Trump’s Paid Parental Leave Entitlement: Bad for the Economy, Bad for Women

May 30, 2017 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty

In a recent interview on the new Trump budget, I hit on some of my usual topics such as growth, real-world fiscal numbers, tax reform, fake budget cuts, entitlement reform, and my Golden Rule.

But I want to call attention to the part of the discussion that started a bit before the one-minute mark. This is the point where I expressed concern about Donald Trump’s proposed parental leave entitlement.

I’ve written about Trump’s childcare scheme, but that’s a different intervention than what we’re talking about today.

Government-mandated paid parental leave is just as misguided childcare subsidies. It may even be worse. Let’s look at some details.

The Wall Street Journal is unimpressed by Trump’s plan to expand the welfare state.

Mr. Trump’s budget would require states to provide six weeks of paid family leave for new mothers and fathers, as well as adoptive parents. States would have “broad latitude to design and finance” the benefit, which would be delivered through unemployment insurance. States would be forced to work out how much to pay parents, whether to ban a beneficiary from working during the leave, and dozens of other details. The budget says the program will cost the feds $25 billion. The cost is offset in theory by reducing waste and abuse in unemployment insurance. The left is naturally panning the plan as stingy. …Once an entitlement is codified it expands. Proponents note that underwriting the benefit requires only a tiny increase in taxes, or some other levy on businesses. But wait until Democrats double or triple the duration of the leave, which they will do as soon as they are in power. The idea that Republicans can propose a cost-effective entitlement is delusional… The left chants that every industrialized country in the world offers some form of paid family leave—even Oman!—but one reason European countries have inflexible labor markets and higher unemployment is because they make hiring more expensive.

The final sentence is the key.

Why on earth should the United States mimic the policies of nations that have less growth, more unemployment, and lower per-capita economic output?

And James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute agrees that if Republicans start the program, Democrats will expand it. But his citation of some academic research is the best part of his article.

…how could the left not be secretly thrilled? Even if Trump’s bare-bones plan doesn’t become law, it sets a sort of precedent for Republicans supporting paid leave. And should the plan pass Congress and get signed by Trump, it establishes a program that future Democratic presidents and lawmakers can expand. …A 2017 study, by UC Santa Barbara economist Jenna Stearns, of maternity leave policy in Great Britain found that…there’s a tradeoff: Expanding job protected leave benefits led to “fewer women holding management positions and other jobs with the potential for promotion.” Likewise, a 2013 study by Cornell University’s Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn found family-friendly policies…also “leave women less likely to be considered for high-level positions. One’s evaluation of such policies must take both of these effects into account.” …In a classic 1983 paper on mandated benefits like paid leave, former Obama economist Lawrence Summers explained businesses would offset higher benefits with lower pay or hiring workers with lower potential benefit costs. You know, tradeoffs.

Amen.

And this is why even a columnist for the New York Times has pointed out that self-styled feminist policies actually are bad for women.

The best policies for women are the same as the best policies for men (not to mention all the other genders that now exist). Simply stated, allow free markets and small government.

P.S. Government-mandated paid parental leave is a bad idea even when the idea is pushed by people at right-wing think tanks.

Maxine Waters: The Left’s Best Against Donald Trump?

Ken Blackwell Posted: May 30, 2017

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Ca.) said there is something “tragically wrong” with President Donald Trump. His advisers and friends are “a bunch of scumbags.” He is creating “chaos and division.”
But “we can’t wait” for the next election since “He will have destroyed the country by then.” So he must be impeached. Now.

Of course Rep. Waters believes something is wrong with President Trump. He’s a Republican. Actually, what she said about him is tame compared to what she said about then-House Speaker John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor: “These are demons” who are “destroying this country.”

Of course, anyone concerned about the country should remember the mess President Barack Obama left when he exited the Oval Office in January. And despite the flurry of baseless charges and empty claims, there’s no evidence that President Trump has abused his position—unlike Rep. Waters......To Read More....

Washington Post Reporter Called A White Nationalist

Mike Adams  May 30, 2017

Washington Post reporter Cleve Wootson was recently given the responsibility of reporting on a lawsuit in which I am involved. The story he was assigned to write is actually quite simple. A California university unconstitutionally denied a student group’s request for funding to host a conservative speaker (me) on their campus. The decision to deny funding was a blatant case of viewpoint discrimination that is supported by a mountain of evidence. Thus, Wootson had an easy story to write if he simply stuck to the facts. Instead, his article wound up being a masterpiece of bad journalism.

Wootson begins his article with an image of campus violence that is totally unrelated to the group that invited me to speak. He then provides a list of “white nationalists” who have recently spoken on other campuses. He continues his journalistic hit piece by characterizing Charles Murray as a person who "has been called a white nationalist" – because, of course, anonymous accusations define the man........... Here is a newsflash for Cleve Wootson: Cleve Wootson has also been called a white nationalist!

Of course, I don’t have to say who called Cleve Wootson a white nationalist because I am using the journalistic standards of Cleve Wootson and The Washington Post. Nor do I need to mention the fact that Cleve Wootson is actually black. I’m not interested in accuracy. I just know that calling someone a white nationalist is the best way to impugn his character and to shut him down when he is trying to speak. What’s good enough for the Washington compost and Cleve Wootson is good enough for me!

But none of this business about “truth” matters to Cleve Wootson, who has been called a white nationalist..........Did I mention that he has also been linked to white nationalism?......To Read More...

Vladimir Putin a bigger threat than Islamic State, John McCain says

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Russian President Vladimir Putin is a bigger threat to world security than the Islamic State group, US senator John McCain has told the ABC.  The Republican also admitted in an exclusive interview with 7.30 that President Donald Trump sometimes made him "nervous".  During a visit to Canberra, Senator McCain said Mr Putin was the "premier and most important threat, more so than ISIS"......To Read More....

My Take - McCain is a strange man.  It's been said one of the most dangerous places in the world is standing between these publicity seeking politicians and a camera.  I wonder what would happen if he, Schumer, Pelosi and Maxine were running to be in front of the same camera? 

Breakup of the West?

We Americans have had about enough' of NATO allies' behavior

Pat Buchanan

By the time Air Force One started down the runaway at Naval Air Station Sigonella in Sicily, to bring President Trump home, the Atlantic had grown markedly wider than it was when he flew to Riyadh.

In a Munich beer hall Sunday, Angela Merkel confirmed it.   Europe must begin to look out for itself, she said, “take our fate into our own hands. … The times in which we could rely fully on others, they are somewhat over.”

Merkel’s apprehensions are understandable. A divorce could be in the cards. During his visit to NATO in Brussels and the G-7 in Sicily, Trump, with both his words and body language, revealed his thinking on who are friends and who are freeloaders..........From his rough remarks, Trump sees the Europeans as freeloaders on U.S. defense, laggards on their NATO contributions and mercantilists who craft policies to run endless trade surpluses at our expense, especially the Germans who are “bad, very bad.”

The European half of Trump’s trip should be taken as a fire-bell-in-the-night warning: Shape up, Europe, or you may find yourselves on your own when it comes to the defense of your continent.

For we Americans have had about enough...........Read more

My Take - For those of you who've been reading my comments for some time you will recognize a recurring theme - Bretton Woods is over and Europe is doomed. 

They have bitten the hand that has fed them for almost 75 years.  And that hand is going to happily walk away and leave them to their own devices.    We don't need them - they desperately need us.  When the cards have all been played Europe will be a third rate continent desperately making economic deals with former colonies - favorable to those colonies - to stay alive. 

Here's the thrust of it all.  America is a natural capital generator that can feed itself, fuel itself, arm itself and defend itself without one bit if help from Europe or anyone else for that matter. 

Europe is incapable of doing any of those things.  It has the technology, but America  currently bares the cost of defending them.  When that changes their defense costs will skyrocket, and no country in Europe has an economy that can sustain their defense needs.  It's fortunate for Europe Russia is no better.  At some point Europeans will realize their real enemies are the Angela Merkels of Europe and the immigrants they keep letting in. 

 

Dear Mr. President: Please Exit Paris

Are you are still wondering whether to Exit Paris? Overseas and US officials, environmentalists and bureaucrats urge you to Remain. But you promised voters you would Exit. Please keep your promises.

Exit Paris isn’t about the environment. It’s about letting us utilize our fossil fuel energy to create jobs, rebuild our economy, and Make America Great Again. It’s about avoiding immense transfer payments from the USA to foreign governments, bureaucrats and parties unaccountable to Trump-voting taxpayers.

Worse, even if the USA Remains, and the repulsive payments flow, Paris offers no help in removing real air pollutants. Carbon dioxide isn’t one of them, by the way: it’s plant food, not poison.

Exit Paris: Business

Some high profile American companies recently signed a note urging Remain. Follow the money. Many leaders of those companies didn’t support your election and voted Hillary. And they expect to get billions from us taxpayers and consumers, for locking up our fossil fuels and switching to renewable energy.

We who voted Trump, your base, want Exit. Just as you promised.

Remain, so that we maintain markets for American energy technologies? Some companies will make off like bandits. The rest of us will get skewered. Global buyers of energy systems understand the benefits of America’s world-beating fossil technologies. They understand the life-cycle value of after-sales support poorly delivered by our international competitors. Trust Chinese warranties? We don’t either.

Why ask corporations about Remain or Exit Paris? They pass Remain-driven energy costs on to consumers. Instead, ask consumers about ever-increasing energy bills. You’ll get a different answer.

Corporations have shareholders in the USA, of course, and some of them elected you. But corporations also have European shareholders. Corporations there must survive political economies aligned with Paris’s unaccountable bureaucratic control of energy, jobs, economic growth and living standards. You have to choose: shareholders, entrepreneurs, consumers and families – or rent seekers and bureaucrats.

Renewable energy lobbyists, Obama holdovers – and misguided souls in your own administration – say Remain, to keep a seat at the table. That’s nonsense. Businesses were flogged by the past administration and no longer recognize their obligations to shareholders, much less to societies they are supposed to serve with reliable, affordable power that creates and preserves jobs.

Those companies responded to incentives in a massively hostile American political economy. Those hostilities represent decades-long campaigns by anti-energy groups that got rich while claiming to represent shareholders, and by foreign governments seeking transfer payments. You promised change.

Exit Paris: Group of Seven

Mr. President, you’ll be pressured mightily at the G7 to Remain Paris. Hugely-invested and conflicted world leaders will give you no peace. Your delegation will hound you. Keep your Exit staff close. Why?

Because America got snookered into signing the Arctic Council’s May 11, 2017, Fairbanks Declaration. Now the same pro-Remain forces will claim America wants that language. What language?

Start with Perambulatory Paragraphs 8 and 9: “Reaffirming the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and the need for their realization by 2030.” And this: “U.N. Sustainable Development Goal 13.a: Implement the commitment undertaken by developed country parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to a goal of mobilizing jointly $100 billion annually by 2020 from all sources to address the needs of developing countries in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, and fully operationalize the Green Climate Fund through its capitalization as soon as possible.”

They want to take our money, while they shackle our economy. But there’s more.

Paragraph 31 (p. 6): “…we welcome the updated assessment of Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic, note with concern its findings, and adopt its recommendations.…The Arctic states, permanent participants, and observers to the Arctic Council, should individually and collectively lead global efforts for an early, ambitious, and full implementation of the Paris COP21 Agreement….”

Your State Department Obama-carry-overs slipped this one past their boss, Secretary Tillerson – and you, by extension. This is where the real art of the deal comes in. Take a leadership role and terminate this. Don’t get sandbagged. Don’t sandbag the people who voted for you. Resist the pressures you’ll face in Sicily. Anything but Exit Paris undermines your credibility and betrays voter trust and America’s future.

Exit Paris: Diplomacy

One reason cited to Remain Paris and Remain UNFCCC and their climate treaties is to “avoid diplomatic blowback.” There certainly will be that, but it’s a cost far more easily borne than the sum of what we paid yesterday and will be told we must pay tomorrow in lost energy, jobs and money. Follow the money:

Emerging nations want the USA to Remain because they expect billions in cash from us every year – plus free technology transfers – at US corporate, taxpayer and consumer expense. Advanced countries want us to Remain because we will inadvertently fund and sign onto programs that they use to seize ever-greater bureaucratic control over energy, resources, jobs and living standards, within their own borders and ours.

The Chinese want us to Remain because it protects access to our market for energy technologies. Do you believe Chinese press releases and speeches that claim they are switching massively to renewable energy? Neither do we. But we see them building more coal-fired power plants in China, Africa and elsewhere.

Europeans want us to Remain in Paris to ensure that our fossil fuels, energy prices, economy, jobs, living standards and ability to compete globally are as shackled by climate insanity as theirs already are.

Some say Remain Paris for a seat at the table. Will the planet otherwise forget American leadership? Better that the deal crumbles without us making huge transfer payments and shackling our economy. Even better is that you lead America and the world back from the climate hysteria precipice.

Anti-America, anti-energy forces unite at the UN and its UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Its director, Ambassador Espinosa of Mexico, spoke recently at Georgetown University – to advocate greater bureaucratic control over energy, natural resources, jobs, living standards and human lives. The past administration was in lock-step with this. You should absolutely be against every part of it.

Exit Paris: Science

Paris is a horrible idea, since unassailable empirical evidence demonstrates that: Carbon dioxide makes plants grow faster and better. Atmospheric CO2 levels trail rather than lead warming. Water vapor is a much more potent greenhouse gas. Thanks to carbon dioxide, agricultural productivity has increased over recent decades by over $3.2 trillion. Scientists project up to $10 trillion more in improved crop yields over the coming decades.

Climate science is absolutely not settled. Smart scientists who support you prove there’s no credible path to climate cataclysm due to fossil fuel use and CO2 increases. Doomsayers have gotten rich by peddling false, alarmist, anti-scientific claims, while the rest of us have suffered. This must not continue.

To support Exit Paris, you should reverse the absurd, scientifically unsupportable claim that carbon dioxide “endangers” our welfare. Doing that will substantially remove the ability of subsequent administrations to restore policies that demonize fossil fuels and CO2. Many of the policies addressed and corrected by your recent environmental Executive Order are vulnerable until the endangerment finding disappears. Much of the mischief and job killing of the last eight years can be laid at that doorstep.

Exit Paris, because even outgoing EPA officials admit it will not noticeably affect Earth’s temperature.

Exit Paris: US Politics

Paris intentionally provides for ever-tightening restrictions on American citizens and businesses – thus far with no vote by us or the Senate. Who rewrote our Constitution to allow a president, in his final days in office, to impose such a far reaching treaty on us without our advice, consent, approval or vote?

If you need Exit support of fellow elected officials or a constitutional avenue, submit Remain Paris to the Senate. The measure will crash on that rocky shore, giving you all the support you need to Exit Paris.

Your voters heard you promise to Exit Paris. The support you still enjoy from your voters is because we see that you are keeping your promises. Keep this one, too, Mr. President.

Please Exit Paris. Those who voted for you will remember and approve. Those who detest and resist you will still detest and resist you if you Remain.

Thank you for considering our heartfelt analysis.

Sincerely,

Paul K. Driessen and Mark J. Carr

Driessen is an environmental policy analyst and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death. Carr consults on energy, environmental, transportation and agricultural policy. (To contact President Trump about this vitally important Exit Paris issue, go here to sign CFACT’s Say No to Paris petition.)



 

 

More Examples of Terrorism Subsidized by Government Handouts

May 29, 2017 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty


Whenever there’s a terrorist attack, I automatically feel a combination of anger, horror, and sadness. Like all normal people.

But it’s then just a matter of time before I also begin wonder whether we’ll learn that the dirtbag terrorist was financed by welfare.

Which is an understandable reaction since that’s now the normal pattern. Over and over and over and over and over again, we learn that taxpayers were supporting these murderous losers while they plotted and planned their mayhem.

And it’s not random. They’re actually told by hate-filled Imams to sign up for handouts. And European courts protect terrorist households that use welfare to finance death and destruction.

It’s gotten to the point where I even created a special terror wing in the Moocher Hall of Fame.

And it’s happened again. The piece of human filth who murdered 22 people at a concert in Manchester was able to finance his terrorism with handouts from the British government.

The Telegraph has some of the odious details about tax-financed death and destruction.

Salman Abedi is understood to have received thousands of pounds in state funding in the run up to Monday’s atrocity even while he was overseas receiving bomb-making training. Police are investigating Abedi’s finances, including how he paid for frequent trips to Libya where he is thought to have been taught to make bombs at a jihadist training camp. …Abedi’s finances are a major ‘theme’ of the police inquiry amid growing alarm over the ease with which jihadists are able to manipulate Britain’s welfare and student loans system to secure financing. One former detective said jihadists were enrolling on university courses to collect the student loans “often with no intention of turning up”.

But he probably accessed other types of benefits as well, particularly since he never worked and had plenty of cash.

…the Department for Work and Pensions refused to say if Abedi had received any benefits, including housing benefit and income support worth up to £250 a week, during 2015 and 2016. …Abedi, 22, never held down a job, according to neighbours and friends, but was able to travel regularly between the UK and Libya. Abedi also had sufficient funds to buy materials for his sophisticated bomb while living in a rented house in south Manchester. Six weeks before the bombing Abedi rented a second property in a block of flats in Blackley eight miles from his home, paying £700 in cash. He had enough money to rent a third property in the centre of Manchester from where he set off with a backpack containing the bomb. Abedi also withdrew £250 in cash three days before the attack and transferred £2,500 to his younger brother Hashim in Libya

Time for another example. Remember the piece of human garbage in London who mowed down some innocent people with his car before murdering a policeman?

Well, he also was subsidized by taxpayers.

Khalid Masood, the radical ISIS terrorist responsible for London’s Westminster terror attack, did not have a job and was receiving government benefits before engaging in his attack. …Masood had a violent criminal history, including several knife attacks. …Terrorists receiving government welfare is a common theme discovered in many post-terror attack investigations.

Seems like Abedi and Masood should have had their own episode of “Benefits Street.”

There are also new reports on welfare-subsidized terror from continental Europe.

A story in USA Today offers a depressing summary.

Governments across Europe have accidentally paid taxpayer-funded welfare benefits such as unemployment funds, disability pensions and housing allowances to Islamic State militants who have used the money to wage war in Iraq and Syria, authorities and terrorism experts say. Danish officials said this week that 29 citizens were given $100,000 in public pension benefits because they were considered too ill or disabled to work, and they then fled to Syria to fight for the radical group. …Other countries that also have paid benefits to Islamic State fighters…It took eight months before welfare authorities cut off benefits paid to a Swedish national who had joined the terror group in its Syrian stronghold Raqqa. …Authorities concluded that several of the plotters in the Brussels and Paris terror attacks that killed 162 people in 2015 and 2016 were partly financed by Belgium’s social welfare system while they planned their atrocities. …radical Islamic cleric Anjem Choudary, who was jailed for terrorist activities, urged followers to claim “jihadiseeker’s allowance” — a reference to the nation’s welfare system. His phrase echoes a manual released by the militant group in 2015. How to Survive in the West: A Mujahid Guide advises that “if you can claim extra benefits from a government, then do so.”

By the way, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry about the Belgian government’s response.

Are they reducing the welfare state? Of course not.

But you’ll be happy to know that imprisoned radicals lose access to the government teat.

Philippe de Koster, director of Belgium’s agency that fights money laundering and terrorism financing, said steps have since been taken to prevent that from happening again. For example, those convicted of terrorism can no longer receive benefits while in jail.

I’ve already written about welfare-subsidized terrorism in the Nordic nations.

Here’s another story about developments in Scandinavia.

The report examined hundreds of individuals who left to join extremist groups such as Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) between 2013 and 2016. Commissioned at the request of the Financial Supervisory Authority, it has found that the majority was still receiving living allowance, child benefit, maintenance support and parental benefits while abroad, having other people handle their mail to make it look like they were still at home.

The problem seems especially acute in Sweden.

Close to every person who left Sweden to fight for terror groups in the Middle East received welfare to support themselves abroad, according to a new government report. A study of 300 Swedish citizens who fought in Syria and Iraq between 2013 and 2016 shows jihadis are getting increasingly good at getting away with welfare fraud. The individuals often use a person in Sweden to handle paperwork and create the illusion that they’re still in the country. …The most attractive option are government loans to study abroad. The loans are easy to get and thousands of dollars are paid out at once. …The Danish Security and Intelligence Service (PET) recently identified several cases of Danish citizens receiving early pension because they were deemed too sick or disabled to work. They later left the country to fight for Islamic State while the payments continue to get deposited into their accounts. …PET has tried to cut off the benefits since 2014, but current legislation doesn’t allow the payment agency to cut early pensions simply because the recipient is believed to be a terrorist.

Let’s close with something that it either astounding or depressing, or actually both. All of the examples cited above are nations with bloated welfare states. Governments in all those countries consume more than 40 percent of economic output, and more than 50 percent of GDP in some cases.

Belgium is in that latter category, yet one official actually said that it was very difficult to fight terrorism “due to the small size of the Belgian government.”

To me, this is a reminder that the natural incompetence of government becomes worse the bigger it gets.

P.S. Today’s column mocks European government for welfare-subsidized terrorism, but American readers should be careful about throwing stones in glass houses.

The dirtbags who bombed the Boston Marathon were mooching off taxpayers.

And the U.S. refugee program includes automatic eligibility for handouts, making it, in part, a “terrorist-funding welfare scam.”

P.P.S. I suppose a concluding caveat would be appropriate. I’m not making an argument that welfare causes terrorism. That almost would be as silly as the leftists who claim that terrorism is caused by inequality or climate change. Though I do wonder whether people who get government handouts feel a sense of self-loathing that leaves them vulnerable to jihadist ideology.

Deep State: Its long list of leaks

By Monica Showalter May 29, 2017 This Appeared @ American Thinker

The indefatigable Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit has done a yeoman's job of cataloguing all of the Deep State's leaks to the press, providing an invaluable record of the extent to which the Deep State and the minions of the press have teamed up to undermine the administration of President Trump.

It shows the extent of the lawbreaking – many of these acts did violate the law – and the tightly intertwined relationship between the press and its leakers. It's also a useful tool, given its spreadsheet style of presentation. In laying out the violations end on end, it's possible to see patterns in these anonymous leakings and thus identify the perpetrators, who are too cowardly to come out and be named.

It's also a standing rebuke to those who claim there is no such thing as the Deep State and who downplay the barrage of leaks that have plagued the Trump administration, making President Trump's task all but undoable. For documenting history alone, the list has value. It's a great strikeback. With firings reportedly in the works, let's hope Hoft's list unmasks more leakers. 

Obama's ratlines to Russia

By Monica Showalter May 29, 2017

The mainstream press and its Deep State allies in Washington have made a big deal about Jared Kushner's supposed proposal for setting up a back channel of communications with Russia.  One former CIA director is yelling "espionage," and the leftist media hive is echoing the buzz.  One report out there says Kushner will have to take a leave of absence due to all the gravitas of the situation. Or something.

Who knows how powerful this Swamp Strikeback may be in getting Kushner out of town?  But objectively speaking, these howlings are baloney – another fustian case of tears and flapdoodle as the Deep State attempts to assure us it's still relevant.  They really are overdoing it.

Now it comes to pass that far from it being just President Trump, President Obama was all in for back channels of communication, too.  Matt Drudge dug up a 2014 Bloomberg article titled "Inside Obama's Secret Outreach to Russia" to describe, in adoring terms, the former president's efforts to set up his own back channel to Russia.

Double standard? You bet..............More

Cartoon of the Day

North Korea Stares Into the Abyss

By George Friedman May 29, 2017

The U.S. Navy has announced that the USS Nimitz will leave Bremerton, Washington, on June 1, for the Western Pacific. This is the third carrier battle group to be sent to the region – enough to support a broader military mission – and it will take roughly a week to get to its station, after which it will integrate with the fleet.

So here’s the situation: Soon the United States will have its naval force in waters near North Korea. It already has strategic bombers in Guam, and it already has fighter aircraft in Japan and South Korea. The United States is preparing for war, which is still several weeks away – if indeed war actually breaks out. Between now and then, diplomacy will intensify. The international community will demand that North Korea abandon its nuclear program and allow inspectors to monitor the destruction of missiles, fissile material and reactors. And after Pyongyang refuses to heed those calls – which it probably will – the United States will have to decide whether it will strike.........And yet the United States is under pressure to strike. The pressure comes from the thought of a world in which North Korea has deliverable nuclear weapons. Pyongyang may not intend to use them or sell them right now, since its ultimate goal is survival, and having nuclear weapons deters attacks. But no one knows what North Korea will do in a decade or two.........

Alternatively, the United States is also more likely to make economic concessions and political guarantees to North Korea than perhaps it once was. Either way, Washington can’t allow nuclear weapons to exist, and it can’t allow Pyongyang to determine what happens........ Perhaps they knew they would inevitably cross the red line and decided to go for broke. Whatever the reason, they are now in a position where they probably can’t capitulate even if they wanted to..........If he were to capitulate, Kim would appear weak, and that is something he simply cannot afford.

Kim has only bad choices, but for a few reasons, the least bad choice for him is war.......... it seems to me that the U.S. cannot refuse to go to war unless North Korea capitulates. North Korea cannot capitulate............To Read More.... 

My Take - As all of this plays out it confirms my view of what must happen to avoid another Korean war - or even nuclear terrorism - the N. Korean military will have to take action to eliminate Kim as their leader, either through a coup or an assassination.  Even an economic sanction will devastate N. Korean society, which is already undernourished and has been told by their lunatic leader they may have to suffer even more. 

It seems clear to me the only fix is a change in leadership. I'm also convinced that will only happen if lower grade officers take the initiative, just as was done by Stauffenberg against Hitler.   The upper grade officers have been ensconced in N. Korea's military for many years and live a far better life than their follow N. Koreans.  They're tied to Kim and won't do a thing to rock the boat.  But the lower echelon must be able to see how terrible their people are suffering and can only see disaster when an unaccomplished psychotic like Kim is in charge and has made acquiring a nuclear arsenal the center piece of  his foreign policy for reasons that may be obscure at this time, but this article points out why these actions by N. Korea represent a serious threat to world peace.

Single-Payer Suicide: Go Ahead, California, Make My Day

May 28, 2017 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty

In the Dirty Harry movies, one of Clint Eastwood’s famous lines is “Go ahead, make my day.”
I’m tempted to say the same thing when I read about politicians proposing economically destructive policies. Indeed, I sometimes even relish the opportunity. I endorsed Francois Hollande back in 2012, for instance, because I was confident he would make the awful French tax system even worse, thus giving me lots of additional evidence against class-warfare policies.

Mission accomplished!

Now we have another example. Politicians in California, unfazed by the disaster of Obamacare (or the nightmare of the British system), want to create a “single-payer” healthcare scheme for the Golden State.

Here’s a description of the proposal from Sacramento Bee.

It would cost $400 billion to remake California’s health insurance marketplace and create a publicly funded universal health care system, according to a state financial analysis released Monday. California would have to find an additional $200 billion per year, including in new tax revenues, to create a so-called “single-payer” system, the analysis by the Senate Appropriations Committee found. …Steep projected costs have derailed efforts over the past two decades to establish such a health care system in California. The cost is higher than the $180 billion in proposed general fund and special fund spending for the budget year beginning July 1. …Lara and Atkins say they are driven by the belief that health care is a human right and should be guaranteed to everyone, similar to public services like safe roads and clean drinking water. …Business groups, including the California Chamber of Commerce, have deemed the bill a “job-killer.” …“It will cost employers and taxpayers billions of dollars and result in significant loss of jobs in the state,” the Chamber of Commerce said in its opposition letter.

Yes, you read correctly. In one fell swoop, California politicians would more than double the fiscal burden of government. Without doubt, the state would take over the bottom spot in fiscal rankings (it’s already close anyhow).

Part of me hopes they do it. The economic consequences would be so catastrophic that it would serve as a powerful warning about the downside of statism.

The Wall Street Journal opines that this is a crazy idea, and wonders if California Democrats are crazy enough to enact it.

…it’s instructive, if not surprising, that Golden State Democrats are responding to the failure of ObamaCare by embracing single-payer health care. This proves the truism that the liberal solution to every government failure is always more government. …California Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom, the frontrunner to succeed Jerry Brown as Governor next year, is running on single-payer, which shows the idea is going mainstream. At the state Democratic convention last weekend, protesters shouted down speakers who dared to ask about paying for it. The state Senate Appropriations Committee passed a single-payer bill this week, and it has a fair chance of getting to Mr. Brown’s desk.

I semi-joked that California was committing slow-motion suicide when the top income tax rate was increased to 13.3 percent.

As the editorial implies, the state’s death will come much faster if this legislation is adopted.

A $200 billion tax hike would be equivalent to a 15% payroll tax, which would come on top of the current 15.3% federal payroll tax. …The report dryly concludes that “the state-wide economic impacts of such an overall tax increase on employment is beyond the scope of this analysis.”

California’s forecasting bureaucrats may not be willing to predict the economic fallout from this scheme, but it’s not beyond the scope of my analysis.

If this legislation is adopted, the migration of taxpayers out of California will accelerate, the costs will be higher than advertised, and I’ll have a powerful new example of why big government is a disaster.

Ed Morrissey, in a column for The Week, explains why this proposal is bad news. He starts by observing that other states have toyed with the idea and wisely backed away.

Vermont had to abandon its attempts to impose a single-payer health-care system when its greatest champion, Gov. Peter Shumlin, discovered that it would cost far more than he had anticipated. Similarly, last year Colorado voters resoundingly rejected ColoradoCare when a study discovered that even tripling taxes wouldn’t be enough to keep up with the costs.

So what happens if single payer is enacted by a state and costs are higher than projected and revenues are lower than projected (both very safe assumptions)?

The solutions for…fiscal meltdown in a single-payer system…all unpleasant. One option would be to cut benefits of the universal coverage, and hiking co-pays to provide disincentives for using health care. …The state could raise taxes for the health-care system as deficits increased, which would amount to ironic premium hikes from a system designed to be a response to premium hikes from insurers. Another option: Reduce the payments provided to doctors, clinics, and hospitals for their services, which would almost certainly drive providers to either reduce their access or leave the state for greener pastures.

By the way, I previously wrote about how Vermont’s leftists wisely backed off single-payer and explained that this was a great example of why federalism is a good idea.

Simply stated, even left-wing politicians understand that it’s easy to move across state lines to escape extortionary fiscal policy. And that puts pressure on them to be less greedy.

This is one of the main reasons I want to eliminate DC-based redistribution and let states be in charge of social welfare policy.

 

Using the same reasoning, I’ve also explained why it would be good news if California seceded. People tend to be a bit more rational when it’s more obvious that they’re voting to spend their own money.

Though maybe there’s no hope for California. Let’s close by noting that some Democrat politicians in the state want to compensate for the possible repeal of the federal death tax by imposing a huge state death tax.

In a column for Forbes, Robert Wood has some of the sordid details.

California…sure does like tax increases. …The latest is a move by the Golden State to tax estates, even if the feds do not. …A bill was introduced by state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), asking voters to keep the estate tax after all. …if the feds repeal it, and California enacts its own estate tax replacement, will all the billionaires remain, or will high California taxes spark an exodus? It isn’t a silly question.

Of course billionaires will leave the state. And so will many millionaires. Yes, the weather and scenery are nice, but at some point rich people will do a cost-benefit analysis and decide it’s time to move.

And lots of middle-class jobs will move as well. That’s the inevitable consequence of class-warfare policy. Politicians say they’re targeting the rich, but the rest of us are the ones who suffer.
Will California politicians actually move forward with this crazy idea? Again, just as part of me hopes the state adopts single-payer, part of me hopes California imposes a confiscatory death tax. It’s useful to have examples of what not to do.

The Golden State already is in trouble. If it becomes an American version of Greece or Venezuela, bad news will become horrible news and I’ll have lots of material for future columns.

Merkel warns US, Britain no longer reliable partners

AFP May 28, 2017

Europe must take its fate into its own hands faced with a western alliance divided by Brexit and Donald Trump's presidency, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Sunday. Europe "must take its fate into its own hands" faced with a western alliance divided by Brexit and Donald Trump's presidency, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Sunday. The times in which we could completely depend on others are on the way out. I've experienced that in the last few days," Merkel told a crowd at an election rally in Munich, southern Germany. "The times in which we could completely depend on others are on the way out. I've experienced that in the last few days," Merkel told a crowd at an election rally in Munich, southern Germany.

"We Europeans truly have to take our fate into our own hands," she added.

While Germany and Europe would strive to remain on good terms with America and Britain, "we have to fight for our own destiny"..........Sunday's event saw Merkel renew bonds with the Christian Social Union (CSU), Bavarian sister party to her own centre-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU), ahead of a parliamentary vote in September.  Polls show the chancellor, in power since 2005, on course to be re-elected for a fourth term......To Read More....

 

My Take - Well, there some things that stand out to me. 

 

First - It's good she's realized we don't need her, and we're not going to subsidize her insane policies.  When the EU collapses there will be no Bretton Woods to save Europe.

 

Second - She's now forced to embrace France which is not going to help her or the EU at all as France is doomed economically, culturally and socially. 

 

Third - The people of Germany are a smart hard working people who've suffered terribly from Merkle's immigration policy.  A policy that will eventually destroy Germany economically and culturally and they're still going to vote for her. 

 

What's wrong with you Germany?  

Hillary Clinton Blames Her Loss on Right-Wing Domination of the Media

Written by Joe Scudder

Right-wing domination of the media is the only way she can explain why anyone cared about her emails.    Blaming right-wing domination of the media seems stupid, but that is the tactic Hillary Clinton is using. New York magazine has published a long delusional piece on the Clinton defeat:

“Hillary Clinton Is Furious. And Resigned. And Funny. And Worried.”

A lot of it is devoted to the pretense that sexism cost Hillary the election. If sexism was that bad, why didn’t anyone in the media predict here defeat? Another excuse she gives is right-wing domination of the media.....To Read More....

My Take - The election is over, she lost and one thing is clear -  she has no life if she's not involved in politics.  She's running around saying - look at me, look at me, look at me......ad nauseam. 

This is one pathetic person with no insights, no accomplishments, no intelligence and no abilities except these few - get foolish people to adore, blame everyone else for her inadequacies, and whine about how unfair everyone is to her.  Considering all the lies and nefarious things she's been up to her neck in - it's almost insane.  But I'm not sure who's crazier - Hillary or her devotees, and I think she actually thinks she has a shot in 2020, and so do her devotees. 

Pirro: 'There Is a Traitor in the People's House'

Fox News Insider May 28, 2017

 

In her Opening Statement, Judge Jeanine Pirro said federal authorities must identify the "traitorous" leaker inside the Trump White House.

Pirro said that the yet-unknown person giving secretive information to the press is "an enemy of the United States."............Continue Reading.....

 

Thousands Dropped from Food Stamps Due to Work Requirements

Craig Schneider, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, May 24, 2017

Thousands of Georgians have lost their food stamps after the state gave them an ultimatum: Get a job or lose your benefits.

Is that good news or bad news? Depends who you talk to. Placing work requirements on food stamps has proven controversial across the country, with opinions often divided along political lines.
Georgia has been rolling out work requirements for food stamp recipients for over a year. The latest round affected some 12,000 people in 21 counties, several in metro Atlanta, who are considered able-bodied without children........State officials say they plan to expand the work requirements to all 159 counties by 2019, with another 60 coming on board next year.......To Read More....

My Take - Food stamps was a good hearted attempt to help people who due to circumstances couldn't work. Like all federal relief programs this one became corrupted, and they've all turned into unaffordable expensive forms of corruption, with the idea they're all "rights".   It was never intended for people who wouldn't work.  When we keep expanding "rights" without requiring people to accept their responsibilities - we get disaster. 

But perhaps we need to keep emphasizing the "rights" as outlined  in the Constitution are "negative" rights that belong to the citizens which forbids the government from interfering in our lives. 

The "rights" the left talks about are "positive" rights, meaning the government has the right to take what you have and give it to someone else.  Positive rights are tyranny!  Why is that so hard to get?

Why are you making these people rich?

By Brad Lena May 28, 2017

The contempt and disdain among the elite in media, business, pop culture and athletics display towards the people who make them rich is striking. Like the political ruling class, their wealth and social position have insulated them from what much of what the populace experiences.

The political class has engineered law, regulation, and policy to ensure immunity and sustained advantage. These other elites can be dislodged. The reason is simple: the political class can compel the populace to comply under threat of imprisonment, prosecution, and financial ruin. The others cannot compel or coerce people to spend disposable income and leisure time in perpetuating their status........... Read more

The Incredible Mr. Comey

By Roger Stone May 27, 2017

Former FBI director James Comey has a long and telling career; telling much about his rise to FBI director.  Although Comey speaks stoically about following the “rule of law”, and “following in the spirit of our founding fathers”, he has shown time and again that his actions speak louder than his words.  In recent times, he came under criticism for his handling of the investigation of Hillary Clinton.  Certainly his announcement in October 2016 that there were new Clinton emails which warranted  further investigation was a serious breach of protocol. 

Coming so close to the elections some say, damaged her chances and could have possibly cost her the nomination.  I guess we won’t blame Comey for Hillary’s loss as long as we have Trump and the Russians to blame.  In fact in July 2016 Comey came under fire for giving Hillary Clinton a pass explaining there “was no intent.”  His decision not to prosecute Clinton even though she was in fact guilty was  generous if not curiously suspicious.   Mr. Trump was severely disappointed in Comey’s decision.

It wasn’t the first time he had given a pass to the Clintons........ To Read More....

My Take - I'm not a particular fan of Martha Stewart, but when I read some days ago Comey was at the head of that sensation getting witch hunt I knew for sure all this clabber about how he was a good and faithful servant of the law  - was a load of horsepucky!  Martha Stewart wasn't prosecuted for what they went after the for - she was prosecuted for being Martha Stewart and to send a message.  And now that we're becoming aware of all the infamy he's been at the center of  - I think there's a question far more reaching than whether he should have been fired or not - but whether he should be prosecuted or not.

Swamp-draining: More on Waters of the United States rule

The case of a farmer being sued by the Army Corps of Engineers for plowing his own land is a travesty of legislative intent.  But a fix may be in the works.

By Dale Leuck May 27, 2017

On May 25, Rick Moran detailed the plight of California-located Duarte Nursery, being sued by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) for plowing a small portion of a recently purchased 450-acre farm for the purpose of planting wheat.  Mr. Duarte purchased the land in recognition that significant portions were to remain fallow because they were wetlands protected by the Clean Water Act (CWA). 

But, after planting wheat for harvest in 2013 on a portion determined by a paid consultant not to be such protected wetlands, Mr. Duarte was sued by the Corps for "not obtaining a permit to discharge dredged or fill material into seasonal wetlands considered waters of the United States," according to USA Today.  The dredged or fill material would be particles of soil and/or chemicals loosened by plowing.  The amount of the fine sought against Mr. Duarte is some $2.8 million, with his attorney's fees, time wasted, and potential mitigation activities all significant added expense.....................More

Remembering the Rohna: A World War II Secret and Tragedy

A tragedy shrouded by military secrecy.

Paul Kengor May 27, 2017

ny veteran of World War II can tell you some interesting stories. But for Frank E. Bryer, his story — one he could never forget — was a terrible one. It began the moment his ship, the Rohna, was sunk. When that ship went down on November 26, 1943, Frank’s life changed forever. And very few people beyond the men tossed into the sea ever knew what had happened.

The HMT Rohna was an 8,600-ton British troopship carrying mostly an American crew to the Far East theatre. It went down the day after Thanksgiving, in the Mediterranean, off the coast of North Africa, the victim of a German missile. But it was not just any German missile. This was, it seems, the first known successful “hit” of a vessel by a German rocket-boosted, radio/remote-controlled “glider” bomb — i.e., one of the first true missiles used in combat. It was, in effect, a guided missile, and the Nazis had achieved it first.........And like so many World War II soldiers, Frank’s ordeal did not earn him a ticket home after having experienced enough trauma for a lifetime. He was ordered to heal up and return to the service, which he did through the duration of the war, and then some. He was officially discharged on March 21, 1946 after an endless bout of island-hopping throughout the Pacific theater.

That, too, was no day at the beach.......

Frank Bryer died on January 4, 2016 at age 92, seven decades after the sinking of the Rohna. He at long last rests in peace. And perhaps only now has he been reconciled with those wounded boys who plunged to their death below him on November 26, 1943.

This Memorial Day, let’s remember him, them, and the Rohna......To Read More....

A Simple and Effective Strategy for Trump to Prevail on the Budget

May 26, 2017 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty

In this interview with Dana Loesch, I make several points about the Trump budget, including the need to reform means-tested entitlements and Obamacare (with a caveat from my Second Theorem of government), as well as some comments on foreign aid and fake budget cuts.

But those are arguments that I make all the time. Today, I want to call attention to the mid-point of the interview when I explain that President Trump is actually in a strong position to get a win, notwithstanding all the rhetoric about his budget being “dead on arrival.”

Simply stated, while he can’t force Congress to enact a bill that reforms entitlements, his veto power means he can stop Congress from appropriating more money that he wants to spend.



But if he wants to win that battle, he needs to be willing to allow a partial government shutdown.
Which he wasn’t willing to let happen when he approved a bad deal a few weeks ago to fund the government for the rest of the 2017 fiscal year.

But we have some good news. He may have learned from that mistake, at least if we take this tweet seriously.

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump May 2 either elect more Republican Senators in 2018 or change the rules now to 51%. Our country needs a good "shutdown" in September to fix mess!       

Amen. Trump should be firm and explicitly warn Congress that he will veto any appropriations bill that spends one penny above what he requested in his budget.

And if Congress doesn’t comply, he should use his veto pen and we’ll have a partial shutdown, which basically effects the “non-essential” parts of the federal government that presumably shouldn’t be funded anyhow.

The only way Trump loses that fight is if enough Republicans join with Democrats to override his veto. But that’s unlikely since it is mostly Democrat constituencies (government bureaucrats and other recipients of taxpayer money) who feel the pinch if there’s a partial shutdown.

This is a big reason why, as we saw during the Clinton years, it’s Democrats who begin to cave so long as Republicans don’t preemptively surrender.

The bottom line is that being tough on the budget isn’t just good policy. As Ronald Reagan demonstrated, there are political rewards when you shrink the burden of government and enable faster growth.

P.S. I’m not convinced that Trump actually wants smaller government, but I hope I’m wrong. This upcoming battle will be very revealing about where he really stands.

P.P.S. And if we do have a shutdown fight, I hope it will generate some amusing political humor, such as what’s at the bottom of this post. Other examples of shutdown-related humor can be enjoyed by clicking here, here, here, here, and here.

Climate Deal and My Six Day Plan

By Rich Kozlovich,

Marc Morano of Climate Depot sent out this notice "Report: Trump tells ‘confidants’ U.S. will leave Paris climate deals" saying: "Multiple news agencies, including Reuters News, are now reporting that President Donald Trump has privately informed several officials in Washington DC that he intends to withdraw from the UN Paris climate pact".

He went on to say:

"A U.S. Clexit (Climate Exit from UN Paris Pact) would be a victory for science. Make no mistake, climate campaigners who tout UN agreements and EPA regulations as a way to control Earth’s temperature and storminess are guilty of belief in superstition." 

“In layman’s terms: All of the so-called ‘solutions’ to global warming are purely symbolic when it comes to climate. So, even if we actually faced a climate catastrophe and we had to rely on a UN climate agreement, we would all be doomed! " 

Marc's notice had a number of links to articles outlining what's going on behind the scenes, and I think this article in AXIOS is particularly interesting as it notes a process I just don't understand.  It's clear this is the greatest scientific fraud ever perpetrated on humanity and it's also clear this is a treaty - which must be ratified by the U.S. Senate - and it hasn't, so why is this so difficult for the Trump administration. 

I've been told the heads of the EPA and Energy Department's transition teams views are identical to my own - so what's the hold up?

1. For me - dumping this mess would have been done on day one, and I would have lined up the best and brightest minds in the world to explain why with press releases daily - and attacked and exposed the junk science of these false scientists and the loony left with real science.
2. On day two I would have ended all grants promoting this junk science and fired anyone in the government who had a hand in promoting it. 
3. On day three I would have issued an executive order giving grants only to those who are now called "deniers" to show exactly how fraudulent this has been, and who has been responsible for it. 
4. On day four - these so-called scientists who've made scientific integrity an oxymoron in order to get on the government grant money gravy train would have done an about face so fast they would have looked like the color guard in a military parade. 
5. On day five I would have ordered the Attorney General to prosecute any and all of these "scientists" who've taken the taxpayer's money and perpetrated scientific fraud.  Fraud is a crime, and I would have started with a criminal investigation of Michael Mann and his "science" regarding the Hockey Stick.
6. On day six I would have begun a faze out of government grant money to researchers since it's become obvious grant money is now the holy grail of science - not truth - and there are far too many Ph.D's willing to say whatever the government wants them to say in order to stay on that gravy train.

Also See:

1. ‘Fraud, Fake…Worthless Words’: NASA’s James Hansen on UN Paris Pact – Trump should take note 
2. Bjorn Lomborg wrote “Trump’s climate plan might not be so bad after all.” 
3. Bjorn Lomborg: ‘Germany Spends $110 Billion to Delay Global Warming by 37 Hours’)
4. Statistician: UN climate treaty will cost $100 trillion – To Have No Impact – Postpone warming by less than four years by 2100
5. Lomborg Blasts UN Paris Treaty’s $100 Trillion Price Tag For No Temp Impact: ‘You won’t be able to measure it in 100 years’ 
6. Bjorn Lomborg on UN climate deal: ‘This is likely to be among most expensive treaties in the history of the world’
7. Climate Depot’s New ‘Talking Points’ Report – A-Z Debunking of Climate Claims
8. Read Full report Here: 

What I really don't understand is this idea Ivanka and her husband are supporters of Anthropogenic Climate Change propaganda - and worse yet - both of them are very influential with her father.  These people have access to the world's information networks far beyond most people and yet they are still incapable of defining this as fraudulent science.  Is it any wonder they lack clarity?

Fire them!

Nipping a legal problem in the bud

Consult with all affected parties, to ensure informed endangered species and pesticide policies

Paul Driessen

One of my recent articles predicted that the Fish & Wildlife Service’s endangered species designation for the rusty patched bumblebee would lead to its being used to delay or block construction projects and pesticide use on hundreds of millions of acres of US farmland. The abuses have already begun.

Projects in Minnesota and elsewhere have been delayed, while people tried to ascertain that no bees were actually nesting in the areas. Now a federal district court judge has ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency failed to consult with the FWS before approving 59 products containing neonicotinoid pesticides that are used primarily as seed coatings for corn, canola, cotton, potato, sugar beet and other crops.

As crops bud and grow, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt must nip this problem in the bud. Thankfully, Judge Maxine Chesney has given them the means to do so.

The Endangered Species Act requires that EPA determine whether a pesticide “may affect” a listed species, she noted, and consult with the FWS and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS, which has no conceivable role in protecting domesticated or wild bees), before approving the 59 products, which contain the neonics clothianidin or thiamethoxam. So EPA must consult with the agencies and determine that the insecticides would have “no effect” on the species or establish stricter guidelines for using them.

The Center for Food Safety and a couple of beekeepers initiated their lawsuit to toughen restrictions on or ban use of the 59 pesticide products, because of alleged risks to bees and other pollinators. Pesticide manufacturers, their CropLife America trade association, and various farmers and beekeepers argued that these “neonic” insecticides are safe for bees, and no new measures or restrictions are needed.

Properly done, consultation would evaluate the conflicting claims and ensure more informed policies. During the Obama Administration, those consultations would likely have involved only the EPA, FWS and NMFS, where many analysts have anti-pesticide views, along with the anti-insecticide plaintiffs. The industry and other parties who intervened in the lawsuit would likely have been excluded or ignored.

But those interveners certainly bring essential expertise. So do farmers, other beekeepers, the Department of Agriculture, scientists who have been studying neonic and other threats to honeybees, and wild bee experts like Sam Droege in the Interior Department’s US Geological Survey.

Truly informed policies and regulations must involve all such experts, as well as parties who will be most affected by any EPA-DOI decisions: construction companies and unions, local government officials, conventional farmers who rely on neonics to protect their crops – and beekeepers who increasingly understand that honeybee colony losses in recent years were due to natural pests and pathogens, and that alternative pesticides are actually more harmful to bees than neonics.

Extensive studies have concluded that the actual cause of bee die-offs and “colony collapse disorders” has been a toxic mix of tiny pests (parasitic Varroa destructor mites, phorid flies, Nosema ceranae gut fungus, tobacco ringspot virus and deformed wing virus) – as well as chemicals used by beekeepers trying to control these beehive infestations. These diseases and pathogens can easily spread to wild bees.

Field studies involving crops where bees forage for pollen have consistently found no observable adverse effects on honeybees resulting from exposures to properly applied neonic seed coatings. The studies assessed neonic residues from bees and hives under actual pollinating/pollen-gathering conditions; they found that pesticide residues were well below levels that can adversely affect bees – and that neonics “did not cause any detrimental effects on the development or reproduction” of honeybee and wild bee

That should not be surprising. Coating seeds ensures that neonic pesticides are absorbed into plant tissues – and thus target only pests that actually feed on the crops. This reduces or eliminates the need to spray crops with much larger quantities of neonicotinoid, pyrethroid or other pesticides that definitely can kill birds, bats and beneficial insects that inhabit or visit the fields or are impacted by accidental “over-sprays.” Even organic farming can harm bees, as it often employs powerful, toxic “natural” chemicals (like copper sulfate) and spraying with live Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) bacteria.

Laboratory studies consistently overdose bees with pesticides, under conditions that do not come close to approximating what bees encounter in forests, grasslands or croplands. That makes their findings highly questionable to useless for devising responsible, science-based regulations.

These realities help explain the sudden attention to wild bees. When the hullabaloo over honeybee deaths and “colony collapse disorder” supposedly caused by pesticides (especially neonics) collapsed like a house of cards, eco-activists began raising alarums over wild bees species. That’s because so little is known that their latest “no wild bees – no food or flowers” claims cannot yet be refuted as convincingly as were claims about domesticated honeybees that have been bred and studied for centuries.

The FWS and Interior Department clearly opened a Pandora’s Box when they decided to list the rusty patched bumblebee as endangered (rather than merely threatened). That bee’s historic range covers nearly 4 million acres, scattered in unknown segments among 378 million acres across 13 Northeastern and Midwestern states. Other species that anti-pesticide activists want added to the endangered list (yellow-banded, western and Franklin’s bumblebees) were found historically in small areas scattered over more than a billion acres in 40 US states. Some nest in the ground; others in trees.

If environmentalists succeed in getting these endangered designations – especially coupled with a narrow consultation process – they could delay, block or bankrupt power lines, bridges, highways, pipelines, housing developments, wastewater treatment plants, plowing operations and other projects all over the USA. Non-organic farming, neonic-treated seeds, and other pesticide use could be particularly vulnerable.

The actual environmental benefits would be minimal – or profoundly negative, as farmers are forced to use other insecticides or switch to land-intensive organic methods. Additional ironies abound.

The constant environmentalist, court, news media and government agency attention to bees and pesticides is hard to understand in the context of policies that promote, mandate and subsidize large-scale wind turbine installations – while ignoring or exempting their impacts on raptors and other birds, bats, and even whales (NMFS should investigate that) and human health .

Meanwhile, extensive monoculture corn and canola plantations (to produce feed stocks for ethanol and biodiesel production) replace millions of acres of food crop and wildlife habitat lands, while using vast quantities of water, fertilizer and energy to replace the oil, coal and natural gas that rabid greens want kept in the ground. These biofuel operations reduce biodiversity and the numbers and varieties of flowering plants on which wild bee species depend. In addition, over their life cycles ethanol and biodiesel generate more carbon dioxide than fossil fuels per Btu of energy produced (see here, here and here).

Broad-based consultations are therefore essential, to ensure that all these topics are addressed by experts and affected parties who can help evaluate the science and policy implications for domesticated and wild bees, as well as for farming, construction, jobs, families and other species.

They must assess not just the alleged risks of using neonics, but also the risks of not using them, risks associated with having to use other classes of pesticides, and risks that could be reduced or eliminated by using modern neonic seed coatings. They should focus on replicable, evidence-based, field-tested science, not laboratory studies; balance agricultural, consumer and environmental needs; and consider bees in the context of how we protect (or don’t protect) other valuable wildlife species.

These steps would help restore science and common sense to policy and regulatory processes – and serve as a foundation for adjusting the Endangered Species Act to minimize regulatory and litigation excesses.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( www.CFACT.org ) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death.