Earth Day - what are we really celebrating?

Sunday is Earth Day.

What? You didn't know?

It seems that every April 22nd, we're supposed to celebrate our planet. Personally, I 'celebrate' it every day considering it provides for my very existence, but what do I know?

What we're actually celebrating, though it's not really described as such, is the birth of the environmental movement.

It all started in 1970:

Earth Day 1970 capitalized on the emerging consciousness, channeling the energy of the anti-war protest movement and putting environmental concerns front and center.

At the time, Americans were slurping leaded gas through massive V8 sedans. Industry belched out smoke and sludge with little fear of legal consequences or bad press. Air pollution was commonly accepted as the smell of prosperity. “Environment” was a word that appeared more often in spelling bees than on the evening news. Although mainstream America remained oblivious to environmental concerns, the stage had been set for change by the publication of Rachel Carson's New York Times bestseller Silent Spring in 1962. The book represented a watershed moment for the modern environmental movement, selling more than 500,000 copies in 24 countries and, up until that moment, more than any other person, Ms. Carson raised public awareness and concern for living organisms, the environment and public health.

Yes, Silent Spring, a book that in 1992 had been named one of the most influential books of the past 50 years. In case you're not familiar with it, the book 'detailed' all the alleged horrors of modern chemicals and the damage they would do to the planet and its inhabitants. Its main focus was the pesticide DDT.

The American military began testing it in 1942 and it quickly became the cardinal weapon used by the military to protect troops in areas laden with vector-borne diseases such as typhus and malaria. It was so effective at halting the spread of these diseases that it was hailed as "the wonder insecticide of World War II." (Bailey)

After the war was over, farmers adopted the use of the pesticide. It was both cheaper - as low as $0.25 per pound - and less damaging than previous arsenic-based insecticides which had absolutely disastrous consequences.

The use of DDT is credited with eliminating malaria in the southern states and the World Health Organization says its prevention of malaria is responsible for saving between 50-100 million lives. But Carson put forth another perspective, as this article from 2002 explains:

Memorably, she painted a scenario in which birds had all been poisoned by insecticides, resulting in a "silent spring" in which "no birds sing."

The scientific controversy over the effects of DDT on wildlife, especially birds, still vexes researchers. In the late 1960s, some researchers concluded that exposure to DDT caused eggshell thinning in some bird species, especially raptors such as eagles and peregrine falcons. Thinner shells meant fewer hatchlings and declining numbers. But researchers also found that other bird species, such as quail, pheasants, and chickens, were unaffected even by large doses DDT.

On June 14, 1972, 30 years ago this week, the EPA banned DDT despite considerable evidence of its safety offered in seven months of agency hearings. After listening to that testimony, the EPA's own administrative law judge declared, "DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man...DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man...The use of DDT under the regulations involved here [does] not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife." Today environmental activists celebrate the EPA's DDT ban as their first great victory.

But there were serious problems with Carson's position:

To bolster her case for the dangers of DDT, Carson improperly cited cases of acute exposures to the chemical as proof of its cancer-causing ability. For example, she told the story of a woman who sprayed DDT for spiders in her basement and died a month later of leukemia. In another case, a man sprayed his office for cockroaches and a few days later was diagnosed with aplastic anemia. Today cancer specialists would dismiss out of hand the implied claims that these patients' cancers could be traced to such specific pesticide exposures. The plain fact is that DDT has never been shown to be a human carcinogen even after four decades of intense scientific scrutiny.

Of course, any good scare tactic is only better when you include children. Carson claimed in her book that "Today, more American school children die of cancer than from any other disease." But even that was a distortion.

It turns out that the percentage of children dying of cancer was rising because other causes of death, such as infectious diseases, were drastically declining.

In fact, cancer rates in children have not increased, as they would have if Carson had been right that children were especially susceptible to the alleged health effects of modern chemicals.

The article continues (emphasis added):

The Great Cancer Scare launched by Carson, and perpetuated by her environmentalist disciples ever since, should have been put to rest by a definitive 1996 report from the National Academy of Sciences, Carcinogens and Anticarcinogens in the Human Diet. The NAS concluded that levels of both synthetic and natural carcinogens are "so low that they are unlikely to pose an appreciable cancer risk." Worse yet from the point of view of anti-chemical crusaders, the NAS added that Mother Nature's own chemicals probably cause more cancer than anything mankind has dreamed up: "Natural components of the diet may prove to be of greater concern than synthetic components with respect to cancer risk."

Meanwhile, Carson's disciples have managed to persuade many poor countries to stop using DDT against mosquitoes. The result has been an enormous increase in the number of people dying of malaria each year. Today malaria infects between 300 million and 500 million people annually, killing as many 2.7 million of them. Anti-DDT activists who tried to have the new U.N. treaty on persistent organic pollutants totally ban DDT have stepped back recently from their ideological campaign, conceding that poor countries should be able to use DDT to control malaria-carrying mosquitoes.

So 40 years after the publication of Silent Spring, the legacy of Rachel Carson is more troubling than her admirers will acknowledge.
...
Along with other researchers, she was simply ignorant of the facts. But after four decades in which tens of billions of dollars have been wasted chasing imaginary risks without measurably improving American health, her intellectual descendants don't have the same excuse.

Or, as Tom Blumer of BizzyBlog wrote at Newsbusters:

The real "lesson" is that "Silent Spring" was perhaps the first successful use of junk science paired with corporation-bashing media hype to fool the general public.

Today, the same people who refuse to acknowledge the truth about DDT have embarked upon another 'junk science' premise - that humans are responsible for global warming that is going to devastate the planet. From the Earth Day web site:

Earth Day 2010 came at a time of great challenge for the environmental community. Climate change deniers, well-funded oil lobbyists, reticent politicians, a disinterested public, and a divided environmental community all contributed to a strong narrative that overshadowed the cause of progress and change. In spite of the challenge, for its 40th anniversary, Earth Day Network reestablished Earth Day as a powerful focal point around which people could demonstrate their commitment. Earth Day Network brought 225,000 people to the National Mall for a Climate Rally, amassed 40 million environmental service actions toward its 2012 goal of A Billion Acts of Green®, launched an international, 1-million tree planting initiative with Avatar director James Cameron and tripled its online base to over 900,000 community members.

The fight for a clean environment continues in a climate of increasing urgency, as the ravages of climate change become more manifest every day. We invite you to be a part of Earth Day and help write many more victories and successes into our history.

Considering how wrong these people were about DDT, it is any wonder so many (including prominent scientists) are skeptical about their global warming claims? The fact that they had to change the name to 'climate change' should tell you everything you need to know.

Earth Day is not a celebration of this magnificent, wonderful, beautiful planet that provides all the things we need to live and survive. It's not a thankfulness for the riches in the ground and in the sea. It's certainly not an appreciation for the innovators and entrepreneurs who created the methods to allow us to use these resources to make our lives better. But it should be.

Instead, it's a political ploy to advance an agenda - based originally (and continually) upon junk science that has caused untold misery and millions of death.

So tomorrow, when they tout all the feel-good, care for the earth, sustainability news, remember that this is what they want you to celebrate.

Local Dems ignore truth, parrot Obama lies about Reagan and Buffett Rule

In recent speeches about his proposed Buffett Rule, President Barack Obama has invoked President Ronald Reagan three times in the hopes of convincing conservatives and Republicans to support his new tax.  As if that would help.

The Buffett Rule would set a minimum tax rate of 30% for anyone who earns $1 million or more in a year.

Obama said he'd change the name to the Reagan Rule if it meant gaining such support:

"I'm not the first president to call for this idea that everybody's got to do their fair share. Some years ago one of my predecessors traveled across the country pushing for the same concept. He gave a speech where he talked about a letter he had received from a wealthy executive who paid lower tax rates than his secretary and wanted to come to Washington and tell Congress why that was wrong.

So this president gave another speech where he said it was "crazy" – that's a quote – "that certain tax loopholes make it possible for multi-millionaires to pay nothing while a bus driver was paying 10% of his salary."

That wild-eyed socialist, tax-hiking, class warrior was Ronald Reagan.

He thought that in America the wealthiest should pay their fair share and he said so.

I know that position might disqualify him from the Republican primaries these days but what Ronald Reagan was calling for then is the same thing that we're calling for now: a return to basic fairness and responsibility, everybody doing their part.

And if it'll help convince folks in Congress to make the right choice, we could call it the Reagan rule instead of the Buffett rule."

The only problem is that, like so many other historical references the President has made, he completely distorts the facts and truth of the matter, as Philip Klein at the Washington Examiner explains:

Yes, it’s true that on June 28, 1985, Reagan gave a speech to Bloom High School in Chicago Heights, Illinois about problems with the tax code in which he told an anecdote about an executive who was paying a lower tax rate than his secretary. But if you read the whole speech, it’s clear that Reagan was telling the story as part of his pitch for tax reform.


“Lower, flatter tax rates will give Americans more confidence in the future,” Reagan said that day. “It'll mean if you work overtime or get a raise or a promotion or if you have a small business and are able to turn a profit, more of that extra income will end up where it belongs -- in your wallets, not in Uncle Sam's pockets.”


So there are several key differences with Obama. To start, Reagan was talking about simplifying the tax code, whereas Obama’s Buffett Rule would add another layer of complexity. Reagan was arguing for allowing people to keep more of their own money and reduce the burden of government. By contrast, Obama is arguing for instituting the Buffett Rule so that more money is available to pay for government programs.


Reagan’s push for tax reform helped lead to landmark reform legislation the following year that broadened the tax base, consolidated the nation’s 14 brackets into just two and lowered the top marginal income tax rate from 50 percent to 28 percent. This is actually pretty close to the framework that Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., outlined in the House GOP budget and couldn’t be more far off from Obama’s Buffett Rule gimmick.

But the facts didn't stop local Democrats from jumping on the bandwagon.  Lucas County Treasurer Wade Kapszukiewicz and Commissioner Tina Skeldon Wozniak defended the President's call to tax the rich more.
 

The county treasurer stated even the late President Reagan believed the rich should pay their "fair share" of taxes.

Lucas County commissioner Tina Skeldon Wozniak stated the Buffett Rule ensures billionaires pay their fair share alongside the middle class. The comments come ahead of a U.S. Senate vote Monday on the president's proposal and was part of an organized statewide effort by the Obama re-election campaign.

As a treasurer, certainly Kapszukiewicz should understand the difference between income tax and capital gains taxes. Capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than payroll income - they are not comparable.

Anyone who gets a paycheck pays payroll taxes.  In Ohio, a person earning $1 million per year from a paycheck would actually pay 31.4% in federal income tax while that same person earning $15/hour would pay only 5% in federal income tax.

Using this payroll tax calculator, I found that a married person filing jointly with two exemptions and earning $1 million per year - or $19,250/week - would pay $6038.36 each week in federal income tax.  That's 31.4%

But that same married person filing jointly with two exemptions earning $31,200 per year - or $600/week - would pay $29.78 each week in federal income tax.  That's 5%.

Apparently Skeldon-Wozniak, who said, "It's not fair for the bus driver to pay 10% and the millionaires to pay nothing," hasn't got a clue what the tax rates are or what people actually pay.

Now, when these two individuals file their 1040s, they will be eligible for certain credits and deductions based upon their individual choices (charitable contributions), spending (unreimbursed business expenses and out-of-pocket medical costs).  Those deductions and credits (most available to both earners equally) will determine if they receive any of their paid taxes back as a refund - or if they owe more.  But the tax rate - the amount they must pay before they get their take-home pay - clearly shows that the millionaire would pay six times as much as the middle income earner.

What I didn't see in any of the news reports on the statements from the President and the parroting by our local Democrats is a question about the people who don't pay any federal taxes at all.

As this chart shows, "...“The percentage of people who do not pay federal income taxes, and who are not claimed as dependents by someone who does pay them, jumped from 14.8 percent in 1984 to 49.5 percent in 2009.”

That means 151.7 million Americans paid nothing in 2009. By comparison, 34.8 million tax filers paid no taxes in 1984."

So I sent an email to both Kapszukiewicz and Skeldon-Wozniak to ask them two simple questions:

Since nearly half of the nation does not pay anything at all in income tax, what is the 'fair share' of that group?

How much should those who are currently paying nothing at all be required to pay in order for them to pay a 'fair share'?

I will publish their responses if and when I receive them.

These are the facts.  Obama, Kapszukiewicz and Skeldon-Wozniak don't want to talk about the millions of people who don't pay anything, much less their own 'fair share.'  They just want to get more out of the people who are already paying.

And they stupidly think that taking quotes from Ronald Reagan out of context and trying to distort Reagan's clear record in support of lower, flatter tax rates will somehow help them accomplish that goal?

Who is advising these people?!?

Sadly, this again demonstrates what we already know:  that our local elected officials care more about politics than anything else. 

The scary part is that Kapszukiewicz is part of the Obama for America Truth Team.  Perhaps he and Skeldon-Wozniak should learn the truth instead of just repeating false political rhetoric.

Why do we 'fight' and who are we fighting with?

I was reading about Governor Ted Strickland's "Fight for Ohio Bus Tour" and it struck me - why do political campaigns and candidates use the term 'fight'?

I don't recall if the term was used in any of my campaign commercials, but my impression is that the use of the term is on the rise:

"fight for you"
"fight for my district"
"fight for Ohio"
"fight the special interests"
"fight the spending"

and on and on and on.

Do you think that the use of the word is indicative of the more polarized political environment? Or has it spurred more polarization?

Not to pick on Gov. Strickland, but since it was his bus tour that started me down this road, I cannot help but wonder who he is fighting against? And why must he fight? Aren't we supposed to be trying to get along with our enemies and 'understand' them? Aren't we supposed to reject violence in favor of talk and mediation and compromise? Don't we teach our children not to fight and to find other means to resolve our differences?

Don't these political messages contradict other messages the politicians are sending?

I realize this post is full of questions and not many answers, but I admit that I don't know the answers.

What I do know is that 'fighting' for me or for my state is supposed to evoke an emotional response to make you want to trust, or agree or have confidence in the person promising to do so. It's supposed to make you feel as if the politician is on your side. But I don't make decisions about voting based upon emotion, though I know others do. So is this supposed to appeal to baser instincts in hopes of overcoming logic, reason and evaluation of records?

Again, I don't know. But I cannot help but think this approach is part of an overall problem and not a solution in and of itself.

Is it time to freeze federal wages?

According to The Cato Institute:

"Federal Pay Continues Rapid Ascent
Posted by Chris Edwards

The Bureau of Economic Analysis has released its annual data on compensation levels by industry (Tables 6.2D, 6.3D, and 6.6D here). The data show that the pay advantage enjoyed by federal civilian workers over private-sector workers continues to expand.

The George W. Bush years were very lucrative for federal workers. In 2000, the average compensation (wages and benefits) of federal workers was 66 percent higher than the average compensation in the U.S. private sector. The new data show that average federal compensation is now more than double the average in the private sector."

The article includes several charts which dramatically highlight the difference between federal and private-sector pay, especially when benefits are included.

"In 2008, federal worker compensation averaged a remarkable $119,982, which was more than double the private sector average of $59,909."

No wonder most Americans think our government is out-of-control and has no real understanding of economic realities. As Edwards notes, with pay like this, federal workers are "insulated from the economic reality of recessions and from the tough competitive climate of the private sector." Plus they have job security that most in the private sector would never dream is even possible.

With all the talk from politicians (of both parties) in Washington, does anyone find it strange that bemoaning the debt of the nation and talking about 'fiscal responsibility' never extends to doing what many state and local governments are doing - freezing wages, laying off workers and *gasp* actually cutting spending?

Ohio unemployment: numbers vs. percentage

The media was awash yesterday with the news that Ohio's August unemployment rate of 7.4% was the highest it's been since 1992.

EGAD!!! It's all Bush's fault!
NO - it's that Democrat Strickland!

But the reality of the situation is a bit different when you take a look at the details and not just just the headlines and the spin.

The unemployment rate is a reflection of the number of people unemployed divided by the total estimated number of people in the labor force and then multiplied by 100 to get the percentage.

And percentages can be deceiving.

If you have 100 people available to work and 20 of them are out of work, your unemployment rate is 20%. If you have 1000 people available to work and 50 of them are not working, your unemployment rate is 5%. Obviously, if you're comparing only percentages, it would seem that the 20% rate was much worse, even though fewer people are unemployed.

So it is with Ohio's rate. The number of people unemployed in August in Ohio was, according to the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, 445,000. If you look at their historical records, that's actually 38% less than the record number of 715,200 unemployed in December 1982.

We had fewer people unemployed in August 2008 than we did in December 1982.

But, because we have fewer people in the workforce these days, the percentage is high.

We are, of course, comparing apples to apples in that the unemployment rate is always the number of people not working divided by the total estimated number of people who can work. But what does it really mean?

Is Ohio worse off now, because of a higher rate, than it was in 1982 when more people were actually unemployed? That's the question.

Sadly, the facts behind the statistics are often overlooked when it comes to how politicians and others spin the numbers. With a Democrat governor, Republicans will blame the high percentage on him and his administration of the state. This being a presidential election year, Democrats will blame the Republican in the White House.

And in trying to put the blame on each other, they will miss the real problem: that Ohio has not been a place where businesses want to be, which is why we have residents who cannot find jobs, and that our out-of-work residents either can't or won't do the jobs that are available.

Ohioans (both employed and unemployed) would be better off if those politicians would focus on making our state more business friendly, rather than focusing on how to 'spin' the numbers.

What's all the fuss about?...what the charter really says about a balanced budget

Toledo city council and the mayor are going back and forth about whether or not the mayor has to submit a balanced budget to city council in November. The political dispute over this issue between A-Team and B-Team democrats, the alliance of the republicans with the B-Team mayor and all the press conferences about the claimed 'retaliatory' actions as a result are saturating the airwaves.

Some councilmen (vote of 8-4) decided to place an amendment to the city charter on the ballot...the amendment would add the word 'balanced' to the provision for the mayor's budget submission to council in November of each year. On the surface, that appears to be a logical change in our city charter.

But if you read the actual language of the charter, you'll find the following:

Section 45. Mayor's Budget Estimate.
The fiscal year of the City shall begin on the first day of January. On or before the fifteenth day of November of each year, the Mayor shall prepare a budget estimate of the expense of conducting the affairs of the City for the following fiscal year. The estimate shall be compiled from detailed information obtained from the various departments on uniform blanks prepared by the Director of Finance, and shall set forth:

(a) An itemized estimate of the expense of conducting each department.

(b) Comparisons of such estimates with the corresponding items of expenditure for the last two complete fiscal years, and with the expenses of the current fiscal year, plus an estimate of expenditures necessary to complete the current fiscal year.

(c) Reasons for proposed increases or decreases in such items of expenditures compared with the current fiscal year.

(d) A separate schedule of each department showing the things necessary for the department to do during the ensuing year, and things desirable to do if funds permit.

(e) Items of payroll increases as either additional pay to present employees or pay for more employees.

(f) An estimate of the anticipated income of the City from taxation and other sources to meet current expenses for the fiscal year.

(g) A statement of the amounts to be appropriated: For interest on the City debt. For paying off any serial bonds maturing during the year. For the aggregate for the year of the installments required to be appropriated annually during the life of all other bonds of the City in order to pay off such bonds at maturity.

(h) The total amount of outstanding gross and net debt of the City, classified as to limits on such indebtedness, with a schedule of maturities of outstanding general bonds classified to show those for which debt service levies are made inside and outside the limits on the tax rate.

(i) Such other information as may be required by Council.

The total items of current expense in the budget and appropriation ordinance shall not exceed the amount available for such purpose as provided by law. The Mayor shall submit the estimates thus prepared to the Council and at least five hundred (500) copies thereof shall be printed for distribution to citizens who may call for them and the substance thereof shall be printed in the City Journal.

(Amended by electors 11-3-92)

Two key points: 1) "the total items of current expense...shall not exceed the amount available" means balanced. I know that it doesn't use the word 'balanced,' but the meaning is clear. 2) "Such other information as may be required by Council" means that council already has the authority to require that the mayor identify ideas and suggestions for obtaining a balanced budget.

So, since it appears the charter already requires a balanced budget and it appears that council already has the authority to make other requirements of the mayor in order to develop a balanced budget, what's all the fuss about?

It's all about political posturing. The idea of adding a word to the charter sure does sound simple - and it's such common-sense message. I mean, who wouldn't want to make sure that the charter requires a 'balanced' budget. But it's all smoke and mirrors, because the word isn't needed if the other provisions in the charter already require the budget submission to be balanced.

And the time and attention spent on this issue so far have certainly resulted in a significant amount of publicity for a lot of people...but if council had really wanted to handle the budgetary process differently, they ALREADY have the authority to require items or other things from the administration - and they could have done so without amending the charter.

Following council's vote, the mayor suggested that the number of council members be reduced from 12 to 8.

So the issue has gone from a balanced budget, to a reduction in the number of councilmen, to a reduction in the mayor's salary, to a charge of violating the charter by mentioning candidates during a council meeting, to a legal review...to who knows where it will end up?

This is not to say that such issues as number of council members and mayor salary are not substantive nor deserving of discussion and consideration. However, the main purpose of raising these issues is strictly to use them as a political ploy. They're just the topic de jour in the never-ending battle for power and control of the city.

In the meantime, FedEx is probably going to move to Wood County - if they actually stay in the state, population is continuing to decline, and taxes are continuing to rise. At what point will these warring political factions abandon their petty bids for control and actually focus on the job they were elected to do?

Of course, that would require them to understand they weren't elected to 'control' but, rather, to serve.