As noted previously (here), Drs. Karl Fagerström and Tom Eissenberg have described a continuum of dependence among tobacco and nicotine products. They concluded that cigarettes are the most dependence-producing (addictive) product and that smokeless tobacco is intermediate, evidenced by clinical trials showing that quitting cigarette smoking is more difficult than quitting ST.
In a new study published in Nicotine & Tobacco Research (abstract here), I use data from the 2003 Tobacco Use Supplement of the Current Population Survey to directly compare time to first use (TTFU) among smokers and smokeless tobacco users in a nationally representative sample. My collaborators in the work are Nantaporn Plurphanswat, research economist at University of Louisville’s Brown Cancer Center, and Karl Fagerström.
Time to the first cigarette (TTFC) after waking up in the morning is a well-established measure of dependence among smokers – the shorter the TTFC, the stronger the addiction. This measure is the key component of a scale developed in the late 1970s by Dr. Fagerström, for whom the scale is named. TTFC is strongly correlated with abstinence and time to relapse among smokers enrolled in cessation trials and in nationally representative samples of smokers from four countries. A comparable measure has been developed for smokeless tobacco use.
We examined TTFU among 10,500 white men who were daily cigarette smokers and 1,200 who were daily smokeless tobacco users. Smokers were classified according to number of cigarettes per day (cpd) smoked: light (1-14 cpd), moderate (15-24 cpd) and heavy (25+). Smokeless tobacco users were subgrouped as exclusive users or former smokers.
The results show that dependence among smokeless tobacco users is similar to that among light smokers (1-14 cpd), 9% of whose TTFU was less than 5 minutes, and 23% under 30 minutes. Differences in TTFU between smokers and smokeless tobacco users can be seen in the chart below, which is from our study.
Our findings support the Fagerström-Eissenberg hypothesis that the dependence level of cigarettes is generally higher than that of smokeless tobacco. This has positive implications for tobacco harm reduction, which is the substitution of smoke-free tobacco products for cigarettes among smokers unwilling or unable to quit. Switching from smoking to smokeless tobacco use is associated with a huge reduction in health risks. This study adds evidence that a switch to smokeless tobacco might also increase the chances for becoming completely tobacco-free.
Only one week after Election Day, Washington, DC’s focus has shifted from furious campaigning to National Education Week and the Thought Leader Summit (held from Nov. 10–13), “a gathering of the leaders from education, business, and government who define and shape trends in public and private education.”
Among the many topics that will be addressed are school choice, innovations in educational technology, and for-profit education. Although it remains a minority held view in American education today, liberty-focused educators around the country have begun to start thinking about how free-market principles can be used in the classroom to revolutionize the way kids learn.
Conservatives often proudly, and rightly, assert that a central tenant of successful education reform is the transformation of how educational institutions are funded and organized. Long gone are the days where serious reformers believe that centralized education offered by government bureaucrats is a more effective strategy than empowering private schools, charter schools, and other programs that give parents, especially those who live in poor neighborhoods with decrepit schools and failing teachers, the ability to send their children wherever they see fit.
But the importance of using free-market principles in the classrooms themselves is often overlooked by liberty-supporting education reformers. When free-market strategies are employed in schools, children can grow to appreciate the value of freedom and capitalism instead of becoming indoctrinated with the socialistic, everyone-deserves-a-trophy mentality that now dominates U.S. school systems.
In “Rewards: How to use rewards to help children learn – and why teachers don’t use them well,” a new book by Heartland Institute Chairman Herbert J. Walberg and President Joseph Bast, research is presented that proves strategies such as paying students for performance; offering stickers (for younger students), parties, and prizes for reaching established goals; and showing high school students the monetary advantages of education all help to develop successful learning habits that have statistically led to better performances on standardized tests and increased graduation rates, in addition to an increased likelihood of college attendance.
For those who believe in and support capitalism, this won’t come as much of a surprise. Using incentives to improve performance and efficiency is a part of the foundation that America, the most successful and prosperous nation the world has ever seen, has been built on.
What seems obvious to so many, however, has been obscured by so-called education gurus in teachers colleges across the nation. As Walberg and Bast explain in “Rewards,” influential academics like Alfie Kohn have rejected the concept of rewarding students for performance. Kohn once even said it was “irrefutable” that “[i]ncentives simply do not work,” and “any approach that offers a reward will fail.”
Is it really a surprise then that so many millennials, having been brainwashed with this sort of thinking for more than a decade, march off to voting booths each election season convinced that the answers to all of the world’s problems are to tax more, spend more, and eliminate accountability?
The secret to transforming America back into the economic powerhouse it once was is to teach children – using proven and trusted strategies – that terms like “incentives,” “rewards,” and “profits” are not the dirty words the public education system has been insisting they are since the 1960s. The easiest way to do this, of course, is to reward the children themselves for performance rather than acting as though being successful isn’t all that important.
Justin Haskins (Jhaskins@heartland.org) is an author, blogger, and an editor of publications at The Heartland Institute, a leading free-market think tank based out of Chicago, IL. You can follow him @TheNewRevere or visit his personal site online at http://traskhaskins.com/.
“Rewards: How to use rewards to help children learn – and why teachers don’t use them well” by Herbert J. Walberg and Heartland President Joseph Bast is available on Amazon.com and at The Heartland Institute’s online store.
[Originally published at the Daily Caller]
Pundits largely agree that those who cast ballots last week had more or less one idea in mind – Washington is broken and must be fixed. So imagine the surprise that online customers will receive when Senators Reid and Durbin lead the just voted out Senate to massively expand government power in their last few days at the helm of Congress. Current leadership of the Senate (Senators Reid and Durbin still lead the Senate during a “lame duck” session until January 3rd when the new Senators the country elected last week will be sworn in and new leadership selected) plans to bring a combined Mainstreet Fairness Act (MFA) and Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA) to the Senate floor soon. The ITFA would continue a moratorium on “Internet taxes,” that is, taxes on Internet access and on multiple or discriminatory taxes on Internet commerce. In other words, online merchants and consumers would be freed from the threat of discriminatory treatment. The MFA does almost the exact opposite, empowering government tax auditors to reach as far as the Internet sprawls. The policy of that proposal is horrible, doing away with any requirement that a business have a physical connection to a jurisdiction before it can be forced to levy taxes on its sales. If this law were to pass, a person merely calling up a business’s Website could be enough to require that a business, and hence consumers, pay taxes in the state where the customer resides. Out-of-state tax authorities could audit businesses in any state – regulation without representation or reprieve. A discriminatory Internet tax would look promising by comparison. Combining the legislation is the worst of Washington and government, cynically tying the hugely popular, taxpayer protecting ITFA to the government expanding consumer and small business hurting MFA. This sort of dirty, heavy handed government trick is exactly what the country voted against last week. This combination should earn the scorn of any legislator who believes the country is growing weary of ever sprawling and powerful government. But, the game gets rigged further against consumers. Rumor on the Hill is that the MFA, or a MFA/ITFA combination, will be attached to a continuing resolution, that is, legislation enacted by Congress to keep government operating until the regular order of appropriations legislation is again taken up. Such legislation is typically considered “must pass,” so the pressure to vote for it regardless of some odious part will be high. The reality is that such legislation could pass as it would likely garner a huge share of Democrat support with a few wayward Republicans added on. For this to work, GOP leadership would certainly have to be in on the deal, putting politics ahead of an electorate that had hoped they voted for something better. The politics get worse. An Internet sales tax, like the MFA, is wildly unpopular with only a mere 35 percent of the public indicating they are OK with the idea. Two-thirds of Republicans and conservatives oppose the measure, and 56 percent of independents oppose it. Democrats? A majority oppose. Only two groups support the idea. State tax collectors, who are eager to expand their power over those who have no recourse, are the first group. While once again overall tax collections are up, according to the Pew Charitable Trust, some states have still not returned to the record tax collections, and spending, they were taking before the recession. “On the bright side, state revenue collections overall in the second quarter of this year were actually up 1.6 percent above their highest 2008 level, just before the recession – buoyed from a few states doing particularly well.” What easier way to get more revenue than from those cannot even vote to change the policy? Their addiction to taxes, and enforcing them through grater and deeper reach of government, drive their insatiable desire. The other group is the “big box” retailers who desperately want this discriminatory treatment for online merchants to prevail to curtail their competition. They have gone so far as to try to force the hand of House leadership arguing that the legislation should be jammed, by trickery if necessary, through Congress to “clear the decks” for the beginning of a new Congress. Of course the decks should be cleared of bad ideas by House leadership but not by making them law. If a discriminatory Internet tax is allowed because the ITFA does not pass, or if government reach is wildly expanded via the passage of the MFA the recent protests in Hungary opposing similar attempts will look mild compared to the anger in an electorate full of online consumers that deserves much better and thought they just voted to get it. Speaker Boehner deserves credit for indicating that the MFA is dead and that he will not bring it to a vote, and for leading the House to vote in support of the ITFA. The remaining question is what will the last days of the Leader Reid Senate do? Oppose the will of the people or follow it? Put a focus on empowering the people or keep it on empowering bureaucrats? Failing the people could result in the first Internet wave election in 2016.
To discuss this, we need to keep in mind that weather is what is occurring now. Climate is measured over longer periods, the minimum of which is thirty years and, beyond that, centuries.
We are colder these days because the Earth has been in a cooling cycle for 19 years and that cycle is based entirely on the Sun which has been radiating less heat for the same period of time.
Describing the role of the Sun, Australian geologist, Ian Plimer, said, “There is a big thermonuclear reactor in the sky that emits huge amounts of energy to the Earth…The Sun provides the energy for photosynthesis. The Sun is the bringer of life to Earth. If the Sun were more energetic the oceans would boil. If the Sun were less energetic the oceans would freeze and all life on Earth would be destroyed.”
We don’t control the Sun. Or the climate. It controls us.
Consider the fact that the Sun has a diameter of 865,000 miles. The Earth’s diameter is 7,917.5 miles. Thus, the Sun’s diameter is 109 times greater than the Earth’s. Carbon dioxide is barely 0.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere. Reducing it as the U.S.-China agreement proposes would have zero effect on the Earth’s climate.
We not only can, but should ignore the blatant lies of President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, both of whom have been saying things about “climate change” without a scintilla of science to back them up. They’re not alone, however. In August, the U.N. Climate Chief, Christiana Figueres, warned of climate “chaos” in 500 days and told the World Health Organization that climate change was on a par with the outbreak of Ebola as a public health emergency.
It was big news on November 11 when The Wall Street Journal’s lead story on its front page reported that “The U.S. and China unveiled long-term plans to curb emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases linked to climate change, a surprise move aimed at kick-starting a new round of international climate negotiations and blunting domestic opposition to cuts in both countries.”
Someone needs to tell the Wall Street Journal there is no “climate change” that is not entirely NATURAL and unrelated to anything humans are doing.
The announcement plays into the longtime efforts of the environmental movement to impose energy limits on the world’s population. Similar limits will be called for when climate talks are launched in December by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in Lima, Peru.
Why the leaders of nations keep calling for limits that can only result in the reduction of energy production, the loss of economic benefits from industrial activity and the jobs it provides, and the modern lifestyle of advanced nations is one of life’s great mysteries.
If you really disliked America, you would no doubt pursue President Obama’s anti-energy agenda. That agenda is expressed by a series of climate and pollution measures that an article in Politico.com says “rivals any presidential environmental actions of the past quarter-century—a reality check for Republicans who think last week’s election gave them a mandate to end what they call the White House’s ‘War on Coal.’”
The authors of the Politico.com article, Andrew Restuccia and Erica Martinson, note that Obama’s assault on the nation is “Tied to court-ordered deadlines, legal mandates and international climate talks” over the next two months, all in the name of a climate change “And incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will have few options for stopping the onslaught, though Republicans may be able to slow pieces of it.”
“The coming rollout includes a Dec. 1 proposal by EPA to tighten limits on smog-causing ozone, which business groups say could be the costliest federal regulation of all time; a final rule Dec. 19 for clamping down on disposal of power plants’ toxic coal cash; the Jan. 1 start date for a long-debated rule prohibiting states from polluting the air of their downwind neighbors; and a Jan. 8 deadline for issuing a final rule restricting greenhouse gas emissions from future power plants. That last rule is a centerpiece of Obama’s most ambitious environmental effort, the big plan for combating climate change that he announced at Georgetown University in June 2013.”
This vile assault flies in the face of actual climate trends: record low tornadoes record low hurricanes, record gain in Arctic ice, record amount of Antarctic ice, no change in the rate of sea level rise, no evidence of a Greenland meltdown, and again no warming for 19 years.
As this and future winters turn colder, arrive sooner and stay around longer, Americans will be affected by the reduction of coal-fired plants that generate electrical power. The nation will encounter blizzards that will leave some homeowners and apartment dwellers without heat. It is predictable that some will die.
A cruel and costly climate hoax is being perpetrated by President Obama and, in particular, by the Environmental Protection Agency. The new Congress must take whatever action it can to reverse and stop the harm that it represents; people’s jobs and lives depend on it.
During 2014, the U.S. has experienced an unusual amount of record breaking cold weather and weather related phenomena. In large part due to the polar vortex, hundreds, if not thousands of cities and towns in the United States experienced multiple days of record setting temperatures — both record lows and record low high temperatures.
This continued into the summer. In July record lows or record low high temperatures were set cities ranging from Atlanta to Baltimore, from Dallas to Pittsburgh, and in states from Minnesota to Alabama and Florida.
Record low temperatures continued into September when 246 record low high temperatures records were broken or tied between September 1 and September 10 alone. Some of the record breaking temperatures were as much as 16 degrees below the previous record low.
In addition to record cold, numerous cities and regions saw record snowfall, and lingering snow in early 2014.
Not to be outdone, late 2014 is already breaking temperature and snowfall records. South Carolina, experienced its earliest snowfall on record , while other states are experiencing record amounts of early snowfall and/or low temperatures. Some states and cities are 20 degrees below their normal temperatures for this time of year including Florida and Dallas, where I live. Denver has experienced record breaking low temperatures two days running with temperatures running 34 degrees below average and Maine has experienced its earliest double-digit snowfall.
Not to be outdone, the great lakes region, the Mid-West and the great Northwest, have all experienced either record lows, record low highs or record early snowfall or ice. Most recently, Casper, Wyoming and Oklahoma are both more then 20 degrees below their average temperatures and while snowfall amounts accumulating in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Utah and Washington, are not extraordinary by mid-winter standards, for early fall they are impressive.
I’m sorry folks, but this is not how global warming is supposed to work!
For more see:
If America’s media weren’t so biased against capitalism and individual freedom, the fall of the Berlin Wall would be celebrated every year with an official federal holiday, fireworks, and parades in major cities. Really, millennials, it was that big a deal. It triggered and then symbolized the freeing of millions of people from government tyranny.
I cannot recommend more highly a visit to the website of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. As they note on the homepage this week, “The Berlin Wall fell, but Communism didn’t.” Millions live under the thumb of communist despotism in the miserable prison states of North Korea and Cuba — as if they are frozen in amber, living relics of a decades-over Cold War. China may be modern and business-friendly, but its people do not enjoy liberty. While the Berlin Wall came down and the communist East Germany crumbled, the tanks rolled into Tiananmen Square to preserve Communism.
Watch the video below from the BBC. It’s a couple of minutes, but you can feel the joy in the hearts of these Germans who waited a generation for the abominable wall to come down — to end the prison states of East Germany and East Berlin. No one has ever needed a wall to keep those who enjoy liberty from fleeing a country.
(An aside: It’s a shame that while the victims of communism have a memorial in Washington, DC, few know about it. Indeed, I’d guess most walk by it without even knowing what it is. I lived in the DC area for eight years and I never heard of it. I’ve never seen it mentioned in a tourism brochure. I’ve never heard someone say: “Be sure to take your cousins over to the Victims of Communism Memorial.” I wonder why.)
On September 25, the Mercatus Center, a research and outreach organization that promotes market-oriented solutions from George Mason University, did a presentation on net neutrality. The speaker, research fellow in the technology policy program Brent Skorup, gave a wide overview of the net neutrality subject. Skorup discussed, among other things, how the Internet works, the working definition of net neutrality, exceptions to the rule, and the options the FCC is exploring.
To fully explain the debate that is occurring, Skorup begins the presentation with the basics. He gives a brief explanation as to how the Internet works, what broadband is, and the constraints broadband must deal with. For example, When broadband is overwhelmed by information, it begins dropping packets or requested information. Generally this results in slow loading time or video buffering. This is where the concept of fast-lanes comes into play, which Skorup explains in detail later.
Skorup then explains the definition of net neutrality and how it got into the public eye. This debate began after a couple incidents. In 2004, A small ISP (Internet Service Provider) in North Carolina blocked access to an online phone provider Vonage. This resulted in many complaints by those effected and eventually a fine against the ISP. Then in 2007, Comcast was caught limiting access to the website BitTorrent. While Comcast said this was due to the information intensive requirements for the site, others suggested Comcast was attempting to limit competition to its own video providing service.
These events started the concept of net neutrality. The definition of this concept is hard to nail down, however, due to the constantly changing interpretation of the term. In general, as Skorup explains, net neutrality intends to treat all information as the same. The ISP would have no power over limiting information or services. Also, the use of fast-lanes, or giving priority to certain information, would be eliminated. Net neutrality is being advanced because of the fear of ISPs censoring political speech and curbing competition.
While this may seem straight-forward and fair, fast-lanes are currently being used, as Skorup point out, in justifiable ways. One example includes Voip or Voice Over Internet Protocol. This gives online telecommunication priority over other web services. So, as Skorup states, “when you’re calling Grandma, if someone in the next room or your neighbors are watching netflix, your phone call isn’t being chopped up.” Other services that sometimes use these fast-lanes include video on demand for TV, gaming, teleconferencing and Skype.
To deal with these complex issues, the FCC has several options. One option would be for the FCC to reinterpret title II of the 1934 communications act to include the Internet. This would put the burden on the ISPs. The ISP would have to prove that their discrimination of information or services is “just and reasonable.” The FCC could also apply section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which would put the burden on the FCC itself. They could also defer the matter to antitrust agencies or Congress.
Skorup ends the presentation by stating how this is a very complex subject. He recommends that engineers, computer scientists and economists should be consulted prior to making any decision on the matter.
For a more critical take on the FCC shoving broadband into Title II, listen to this podcast with Heartland’s Jim Lakely and Less Government’s Seton Motley.
Education, business, and government leaders are gathering this week in Washington, DC to discuss the future of American education at the Thought Leader Summit (held from Nov. 10–13), an event held as a part of the National Education Initiative. Among the many topics that will be discussed is the advancement of online education, a technological gift that could save conservatism in America.
It comes as no surprise to liberty-focused Americans that U.S. education is rife with liberalism. Teachers colleges and teachers unions have worked tirelessly to ensure that school systems across the country are stocked with educators that reject traditional free-market and liberty-focused curricula.
Instead of a fair treatment of history, civics, and economics, liberals utilize “learning” materials, such as one history textbook used in South Carolina that suggests former President Ronald Reagan was sexist, that fabricate the truth to fit their own leftwing agenda.
Teachers and professors don’t even bother hiding their bias. One survey released by UCLA in 2012 shows that more than 62 percent of college professors identify as being either “far left” or “liberal,” while less than 12 percent claim to be “far right” or “conservative.” With results like these, how can conservative parents ever feel comfortable sending their kids off to local public schools or to costly colleges?
The obvious answer is for parents to send children to private schools that embrace personal responsibility and liberty or to start homeschooling. In both situations, however, time, funding, and the teaching ability of the parent may stand in the way as nearly insurmountable obstacles. This is where the advancement of online education could save the day.
In “Rewards: How to use rewards to help children learn – and why teachers don’t use them well,” a new book by Heartland Institute Chairman Herbert J. Walberg and Heartland President Joseph Bast, the authors present the incredible technological advancements that have occurred over the past decade in online education and how these advancements can be used to improve education.
According to Walberg and Bast, “Digital learning stands on its own or adds great blended value because it can adapt to the capacity and speed of individual learners, provide minute-by-minute feedback on learning progress, and provide rewards suitable for individual learners. It is similar to an imaginary inexhaustible, highly skilled tutor.”
Walberg and Bast say that highly successful private and charter schools have taken advantage of this new technology, and the results have been quite astounding. The much-talked-about Rocketship schools, for instance, have produced unmatched test results and student achievement by combining traditional models of instruction alongside digital, personalized instruction.
There’s simply no reason why conservatives cannot take advantage of these models to produce their own liberty-focused curricula that can be used in private schools, homeschools, and in colleges across the nation. No longer is it necessary for parents to become education experts to provide their children with a quality education that embraces liberty.
Some conservatives have already started taking advantage of digital learning to advance the cause of liberty. Perhaps the most famous case is the free, not-for-credit massive online open-enrollment program at Hillsdale College, a liberal arts college based in Michigan who envisions itself as “a trustee of modern man’s intellectual and spiritual inheritance from the Judeo-Christian faith and Greco-Roman culture, a heritage finding its clearest expression in the American experiment of self-government under law.”
Other programs, like Liberty University’s Online Academy, are designed specifically for private schools and homeschools and are geared toward providing a more foundational education compared to the college courses at Hillsdale.
Although many of the education experts and public servants attending the Thought Leader Summit this week are interested in improving American education, few of them embrace the classical liberalism espoused by the Founding Fathers. It’s up to conservatives, Tea Party groups, private schools that espouse liberty, and homeschools to build educational systems that promote the values that built America. Technology has made the once-reasonable excuses of cost, location, and time no longer applicable.
With some hard work and innovative thinking, conservatives now have the opportunity to combat the liberal tide that has swept across the country’s education system over the past 50 years.
“Rewards: How to use rewards to help children learn – and why teachers don’t use them well” by Herbert J. Walberg and Heartland President Joseph Bast is available on Amazon.com and at The Heartland Institute’s online store.
[Originally published at Human Events]
Climate Hustle: The global warming shakedown, is a new documentary currently being produced by C-FACT. With a new trailer released just days ago, the film promises to “cool down the global warming hype.”
The host of the upcoming documentary is investigative journalist Marc Morano, a popular man-made climate change skeptic who intends to “tear the cover off of (the) global warming hype.” The film will dive into the science and the debate to reveal the truth about climate change.
Are we destined to endure radical temperature shifts, rising sea-levels and extreme weather due to our dependence on fossil fuels? Is there really an overwhelming consensus among scientists? Or are these statistics and threats exaggerated in order to push a particular government agenda? Climate Hustle intends to get to the bottom of these questions and more.
The film is being sponsored in large part by donations. The goal of C-FACT is to raise $250,000 to cover the production of the film as well as the marketing and distribution. The intention is to get this documentary into as many theaters and large cities as possible.
The current release date of the documentary is listed as “coming soon.” While the release date of the film is not set, the deadline for donations is only three weeks away. So expect to see Climate Hustle hitting the theaters by the end of the year or early 2015.
Everything you need to know about how perverse and dangerous the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is summed up in its latest report. Released on November 2, it issued the same tired, old and untrue claims of “severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems”
The IPCC wants the world to stop using coal, oil and natural gas, saying that they must be “phased out almost entirely” by the end of the century. The report reeks of their contempt for humanity.
Losing electricity, no matter where you live, is losing every technology that enhances and preserves your life. You lose the ability to cool or warm your home, apartment or workplace. You lose the ability to keep food safe in your refrigerator and freezer. You most certainly lose the lighting. You lose the ability to turn on your computer or television. Indeed, to use everything you take for granted.
Since the discovery and generation of energy with coal, oil and natural gas, generations have lived lives not only different from all who preceded them, but better in so many ways, not the least of which is extended life expectancy. Nations with energy are places where people live longer, healthier lives. They are also wealthier nations where the energy translates into industry, jobs, transportation, and all the other attributes of modern life.
Although we usually don’t associate energy with morality, Alex Epstein has. His book, “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels” ($27.95, Portfolio, an imprint of the Penguin Group) is the finest case for the role coal, oil and natural gas has played in our lives and the positive, emancipating impact they have had on humanity. Everyone should read it.
“I hold human life as the standard of value” says Epstein. “I think that our fossil fuel use so far has been a moral choice because it has enabled billions of people to live longer and more fulfilling lives, and I think the cuts proposed by the environmentalists in the 1970s were wrong because of all the death and suffering they would have inflicted on human beings.”
“Eighty-seven percent of the energy mankind uses every second comes from burning one of the fossil fuels: coal, oil or natural gas.” That has not stopped environmentalists from denouncing coal and oil as “dirty” or because their use generates carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. What they never tell you is how small those emissions are and that they play an infinitesimal role to influence the Earth’s weather or climate. They never tell you that the Earth has centuries more of untapped reserves. The modern world could not exist without them.
“In the last eighty years, as CO2 emissions have most rapidly escalated, the annual rate of climate-related deaths worldwide fell by an incredible rate of 98 percent. That means the incidence of death from climate is fifty times lower than it was eighty years ago.”
Epstein points to “the power of fossil-fueled machines to build a durable civilization that is highly resilient to extreme heat, extreme cold, floods, storms, and so on” to demonstrate the foolishness of those who oppose their use. Primary among them is the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. As part of its 40th session, in early November the IPCC adopted the final “synthesis” report of its Fifth Assessment Report; a full-scale update calling for the reduction of energy worldwide. They base this on the claim that “human influence on the climate system is clear.”
It is not clear. Despite the CO2 emissions, the Earth has been in a cooling cycle for the last nineteen years, during the same time the IPCC’s “climate experts” and others were telling us the Earth was going to become dangerously warm.
Epstein reminds us that “In 1972, the international think tank, the Club of Rome, released a multimillion-copy-selling book, “The Limits of Growth”, which declared that its state of the art computer models had demonstrated that we would run out of oil by 1992 and natural gas by 1993 (and, for good measure, gold, mercury, silver, tin, zinc and lead by 1993 at the latest.)
It is essential to understand that every one of the “environmental” predictions made in the 1970s and the decades since then has been WRONG.
Every one of the computer models on which those predictions were based was WRONG.
A younger generation graduating from high school has never spent a day when the overall temperature of the Earth was warming. The Earth’s natural cooling cycle is based on a natural low cycle of solar radiation. The Sun is generating less heat. Indeed, the Earth is nearing the end of the Holocene cycle, one of warmth for the past ten thousand or more years that has given rise to human civilization.
Epstein’s book is more than just philosophical opinion. It is based on documented facts regarding fossil fuel use. At one point he quotes Paul Ehrlich who, in his 1968 book, “The Population Bomb”, declared that “the battle to feed humanity is over.” Epstein notes that in 1968 the world’s population was 3.6 billion people. “Since then it has doubled, yet the average person is better fed than he was in 1968. This seeming miracle was due to a combination of the fossil fuel industry and genetic science…” Farming today is mechanized and that requires fuel!
The claims that Epstein debunks are accompanied by the fundamental truths about fossil fuel use and science. His book, comprehensible to anyone whether they have any knowledge of science or not, should be on everyone’s reading list.
At the heart of environmentalism and its “save the Earth” agenda is the reduction, if not the elimination, of humans from planet Earth.
Heartland Daily Podcast: Jay Lehr: Will the 2014 Election Results may Effect the Nations Energy Policy
Jay Lehr, The Heartland Institute’s science director is optimistic concerning the ability of the new Congress to prevent major new bad environmental and energy legislation from passing.
Lehr also believes, with new Republican majority in the Senate and a larger majority in the house, positive legislation, like the Keystone XL pipeline approval can get passed.
Listen for his assessment of prospects for environmental and energy progress in the lame duck session of Congress and in the coming years.
Jim Lakely, communications director at The Heartland Institute, talks with journalist, author, and American”European socialist” Nina Burleigh about various topics including the results of the midterm elections, the economy and politics in general. Jim and Nina, who disagree about everything, became cordial email pen pals in 2011 based on the ability to have a civil discussion about Obamacare.
In the discussion, Burleigh says she is disappointed with the result of the election, but is hopeful about the future of the Democratic Party. Burleigh says Democrats took a misstep by running away from President Obama’s record when they could have pointed toward the recovering economy.
The conversation continued into the topic of politics and money in elections. Burleigh says the amount of money going into the elections is detrimental to the democratic process. Lakely, however, responds by pointing out the massive amount of money Tom Steyer poured into the campaigns fell on deaf ears when global warming failed to be an important topic during the midterms.
Listen to that, and more, in the player above.
Soon-to-be-ex-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is certainly a part of the Oblivious Caucus.
The tension represented something more fundamental than money – it was indicative of a wider resentment among Democrats in the Capitol of how the president was approaching the election and how, they felt, he was dragging them down.
Of course the President was a huge part of the problem. But for Senator Reid’s left-hand-man to apparently place the blame solely elsewhere is quite a good bit of wishful thinking.
Now we face a lame duck Congressional session. Where some seriously terrible things could happen to We the People – foisted upon us in large part by a frustrated, repudiated Nevada lawmaker.
(T)he House…passed – by mega-bipartisan voice vote acclimation – the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act (PITFA). (Which ends forever governments’ ability to tax Internet access – the current moratorium expires December 11.)
“(T)he law has attracted large bipartisan majorities every time it’s been up for a vote in either house. That’s because the law has allowed the Internet to grow into an engine of interstate and international commerce.”
Except Senator Reid won’t allow the bill up for a vote in his Senate. Unless he can tether it to a whole new Internet tax scheme….
“A new Senate bill may force lawmakers this week to make a tough choice on internet taxes: they must agree to expand the reach of sales taxes on out-of-state retailers, or else see the end of a law that forbids states and cities from imposing a tax on internet access.
“…Instead of putting (PITFA) to the Senate, however, Reid has decided to attach it to a proposed law called the Marketplace Fairness Act (MFA). That bill, which first passed the Senate last year, would require online retailers to collect tax on sales they make to out-of-state consumers.”
Get that? Under the MFA, uber-tax-happy states like California would no longer be confined to taxing into oblivion just Californians. They’d have access to the wallets of every business – every person – in all fifty states.
Turning Huge Government states into additional Huge Government federals. And tempting Less-Huge-Government states to grow – with the siren song of new coin taken from people in forty-nine states that can’t vote against them.
Again, Senator Reid’s Tax-’Em-All approach was just last week resoundingly defeated. He insists on continuing to afflict us with it anyway.
So too does the Obama Administration.
(Federal Communications Commission) FCC Chairman Wheeler is contemplating…Title II Internet Reclassification. Which is a huge new regulatory monstrosity. And…surprise:
“…(O)nce ‘internet access services’ are reclassified as ‘interstate telecommunications services’ under the exclusive authority of FCC, it will be subjected to the 16.1% fee that’s currently applicable to such services.
“So FCC’s ‘Net Neutrality’ could result into the largest single tax increase on internet to date.” And that huge tax rate goes up every quarter – automatically.
What does President Obama want his FCC to do? Of course – the largest tax-increasing power grab possible.
I believe the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act….
Real journalist Major Garrett – now of CBS News and National Journal – made this excellent point after the last huge Republican wave election – in 2010:
“You (President Obama) didn’t raise taxes in a lame duck session when you had 59 Democrats in the Senate and almost 260 in the House.
“Don’t expect Republicans to raise taxes when (they) own the House of Representatives and have six more Senate seats. As a matter of politics that doesn’t work. After Election 2014, Republicans have at the very least a majority 226 House seats and at the very least a majority 53 Senate seats – the latter a pick up of at least eight.
They should be asked to raise taxes now?
Remember when President Obama said “Elections have consequences?”
Remember when Senator Reid said “Elections have consequences?”
Remember when Democrat (Socialist) Senator Bernie Sanders said “Elections have consequences?”
They apparently do not.
This first appeared at Human Events
Why are these top ten adjectives the most descriptive?
UNTRUE – Proponents claim net neutrality is a principle as old as the Internet; it is not. The term “net neutrality” actually was coined in 2003 by law professor Tim Wu long after the Internet was privatized a decade earlier. Proponents also have redefined net neutrality many times since 2003.
UNWARRANTED – Net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem. Over the last decade, the FCC has alleged only a few potential net neutrality problems, and in each of these few cases, the FCC was able to satisfactorily resolve them without Title II authority.
UNNECESSARY – ISPs have long voluntarily respected the FCC’s net neutrality concerns without formal regulation. After the court struck down the FCC’s rules as partially illegal, the ISPs again publicly pledged to abide by the FCC’s rules under the FCC’s Section 706 authority, and have done so since.
UNFAIR – Proponents believe Silicon Valley giants should pay nothing, zero-price, for delivery of their dominant downstream traffic to consumers, when consumers routinely pay for faster Internet tiers/lanes and pay for above-average Internet usage. How is it fair to consumers to be forced to subsidize the profits of some of the world’s largest corporations even when they do not use their services?
UNPOPULAR – The only time American voters were able to come close to voting on “net neutrality” was in the 2010 mid-term elections; when The Progressive Change Campaign Committee got 95 U.S. House and Senate candidates to publicly pledge their support for net neutrality, and then all 95 of those pro-net neutrality candidates lost their races. Net neutrality: 0 for 95.
UNECONOMIC – If the Internet should be regulated as a utility, why should Silicon Valley giants and entrepreneurs never have to pay for their high-volume Internet traffic to be delivered to their customers, when every other utility requires usage-based payment for use of electricity, water, or gas? And when everyone is expected to pay: for the transport of their goods to consumers by plane, train, boat, truck, etc., or for package delivery from the U.S. Postal Service, UPS, Fed-ex or delivery services, how is it economic for the largest users of Internet bandwidth to pay nothing for delivery of their goods?
UNWORKABLE – Applying Title II common carrier regulation, the single most onerous and complicated form of business regulation in America, to the fastest-moving, most dynamic part of the U.S. economy, would force the slowest speed of government administrative processes on the nation’s fastest speed of business. There is no way America’s Internet infrastructure could keep up with the pace of exploding Internet demand, if ISPs had to ask the FCC for permission to carry out most parts of their business under Title II regulation.
UNCERTAIN – Nothing the FCC could do — would create more foundational uncertainty for the sector and the Internet economy than abruptly reversing the longstanding legal status of Internet traffic, from unregulated, to potentially maximally-regulated. It would create sector-wide regulatory, legal, legislative, economic, business, competitive and investment uncertainties, in addition to spawning an unimaginable number or potential unintended consequences.
UNLAWFUL – What net neutrality proponents have convinced the President to support is something that neither the FCC’s 706 authority, nor potential Title II common carrier authority, allow – which is a permanent zero-price for downstream Internet traffic. Title II law and precedent require just and reasonable prices — and zero is no price at all. Even Congress might not have the Constitutional authority to impose such a draconian economic ban on competitive companies that haven’t done anything wrong.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL – After encouraging competitive private ISPs to invest hundreds of billions of dollars to upgrade America’s Internet infrastructure based on repeated reliance that the FCC would not impose investment-hostile Title II common carrier regulation, would be an unconstitutional, arbitrary and capricious, taking of private property.
In short, the FCC changing the legal status of Internet traffic to be Title II “telecommunications,” would be an UNMITIGATED-DISASTER.
FCC Open Internet Order Series
Part 1: The Many Vulnerabilities of an Open Internet [9-24-09]
Part 2: Why FCC proposed net neutrality regs unconstitutional, NPR Online Op-ed [9-24-09]
Part 3: Takeaways from FCC’s Proposed Open Internet Regs [10-22-09]
Part 4: How FCC Regulation Would Change the Internet [10-30-09]
Part 5: Is FCC Declaring ‘Open Season’ on Internet Freedom? [11-17-09]
Part 6: Critical Gaps in FCC’s Proposed Open Internet Regulations [11-30-09]
Part 7: Takeaways from the FCC’s Open Internet Further Inquiry [9-2-10]
Part 8: An FCC “Data-Driven” Double Standard? [10-27-10]
Part 9: Election Takeaways for the FCC [11-3-10]
Part 10: Irony of Little Openness in FCC Open Internet Reg-making [11-19-10]
Part 11: FCC Regulating Internet to Prevent Companies from Regulating Internet [11-22-10]
Part 12: Where is the FCC’s Legitimacy? [11-22-10]
Part 13: Will FCC Preserve or Change the Internet? [12-17-10]
Part 14: FCC Internet Price Regulation & Micro-management? [12-20-10]
Part 15: FCC Open Internet Decision Take-aways [12-21-10]
Part 16: FCC Defines Broadband Service as “BIAS”-ed [12-22-10]
Part 17: Why FCC’s Net Regs Need Administration/Congressional Regulatory Review [1-3-11]
Part 18: Welcome to the FCC-Centric Internet [1-25-11]
Part 19: FCC’s Net Regs in Conflict with President’s Pledges [1-26-11]
Part 20: Will FCC Respect President’s Call for “Least Burdensome” Regulation? [2-3-11]
Part 21: FCC’s In Search of Relevance in 706 Report [5-23-11]
Part 22: The FCC’s public wireless network blocks lawful Internet traffic [6-13-11]
Part 23: Why FCC Net Neutrality Regs Are So Vulnerable [9-8-11]
Part 24: Why Verizon Wins Appeal of FCC’s Net Regs [9-30-11]
Part 25: Supreme Court likely to leash FCC to the law [10-10-12]
Part 26: What Court Data Roaming Decision Means for FCC Open Internet Order [12-4-12]
Part 27: Oops! Crawford’s Model Broadband Nation, Korea, Opposes Net Neutrality [2-26-13]
Part 28:Little Impact on FCC Open Internet Order from SCOTUS Chevron Decision [5-21-13]
Part 29: More Legal Trouble for FCC’s Open Internet Order & Net Neutrality [6-2-13]
Part 30:U.S. Competition Beats EU Regulation in Broadband Race [6-21-13]
Part 31:Defending Google Fiber’s Reasonable Network Management [7-30-13]
Part 32: Capricious Net Neutrality Charges [8-7-13]
Part 33: Why FCC won’t pass Appeals Court’s oral exam [9-2-13]
Part 34: 5 BIG Implications from Court Signals on Net Neutrality – A Special Report [9-13-13]
Part 35: Dial-up Rules for the Broadband Age? My Daily Caller Op-ed [11-6-13]
Part 36: Nattering Net Neutrality Nonsense Over AT&T’s Sponsored Data Offering [1-6-14]
Part 37: Is Net Neutrality Trying to Mutate into an Economic Entitlement? [1-12-14]
Part 38: Why Professor Crawford Has Title II Reclassification All Wrong [1-16-14]
Part 39: Title II Reclassification Would Violate President’s Executive Order [1-22-14]
Part 40: The Narrowing Net Neutrality Dispute [2-24-14]
Part 41: FCC’s Open Internet Order Do-over – Key Going Forward Takeaways [3-5-14]
Part 43: The Multi-speed Internet is Getting More Faster Speeds [4-28-14]
Part 44: Reality Check on the Electoral Politics of Net Neutrality [5-2-14]
Part 45: The “Aristechracy” Demands Consumers Subsidize Their Net Neutrality Free Lunch [5-8-14]
Part 46: Read AT&T’s Filing that Totally Debunks Title II Reclassification [5-9-14]
Part 47: Statement on FCC Open Internet NPRM [5-15-14]
Part 48: Net Neutrality Rhetoric: “Believe it or not!” [5-16-14]
Part 49: Top Ten Reasons Broadband Internet is not a Public Utility [5-20-14]
Part 50: Top Ten Reasons to Oppose Broadband Utility Regulation [5-28-14]
Part 51: Google’s Title II Utility Regulation Risks – An Open Letter to Investors [6-3-14]
Part 52: Exposing Netflix’ Biggest Net Neutrality Deceptions [6-5-14]
Part 53: Silicon Valley Naïve on Broadband Regulation (3 min video) [6-15-14]
Part 54: FCC’s Netflix Internet Peering Inquiry – Top Ten Questions [6-17-14]
Part 55: Interconnection is Different for Internet than Railroads or Electricity [6-26-14]
Part 56: Top Ten Failures of FCC Title II Utility Regulation [7-7-14]
Part 57: NetCompetition Statement & Comments on FCC Open Internet Order Remand [7-11-14]
Part 58: MD Rules Uber is a Common Carrier – Will FCC Agree? [8-6-14]
Part 59: Internet Peering Doesn’t Need Fixing – NetComp CommActUpdate Submission [8-11-14]
Part 60: Why is Silicon Valley Rebranding/Redefining Net Neutrality? [9-2-14]
Part 61: the FCC’s Redefinition of Broadband Competition [9-4-14]
Part 62: NetCompetition Comments to FCC Opposing Title II Utility Reg of Broadband [9-9-14]
Part 63: De-competition De-competition De-competition [9-14-14]
Part 64: The Forgotten Consumer in the Fast Lane Net Neutrality Debate [9-18-14]
Part 65: FTC Implicitly Urges FCC to Not Reclassify Broadband as a Utility [9-23-14]
Part 66: Evaluating the Title II Rainbow of Proposals for the FCC to Go Nuclear [9-29-14]
Part 67: Why Waxman’s FCC Internet Utility Regulation Plan Would Be Unlawful [10-5-14]
Part 68: Silicon Valley’s Biggest Internet Mistake [10-15-14]
Part 69: Will the FCC Break the Internet? [10-22-14]
Part 70: Net Neutrality Has Become an Industrial Policy [10-31-14]
Part 71: The Federal Communications Congress? [11-8-14]
Part 72: NetCompetition on President’s Call for FCC Title II Internet Regulation [11-10-14]
[Originally published at PrecursorBlog]
Growth in the current land areas of the 52 major metropolitan areas (over 1 million) provides an effective overview of changes in how the population has been redistributed United States since 1900. These metropolitan areas are composed of nearly 440 counties, as defined by the Office of Management and Budget for 2013. There have been such substantial changes in metropolitan area concepts and definitions that reliable comparisons extending beyond a decade from Census Bureau are impossible. (See Caution: Note 1).
In 1900, the land areas which hold today’s major metropolitan areas had a population of 27.6 million. This was only 36 percent of the national population, which stood at 76.2 million. By 2010, these 52 areas had reached 169.5 million population, approximately 55 percent of the nation’s 308.7 million population (Figure 1). Over the period of 1900 to 2010, the 52 areas captured 61 percent of the nation’s growth, while the balance of the nation accounted for the other 39 percent.
The growth was anything but equal among the nation’s four Census Bureau regions (metropolitan areas were allocated using the Census Bureau region of the historical core municipality). In 1900, the East was dominant, with 45 percent of the population of the 52 areas. The Midwest was a strong second with 28 percent, while the South had 21 percent of the population. The West accounted for only six percent of the population of the 52 areas.
By comparison, growth since 1900 has been in the parts of the country least populated in 1900. The South alone obtained 35 percent of the population increase, followed by the West with 30 percent of the increase. The East gained only 18 percent of the increase, while the Midwest gained only 17 percent.
Things had already begun to change significantly by 1950, when the East’s share had fallen to 37 percent. The Midwest experienced a slight and dropped to 26 percent, while the South remained at 21 percent. The biggest change was in the West, which nearly tripled its percentage of the population, to 16 percent.
The changes were much more significant to 2010. The formerly dominant East has now been displaced by the South, with 33 percent of the population. The West also passed the East, with 26 percent of the population. The East’s share had fallen to 22 percent, while the Midwest had fallen substantially, to 19 percent (Figure 2).
Between 1950 and 1970 the highest growth was in the South, which added 11 million residents and the lowest growth was in the East, which added 7 million residents. However, after 1970 there was a sea– change in regional population growth. Since that time, the East and Midwest have fallen strongly behind. From 1970 to 2010, the East added only 3.2 million residents, less than one half the 7.3 million residents added between 1950 and 1970. The Midwest did modestly better, adding 5.6 million residents between 1970 and 2010, but well below the 7.7 million residents added between 1950 and 1970.
The big gains were made in the South and West. Between 1950 and 1970, the West added nearly as many new residents (10.4 million) as the South (11.0 million), despite starting from a smaller base. However, since 1970, the momentum has shifted to the South which added nearly 30 million new residents from 1970 to 2010. The West also grew strongly, but fell behind the South in growth, with an increase of 22 million. The South accounted for 49 percent of the growth over the period. The substantial deceleration of population growth in California’s coastal metropolitan areas (Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego and San Jose) was a major factor in slowing the West’s growth rate (Figure 3).
A review of the individual metropolitan areas indicates the pervasiveness of growth in the South and West and the more lackluster growth of the East and Midwest. The five fastest growing current metropolitan areas from 1900, 1950, and 1980 to 2010 were all in the South and West. The five slowest growing were all in the East and Midwest (Table).2010 Metropolitan Area Population Compared to 1900 2013 Geographical Definitions TOP 10 FROM 1900 TO 2010 Times 1900 1 Miami 1113 2 Phoenix 150 3 Orlando 97 4 Riverside-San Bernardino 92 5 San Diego 88 FROM 1950 TO 2010 Times 1950 1 Las Vegas 40.7 2 Orlando 11.2 3 Phoenix 11.2 4 Riverside-San Bernardino 9.4 5 Miami 8.0 FROM 1980 TO 2010 Times 1980 1 Las Vegas 4.21 2 Austin 2.93 3 Raleigh 2.81 4 Riverside-San Bernardino 2.71 5 Orlando 2.71 TOP 10 FROM 1900 TO 2010 Times 1900 1 Pittsburgh 1 2 Buffalo 1 3 Providence 1 4 Boston 1 5 Rochester 1 FROM 1950 TO 2010 Times 1950 1 Pittsburgh 0.91 2 Buffalo 1.04 3 Cleveland 1.24 4 Detroit 1.36 5 Providence 1.36 FROM 1980 TO 2010 Times 1980 1 Pittsburgh 0.89 2 New Orleans 0.91 3 Buffalo 0.91 4 Cleveland 0.96 5 Detroit 0.99
No city can compare to the growth registered by Miami since 1900. At that time, the three counties of the 2013 metropolitan area had only 5,000 residents. By 2010, Miami had reached 5.6 million and was more than 1,100 times its size in 1900. Next was fast growing Phoenix, which at 150 times its 1900 size (28,000), grew at only a fraction of Miami’s growth. Orlando is 97 times its 1900 size, Riverside-San Bernardino is 92 times, and San Diego is 88 times its 1900 population.
The slowest growing were all in the East, although each grew over the past century. Pittsburgh grew the slowest and was 1.81 times its 1900 size in 2010. Buffalo, Providence, Boston and Rochester rounded out the slowest growing five from 1900.
From 1950, Las Vegas was the fastest growing, with a 2010 population 40.7 times that of 60 years before (complete data is not available for Las Vegas in 1900). Orlando, Phoenix, Riverside-San Bernardino, and Miami were also in the top five.
The bottom five from 1950 was led by Pittsburgh, which lost population to 2010. The other four, Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, and Providence all gained, but only modestly.
Las Vegas was also the fastest growing since 1980, with a 2010 population was 4.21 times its 1980 level. The other top five cities were Austin, Raleigh, Riverside-San Bernardino, and Orlando.
The bottom five between 1980 and 2010 followed the pattern since 1950, with the exception of New Orleans, which ranked second slowest growing. This reflects largely the impact of Hurricane Katrina. Other than New Orleans, the four slowest growing were Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Cleveland, and Detroit. All five of these cities lost population from 1980.
The data for all 52 metropolitan areas for each census year (and 2013) is on this webpage.
The United States: Moving South and Increasingly
The population shifts in the United States have been substantial over the past 110 years. In 1900, nearly three quarters of the population of these cities was located in the East and Midwest. By 2010, the balance had shifted substantially, with 59 percent of the population in the major metropolitan areas of the South and West. However, in the West, coastal California growth rates are beginning to look more like those of the East and Midwest. Current projections suggest that this shift will continue, though nothing about the future is a certainty.
Wendell Cox is principal of Demographia, an international public policy and demographics firm. He is co-author of the “Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey” and author of “Demographia World Urban Areas” and “War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life.” He was appointed to three terms on the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission, where he served with the leading city and county leadership as the only non-elected member. He was appointed to the Amtrak Reform Council to fill the unexpired term of Governor Christine Todd Whitman and has served as a visiting professor at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, a national university in Paris.
Note 1: Caution: This article compares 2013 geographical boundaries of metropolitan areas to census years between 1900 and 2010. In years before 2010, metropolitan area geographical definitions were different from 2010 and before 2000 metropolitan area conceptual definitions were different. As a result, this article does not compare 2013 metropolitan areas with metropolitan areas as defined in any year before 2013.
Note 2: The population data referred to is for the current county composition of metropolitan areas. These data are not adjusted for county boundary changes that may have occurred. For example, no data is available for Las Vegas in 1900, because its one metropolitan county, Clark, did not exist until the 1910 census.
Top photo: Miami’s Elser’s Pier in the 1920s.
[Originally published at New Geography]
Jim Lakely, communications director at The Heartland Institute and co-director of Heartland’s Center on the Digital Economy, talked with one of the best free-market tech experts in Washington: Less Government President Seton Motley, who also happens to be a policy advisor to Heartland.
Jim and Seton talked about President Obama’s announcement Monday urging the Federal Communications Commission to regulate broadband networks as public utilities under Title II, a strict regulatory regime designed for the copper-wire telephone networks of an earlier age, and impose “net neutrality” regulations. The concept of net neutrality is that all bits of data moving over a network are treated equally — as Obama said in the prelude to his statement, a high-school student’s blog should be treated no differently than subscription-based streaming video.
That statement by Obama shows how he simply does not understand how the Internet was built and operates, and his plan would ruin the technological and communications miracle of the modern age. Lakely and Motley explain, among other things, how the free market has largely self-regulated the Internet successfully for both consumers, tech start-ups, and corporations in the digital economy.
Listen in the player above.
The time for Republican self congratulation is over, and the work needs to begin. It appears that the majority of the voting population recognizes that our country is in dire condition. Time is running out to fix it. Are Republicans going to work for our country, or just shift money around to different special interests?
It is not reassuring that some Republican Party strategists think they won because they purged controversial candidates who might make a campaign gaffe—and who might upset the ruling elite’s agenda if they got elected. Or that Democrats seem confident that Republicans will “work together” with them to continue the Progressive agenda—or else Obama will do it all by himself.
Republicans can no longer blame Harry Reid for their failure to repeal or defund ObamaCare. They can’t just take symbolic votes and complain (not too loudly) when bills get bottled up in the Senate. It’s on them now.
ObamaCare is deeply unpopular. Millions have already been hurt by it, and the real pain will begin now that the election is over. Millions of insurance cancellations, IRS penalties, and sticker shock for renewal premiums are about to hit.
And that’s just the financial pain. Loss of access to physicians and hospitals, and the diversion of physicians’ attention to rule compliance instead of patient needs are harder to measure. It’s also harder to blame the government instead of doctors.
Not all of these problems are from ObamaCare alone, but can be traced to previous laws such as the HITECH Act and other “incentives” for physicians to buy expensive, error-ridden computer systems and follow protocols—or else be punished.
Every mandate, and every dollar taken from taxpayers, is income to somebody: managed-care cartels, information technology vendors, government bureaucracies, etc. With every day that passes, ObamaCare thus becomes more deeply rooted, like kudzu, and harder to extirpate.
And then there’s the reckless disregard for the law that has characterized implementation: selective waivers, politically motivated delays, and blatantly rewriting the law to provide taxpayer subsidies explicitly forbidden in Exchanges not created by States.
Congress needs to start now, and not allow the lame-duck session to wreak havoc. Reid needs to be faced with well-publicized bills to mitigate damages, pending repeal. Measures should include:
- Grandfather all existing health insurance policies indefinitely.
- Suspend all federal coverage mandates for new and renewing policies.
- Provide that insurers may price policies fairly, based on actuarial risk.
- Eliminate restrictions on health savings accounts and self-insured plans, especially re-insurance
- Make the individual mandate/tax “shared responsibility” payment truly voluntary, like the contribution for elections.
- Delay the employer mandate indefinitely.
- Suspend the medical device tax and other ObamaCare taxes until and unless they are specifically re-enacted.
- Clarify that the law really means what it says about subsidies being available only through State Exchanges
- Abolish the Independent Advisory Board (IPAB) and deny any agency the power to constrain prices or spending in the private marketplace.
What these provisions have in common is six features that Republicans should demand of all legislation:
- They return control of medical spending and decisions to individual Americans, instead of forcing them to subsidize insurance companies and social engineering schemes. They stop the extortion of money from all Americans to funnel through devious pathways to people behind the curtain who do nothing to provide care
- They remove barriers to private enterprises instead of erecting new ones
- They impose no selective stealth taxes. If Congress is to tax people, it must do so through transparent, constitutional means.
- They do not expand the reach of government into areas in which it has no constitutional authority.
- They create no new agencies through which Congress can further abdicate its authority to the Executive
- They reduce the governmental footprint on the necks of Americans.
It’s a long way to constitutionally limited government, fiscal solvency, and an atmosphere of freedom in which all Americans can thrive and prosper. But we need to take these small steps to begin the journey now.
[Originally published at AAPSonline]
One-and-a-half million to 2 million men and women served in America’s defense during the Global War on Terror. According to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 250,000 service members enter civilian life each year—and that number will rise with the drawdown of soldiers from Afghanistan. As troops return home, they face a new fight: finding a job in a competitive labor market that doesn’t understand how their military experience translates into employees with discipline, organization, and motivation.
Most have served in the Middle East, risking their lives for America, and ensuring an uninterrupted energy supply. They believe in the greatness of America.
Their experiences in the military make these returning veterans ideal employees for America’s booming oil-and-gas industry. Many companies have seen the value veterans bring to their organization and are actively recruiting veterans—both enlisted and officers.
What better way to honor them for their service than to minimize the need to return to the Middle East by making America energy secure, by developing our own abundant resources?
The U.S. oil-and-gas industry has added millions of jobs in the past few years and expects to add more and more—especially with the new energy-friendly Republican-controlled Congress. Just the Keystone pipeline—which is now likely to be built—will employ thousands. Increased access to reserves on federal lands will demand more personnel. But finding potential hires that fit the needs of the energy industry in the general labor pool is difficult, as they lack discipline, the ability to work in a team and, often, can’t pass a drug test. Here the fit for the veteran becomes obvious.
“The number one bottleneck to the oil-and-gas industry,” according to Steve Yen, founder and CEO of Valor Services, a two-year-old professional services firm that specializes in energy-industry career opportunities for veterans, “is having enough quality people to execute business at today’s levels—let alone projected growth.” Yen, a former Army Captain, Ranger, and Bronze Star recipient, who served as an infantry officer in Iraq in ‘06, ‘07, and ‘08, sees veterans as a misunderstood segment of the workforce. Through Valor Services, he wants to champion his generation of veterans. With a current staff of ten, several of which are recruiters with 15-20 years of experience, Valor has a unique mission of optimizing returning veterans’ transition from the military to the oil-and-gas industry.
Veterans, as high-quality individuals, are accustomed to working in a team on the battlefield—translate well to the oilfield. They’ve focused on safety and understand the need for procedure. They respect chain of command. Both the military and the energy industry have a large number of “boots on the ground” and those individuals need to be trustworthy and responsible.
Yen has found that it is easy to teach someone how to do a job, but difficult, or impossible, to teach character and discipline.
Obvious parallels exist. Many military experiences translate well to roles in health, safety, and environmental work. Enlisted service members make excellent field personnel where technical and mechanical skills are valued and team skills and project management are required. Welders and heavy equipment operators, for example, are always needed. But other applications need skills honed in the military. Officers make high-quality professionals and management team members. Combat arms and special-operations experiences translate into strong leadership and resiliency, valuable characteristics that are hard to develop.
Because the energy industry has such immediate needs, it doesn’t generally offer apprenticeship programs. Here vocational and technical schools, such as San Juan College’s (SJC) School of Energy in Farmington, NM, and Valor’s Vo-Tech Program fill the need. Employers often co-sponsor the education and/or partnerships are can be formed with veteran-advocacy groups.
“Those who serve in our nation’s military find many challenges when they return to civilian life. One of those challenges is often finding the work they need to provide for the families they love,” Randy Pacheco, Dean of SJC’s School of Energy, told me. “We provide programs, degrees, and certifications that can help those soldiers learn skills that will help them obtain a career in the energy industry. These men and women have served not just a nation, but every member of our great nation. Their service and commitment can never be overstated and we, as an industry, should do all we can to do for them. It is the least we can do.”
Ray Long, a Vietnam-era Navy Seabee, became a trailblazer with the vision to match returning Marines with jobs in the energy industry. As HR Director for Integrated Production Services, Inc. (IPS), a subsidiary of Superior Energy Services, Inc., Long, had difficulty in finding quality applicants for the company’s various operations. He pitched senior management on hiring Marines, who were completing their tours of duty and transitioning to civilian life. Initially, due to concerns that potential hires lacked direct oilfield experience, Long’s proposal met with resistance from both senior management and district/area managers, who’d been used to hiring locally. With the argument that these were clearly quality guys who knew how to work on a team, had proven they were imminently trainable and, by definition, would not quit when the work got tough, he convinced them to hire a few Marines.
Long told me: “Similarly aged local hires tend to be high school dropouts—job hoppers who are difficult to motivate. Marines come with a need to be part of a team and succeed.” Long added: “Employee turnover is the singular problem in the oil patch and often exceeds 50 percent. Marine turnover was less than half that of local civilian hires.” Soon, he started getting calls from the district managers, asking: “You got any more of those guys?”
Prior to retirement, Long hired more than 400 Marines before their release from active duty. He recalls that while one may have failed a drug test, many are now, not surprisingly, on their way up to leadership roles in the company.
Apache Corporation actively targets veterans to fill HR needs. In 2014, military veterans made up 12 percent of Apache’s new hires in the U.S. Its career page highlights the veterans and boasts: “When it comes to core values, Apache and the military fit like a well-pressed uniform.” Apache often participates in career days held at military bases near their operations. As result, appropriate personnel have jobs waiting for them when they return to civilian life.
Apache’s Executive VP of Human Resources, Margie Harris, reiterated the military fit: “Apache’s culture is one that respects and admires military service. We find that those we hire with former military experience tend to make very good employees.”
Unfortunately, many returning veterans face a tough headwind in seeking employment: the highly publicized, tragic cases where post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) causes questionable behaviors. These, however, are a small segment of the returning forces as only about 20 percent of those deployed in the Global War on Terror actually engage in direct combat and, Yen reports: “Even amongst combat troops, most don’t have PTSD. They have Post-Traumatic Growth; that is, their experiences evolve them into stronger, more capable people.”
Yen believes that, as more companies see the correlation between a military background and energy industry needs, career opportunities for those who have served honorably and successfully will grow. Valor has an extremely high success rate with its placements—a retention rate of nearly 100 percent.
What a powerful way to thank our veterans for their sacrifice that, in part, kept the necessary fuel flowing. Hire them to make America energy-secure.
[A version of this content was originally published on Breitbart.com]
Policy analysts and pundits alike seem to enjoy downplaying the U.S. economy’s recovery since the recession of 2008/9. It is time for them to wake up and smell the roses: The U.S. economy clearly is the dominant economy of the world. The European Union’s death rattle continues, while China is encountering a litany of unforeseen problems.
By contrast, the U.S. economy is holding up well. Industrial production is at its highest point since 2008. While our manufacturing firms aren’t producing 100 percent of what they’re capable of producing, many are at 60 to 80 percent of capacity, and moving in the right direction. Jobless claims are at their lowest since 2000; as a share of the U.S. labor force, unemployment claims are at their lowest point since record-keeping began in the 1970s. Manufacturing payrolls are increasing steadily and new job creation has been over 200,000 a month for some time. Declining gas prices should be a boon to consumers and retailers, though oil stocks will take a hit. The oil and gas industry can withstand lower prices for its products; according to the Energy Information Administration, due to advancing technology, the amount of oil and gas produced from every modern well has increased by 300 percent over the past four years. In the second quarter of 2014, gross domestic product (GDP) increased by more than 4 percent.
Discretionary spending by consumers appears to be on the rise. Large western ranches are being sold at record prices, and Harley Davidson reports big increases in the sale of its motorcycles, not generally purchased out of need but rather for fun. The company reports 71 percent of its sales are now in the U.S.
The 18 Euro area countries are showing no growth, with output in 2014 below that of 2011 as reported by the European Commission. They still blame it on the recession of 2008. In fact, with few exceptions, these countries are spending more as a share of GDP than before. Brian Wesbury reported in an October 15 article in The Wall Street Journal, “Euro area government spending was 49.8 % of GDP in 2013 versus 46.7 in 2006.” At a time when they should be on an austerity kick, they are on anything but.
In October of this year I had the opportunity to be in Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Holland, and Luxembourg talking to folks about their economy. They appear to be oblivious to their long-term problems. Germany, once the economic guiding light of Europe, has seen its growth grind to a halt as renewable energy investment is making many manufacturers uncompetitive. We are likely to see many new European manufacturing plants built in the United States in the near future to take advantage of energy costs, often 70 percent lower here than in their native countries.
Italy, with the most convoluted labor laws, has seen efforts to reform met with huge protests in the streets. Older workers have unbeatable protections against being fired, laid off, or disciplined, regardless of poor performance. Firms in France cannot close a factory without finding new jobs for all its workers.
While a poor European economy does create a drag on the U.S. economy, that drag is small. Josh Zumbrun, writing in The Wall Street Journal on October 22, says, “Among major economies the U.S. is less reliant on export demand from overseas. Exports account for only about 14% of U.S. gross domestic product.” He goes on to compare this to 51 percent for Germany and 26 percent for China, according to the World Bank. Perhaps more important, trade with Europe represents only 15 percent of our foreign trade.
We have gotten used to hearing China may one day over take the U.S. economy, but this is not likely anytime soon. They are presently going in the wrong direction. Economic growth has slowed significantly and they can no longer rely on low labor costs, which are rising rapidly. China’s slowdown is due in some part to enforcement of environmental regulations that had been ignored in the past. They have run into banking problems, with an uptick in non-performing loans, while corporate and domestic debt has risen from 120 percent of GDP to 170 percent. The country’s domestic consumption is only 36 percent of GDP, while ours is 70 percent.
Due to a low birth rate, China’s labor force is expected to decline by 67 million people in the next 15 years, likely pushing manufacturing to other countries. While government officials there are beginning to loosen the one-child-per-family policy, the country’s actual birthrate is well below one child per family. Many families choose to have no children, so it will take at least two generations to create an adequate stream of workers.
Once the United States wakes up to the fact that it remains in the world’s driver’s seat, we will see more companies hire more people, with unemployment continuing to fall. If we have one economic problem it is that today’s jobs require more skills than are being taught in our public schools. Further growth is going to require an improvement in our K–12 education system. More and more companies are participating in local school training and creating apprentice programs, so this is a problem we can and will solve. We have a great economic future for years if not decades to come.
First, in a column entitled “The Obama Opposition,” Charles M. Blow crudely accused President Obama’s detractors of racism. Despite having declared defiantly to Eric Cantor in 2009 that “I won” and to John McCain in 2010 that “The election is over,” the President shouldn’t be considered arrogant or intransigent, Blow suggests, but simply – what? Dictator by fiat?
For as Blow then recounts, Obama’s 2013 response to Republicans was: “You don’t like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position. Go out there and win an election.” Which Republicans, of course, promptly did, in both 2010 and 2014.
Republican’s 2010 gains in the House directly repudiated the Democrats having crammed an unpopular health insurance law down voters’ throats by a single lame-duck vote in the Senate. And just last week, after Obama had foolishly (but correctly) reminded voters that his policies were on the ballot, pro-Republican voters not only shellacked the President’s party but added a few extra coats of varnish for good measure, taking over state legislatures and governorships in addition to the U. S. Senate and increasing their hold on the House of Representatives.
So where Blow sees racism, a clearer head sees a still-majority white national electorate that put a black man the White House on the promise of hope and change but expected to his promises fulfilled. Having considered the President’s poorly-executed domestic policies and his lack of leadership abroad, the electorate held the President’s party responsible: they went out there and won (lots of) elections even as they narrowly let Obama keep the White House. Race had nothing to do with it.
Paul Krugman, in his “Death by Typo,” was even more outrageous, pre-emptively characterizing a Supreme Court that has not yet even ruled on an Obamacare-related issue as “corrupt.” Krugman’s reasoning – if his poisonous screed even rises to that level – is that the Supreme Court just might construe a law that Congress passed to mean what it actually says. Or, as Nancy Pelosi might say, you actually have to read the bill to find out what’s in it.
Readers may recall that Chief Justice Roberts ruled that Congress has no power under the commerce clause to order “we the People” of the United States to buy health insurance, but saved the Act for Obama on the grounds that Congress may tax people who decline to buy insurance. Taxes and tax subsidies are in fact central to its scheme.
Part of Obamacare’s tax-based scheme was also to encourage states to set up health insurance “exchanges” by giving federal income tax credits to the residents of states that did, and to withhold them from the states that didn’t. That part of the law, at least, could not be clearer. Yet when 36 states declined to set up exchanges, the President’s (or is it Lois Lerner’s?) IRS decided to subsidize people in all the states anyway. But the law simply doesn’t read that way, as any Nobel Prize-winning economist ought to know. So Krugman is reduced to calling “established by the states” – which appears throughout the statute – merely a “typo” and pre-emptively asking stupidly “How corrupt is the Supreme Court, anyway?”
Krugman should actually read the Affordable Care Act, look up the meaning of “state” in the dictionary, and then go read the Constitution until it sinks in: it’s the duty of Congress to pass the laws, of the President to enforce them faithfully, and of the courts to correct the President when he misreads or misapplies them. Anything else is unconstitutional.
But this is, after all, the New York Times. Some folks say it’s not fit to wrap the fish in.
I say that it is.