwealth Foundation. Elizabeth joins the show to talk about the Commonwealth Foundation as well as what’s going on in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania has just ended a long budget battle that lasted over 250 days.
Featured Work of the Week
This week’s featured work is a report from the Mercatus Center titled “The Impact of Federal Regulation on the 50 States.” The report gives all-encompassing look into federal regulations. The report quantifies the cost of all the federal regulations have on the individual states. The report shows which states are impacted the most and least. Find out where your states ranks.
In the World of Think Tankery
Today Donny and John talk about an article published by the Pelican Institute titled “Governor Edwards, Please Don’t Make Me Regret Moving to Louisiana.” The article highlights the factors that should be considered when deciding to live in a state. The article also contains a map from the Tax Foundation that shows which states gained and lost wealth due to interstate migration.
Here are a handful of upcoming events that you may be interested in attending.
Cato Institute (Monday, April 4) Screening of Poverty, Inc. @ the Cato Institute in Washington D.C.
Heartland Institue (Wednesday, April 6) Drilling Through the Core: w/ National Association of Scholars’ Peter Wood @ The Heartland Institute in Arlington Heights, Illinois.
Property and Environment Research Center (Thursday, April 7) Community, Culture, and Conservation @ Colby College in Waterville, Maine
Heartland Daily Podcast, hdpodcast, podcast, Donny Kendal, John Nothdurft, Elizabeth Stelle, Commonwealth Foundation, Mercatus Center, Illinois Policy Institute, Pelican Institute, Events, Better Know a Think Tank, teachers strike, taxes, regulations, report, teachers union, ctu, in the tank, itt podcast, itt,
In today’s edition of The Heartland Daily Podcast, we listen in as Senior Fellow James Taylor takes part in a debate about global warming. The debate was hosted by WMNF radio’s Fairness Doctrine Show. Topics discussed during the debate include the 97% consensus, nuclear power, fossil fuels, fracking, and many other subjects.
In today’s edition of The Heartland Daily Podcast, Shikha Dalmia, a Senior Analyst with the Reason Foundation, joins Managing Editor of Environment & Climate News H. Sterling Burnett. Dalmia, a resident of Michigan, joins Burnett to discuss the Flint water crisis.
As you would expect, Dalmia has followed closely the political shenanigan’s in the state including the ongoing political sideshow the water crisis has become. She explains how the situation was caused by the failure of government, not markets. Furthermore, she explains how markets serve to prevent such crises.
Net Neutrality is a really stupid, anti-capitalism policy – that the Barack Obama Administration’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) unilaterally (and likely illegally) jammed down our throats in February 2015.
Uber-huge-bandwidth-hog online-video-streaming-company Netflix has long been a very vocal proponent of Network Neutrality. About which Netflix said: “The net neutrality debate is about who picks winners and losers online: Internet service providers or consumers. Today, the FCC settled it: Consumers win.”
Except consumers don’t win. They rarely do when government gets (exponentially) bigger. Of course uber-huge-bandwidth-hog-company Netflix likes Net Neutrality – because it outlaws their being charged for being an uber-huge-bandwidth-hog-company.
No matter how much data Netflix uses – and they use a ton – Internet Service Providers (ISPs) can not charge them a dime. Which leaves We the Consumers picking up Netflix’s tab – in the form of much higher monthly ISP charges. That’s consumers-augmenting-Netflix-profits – which is certainly a win for Netflix. For We the Consumers? Not so much.
And lest we forget: “Netflix…was one of the lead proponents of…a bright-line prohibition on throttling online traffic by broadband providers.”
With all of this Netflix Net Neutrality inanity in mind – this late last week was a bit of news.
Netflix Has Been Secretly Slowing Down Your Videos for the Past Five Years: “Netflix and its allies last year won the fight over Net Neutrality, arguing that without federal protections Internet service providers could throttle traffic to individuals and companies that didn’t pay for access to Internet fast lanes.”
Get that? Internet throttling by ISPs? Cataclysmic. But when non-ISP Netflix does it? No problem.
Not Neutrality: The Netflix Scandal That Isn’t: “(W)hatever it is, it’s not a Net Neutrality violation. Plain and simple. Anyone who tells you that it is — or that this practice undermines the case for Net Neutrality rules — is either in the business of misleading you, woefully ignorant of the law, or both.”
Sadly, that is correct. Because the FCC’s huge power grab – doesn’t apply to “edge providers” like Netflix. Only ISPs are subject to this heinous onerousness: “ISPs could receive a hefty fine under the net neutrality rules for similar practices, but Netflix faces no such danger, at least not for the throttling itself. The net neutrality rules only apply to ISPs…, not to companies…like Netflix or Google Inc.”
How’s that for un-equal protection before the law? Except this isn’t law – it’s agency regulatory fiat. We’re already WAY off the Constitutional map – here there be monsters.
Pro-Net Neutrality zealots have been pushing their terrible idea for more than a decade. Knowing what we now know about Netflix – much of those shoves along the way may require reexamination.
Verizon, Netflix Continue Net Neutrality War of Words (July 2014): “In a memo to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, said ‘Our focus on strong net neutrality, including interconnection, is about preventing large ISPs from holding our joint customers hostage with poor performance.…’”
Get that? Netflix’s accusation that Verizon was slowing down their videos – was likely a key component in the FCC’s Net Neutrality imposition decision seven months later. And it was all a lie. Verizon wasn’t “holding…joint customers hostage” – Netflix was.
But of course Netflix lied. Because Net Neutrality is a giant lie. So getting it rammed down upon us required a lot of additional lies all along the way.
These lies are slowly coming unraveled. Here’s hoping the FCC’s Net Neutrality power grab disintegrates along with it.
Hillary Clinton’s “trustworthiness” problem is fed by a long history of “varying credibility,” as a recent Politico story delineated, including cattle-futures trading, law firm billing records, muddled sniper fire recollections and e-mail use.
While providing pertinent points, the Politico list is just a sampling.
One missing item on the “mistrust” litany is a project she reportedly cooked up as Secretary of State, but that was shaped by her family foundation. State Department staff sent official emails to solicit funds from foreign governments.
The project sounds innocent enough: “to save lives, improve livelihoods, empower women, and combat climate change.” What miracle product can do all that? A cookstove. Yes, that is correct—a cookstove. This is not the product of “as seen on TV” wizardry, nor is it the latest in high-efficiency appliances.
There’s something fishy when governments throughout the world (including the U.S), corporations (including Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, and Johnson & Johnson), and Ted Turner’s UN Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative are involved as they are with the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves (Alliance).
No one would begrudge corporations giving to a philanthropic effort, but we would probably feel differently about our own tax dollars going to the project Clinton is hawking—especially when the project is, by most accounts, an epic fail.
The Alliance claims to provide a solution to the “fourth worst overall health risk factor in developing countries.” Its website’s “Frequently Asked Questions” download states: “Exposure to smoke from traditional cookstoves and open fires—the primary means of cooking and heating for nearly three billion people in the developing world—causes 1.9 million premature deaths annually with women and young children most affected.” Not only that, but “Reliance on biomass for cooking and heating increases pressure on local resources” as women and children “forage for fuel.” Additionally, “inefficient cookstoves contribute to climate change through emissions of greenhouse gases.”
To remedy this problem, it would make sense for the well-funded public-private partnership to use its money and influence to help build natural-gas-fueled power plants and infrastructure to bring electricity to the developing world. But that was not Clinton’s idea.
On September 21, 2010, the world first became aware of Clinton’s brainchild—though she may have stolen the idea from India’s National Biomass Cookstoves Initiative that made headlines around the world in the summer of 2010. The Secretary of State announced the Alliance at the Annual Meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative (GCI)—with the Clinton Foundation being one of the “Strategic Partnerships and Alliances.” By November 2014, at the “Inaugural Cookstoves Futures Summit” it was announced that more than $400 million had been raised for the project. As co-host of the meeting, Clinton exclaimed: “We have to redouble our efforts to get more clean and efficient products in the hands and homes of families everywhere. … We can rededicate ourselves to doing everything we can to help more people in more places to breathe more easily, work more safely and live healthier lives.” In her memoir, Hard Choices, she brags about her role in the Alliance: “I was delighted by the scope and speed of the progress [the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves] made around the world.”
“Progress” in the Alliance can be attributed to her influence as Secretary of State. Before the announcement of the Alliance, Kris Balderston, who served as her special representative for global partnerships, on his state.gov account pressured Norway to join. They obliged with a commitment for a $600,000 “down payment.” Apparently, as emails revealed, the country wanted to be part of the launch: “They wanted to move quickly for the CGI announcement.” (Note: Norway is a major donor to the Clinton Foundation.) Once Norway signed on, France and Finland were expected to follow suit. While traveling the globe, on the taxpayers’ dime, Clinton recruited more partners.
All big charity programs have celebrity spokespersons—the Alliance has actress Julia Roberts and chef Jose Andres—but Clinton was much more. She is credited with the program’s birth. While Secretary of State, it was “on the top of her agenda.” Once retiring from her official duties, Clinton became the Chair of the Alliance’s Leadership Council—where she still serves.
If you don’t know the rules, this may seem like petty politics. However, as Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis and an expert on ethics in government, in the Washington Times cites the Code of Federal Regulations on the use of public office for private gain: “an employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity, including nonprofit organizations of which the employee is an officer or member.”
While at best, Clinton’s clean cookstove campaign seems slimy, and may be illegal, one might cast a blind eye if the program achieved its aggrandizing goals.
These so-called “clean cookstoves,” even by the Alliance’s own literature, “may last for several years”—yet only 20 percent, according to a survey cited in the Washington Post (WP), are still in use after two years. While the Alliance has reportedly “helped drive more that 28 million stoves into the field,” most do not meet the World Health Organization’s guidelines for indoor emissions. The WP states: “The vast majority of the stoves burn wood, charcoal, animal dung or agricultural waste—and aren’t, therefore, nearly as healthy as promised.” While “some perform well in the lab,” others “crack or break under constant heat.”
In her book, A River Runs Again, journalist Meera Subramanian chronicled cookstove use in India. The WP reports: “She found that women had stopped using the stoves because they didn’t like the design or because the stoves broke, burned more wood (not less, as intended) or didn’t get foods hot enough.”
Defending the Alliance’s effort, Radha Muthiah, CEO of the Alliance, says: “There may not be the greatest health benefit, but there’s certainly a good environmental benefit, and it will save them more time” and create “livelihood and empowerment opportunities.”
Distributing stoves that “we know will kill people” has been called “unethical.” Rema Hanna, the Harvard economist who led “Up in Smoke”—which WP calls “the most extensive field study to date on this subject”—says: “it makes no sense to ‘push more stoves into the world that people are not going to use.’” According to a recent publication in the American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, David Kreutzer, Senior Research Fellow, Energy Economics and Climate Change at The Heritage Foundation, reports: “there were no long-term (after four years) health benefits from clean cook stoves. After two years, smoke inhalation was not at all different, and by the fourth year, nearly one-third of the households had so little use for the new stoves that they actually destroyed them.”
Rather than burning biomass, experts believe that gas, electricity, or both would be better at protecting health. Kreutzer agrees: “These cookstoves seem to be substitutes for efforts to provide affordable modern power to those in need”—which he says condemn so many of the poor to continuing energy poverty. Sadly, Alliance members oppose projects that would provide low-cost power to these poor households.
You have to wonder, if these cookstoves—which are more like a hibachi grill than a stove and cost about $25—don’t achieve the stated goals, why is Clinton such a proponent? As Christine Lakatos, whom I have worked with on dozens of green-energy, crony-corruption reports, and who alerted me to this dirty story, found in her Green Corruption File report, Alliance work was a high priority during Clinton’s time as Secretary of State. The project spanned eleven federal agencies and, so far, totals more than $114 million.
Her involvement complicates her “trustworthiness” concerns and risks, as the Washington Times points out: “Raising questions about where she drew the line between official business and aiding the family charity run by her husband and daughter.”
The answer to Clinton’s involvement, and the conflict of interest with her role at the State Department and “aiding the family charity,” deserves further investigation by someone with better access, and a bigger budget, than Lakatos or I have. But a hint can be found on the Alliances’ own website: carbon credits. It states: “In addition to being one of the fastest growing offset types in the voluntary market, cookstoves credits are selling for some of the highest prices observed in the voluntary carbon market.”
If Clinton becomes president, her energy policies will likely enact a cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax—which would suddenly make her cookstove project profitable. Rather than helping bring modern power to the world’s poor, she’s, as Kreutzer calls it, “prolonging energy poverty for millions upon millions in the developing world.” And that is the dirty story behind Clinton’s clean cookstove campaign.
The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc., and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy—which expands on the content of her weekly column. Follow her @EnergyRabbit.
“Lip Service but Little Else”, Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Tax and Capital Access holds hearing on the “Failure of the Small Business Health Insurance Tax Credit”
The U.S. House Small Business Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Tax and Capital Access held a hearing, appropriately titled, “Lip Service but Little Else: Failure of the Small Business Health Insurance Tax Credit, to discuss the failures of the tax credit that Obamacare offered to small businesses.
Chairman Tim Heulskamp remarked that “the credit scheme is so cumbersome and poorly designed that it is largely ineffective.”
Testimony included remarks from persons representing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), and the U.S. Women’s Chamber of Commerce.
Harold Jackson, Executive Chairman of Buffalo Supply, Inc., a small business in Colorado with 20 employees who provided “a concrete real life example as to the shortfalls of this premium tax credit which is unfortunately illusive to most small businesses.”
Holly Wade, Director of Research and Policy Analysis, on behalf of NFIB, testified that “the tax credit was largely ineffective on both fronts as its design is exceedingly restrictive, complicated, and only offers limited and temporary relief to a larger small business cost problem.”
Michael Ricco, Quality Manager for AEEC, on behalf of the U.S. Women’s Chamber of Commerce, attested that “it is the small businesses in middle – particularly those between 50-100 employees – that could benefit the most from this health care tax credit.”
Four main points were central to the testimonies the subcommittee heard. The first was that the eligibility requirements were not effective enough to impact all small businesses. Second, the complicated language deterred most small businesses from even determining if they were eligible for the credit. Third, the tax credit is temporary, and can only be claimed for two years, providing little relief for small business owners. The fourth concern was that, as of July 1, 2014, the tax credit is only available to small business owners through the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP ) marketplaces, limiting the options for employers.
This subcommittee hearing only offers some insight into the future negative impact of Obamacare on small businesses, and is very telling. It is indicative that there is a major problem to be addressed, as Wade ended her testimony that the health insurance tax credit was a poor tool for cost effectiveness and that “more importantly, health insurance costs continue to increase, and small business owners continue to struggle with their ability to afford offering the benefit.”
You can find the more information on this hearing at http://smallbusiness.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=398925.
In today’s edition of The Heartland Daily Podcast, Dr. Hal Scherz, founder of Docs 4 Patient Care, joins Managing Editor for Health Care News Michael Hamilton. If you make a habit of reading the articles found at news.heartland.org/health, you’ll find a number of stories about one of the best kept secrets in the health care industry, a secret Dr. Scherz helps expose in today’s podcast: direct primary care.
Docs 4 Patient Care is a think tank run exclusively by practicing physicians, all of whom are committed not only to providing excellent patient care, but to promoting free-market health care solutions for ordinary patients like you and me.
The daily and unending bombardment of political campaign reporting and news, with its “drama” about who will be the Republican and Democratic Party candidates for the U.S. presidency, hides from view the continuing and real choice facing the American public: freedom or statism, individual liberty or government control.
This real underlying question is hidden from view because the media coverage emphasizes in what ways the competing candidates differ from each other in personality and policy prescriptions for America’s future. What is missed, however, are all the common premises that bind these candidates together.
Listen to either Republicans or Democrats, “liberals” or “conservatives,” and what one discovers with a little bit of reflection is the degree to which most of them accept and believe in the same type of “activist” role for government in human affairs. They merely differ on the type and degree of such government intervention, regulation, control and redistribution.
With the Democratic Party candidates for president, this is fairly clear and obvious. Watching or reading the campaign stump speeches of Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, it is easy to wonder if they have ever met a government interventionist program they did not like.
On the Republican side, the intensity of the support for or dislike of Donald Trump has made this a little less clear. The debate and disagreement has primarily focused on Trump’s abrasive personality, his evasion of detail about either domestic or foreign policy, his use of colorful “off-color” language, and his less than subtle support for “roughing up” and “punching out” anti-Trump demonstrators, and his threats of possible “riots” by his followers if he does not win the Republican nomination for the presidency, even if he has not won a majority of the convention delegates in the primaries.
The “Sacred Cow” of Social Security vs. Personal Liberty
But over a significant number of public policy issues, the differences in views among the candidates are often more a matter of degree than of kind. For instance, on Social Security, and not surprisingly, both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are insistent on the preservation and perpetuation of the government mandated retirement program. Sanders has blindly presumed that nothing is fundamentally wrong with the funding and coverage of the Social Security system, other than guaranteeing that it stays and is reinforced and increased, while Clinton has admitted that demographics may require some tweaking of the system while basically leaving it intact.
On the Republican side, it is not that much different. Trump assures the voters that he will change nothing in terms of Social Security eligibility, coverage or payments. He will make sure that America “wins,” is “strong” and has the wealth to maintain the system. End of story. Just trust him. He knows how to “make deals.”
John Kasich also wants the U.S. government to keep its promises to the American people, with few changes to the Social Security system. He reminds us – unendingly over and over again – that as governor of Ohio he has grown jobs, increased production, balanced the budget and taken care of the needy, and known how to bring people together. Put him in the White House and he’ll do the same in Washington to save Social Security for the current and future generations. You can trust him, he’s the “fix-it man.”
Ted Cruz has emphasized that Social Security is in financial trouble because of the demographics of an aging population. But, he too, has insisted that a government Social Security system is an essential part of American society. He wants to partly privatize the funding of the system, while continuing to presume a guiding hand of the government in the retirement planning of the American people.
The friend of freedom would ask, what is government doing in the retirement business in the first place? There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government the responsibility or authority to mandate compulsory participation or funding of such a Social Security scheme. And it is worth recalling that before eighty years ago, it was not Uncle Sam’s job to oversee the financing of people’s “golden” post-work years.
Before 1935, this was considered to be the responsibility of individuals, families and private charities, along with some local community funding. It was argued that part of the meaning of freedom was the right of the individual to plan the affairs of his own life and that of his family. Just as the individual was expected, under liberty, to make his own choices on the allocation of his income among alternative uses in the present, the same applied on deciding on spending his income in the present versus setting aside a portion of it as savings for his and his family’s needs and desires in the future.
The fact is, any candidate who fully believed in and advocated individual liberty and constitutionally limited government would be attempting to explain and persuade the voting public that a government-funded pension plan through intergenerational redistribution is not only unconstitutional and inconsistent with the type of personal freedom promulgated by the Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence, but is, pragmatically, rapidly reaching its financial end due to an aging population and a shrinking workforce to fund Social Security.
Such a candidate would be making the case for the end of Social Security and in some manner that would do justice to the older segment of the American population who have been compelled to pay into a system that made it, as a result, more difficult or impossible to plan for their own retirement years. But which closed the chapter on government and the pension business. (See my article, “There is No Social Security Santa Claus.”)
Freedom Means Ending Government-Funded Healthcare
The same applies to government involvement and responsibility for the health care and medical insurance of the American people. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sander merely argue over an immediate government single-payer system of socialized medicine versus an easing into it as budgetary revenues and costs permit an end to any predominantly privately provided health insurance and medical care.
Among the Republicans, there is a general insistence that ObamaCare should be repealed, but there is no call for the removal of government from the health care and insurance business, as a whole. Medicare and Medicaid are generally considered essential among Uncle Sam’s grab bag of duties and responsibilities.
The fact is virtually all the problems associated with people’s frustration with health care premiums and coverage has its origin with the extent to which government has intervened in and interfered with the health care industry in America. The problem has not been too little government in medical care, but far too much over the decades, which has stymied competition, fixed and manipulated prices for medical services, and narrowed the choices and options available to people compared to what a truly free market healthcare industry could have provided to the population.
A candidate interested in fostering a free market system in healthcare and insurance would be educating the voters on how and why eliminating government control and involvement is essential to moving America forward towards a vibrant, innovative and affordable totally private sector medical industry for the current generation and looking ahead for the rest of this century. Alas, none of the candidates for the presidency in the current election cycle have even come close to doing so. (See my article, “For Healthcare the Best Government Plan is No Plan.”)
Besides the Social Security system and government-funded health care and insurance being taken for granted to one degree of anther by all presidential candidates this year, there is also the acceptance that some form of the welfare state is compatible with and complementary to a free society.
The Welfare State Undermines Incentives and Balanced Production
But, in fact, the welfare state is an arrow in the heart of a truly free society that is respectful of individual choice and is based on the rights of individuals to manage their own lives as they freely decide in peaceful and mutually beneficial association with others.
The presumption is often made that a free society can successfully function with a market economy that “delivers the goods” while having the government siphon off large portions of the income and wealth generated through the production and productivity of that economy for purposes of redistributive largess guiding by some notion of “social justice.”
This reasoning presumes that the resulting production is independent of the incentives that make the members of society have a motive for work, saving and investment. All of us know that the higher (lower) the price of something the less (more) people are willing to buy of it, and the lower (higher) the price of something the less (more) people are willing to supply it. Why should we presume this is any different concerning goods and services that government supplies to people for “free” or below market price, or concerning people’s willingness to work to earn income the more they are taxed.
Make something relatively free or inexpensive compared to a market price that covers the actual costs of supplying it, and the demand will swell and overwhelm the available supply. Tax people more and more at higher and higher rates to pay for below market price “free” goods, and the incentive to keep producing and earning is increasingly undermined. Demand outruns supply and supply fails to grow to keep up with the demand.
But even beyond these important and crucial distortions and imbalances between supply and demand the more the government offers desired “goodies” for “free” and undermines the incentives and abilities for production to provide the required supplies, there is a wider moral dimension to a growing and encompassing welfare state.
The Paternalistic State Creates Childlike Citizens
The welfare state denies individuals the right to have the liberty to make such decisions for themselves. Every step further in this direction reduces people’s self-determination over their own lives, chips away at one more aspect and corner of the person’s life over which they have diminished responsibility and autonomy to be self-governing. They become, one step at a time, a bit more of the ward of the state.
This threatens another central element that is part of being a truly free person: the cultivation and exercise of moral choice. A child is one who is considered not sufficiently developed psychologically and morally to fully make its own choices and decisions. Parents serve as guardians to care for their young and educate them as they grow up in learning the meaning of responsible decision-making, to think before your leap, to consider tomorrow before you make a choice today, and to ask what is the ethical things to do concerning my own life and in my interactions with others?
The more government takes responsibility over these aspect of human life, and the more the political authority asserts the obligation to handle “social problems” that concern the mutual affairs of individuals in society, then the less people develop the experience, maturity or appreciation for what it means to think about and act upon such corners of life and human association. (See my article, “A World Without the Welfare State.”)
Political paternalism through the redistributive welfare state brings about a permanently infantilized population. Government protected or supported employments, government subsidized levels of income and revenues, and government guaranteed social “safety nets,” result in the creation of an increasingly childlike population.
More and more people want more and more things for “free,” and they want it “now.” They want to be sheltered from “hurtful” or “uncomfortable” situations or choices. They come to expect politically provided security and protection over all the everyday affairs of ordinary life. They lose the capacity to think and act as free men and women. They take for granted and long for the political shepherd who oversees and takes care of the human sheep.
“Fair Trade” is Politically Managed and Manipulated Trade
Also look at the policy positions taken by both Democrats and Republicans running for the presidency on America’s place and role in the world. Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders rant about how international trade can be and has been detrimental to American jobs and industry, promising to redress the unfair trade practices of other nations.
On the Republican side, Donald Trump wails about how America is being robbed, beaten up and abused by the trade policies of other nations. And while the other Republicans who have been running in the primaries over the last half year have given lip service to free trade, they, too, to varying degrees have assured the voters that “free trade” must be tempered by “fair trade.”
The friend of freedom, since the time of Adam Smith, has emphasized that the benefits from trade do not come from what we export but from what the sale of our exports enable us to import. We trade with our immediate neighbors or with others half way around the world because it enables each of us to obtain from our exchange partners goods and services that we would not be able to produce for ourselves, or which we could not produce with as a high quality or at a similar low cost.
It is the division of labor and specialization of production that domestic and foreign trade facilitates and encourages that has given us and continues to provide the existing and continually rising standards and qualities of life that we take for granted.
Yet, listening to the rhetoric and policy proposals from both the Democratic and Republican competitors in the presidential primaries, we are being abused and misused by our trading partners. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even when other governments subsidize the exports of their own nations goods to the U.S., they, in fact, give the American consumer more goods at lower prices than would be otherwise the case.
It should be the citizens of those foreign governments who should be complaining because it is their higher taxes that are making it possible for American consumers to buy desired goods at below cost prices. And it frees up American producers to manufacture and supply others goods that Americans could not, otherwise, afford to demand and buy if not for the lower-cost foreign imports. (See my article, ”Global Free Trade Makes for Mutual Prosperity and World Peace.”)
In addition, to the extent that government takes on the role of arbiter over the buying and selling of goods between the citizens of its own country and the rest of the world, the promised “fair trade” becomes the politically corrupted trade. Rather than global competitive forces of supply and demand determining the types and direction of production to satisfy the world’s consumers, it becomes influential special interest groups close to those in political authority who have it in their power to raise import taxes or impose regulations that hamper the market-determined patterns of production and sales to improve the lives of people in their own lands and in other corners of the world.
An Interventionist Mindset in Foreign Affairs
The interventionist mindset applies across the party lines in foreign affairs, in general. The friend of freedom has always argued that if government has any rationale it is to protect the life, liberty and honestly acquired property of the citizenry. For that reason the essential task of constitutionally limited government is to secure a country’s citizens from domestic threats through the use of the constabulary and the courts; and to protect the population from foreign threats of invasion and destruction from abroad through national defense.
But Hillary Clinton has been ready to intervention in foreign countries involving little or no threat to the United States both when she was a Senator from New York or Secretary of State in the Obama Administration. And while Bernie Sanders has been highly critical of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, he has demonstrated a love affair with Marxist and other socialist regimes around the world; a President Sanders most likely would be very willing to provide American diplomatic and economic support to radical regimes devoted to the demise of capitalism.
Among the Republicans, Donald Trump has criticized the invasion of Iraq, but has assured a rapid and devastating military attack on Islamic fundamentalists in Syria and Iraq, including thousands of American ground forces to do the job, as well as unleashing torture techniques on suspected terrorists and their families.
The other Republican hopefuls pursuing their party’s nomination for the presidency have also, to varying degrees, all called for a continuation and intensifying of such military intervention to set right parts of the Middle East.
Thus, across party lines, there is a common presumption that America must play an “active” and military hands-on presence in many parts of the world that can be very inconsistent with practicing a policy of liberty at home and abroad. (See my article, “Practicing the Principles of Non-Intervention – at Home and Abroad.”)
The task of the informed citizen and the friend of freedom is to cut through the political confusion and rhetorical combat in the current election cycle, and to realize that no matter what the outcome of this year’s election, there is little cause for confidence that liberty will be victorious or advancing, due to the all too common interventionist and statist premises that underlie the policy positions offered by all the candidates.
ComEd’s smart meter deployment is being propelled by a public relations campaign which minimizes and/or dismisses the health and safety impacts that the wireless meters are creating for their customers. What has been known for decades about the health effects of Radio Frequency/microwave radiation is now being passed off by ComEd as a small amount of Radio Frequency being emitted from a smart meter six times a day.
A call to customer service posing the question, “Are smart meters safe?” will elicit a response, “You don’t have anything to worry about, it is safer than a baby monitor”. And, with that simple explanation, the deployment of four million smart meters is underway in Illinois. Community leaders and residents deserve a real answer and hard facts.
Throughout this article Radio Frequency/microwave radiation will also be referred to as non-ionizing or non-thermal. For clarification: A definition of thermal or ionizing radiation means it can cause heat shock or burn body tissue. Non-ionizing or non-thermal radiation is a lower intensity that can cause other negative effects on living tissue (human, animal, or plant).
Let the truth be known:
What is being hidden from the consumer and decision-maker is what has been known by the military for decades: Radio Frequency/microwave radiation even at low levels is a health threat. U.S. military reports nearly 60 years ago confirmed the biological effects of exposure to low level Electromagnetic Radiation.
Jerry Flynn is a retired Canadian Armed Forces captain with 22 years of experience in Electronic Warfare and Signals Intelligence. In that capacity, he worked with U.S. and NATO armies. Flynn writes:
“In 1956 the U.S. Department of Defense directed the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force to investigate the biological effects of exposure to Radio Frequency/microwave radiation (RF/MW) and Electromagnetic Fields (EMF). In 1957 they reported many implications: evidence it can cause cancer, damage major organs, and disrupt important biological processes. It can harm the immune and nervous systems, cause behavioral effects, interfere with the ability to learn, and damage the chemical barrier that prevents blood toxins from entering the brain. It could possibly cause genetic defects, birth defects, and general effects on growth and the aging processes.”
Flynn emphasizes, “The military noted that pulsed radiation appeared to be more harmful than non-pulsed radiation.” (ComEd smart meters emit pulsedradiation.)
Air Force Report, 1994
A June 1994 U.S. Air Force document, entitled, “Radio Frequency/microwave Radiation Biological Effects and Safety Standards”,acknowledged non-thermal health effects. Stated in its abstract, “It is known that Electromagnetic Radiation has a biological effect on human tissue. Researchers have discovered a number of biological dysfunctions that can occur in living organisms. Exposure of the human body to Radio Frequency/microwave [RF/MW] radiation has many biological implications that range from innocuous sensation of warmth to serious physiological damage to the eye”, and added that “there is also evidence that RF/MW radiation can cause cancer”.
Other adverse health issues include: “mutagenic effects, cardiovascular effects, negative effects on chromosomes and notes that Soviet investigators claim thatexposure to low-level radiation can induce serious CNS [central nervous system] dysfunctions”.
NASA Report, 1981
A NASA report published in April 1981, entitled “Electromagnetic Field Interactions with the Human Body: Observed Effects and Theories”,discussed what EMF and RF/microwave radiation inflicts on humans. Health effects of RF/microwave radiation that were reported are headaches, sleep problems, neurological symptoms, cardiac symptoms, memory problems, increased cholesterol, gastritis, ulcers, increased fasting blood glucose, irritability, inability to concentrate, apprehension, and cataracts (clouding of posterior part of lens in those caused by microwave radiation instead of anterior clouding as seen with regular types). Information for the NASA report was collected from over 1,000 written sources that included journals, conference proceedings, technical reports, books, abstracts, and news items.
Navy Report, 1971
In October 1971, the Naval Medical Research Institute published a research report, “Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena (‘Effects’) and Clinical Manifestations Attributed to Microwave and Radio-Frequency Radiation”, which was a compilation of over 2000 references on the biological responses to RF/microwave radiation. It lists well over 100 negative biological effects caused by RF/ microwave radiation. Here is a partial list from the report: corneal damage, brain heating, alteration of the diameter of blood vessels, liver enlargement, decreased fertility, sterility, altered fetal development, decreased lactation in nursing mothers, cranial nerve disorders, seizures, convulsions, depression, insomnia, hand tremors, chest pain, thrombosis, alteration in the rate of cellular division, anorexia, altered adrenal cortex activity, chromosome aberrations, tumors, loss of hair, and sparking between dental fillings.
Also mentioned in the Navy Report is, “altered orientation of animals, birds and fish”.
“The paradox is how Radio Frequency/microwave radiation can be used as a weapon to cause impairment, illness and death; and at the same time be used as a communications instrument [such as in a smart meter]. By 1971 we knew everything that needed to be known. A 1976 document summarizing U.S. Defense Intelligence research is the saddest and most despicable document ever published in history. The document lists all of the health hazards caused by wireless devices and concludes: This should be kept secret to preserve industrial profit.”
Since the health threats have been known for decades, where do we stand now?
At this time, the installation of smart meters is mandated by law on every home, school, and building in ComEd’s customer service territory. NO permanent opt-out option is available. Parents, who know the truth about the health risks, have nowhere to turn. There is no avenue available for parents, who are aware of the dangers, to protect their children. Does this sound like Flint, Michigan all over again?
Illinois is in the midst of an avoidable, man-made health crisis. What happens when the state faces Flint’s horrible position concerning water, but with electricity? ComEd’s smart meter deployment is creating just such a tragic situation. It is up to the residents to take action, push legislators and theIllinois Commerce Commission for a permanent opt-out, and protect the children in Illinois as well as all living beings in the state.
Part 2 –Follow this article to find out what other agencies, corporations, and organizations knew about the health effects related to Radio Frequency/microwave radiation and when they knew it. Also covered is who is sounding the alarm in an effort to protect public health and welfare.
Heartland Daily Podcast – Rep. Dane Eagle (FL) – Challenging the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan
In Today’s edition of The Heartland Daily Podcast, Florida State Rep. Dane Eagle, Chairman of the Energy & Utilities Subcommittee, joins Managing Editor of Environment & Climate News H. Sterling Burnett. Rep. Eagle joins Burnett to talk about why Florida was right to join the 27 states challenging the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan in court.
Rep. Eagle also discusses why the House passed a ban on local fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, bans and why the state constitution is not an appropriate place to deal with solar power issues.
Almost inarguably, no private entity is more enmeshed with the Barack Obama Administration – than is Google. This has been – in way too many ways for an allegedly free market economy – the Google Administration.
Google has met with the White House just about once a week – every week since President Obama took the oath. Think tanks usually staff administrations – Google and this administration have been swapping (often very high-level) employees throughout.
And as we know, personnel is policy. So time and again this administration has (often illegally) jammed through awful, anti-capitalism policy – because Google asked for it.
Sometimes the cronyism is so overt – it’s darkly comical. Like when the administration’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) unilaterally imposed Google’s preferred (and really idiotic) Network Neutrality.
The Commission’s two Republicans weren’t given an advance draft of the order – but Google was. And then the Commission’s Obama-appointee chairman – altered the order at Google’s request.
And now we have Google’s foray into driverless cars. Cars that can drive themselves – and thus must detect all manner of things stationary and mobile around them. There are many components incorporated in making that a possibility. And each sliver of every component – requires a patent.
Now, a brief aside – to delve a little bit into the United States patent process. I myself have recently applied for a patent. My idea works for multiple products – but I have to apply for a separate patent for each. (Then I have to trademark the name, and…. It ain’t easy or cheap to have an idea.)
I tell this story as a parallel to what Google is doing. Trying to get a driverless car to market – takes a LOT of patents. One of which is what Google calls a “Bus Detection for an Autonomous Vehicle.”
More Obama Administration-delivered good news for Google: its U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) just approved said patent. Bad news for Google? The Obama Administration approved said patent “not a week after its self-driving car failed to detect a bus and ultimately collided with it….
“According to the patent, the car’s self-driving software should recognize a large vehicle, check it against known school bus sizes and look for other visual cues such as yellow paint or the word “School” painted on it. Upon confirmation, the car will take special care around the bus.”
Alanis Morissette would call that ironic – don’t you think?
Now to be fair “Google’s car didn’t hit a school bus — just a traditional one. Google’s software (and the human driver serving as backup) assumed the bus would yield for the self-driving car, but it didn’t, and so the two collided.” And Google has “tweaked its software significantly, implementing 3,500 new tests to avoid this happening again.”
But one has to wonder if anyone not-Google – under these same exact circumstances – would have received patent approval.
In an era of poorly crafted, badly aimed “patent troll” legislation – when the chief complaint is actually bad patents being approved – one absolutely has to ask.
Oh – guess who heads up the Obama Administration’s Patent and Trademark Office? A woman named Michelle Lee. Guess what her immediately preceding gig was? “Deputy General Counsel and Head of Patents and Patent Strategy for Google from 2003 to 2012.”
Contra the near constant stream of alarmist predictions that sea human caused global warming is/will cause sea levels to rise at increasing rates and weather extremes to get worse, neither claim is proving true, bringing to mind a certain vertically challenged chicken and his repeated false claims of disaster.
The Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL), the global data bank for long-term sea-level-change information, shows there has been little or no change in either the direction or rate of global sea level changes. The PSMSL is the best, longest-running consistent system for measuring sea level. It provides good coverage for Europe, Eurasia, North America, and the Pacific Islands; coverage is lacking in South America and Africa.
Albert Parker, a guest blogger at Watts Up With That, studied the data and found no substantial change in the rate or direction of sea level change from 1900 to 1975 when compared to rates of change from 1975 to 2016, the period of purported human-caused warming. In Scandinavia and much of coastal Eastern Europe sea levels have fallen or remained the same since 1900 with no change in direction or rate of decrease since 1975. In Australia, Central and Southern Europe, and North America, where sea levels were rising or neutral from 1900 to 1975, they have remained rising or stable post-1975.
Though Parker doesn’t address this, I would argue the lack of coverage for South America and Africa should not undermine the value of PSMSL’s measurements. Because purported human-caused warming is a “global” phenomena, if something substantially different is happening along the coasts of Africa or South America than is happening around the rest of the globe, it would have to be due to unique geologic events occurring on those continents, not attributable to a global change in the rate of sea level rise.
More good news for the world (though not climate alarmists pushing weather disaster fears in order to implement their twisted version of global government), a new paper in the Journal of Geography and Natural Disasters demonstrates reality proves wrong the oft-repeated claims global warming will result in an increase in the number and intensity of extreme weather events. Extreme weather during the most recent period of warming is on the decline. The author defines extreme weather events as storms, droughts, floods, etc. that are multiple standard deviations away from the average distribution by which such events are measured.
A survey of official weather sites and the scientific literature provides strong evidence the first half of the twentieth century had more extreme weather than the second half, when anthropogenic global warming is claimed to have been mainly responsible for observed climate change. For instance, the author found periods of maximum warming or cooling rates are all in the nineteenth century or at the start of the twentieth century, with the great majority occurring prior to 1950. The data show there has been no long-term trend in monthly rainfall since 1895. There has been a substantial decline in the number and intensity of hurricanes making landfall in the United States over the twentieth century. The number of tornadoes of strength 3 and higher is down 30 percent since 1975, the year many climate alarmist identify as global cooling turning to warming. Importantly, the number of annual deaths from climate-related severe weather events has declined steadily since 1900.
If you don’t visit Somewhat Reasonable and the Heartlander digital magazine every day, you’re missing out on some of the best news and commentary on liberty and free markets you can find. But worry not, freedom lovers! The Heartland Weekly Email is here for you every Friday with a highlight show. Subscribe to the email today, and read this week’s edition below.
Wikipedia: What the Liberals Want You to Think
Joseph L. Bast, Somewhat Reasonable
In recent years, left-wing activists have rewritten hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia entries, adding their anti-technology, anti-corporation, and anti-free enterprise dogma and propaganda to the profiles of many individuals and organizations. The Heartland Institute’s profile has been the target of a major misinformation effort, with objective descriptions of our work removed and lies and unfounded leftist accusations put in their place. Can you help us fix Wikipedia? READ MORE
Yaron Brook Explains Why Equal Is Unfair
We’ve been told the American Dream in vanishing. We’re told the rich are getting richer, leaving the rest of us to struggle just to keep our heads above water. To save the American Dream, we’re told we need to fight income inequality through tax hikes and wealth redistribution. What we are being told is wrong. The Ayn Rand Institute’s Yaron Brook spoke to an attentive crowd at the Andrew Breitbart Freedom Center at The Heartland Institute this week to explain why we must fight to make America a freer, more prosperous nation. If you missed the presentation, the entire event is archived on Heartland’s YouTube page. WATCH IT HERE
Testimony: John R. Christy Addresses NOAA’s Temperature Manipulation
This testimony by Dr. John R. Christy, delivered on February 2, 2016, before the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, is a fascinating overview of the latest real science regarding climate change. Dr. Christy demolishes claims that scientists know enough about how the climate works to understand the human impact or predict future climate conditions. The testimony also includes an “extract” of his previous testimony showing man-made climate change is not causing a rise in extreme weather. READ MORE
Featured Podcast: Kyle Maichle: The Article V Convention Movement
More states are passing resolutions demanding a solution to our country’s runaway debt, making it clear the movement for an Article V Convention is more robust than ever. Kyle Maichle, project manager in the Center for Constitutional Reform at The Heartland Institute, spoke to an Illinois-based tea party group about the Article V approach to reining in the national debt and the federal government. Maichle explains what this would mean for our country and how it can be achieved soon. LISTEN TO MORE
The Stars Come Out in Arlington Heights!
If you love discussions about liberty, you will not want to miss the great series of events Heartland has lined up through the spring. Upcoming events include a presentation by the Austrian Economics Center, Learning Lessons on the Road to Serfdom, as well as several book talks, including Drilling Through the Corewith the National Association of Scholars’ Peter Wood and The Way Back with George Mason University’s Frank Buckley. We hope to see you here in Arlington Heights – but if you are unable to attend in person, the events will be live-streamed and archived on Heartland’s YouTube page. SEE UPCOMING EVENTS HERE
Lynch May Ignore First Amendment to Prosecute Climate Skeptics
H. Sterling Burnett, Climate Change Weekly
As the global warming narrative continues to fall apart, alarmists are becoming more desperate in their attempts to stop the debate. The latest attack comes from the United States Department of Justice. In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Loretta Lynch discussed pursuing civil action against companies, organizations, and individual scientists who continue to debate the question of whether humans are causing catastrophic climate change. READ MORE
Video: Oklahoma’s Earthquakes Are ‘Unrelated’ to Fracking
Isaac Orr, Somewhat Reasonable
Anti-fracking activists blame hydraulic fracturing for the rise in earthquakes in Oklahoma over the past several years. But a new video featuring Dr. Mark Zoback, a professor of geophysics at Stanford University, explains fracking is not to blame for the quakes. In fact, as you’ll see in the video, the earthquakes in Oklahoma have nothing to do with fracking at all. READ MORE
A Not-So-Happy Obamacare Anniversary
Justin Haskins, Consumer Power Report
President Barack Obama’s landmark legislation, the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare, has reached its sixth year anniversary. Not many Americans are celebrating, because Obamacare has caused far more problems than it attempted to solve. Skyrocketing premiums, failing insurance companies, and vanishing high-quality insurance plans are just a few of the problems. Even after six years, it appears our health care system is going to get worse before it gets better. READ MORE
Replacing Common Core: Choices and Tradeoffs
Joseph Bast, Lennie Jarratt, and Joy Pullmann, Heartland Policy Brief
Supporters of school choice view Common Core as an unnecessary and unconstitutional federal intrusion into the educational system. The way states were coerced into adopting these national standards is particularly troubling. But if Common Core standards were ended, what should replace them? This Policy Brief discusses several options, examining the benefits and drawbacks of each. READ MORE
Bonus Podcast: In The Tank (ep30): Cascade Policy Institute, Corporate Welfare, Union Leave, and Beer Taxes
In episode #30 of the In The Tank podcast, Donny and John speak with John Charles Jr., president and CEO of the Cascade Policy Institute, about his organization and Oregon’s move to increase its renewable energy mandate to 50 percent by 2040. In the second half, Donny and John talk about the failures of corporate welfare, the cost of union leave time, and the taxes each state charge for beer. This weekly podcast gives you a look into the work free-market think tanks are doing to promote freedom and individual liberty across the country. LISTEN TO MORE
Direct Primary Care Saving States Millions
Nathan Makla and Matthew Glans, Heartland Research & Commentary
Increased government involvement in the health care industry continues to make it harder for doctors and facilities to provide inexpensive and timely services. For this reason, direct primary care, also known as retainer medicine, is becoming increasingly popular for doctors and patients alike and could serve to revitalize the U.S. primary care system. Union County, North Carolina was able to optimize this consumer-driven health care model, a move that may save the county $1 million in 2016 alone. READ MORE
Reporters Insult Parents Who Choose Schools
Joy Pullmann, School Choice Weekly
In response to school choice advocates’ support for greater parental control over education, a reporter from The New York Times wrote “that parents are susceptible to being duped because they are poor and unsophisticated.” This is the crux of the issue. Who can choose a better education for a child, the parents or a bureaucracy? It may come as a shock to the reporter of a liberal newspaper, but it is not surprising to us that families secure a better education for their kids when they are free to choose. READ MORE
John Nothdurft and Donny Kendal bring you episode #31 of the In The Tank Podcast. This weekly podcast features (as always) interviews, debates, roundtable discussions, stories, and light-hearted segments on a variety of topics on the latest news. The show is available for download as part of the Heartland Daily Podcast every Friday. Today’s podcast features work from the R Street Institute, the Tax Foundation, ALEC, and The Heartland Institute.
Better Know a Think Tank
In this weeks segment, Donny and John welcome Andrew Moylan, Executive Director and Senior Fellow at the R Street Institute. Andrew joins the show to talk about his organization and what they are currently working on. Andrew also talks about a new study that examines how different cities regulate and tax sharing-economy companies like HomeAway and AirBnB.
Featured Work of the Week
This week’s featured work is a policy study from the Tax Foundation titled “Vapor Products and Tax Policy.” The report gives all-encompassing look into electronic cigarettes. While the main portion of the paper is to explore how e-cigs are taxed throughout the various states, it also discusses several other factors. One thing to consider is the fact that e-cigs are far more healthy when compared to traditional cigarettes. When this is taken into account, is it justified to impose excise taxes on these products?
In the World of Think Tankery
Today Donny and John talk about a report from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) titled “2016 State Tax Cut Roundup.” ALEC found that 17 states met the criteria to be listed in this year’s report. As John says, this number is a good sign and shows a trend of states successfully adopting reforms that allow their economies to be more consumer and business friendly.
They also discuss the latest edition of The Heartland Institute‘s Consumer Power Report newsletter which discusses the sixth anniversary of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. Author Justin Haskins explains all of the hiccups and shortcomings the law have had so far and why. As Donny and John discuss, because of Obamacare, our health care system is going to get far worse before it gets better.
Here are a handful of upcoming events that you may be interested in attending.
The Philadelphia Society (Next Weekend, April 1-3) Restoring American Prosperity @ the Westin Charlotte in Charlotte, North Carolina
Cato Institute (Thurday, Mar 31) 100 Years of Democracy and Education: A Critical Examination @ The Cato Institute in Washington D.C.
Claremont Insitute (Saturday, April 2) 2016 Annual Dinner in Honor of Sir Winston S. Churchill @ the Claremont Institute in Newport Beach, California.
The Austrian Economics Center (Thursday, Mar 31) Learning lessons on the Road to Serfdom: From Austria to America @ The Heartland Institute here in Arlington Heights, Illinois.
Today, POLITICO announced disgraced climate scientist Peter Gleick has stepped down as president of the Pacific Institute, though he will remain there as a researcher and fundraiser. Interestingly, no successor has been named, so “the search for a new president is underway.” What was the hurry?
In 2012, Gleick stole the identity of a Heartland board member (committing identity theft, a federal crime) and used it to commit a second crime (stealing and revealing confidential documents from a competitor, industrial espionage). He confessed to both crimes, but not to a third crime, libel, which he very likely committed by forging a document and lying repeatedly to his allies — and then to the general public and to his own board of directors — about the true origins of that document. He has yet to confess to that crime. This whole hoary incident is called Fakegate and is documented on this site.
The Heartland Institute, Gleick’s victim, carefully documented Gleick’s crimes and tried to persuade the U.S. Attorney for Northern Illinois to prosecute him, but failed. At the time, we couldn’t understand why: Gleick confessed to committing crimes, and the crimes he committed caused great damage to Heartland’s reputation and to the wider world of public policy debate. Letting him go unpunished would set a terrible precedent: Groups that support different perspectives on controversial issues are now apparently free to break the law to attack and discredit their opponents.
Why didn’t the Department of Justice prosecute Gleick? Events in recent weeks help explain it.
The Obama administration’s heavy-handed abuse of constitutional authority has extended beyond the IRS, FCC, and EPA to include the Department of Justice. The DOJ apparently has consulted with the FBI to investigate global warming realists, and possibly plans to use RICO against groups like The Heartland Institute. Astonishing, and frightening. And it raises an obvious question: For how long has DOJ viewed global warming realists as possible criminals and not victims?
Maybe The Heartland Institute never stood a chance against Peter Gleick, because DOJ already made up its mind that alarmists are the “good guys” and realists are the “bad guys” in the global warming debate. Maybe Gleick had political protection from the White House. Maybe political bias trumped justice?
Which brings us back to Peter Gleick’s resignation as president of the Pacific Institute. Gleick is only 60 years old. It’s unusual for a CEO to resign without announcing a replacement … unless the resignation was involuntary and there wasn’t time to recruit a replacement. Was Peter Gleick fired?
Maybe members of the board of the Pacific Institute, who refused to respond to not one but two letters from The Heartland Institute warning them of Gleick’s misconduct and calling on them to fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities, finally realized they were being lied to by Gleick. That they had failed to behave in an honorable fashion. That their fake “internal investigation” was being misrepresented by the liberal mainstream media. That their failure to act had made the Pacific Institute a joke to many in the science community because its CEO was an unconvicted felon.
Maybe some of this, or all of this?
The statute of limitations on Gleick’s crimes runs five years … to February 2017, a month after a new president is installed in office. Interesting timing.
In this episode of The Heartland Daily podcast, managing editor Jesse Hathaway talks with Mercatus Center senior research fellow Stephen Miller about the history of postal banking in the United States, and why supporters of the idea, like presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (D-VT), have failed to learn from the mistakes of history.
Like a zombie that keeps on coming back from the grave, the idea of postal banking—inserting the United States Postal Services, a quasi-governmental agency tasked with delivering mail, into the business of providing banking services to people—keeps on coming back, because supporters have not learned the lessons of economics and history.
By Nancy Thorner and Bonnie O’Neil –
The definition of the word “conundrum” is “something that is puzzling or confusing.”
The following are six conundrums attached to Socialism in America today:
- America is capitalist and greedy – yet half of the population is subsidized
- Half of the population is subsidized – yet they consider themselves victims.
- They think they are victims – yet their representatives run the government.
- Their representatives run the government – yet the poor keep getting poorer.
- The poor keep getting poorer – yet they have things that people in other countries only dream about.
- They have things that people in other countries only dream about – yet they want America to be more like those other countries.
As we witness thousands of Americans attending Bernie Sanders rallies, knowing Sanders identifies himself as a Socialist and promises to govern from that position, it is time for all of us to understand the significance of that and consider what is happening to our Country.
It was after Sander’s Super Tuesday victories on March 1st in Colorado, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Vermont, that he declared the following: “The Revolution has begun.” Sanders enthusiastically shouted. “We are going to take our fight for economic justice, for social justice, for environmental sanity, for a world of peace to all 50 states. It’s going all the way to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia and beyond.”
Certainly, it is important to always look for ways to improve government, but a drastic reversal, such as that which Sanders promotes, is exceedingly dangerous. Why would anyone want to significantly change our form of government, which has proven to be highly successful, and instead embrace a system proven to have failed throughout history?
This often quoted statement answers part of that question:
“Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.”
Might it be that many Americans neither know about nor remember the history of once successful countries that turned to socialism and ultimately failed, largely due to a financial collapse caused by an ineffective, often corrupt government? Consider Greece, Argentina, Cuba, and Russia; just a few examples of countries that were once prosper but after changing to Socialism/Communism became places people might want to visit but definitely not stay.
Socialism is the “Big Lie” of the twentieth century. While it promised prosperity, equality, and security, it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Those who have studied the issue believe Socialism fails because it kills our human spirit, as there is no passion to succeed. It is a system most often favored by those with little self-confidence who prefer a safety net over personal freedom. Equality in a Socialist/Communist country is appreciated only in the sense that everyone is equally miserable. In the same way that a Ponzi scheme or chain letter initially succeeds but eventually collapses, Socialism may show early signs of success. But any accomplishments quickly fade as the fundamental deficiencies of central planning emerge. It is the initial illusion of success that gives government intervention its pernicious, seductive appeal. In the long run, Socialism has always proven to be a formula for tyranny and ultimate misery.
Perhaps that is best proven by the wall that separated East and West Germany after WWII. The wall wasn’t just to separate Germany into two separate countries and two very different governments, it was built to keep those unlucky enough to end up in Communist East Germany from escaping to the West, where the government allowed freedoms and consequently the people prospered.
In assessing the situation, Bernie Sanders is not the problem, he is just the symptom, a warning, the product of a movement that has been festering for some time in our country. The Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA) was a Moscow-controlled Marxist-Leninist party in the United States. It nominated a candidate for president from 1924 through 1984, sometimes with funding from the communist Soviet Union. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Party lost any momentum they might have had and became a hollow shell. Thus, the supporters began to urge voters to support the Democrat Party. Bernie’s grass-roots supporters are fired up because they see the nature of his campaign as an occasion for launching another progressive movement under a different. more acceptable political banner. Sanders is simply spewing some old socialist ideas from the past, which most Americans have wisely, repeatedly rejected.
George Soros, an avowed Communist, a billionaire, and a U.S. citizen continues to generously fund far-left organizations such as MoveOn.org and ACORN, as well as make huge donations to Democrat candidates. This video, in which Soros is interviewed, tells of the progressive organizations and politicians on the Left he calls friends. A noted surprise and exception is that George Soros gave $588,375 to John Kasich’s presidential campaign.
Certainly, a nation as large as America will always have dissidents. However, rather than move to a country that aligns more with their specific beliefs, they seek to change America. They don’t want to simply improve our government; these people want to completely change the principles upon which this nation was founded and which have proven successful. Since Obama is now opening a friendship with Cuba, those who disagree with our Constitution, government, and way of life can emigrate there. However, they do not, because they know Cuba has not prospered as once promised. The Cuban government may provide food, education, health care, and jobs, but the quality of each is not equal to ours. It also keeps its people from owning guns, sets wages to prevent anyone from becoming wealthy, suppresses public religious expressions and forbids speech which does not align with Cuba’s dictator, Castro.
Of great concern is the large number of Americans who have aligned with the socialist rhetoric that is evident in the campaigns of both Sanders and Clinton. Clinton is just more covert in her discussions on the subject. Current polls indicate the majority of Americans still have a higher opinion of Capitalism than Socialism. However, the Reason.com/poll indicated that while 55% favored capitalism, a surprising 36% had a favorable opinion of socialism. Really? What has led to 1/3 of American citizens having a positive view of socialism? Do they understand what a socialist society would entail? Are they aware of history? Is there a growing number of Americans more willing to accept welfare than find work? Whatever caused 36% of American citizens to think Socialism is superior to the one our forefathers gave us and which propelled the United States into being the greatest nation in the World?
Part 2 will focus on the causes of this creeping cancer that the progressive Left is promoting. It will offer ways and means to stop what threatens to destroy America.