January 2012

Thomas Sowell on the Value of Consumer Choice

by Ivan Osorio on February 2, 2011 · 1 comment

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Regulation

One of Thomas Sowell’s greatest insights is that in public policy, there are no solutions, only trade-offs. That extends to deciding what to spend money on, even when some purchases that are foregone might be perceived as valuable.

However, that value on which the purchasing decision is made is entirely relative to the other options at hand. In his most recent column, Sowell explains that point nicely:

Under a headline that said, “Obama May Find Useless Regulations Are Scarcer Than Thought,” the [New York] Times writers declared that there were few, if any, “useless” regulations. But is that the relevant criterion?

Is there any individual or business willing to spend money on everything that is not absolutely useless? There are thousands of useful things out there that any given individual or business would not spend their money on.

When I had young children, I often thought it would be useful to have a set of the Encyclopedia Britannica for them. But I never bought one.

Why? Because there were other little things to spend money on, like food, clothing and shelter.

By the time I could afford to buy a set of the Encyclopedia Britannica, the kids were grown and gone. But at no time did I consider the Encyclopedia Britannica “useless.”

Weighing benefits against costs is the way most people make decisions — and the way most businesses make decisions, if they want to stay in business. Only in government is any benefit, however small, considered to be worth any cost, however large.

Worse, when large costs go to pay for small benefits, the result is a net loss. Government, by operating independently of the market, has nothing against which to compare the relative value of the things it spends money on. Explained that way, it’s not hard to see why costly government “stimulus” spending doesn’t work.

“You can’t always get what you want” may not be the most pleasant thought, but much more unpleasant is the harm that can result from trying to ignore it.

Suspend Obamacare’s 1099 and OTC Drug Rules Pending Supreme Court Action

by John Berlau on February 2, 2011 · 3 comments

in Economy, Healthcare, Regulation

Monday’s decision by Florida federal judge Roger Vinson striking down the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — also known as Obamacare — in its entirety was a huge and welcome victory for constitutional liberties. As CEI’s Hans Bader, who along with CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of the governors of Minnesota and Rhode Island, wrote on the ruling, “Judge Vinson rightly declared the health care law’s individual mandate unconstitutional, since the inactivity of not buying health insurance is not an ‘economic activity,’” and “correctly noted” that “the individual mandate provision also was not ‘functionally’ severable from the rest of the law.”

But although the ruling is clear, a major point about its effect is still up for debate. To what degree is the health care law void until a higher court rules on it? At first, Obamacare supporters expressed relief that Vinson didn’t issue an injunction, but a closer reading of the decision indicates the judge believed the “declaratory relief” he issued makes the law unenforceable. The Cato Institute’s Ilya Shapiro argues that “declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officer are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction.”

So, in the spirit of recent discussion the about bipartisan initiatives to root out counterproductive regulations harming the economy, here’s a suggestion. Until the Supreme Court issues a ruling, the Obama administration should suspend enforcement of the regulations from the Affordable Care Act that have proved to be the most burdensome to doctors, entrepreneurs, consumers, and savers and investors. The administration could do this in much the same way that it publicly stopped enforcement of federal marijuana laws against users of medical marijuana in contravention of state law (an action that I supported).

The top two regulations of Obamacare with the most widespread burden on the general public are:

1. The requirement that businesses file form 1099 for any single purchase in which a vendor is paid $600 or more.

2. The stealth “medicine cabinet tax” that prohibits consumers for purchasing over-the-counter drugs — including pain relievers, prenatal vitamins, and Pedialyte for kids — with their flexible spending accounts and and health savings accounts unless they go through the the cumbersome process of getting a doctor’s prescription.

The 1099 rule shouldn’t be a problem for the Obama administration to suspend. After initially opposing an amendment by Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) to repeal the measure last year, the president enthusiastically called for scrapping the mandate in his State of the Union Address last week. Democrats such as Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow have followed his lead in saying they wish to repeal it. Vinson in fact cited the 1099 rule in his decision as an example of a provision of the law that had gotten bipartisan criticism and may not have been enacted if not for the need to raise revenue from the core provisions of the law.

Sen. Johanns has shared powerful examples of how the rule is harming small entrepreneurs in Nebraska and across the country. A small fire truck manufacturing company told him the rule will cost the firm an extra $23,000 in accounting fees. A restaurant owner says the rule “forces me not to hire local vendors” and instead go through a “single regional contractor.”

The “medicine cabinet tax” on HSAs and FSAs has created a similar paperwork burden as well as outright confusion about how to comply with the law. Requiring a prescription defeats the purpose of over-the-counter drugs. The number of prescriptions that consumers have to request and doctors have to write and renew could likely go up more than ten-fold. That is, if consumers simply don’t decide to get the prescription drugs that may now be cheaper for them to buy, but more expensive to the health care system. As an editorial in the San Jose Business Journal puts it, “No one is going to pay for the doctor’s visit, spend time in the doctor’s office, or schedule time off work to accomplish this.”

Retailers also face a big burden. Payment systems were already programmed with a list of eligible OTC drugs for medical account debit cards to prevent cheating with these accounts, alleviating one of the concerns this provision supposedly addresses. But now, cashiers may have to play the role of pharmacists in verifying a prescription, a process that will likely add substantial costs in time and money, resulting in price increases across-the-board for retail items.

Although the 1099 rule and medicine cabinet tax can both be ended before full repeal of the health care law, it should be remembered that they were enacted because of the flawed process of ramming this bill through Congress. Both are gimmicky revenue “offsets” done so the Congressional Budget Office would technically score Obamacare as reducing the deficit, and score repeal of the law or even of these individual provisions as increasing it. Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein, a chief cheerleader of the law, scolds that by going after the 1099 rule and flex limits, ”GOP looks to make Affordable Care Act less fiscally responsible.” (Though in the same column, Klein said he would “reform” the 1099 rule, but wasn’t specific on how to do this.)

However, experts looking at these provisions have said they will have a negligible effect on the deficit, and, particularly in the case of the OTC drug rules, may even increase it. IRS National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson has stated that the rule’s “new reporting burden … may turn out to be disproportionate compared with any resulting improvement in tax compliance.” The IRS already has ways to track vendors’ income without this rule, and Olson added that  rule could “be a burdensome task … for the IRS itself,” requiring substantially more spending to enforce it.

As for the OTC drug rules, if they shift folks with HSAs and FSAs toward  more expensive prescription drugs, government and private sector costs could explode by the billions. As I have noted previously, a 2005  study in the American Journal of Managed Care found that the Food and Drug Administration’s clearing of antihistamines such as loratadine (Claritin) for over-the-counter sale saves about $4 billion a year in health care costs. These savings could be wiped out if patients are discourage from buying OTC drugs, and there would also be the added costs of the doctor’s visits to get the prescriptions. Many of these costs would be absorbed by the government, which under the law is subsidizing health care plans for individuals with income up to 400 percent greater than the poverty level. This would, of course, greatly add to the deficit.

So for fiscal reasons and to remove burdens from consumers and entrepreneurs, Congress should repeal these rules, waiving the technical pay-as-you-go rules if necessary. In the meantime, the Obama administration should suspend enforcement of these and other burdensome rules until there is a ruling on constitutionality of the law in its entirety from the Supreme Court.

The GOP and the Health Insurance Mandate

by Greg Conko on February 2, 2011 · 2 comments

in Health and Illness, Healthcare, Insurance, Personal Liberty, Regulation, Zeitgeist

With the health insurance individual purchase mandate looking more vulnerable than ever, Democrats are trying desperately to get some mileage out of the fact that it was Republicans who first proposed the idea. Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein posted an interview yesterday afternoon with University of Pennsylvania economist Mark Pauly, who is sometimes identified as the “father of the individual mandate.” Klein writes:

“Pauly was the lead author of a Health Affairs paper attempting to persuade President George H.W. Bush and his administration to adopt a universal health-care proposal that would keep the government from eventually taking over the sector. … At the heart of that strategy was the individual mandate, which would go on to be promoted by congressional Republicans, the Heritage Foundation, and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney before being adopted by Democrats and becoming a bete noire of conservatives.”

It’s true, of course, that Republicans seized on the purchase mandate idea, as Pauly suggests, “because we were concerned about the specter of single payer insurance, which isn’t market-oriented, and we didn’t think was a good idea. One feature was the individual mandate. The purpose of it was to round up the stragglers who wouldn’t be brought in by subsidies.” In a 1991 paper published in the journal Health Affairs (pdf), Pauly and his co-authors wrote that, “Our view is that excessive government intervention will make matters worse. … Our strategy, therefore, is to design a scheme that limits governmental rules and incentives to the extent necessary to achieve the objectives.”

The GOP bit into it hook, line, and sinker. But a little context is necessary.

In November 1991, Democrat Harris Wofford beat expected favorite Dick Thornburg in a special election to replace deceased Pennsylvania Senator John Heinz in 1991, running primarily on a platform centered around universal health care. And the following year, Bill Clinton won the presidency after making universal health care a central feature of his campaign. There was genuine fear among Republicans that First Lady Hillary Clinton’s Health Care Task Force would propose legislation that included a single payer plan, so Republicans scrambled to design their own proposals that would be “less bad.”

Republican Senator John Chaffee introduced the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act, and Republican Senator Don Nickles and Rep. Cliff Stearns introduced the Consumer Choice Health Security Act, both of which contained an individual health insurance purchase mandate and attracted dozens of Republican co-sponsors. (As an aside, Democrats have seized on liberal Republican Chaffee’s bill as an example of conservative hypocrisy while ignoring the bill introduced by actual conservatives Nickles and Stearns. It’s not clear why this is. Perhaps just laziness, but maybe I’m just reading into things?) And, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the conservative Heritage Foundation entertained a similar feature, and then Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney also included a purchase mandate in his state’s health care overhaul, for which both should be roundly condemned.

It’s worth noting, though, that most of us in the free market movement have never embraced the health insurance purchase mandate. And I’m proud to dig out of the archives an old Cato Institute paper (pdf) written by my former CEI colleague Tom Miller (now at the American Enterprise Institute), which roundly criticizes the 1993-94 Republican compromise legislation. Tom found a lot of faults in those bills, and he singled out the individual purchase mandate as being especially egregious.  While acknowledging that, from a political perspective, “any legislative alternative to the Clinton plan must guarantee universal coverage,” he wrote:

The most troubling aspect of the Nickles-Stearns legislation, as introduced on November 20 [1993], is the mandate that it imposes on all Americans to purchase a standard package of health insurance benefits. By endorsing the concept of compulsory universal insurance coverage, Nickles-Stearns undermines the traditional principles of personal liberty and individual responsibility that provide essential bulwarks against all-intrusive governmental control of health care.

Tom concluded that, “By failing to provide a clear alternative based on market principles, Nickles-Stearns blurs opposition to Clinton-style health care legislation. By focusing the political debate on the wrong issues, it opens the door to extensive political interference in private health care decisions.” Indeed.

Morning Media Summary

by Lee Doren on February 2, 2011 · 1 comment

in Economy, Energy, Environment, International, Legal, Personal Liberty, Regulation, Trade

Tech:

Google accuses Microsoft on search data:
“Google has accused arch-rival Microsoft of plagiarising its internet search results in an attempt to narrow the big lead that Google still holds in the highly profitable search business.”

AT&T faces lawsuit over billing:
“AT&T is facing a lawsuit over one Californian’s data bill that could blossom into a costly class-action case, the plaintiff’s attorneys said.”

U.S. Resume Controversial File-Sharing Domain Seizures (Updated):
“Rojadirecta is known as one of the world’s major Internet sports broadcast indexes. The site links to broadcasts of many popular soccer matches plus other sporting events including NBA, MLB, NFL, NPB, IPL.”

Global Warming / Environment / Energy:

An Answer for Bill (By Al Gore):
“Last week on his show Bill O’Reilly asked, “Why has southern New York turned into the tundra?” and then said he had a call into me. I appreciate the question.”

Don’t panic: oil traders adapt to $100 a barrel:
“This, time, though, even as oil moves above $101 a barrel to trade at its highest in more than two years, the message from analysts and traders is “stay calm”. Prices are heading higher, but are unlikely to challenge the record high of July 2008. Nobody is panicking.”

House panel endorses extending wind moratorium:
“A House committee on Tuesday endorsed legislation that would extend a moratorium on the ability of wind farm developers to forcibly take land so they can stretch power lines to their turbines.”

Insurance / Gambling:

US House Oversight Committee Urged To Review UIGEA:
“The government is attempting to address laws that are stopping the growth of businesses and jobs in the country. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act is one of those laws that millions of Americans would like to see eliminated.”

Health / Safety:

Tobacco cessation versus the Med School?:
“A House committee is considering a plan to divert money from the tobacco settlement to a project at the University of North Dakota Medical School. The project is designed to increase the number of doctors who go to rural areas — and to beef-up other medical training. It also includes a new building. But some of the money would come from part of the settlement that voters in 2008 decided should be spent specifically on tobacco prevention and cessation programs. And as Prairie Public’s Dave Thompson reports, supporters will need a two-thirds vote of both houses to overturn that initiative.”

Economics:

Three possible Freddie and Fannie reform scenarios:
“On February 9, House Republicans will begin their effort to reform government sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant mortgage lenders many blame for the 2008 financial collapse. The firms were both left out of the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill that was passed last summer to remedy the causes of the most recent recession.”

Legal:

President Obama snubs Issa on first major document deadline:
“TheDC Exclusive – The Obama administration snubbed top GOP oversight official Rep. Darrell Issa on his first major document deadline as new chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, sending a short letter promising to comply in response to a major information request that was due Saturday at noon.”

Labor:

Stop the hate campaign against law-abiding American business:
“The SEIU has been waging open-borders attacks on restaurant chain Chipotle simply because the company complied with federal immigration law and fired employees unable to provide valid documentation that they’re here legally. Less than two weeks ago, the Purple Army dispatched its goons to Minneapolis to disrupt business at a downtown Chipotle. Similar protests were staged at Chipotle locations in CA, CO, CT, DC, FL, IL, NY and VA. Judging from this video, the Big Labor business-bashers are having quite the party making a living by impeding the work of others:”

Top Union Boss Calls for Violence:
“We Have an Agenda Worth Fighting For… Even If We Have to Take to the Streets and Do What Needs to be Done” (Video)
“Recently at the Pennsylvania Progressive Summit, Leo Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers called for violence:”

Transportation/ Land Use:

China to sell bullet train technology:
“China is ready to sell its high-speed bullet train technology to other countries, authorities said.”

FCIC Report Perhaps Too Communicative

by Kathryn Ciano on February 1, 2011 · 1 comment

in Economy, Precaution & Risk, Regulation

Because I so often write letters — which are not always published — I thought I’d share them here.

Here’s one to the WSJ regarding an editorial this week:

Dear Editor:

Holman Jenkins concludes his editorial regarding the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission’s new report as nonoffensive, nonexplanatory, and “soft-hitting” (“What Caused the Bubble?” Business World, Jan. 29). While Mr. Jenkins correctly characterizes the report as chiefly political — rather than useful — in nature, FCIC’s account of what caused the crisis is very communicative.

The FCIC quite clearly communicated that the government is still unwilling to stop shifting baselines under investors’ feet. The report did not “say nothing,” as Jenkins suggests. Instead, the report urged investors to maintain their stranglehold on their purse strings.

Investors anticipated that the report would indicate how the government is approaching finance and regulation in this recession era. The Federal Reserve exists for the sole purpose of preventing bubbles. Businessmen want to know: Will leadership confess that the Fed failed utterly to perform its only job, and will the government finally stop subsidizing the boom/bust cycle surrounding that failure?

Bubbles are caused when investors hoard assets in response to government subsidies and bailouts obscuring risk. In times when government action is frequent, costly, and uncertain, investors cannot possibly predict what will come next, which will result in more bubbles.

All information from on high conveys that the period of uncertainty is far from over. As long as no one will admit that the government plays a role in economic risk and incentives, investors cannot trust the government to stop.

Kathryn Ciano
Washington, D.C.

Smart-Growthers Still Upset by Introduction of Newfangled Horseless Carriages

by Marc Scribner on February 1, 2011 · 2 comments

in Mobility, Personal Liberty, Zeitgeist

As somewhat of an anti–”smart growth” groupie, I try to keep up with their various online writings. Everyday, it’s like finding buried treasure. Take yesterday, for example, which gave us gems such as racial explanations for the lack of minority bike-share use to this article about the battle raging between the somewhat-more-sensible greeniac landscape urbanists and the urban form–obsessed New Urbanists.

But this Streetsblog post from today really stood out. Often mocked as Luddites by those with a more libertarian outlook on land-use and transportation policy, it appears that smart-growthers may be starting to embrace the change-resistant biases once held by their great-great-grandparents who developed these mindsets upon seeing horseless carriages for the first time. The only difference is that their great-great-grandparents eventually came around to comprehend the huge mobility benefits that occurred following the rise in American auto ownership.

Judging by the recent media backlash against a few bike lanes in New York City, you would think that roads have been the exclusive domain of cars since time immemorial.

Not so, as Peter D. Norton recounts in his book, “Fighting Traffic — The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City.” When cars first entered cities in a big way in the early 20th Century, a lot of people were not happy about it — like angry-mob not happy.

People were shocked by the carnage that resulted from motor vehicle crashes and outraged by new restrictions imposed on pedestrians. Newspapers of the time overwhelmingly sided against drivers, Norton writes.

Oh, if only angry mobs of New Urbanists had been around to correct the behavior (if you know what I mean) of car-owning deviants. We could have been spared the inhumanity of those who desire to go farther in less time, for less money, in order to improve their standard of living and increase their social opportunities. The best part is when the Streetsblog author laments that roads are no longer used in the same way as they had been “for thousands of years.” Curse you, technology, wealth, and progress!

Nanny of the Month (Jan 2011)

by Lee Doren on February 1, 2011 · 1 comment

in Economy, Nanny State, Odds & Ends

Reason.TV has come out with their “Nanny of the Month” for January 2011. Apparently, New York’s problems are fixed because a politician is advocating in favor of a bill that would make it illegal to cross the street while iPodding, cell-phoning or being otherwise engaged with an electronic gadget. Some people have too much time on their hands.

Photo Link

On Mountaintop Mining Veto, EPA Is Guilty of Environmental Hyperbole

by William Yeatman on February 1, 2011 · 8 comments

in Economy, Energy, Environment, Natural Resources

On January 13, the Environmental Protection Agency vetoed the issuance of a Clean Water Act permit by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to the Mingo Logan Coal Company for the Spruce No 1 Mine in Logan County, West Virginia. This is the first time EPA has used this authority.

We’re in the midst of a difficult economy, and EPA’s unprecedented action will result in the loss of 250 jobs, paying on average $62,000, so you would think the EPA has compelling case against the Spruce No 1 Mine. Unfortunately, you’d be wrong.

I audited the EPA’s veto, titled “Final Determination of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Pursuant to 404(c) of the Clean Water Act Concerning the Spruce No. 1 Mine, Logan County, West Virginia (“Final Determination”), and what I found was troubling.

The document is pure environmental hyperbole. It is riddled with mistakes, incorrect citations, and false certainty. Indeed, virtually all of the EPA’s definitive claims about the “unacceptable adverse impacts” to non-insect wildlife are unsupported by the literature it cites. Among the lowlights:

  • The EPA’s claim that “6.6 miles of high quality stream” will be buried conveniently omits the fact that 99.6% of the streams are intermittent or ephemeral, that they scored “below average” on a habitat assessment, and that they fall well short of meeting West Virginia’s definition of “high quality” streams.
  • The EPA asserts that five species of fish would be buried, despite the fact that no fish were found at the site.
  • The EPA commits numerous referencing mistakes, including direct two misquotes. Throughout the document, the EPA draws incorrect conclusions from the literature it cites.
  • The EPA has a serious language problem. Science writing is performed in the conditional. EPA, however, almost uniformly uses the declarative case. As its veto is based on a literature review, the EPA repeatedly infers certainty where there is none.

See for yourself.  In Chapter 5, titled “Basis for Determination,” the EPA explains the “unacceptable adverse effects” that justify its decision. Below is table of contents for the EPA’s “Basis for Determination.” For all the sections within which the EPA makes dubious claims, I’ve created a link to my review. Each link contains the EPA’s thesis (or theses) for that section, taken directly from the text of the document, and then a rebuttal in italics.

V. Basis for Determination

A. Section 404(c) Standards

B. Evaluation of Impacts

C. Unacceptable Adverse Impacts on Wildlife within the Spruce No. 1 Mine Project Area

1. Macroinvertebrates

2. Salamanders & Other Herpetofauna

3. Fish

4. Water-Dependent Birds

*A Note on the Legality of the EPA’s Use of “Direct” Impacts To Justify Its Veto

D. Unacceptable Adverse Impacts on Wildlife Downstream of the Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material from the Spruce No. 1 Mine

1. Increases in Pollutants Harmful to Wildlife

a. Selenium

b. Total Dissolved Solids

2. Macroinvertebrates

a. Impacts Due to Changes in Water Chemistry

b. Food Web Effects of Altered Macroinvertebrate Communities

3. Salamanders & Other Herpetofauna

4. Fish

a. Potential To Promote the Growth of Golden Algae

b. Increased Exposure to Selenium

5. Water-dependent Birds

In summary, the EPA has evidence that certain genera of pollution-sensitive insects would be harmed downstream of the Spruce No 1 Mine, due to increases in salinity discharge from the project. Everything else (i.e., all of the EPA’s claims about amphibians, fish, and birds) is either scientifically unfounded or legally irrelevant.

The EPA’s Ad Hoc “Science”

When the EPA first objected to the permit, it was much more honest about the underlying science. In a letter dated September 3, 2009, in which the EPA first expressed its Clean Water Act concerns about the Spruce No 1 Mine to the  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, it said that

“Since the issuance of the permit in January 2007, new information and circumstances have arisen which justify reconsideration of the permit. Based upon prior research and confirmed in 2008 by research conducted by EPA, we are concerned data were available and was not evaluated…In particular, we are concerned about the project’s potential to degrade downstream water quality, and to cause or contribute to potential excursions of West Virginia’s narrative water quality standards”

The 2008 study cited by the EPA in the letter provided evidence that saline effluent from mountaintop mining operations in Appalachia harmed certain pollution sensitive insects. According to the EPA, this “new information” engendered concerns about “the project’s potential to degrade downstream water quality.” In the Final Determination, however, the EPA states that its “conclusion that the Spruce 1 Mine as authorized would cause unacceptable adverse effects on wildlife is not dependent on a conclusion that West Virginia’s water quality standards will be violated at or downstream of the site (Final Determination p 51).”

Between the September 2009 letter and the January 2011 Final Determination, the EPA changed its justification. In the EPA’s initial objection to the Spruce No 1 Mine permit, it stated that its concern was the degradation of downstream water quality. And by “degradation,” EPA was referring to the extirpation of certain pollution-sensitive insects. But in its Final Determination, the EPA claims that degraded water quality is not its concern. Instead, it broadened its objections to include “unacceptable adverse impacts” to wildlife caused by the Spruce No 1 Mine.  What happened?

It appears as if the EPA believed that its initial objection to the Spruce No 1 Mine-that it would harm pollution-sensitive insects-wasn’t meaty enough to justify an action that would prevent the creation of 250 well-paying jobs. After all, few Americans would rally around an administration that is willing to trade jobs for bugs. So the EPA tried to expand its case against the mine, in order to incorporate “adverse impacts” on birds, amphibians, and fish. This sort of ad hoc “science” would explain why the EPA’s Final Determination is shoddy when it addresses adverse impacts to non-insect wildlife.

Who Governs: EPA or Elected Officials?

So, the EPA is guilty of environmental hyperbole. In its Final Determination, the EPA alleges “unacceptable adverse impacts” to amphibians, fish, and birds, but after you strip away all the pseudoscience, the EPA’s veto is based on the project’s adverse impacts to insects that aren’t even endangered species.

To the average environmental scientist, the extirpation of pollution-sensitive insects alone is enough to justify the shutdown of all surface coal mining in Appalachia. In July 2010, I attended a public peer review of the EPA’s “The Effects of Mountaintop Mines and Valley Fills on Aquatic Ecosystems of the Central Appalachian Coalfields,” and almost every scientist present (there were fourteen) was genuinely shocked-SHOCKED!-at the loss of entire orders (genera) of pollution sensitive insects downstream of surface mines.

I bet 9 out of 10 environmental scientists would oppose mountaintop mining, based solely on its adverse impact to insects. But I also bet that 9 out of 10 American non-scientists (and 10 out of 10 West Virginians) would oppose a plan to forsake 250 well paying jobs in order to protect bugs. Therein lies the rub: Elected officials, not scientists, establish priorities in this country. Or at least that’s the way it’s supposed to work.

In West Virginia, the people have spoken through their elected officials, and their support of the Spruce No 1 Mine is unequivocal and adamant.

In 2010, by a unanimous vote, the West Virginia State Legislature resolved that its definition of “water quality” are satisfied when “the aquatic community is composed of benthic invertebrate assemblages sufficient to perform the biological functions necessary to support fish communities…” In effect, the Legislature was saying that the State of West Virginia is concerned about insects only insofar as they support fish. It was a direct response to the EPA.

Shortly after the EPA’s veto, West Virginia Governor Earl Ray Tomblin led a rally to protest the decision. According to the Governor, “We must stand up and show federal regulators that we will not retreat from their unfair actions. We will continue the fight not just for the Spruce Number One mine but for every coal miner, coal company and for our way of life.”

The State’s entire Congressional delegation also is on record with strong denunciations of the EPA’s veto. Here’s a roundup of statements from their press releases on the matter:

A unanimous legislature, the governor, the entire Congressional delegation…every single statewide elected official in West Virginia gives priority to job growth over insect-protections. This sentiment extends to the local level, too:

The people of West Virginia, through their public officials, have expressed their belief that jobs are more important than insects. The EPA is wrong to reverse these priorities.

Long Island Nanny-State Lawmakers Need to Get Priorities Straight

by Angela Logomasini on February 1, 2011 · 1 comment

in Nanny State, Personal Liberty

As Suffolk County residents face serious challenges, county lawmakers continue to waste time and tax dollars considering nonsensical “nanny-state” regulations. Today they are holding hearings on a bill offered by Legislator Lynn Nowick that would place regulations on non-alcoholic energy drinks.

Nowick wins the award for county “Nanny-in-Chief.” In 2008, she offered the bill that banned verbally communicated “blue-plate specials.” Now restaurants can only offer specials in print with prices included — or pay steep fines.

The law addresses what amounts to a “pet peeve” of Nowick’s. Apparently, she doesn’t it like when waitstaff communicate specials without mentioning the price because some customers might be afraid to ask a simple question: How much?

Why didn’t she consider the possibility that wasting paper, ink, and valuable time would be a “pet peeve” of the thousands of struggling small businesses forced to comply? To avoid the hassle, some over-worked mom-and-pop restaurateurs might simply do away with blue-plate specials — depriving customers who once enjoyed them.

This year, Nowick wants to protect kids against the “perils” vitamin B, caffeine, and maybe some sugar. Is she after dark chocolate? Not yet.

Instead, Nowick’s bill would ban sales of non-alcoholic energy drinks containing 80 or more milliliters per serving — some with sugar, some without, and most with vitamins and caffeine — to anyone under 19 years old. Retailers will bear the burden of carding energy-drink buyers or risk stiff fines. Another bill she proposed would require stores to post warning signs about the “dangers” associated with these products.

Most energy drinks contain no more caffeine than a cup of coffee or maybe two — and can be enjoyed responsibly. For example, the Mayo Clinic reports on its website that a generic coffee contains 95-200 milligrams of caffeine per 8-ounce serving. Meanwhile the popular energy drink, Red Bull, has 80 milligrams per eight ounce serving.

Still, Nowick fears that that kids will have too much, leading to lost sleep and elevated heart rates. Well, if that’s a huge problem, we also need to restrict coffee, chocolate, sodas, sweet tea — you name it. Where will it end? Might we eventually find half the goods at the supermarket located behind glass and surrounded by warning signs?

Unfortunately, such laws won’t keep kids from doing stupid things. It is the role of parents — not government — to monitor their childrens’ behavior and prepare them for the choices that lie ahead.

The legislature has already held one energy drink hearing last December, and it has booked another hearing for February 1. At the December hearing, the energy drink bill had seven co-sponsors — just shy of a majority of the 18 members.

One voice of reason, however, is Independent Party Legislator Jack Eddington (District 7) who, according to press reports, wisely commented at the hearing: “I don’t like telling 18-and-19-year-olds what they can and can’t do … They can fight in a war, but they can’t buy an energy drink? Where are our priorities?”

Eddington is right: it’s time to get priorities in order. Homes are going into foreclosure as property taxes climb. Many unemployed continue to search for jobs, and small businesses struggle to keep their doors open.

Suffolk has real problems. It’s time for lawmakers to set their pet peeves aside and start focusing on the issues that matter.

Image credit: z3taa’s flickr photostream.

Morning Media Summary

by Lee Doren on February 1, 2011

in Economy, Energy, Environment, International, Legal, Personal Liberty, Regulation, Trade

Tech:

200GB to 25GB: Canada gets first, bitter does of metered Internet:
“Metered Internet usage (also called “Usage-Based Billing”) is coming to Canada, and it’s going to cost Internet users. While an advance guard of Canadians are expressing creative outrage at the prospect of having to pay inflated prices for Internet use charged by the gigabyte, the consequences probably haven’t set in for most consumers. Now, however, independent Canadian ISPs are publishing their revised data plans, and they aren’t pretty.”

Wired: How to Communicate If Your Government Shuts Off Your Internet:

Egypt’s Web blockade raises concerns about ‘kill switch’ for Internet:
“The news of Egypt’s crackdown on Web access is raising new concerns over a comprehensive cybersecurity bill that critics claim gives the president a “kill switch” for the Internet.”

Show trials? Schultz, Sharpton propose FCC review board, public hearings to keep radio talkers in line:
“Some have insisted the chance for the renewal of the Fairness Doctrine is a straw man argument perpetrated by conservatives to stir emotions so that they are able to exploit it politically and that this really isn’t a threat from legislators.”

Google tries to close mobile apps gap with Apple:
“Online search giant Google is in the process of assembling an in-house braintrust to crank out applications for the exploding mobile device market.”

Global Warming / Environment / Energy:

Oil over $100 as Egypt protests intensify:
“Oil prices broke through the $100 a barrel level for the first time in more than two years, amid market fears that Egypt’s turmoil will hit oil flows.”

Mad Meat Making Scientists Proves Climate Doomsayers Wrong:
“Here at my rural retreat in the rolling Dutchess County hunt country in scenic upstate New York, I’m facing a dilemma. I need to get back to New York City for a meeting tomorrow, but the series of monstrous winter snowstorms has made parking scarce in the purlieus of the stately Mead manor in glamorous Queens. I may end up driving and hoping, or I may take the train; either way I won’t be thinking very much about global warming here at the tail end of the snowiest January in the known history of New York.”

Insurance / Gambling:

Va. Senate panel endorses Internet sweepstakes ban:
“A Virginia Senate committee voted Monday to ban computer-based sweepstakes games some legislators said are illegal gambling in disguise.”

Health / Safety:

South Carolina scientist works to grow meat in lab:
“In a small laboratory on an upper floor of the basic science building at the Medical University of South Carolina, Vladimir Mironov, M.D., Ph.D., has been working for a decade to grow meat.”

Hormones In Food: Should You Worry?:
“A salmon that grows to market size twice as fast as normal. Dairy cows that produce 15 percent more milk. Beef cows that grow 20 percent faster.”

Economics:

Nearly 11 Percent of US Houses Empty:
“I usually find the quarterly homeowner vacancy and homeownership report from Census pretty lackluster, but the latest one released this morning was anything but.”

House GOP freshmen poised to push immediate spending cuts above leadership’s goals:
“The massive House Republican freshman class is poised to make their presence felt for the first time in the next few weeks, and will likely push immediate spending cuts above the goal set by House Speaker John Boehner.”

Legal:

Quotes of the day (regarding the Healthcare Ruling):

Federal judge rules Obamacare is unconstitutional in its entirety:
“Here’s a PDF of the opinion. The judge, Roger Vinson, is a Reagan appointee who didn’t hide his skepticism about the law during oral arguments, so the baseline ruling isn’t surprising. A fun hypothetical about the government’s power to force citizens to buy things they don’t want to:”

Labor:

HCA Has Neutrality Agreement With SEIU, California Nurses Association to Allow Union Organization Efforts:
“Hospital chain HCA signed a neutrality agreement with the Service Employees International Union and the California Nurses Association last April allowing the unions to organize workers at 20 HCA hospitals, according to a recent Wall Street Journal report.”

Transportation/ Land Use:

China plans to spend big on nuclear power, high-speed rail:
“State-owned enterprises, rather than the government, will play the main role of channeling the investment, said one source with ties to the leadership.”

Next Entries →