Friday, July 10, 2015

Obama’s Nominee to Head Medicare, Medicaid Agency Faces Questions of Cronyism

An Obama administration official who faces questions surrounding potential conflicts of interest due to his work in the medical services field has been nominated to serve as head of the agency tasked with overseeing Obamacare.
The White House announced yesterday Andy Slavitt’s nomination to permanently head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Slavitt began working as the agency’s acting administrator after Marilyn Tavenner resigned in January.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services, oversees Obamacare and the federal exchange, HealthCare.gov. Slavitt joined the Obama administration in June 2014 as principal deputy administrator at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
His appointment to the post was met with skepticism from Republicans in the House and Senate, as Slavitt worked as group vice president of OptumInsight/QSSI, a technology company, before taking the No. 2 post at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
The Department of Health and Human Services awarded Maryland-based OptumInsight/QSSI with a contract to build the federal data hub, part of HealthCare.gov, in January 2012.
Then, following the federal exchange’s disastrous launch in October 2013, OptumInsight/QSSI was tasked with fixing the broken website and continued to serve as a “senior adviser” on the project.
OptumInsight/QSSI is the sister company of UnitedHealthcare, a health insurance provider that offers plans on both the federal and state-run exchanges. Both companies are subsidiaries of UnitedHealth Group.
Typically, government officials who leave the private sector for jobs in the administration must wait at least one year before working with their previous employer. However, Slavitt received an ethics waiver from the White House last year, which allowed him to begin working on matters involving OptumInsight/QSSI, his former company.

CALIFORNIA: Legislature Should Examine Costs of Climate Control Policies

Regardless of differences in opinion about approaches to combatting climate change, California decided in 2006 that the state would have a comprehensive greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction program. Now, nine years later, the AB 32 programs are beginning to take effect and having a financial impact. That impact is being felt by consumers in their electricity bills and there are strong indications that other cost increases will be coming soon.
The unexpected magnitude of the costs, coupled with the uncertainty about future economic impacts, demand greater evaluation of the costs that will be associated with any new climate change proposals (SB 350, SB 32, and the California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan). This is hardly a revolutionary approach Рin fact, cost analysis is an approach the state should prioritize for all new policies Рbut proponents of new climate change proposals seem surprisingly blas̩ about their need.
To be fair, there are several studies: Energy and Environmental Economics, “California State Agency’s PATHWAYS Project: Long-term Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scenarios;” Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, “Modeling California policy impact on greenhouse gas emissions;” and Next 10, “California Climate Policy to 2050: Pathways for Sustained Prosperity,” that review cost impacts and conclude that the proposals will actually lower overall consumer costs. Those studies make assumptions about the future costs with many caveats about population and economic growth. They may be correct assumptions or they may be faulty. However, the Wall Street Journal opined on a study in November, 2011, showing that AB 32 would cost the average household $3,857 in increased costs by 2020. So before any legislation moves forward, NFIB/CA is requesting that the legislature not blindly accept these assumptions but fully analyze the cost issues and allow a public debate over these far reaching policies.
Here are some basic questions that small businesses need to know about these proposals:
What will Californians have to pay in increased electric costs to reach the 50% renewable energy goal? Already, many school districts, hospitals, businesses and residents have seen increases in their electricity bills and many of the costs associated with AB 32 have not yet been built into the rates. The California Energy Commission’s own numbers estimate a 28% to 42% increase in electricity rates by 2020. Many of the studies that show consumers will pay less rely on “savings” to offset the higher electricity costs but those savings are vague and there is no indication when those savings will be available to consumers, much less whether they are quantifiable and verifiable. The alternative renewable energy sources being pushed can be several times more expensive than traditional energy sources, particularly since energy from dams and solar roof tops are excluded from the equation, and these costs will constitute half of consumer electricity bills.
What will ratepayers need to pay to transform the state’s electricity infrastructure? According to the studies, the 50% petroleum reduction goal will require the number of Zero Electric Vehicles (ZEVs) to climb from 100,000 to over 7 million. That increase will require a massive new investment in infrastructure to transform the transmission and distribution system and to build charging stations. Who will pay for the billions of dollars of new infrastructure? Are those costs built into economic projections models? And what provisions in the new proposals will prevent all the benefits going to those can afford Teslas and solar panels — and the costs being borne by middle and lower income families and small businesses? And electric cars are often heavier than others, and contribute to serious wear and tear on our highway systems without paying maintenance taxes at the pump.
How much will energy efficiency proposals cost California residents? We’re leaders in energy efficiency, and committed to further efficiencies. But all efficiencies have a cost, and we need to know what we’ll have to pay to make climate change goals feasible. But we do know that we’ll have to increasingly rely on electricity. Do the math: a new electric stove — $800 to $1200. A new electric water heater — $1200 to $2000. A new electric furnace — $600 to $1200. Will California residents and business be required to replace existing appliances? Will restaurants, for example, be required to replace all their gas stoves with electric ones? Will lower income homeowners and qualifying small businesses receive government assistance to convert their property?
These costs matter. They matter to small businesses and they matter to hard-working Californians. If we truly desire to maintain the integrity of the legislative process and protect our businesses and families, we need the legislature to conduct a full cost examination of climate change policy impacts.

Background Check Flaw Let Dylann Roof Buy Gun, F.B.I. Says

WASHINGTON — The man accused of killing nine people in an historically black South Carolina church last month should not have been able to buy a gun, the F.B.I. said Friday in what was the latest acknowledgment of flaws in the national background check system.
A loophole in the check system allowed the man, Dylann Roof, to buy the .45-caliber handgun despite his having previously admitted to drug possession, the bureau said.
“We are all sick this happened,” said the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey. “We wish we could turn back time.”
Mr. Roof now faces murder charges in a case that investigators say was racially motivated. Mr. Roof, who is white, is charged with killing nine people at the Emanuel A.M.E. Church in Charleston.
The F.B.I. operates the background check system, called the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and loopholes have been discovered in it before. One allowed thousands of prohibited buyers to legally purchase firearms over the past decade — and some of those weapons were ultimately used in crimes, according to court records and government documents. That problem stemmed from the three-day period the government has to determine whether someone is eligible to buy a gun.
After a 2007 shooting in which 33 people died at Virginia Tech University, investigators discovered that the gunman, Seung-Hui Cho, also should not have been able to buy a gun because a court had previously declared him to be a danger to himself. The shooting led to legislation aimed at improving the background check system.
Via: New York Times
Continue Reading....

Countering Progressives' Assault on Suburbia

The next culture war will not be about issues like gay marriage or abortion, but about something more fundamental: how Americans choose to live. In the crosshairs now will not be just recalcitrant Christians or crazed billionaire racists, but the vast majority of Americans who either live in suburban-style housing or aspire to do so in the future. Roughly four in five home buyers prefer a single-family home, but much of the political class increasingly wants them to live differently.
Theoretically, the suburbs should be the dominant politically force in America. Some 44 million Americans live in the core cities of America’s 51 major metropolitan areas, while nearly 122 million Americans live in the suburbs. In other words, nearly three-quarters of metropolitan Americans live in suburbs.
Yet it has been decided, mostly by self-described progressives, that suburban living is too unecological, not mention too uncool, and even too white for their future America. Density is their new holy grail, for both the world and the U.S. Across the country efforts are now being mounted—through HUD, the EPA, and scores of local agencies—to impede suburban home-building, or to raise its cost. Notably in coastal California, but other places, too, suburban housing is increasingly relegated to the affluent.
The obstacles being erected include incentives for density, urban growth boundaries, attempts to alter the race and class makeup of communities, and mounting environmental efforts to reduce sprawl. The EPA wants to designate even small, seasonal puddles as “wetlands,” creating a barrier to developers of middle-class housing, particularly in fast-growing communities in the Southwest. Denizens of free-market-oriented Texas could soon be experiencing what those in California, Oregon and other progressive bastions have long endured: environmental laws that make suburban development all but impossible, or impossibly expensive. Suburban family favorites like cul-de-sacs are being banned under pressure from planners.
Some conservatives rightly criticize such intrusive moves, but they generally ignore how Wall Street interests and some developers see forced densification as opportunities for greater profits, often sweetened by public subsidies. Overall, suburban interests are poorly organized, particularly compared to well-connected density lobbies such as the developer-funded Urban Land Institute (ULI), which have opposed suburbanization for nearly 80 years. 

[VIDEO] Shock: NBC Actually Goes to U.S.-Mexico Border to Find Ranchers Who Agree with Trump

Amid the ongoing media coverage surrounding Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on illegal immigration, Thursday’s NBC Nightly News surprisingly went down to the U.S.-Mexico border to further understand on the situation. 

 Following a news brief that mentioned a protest at the site of a Trump hotel being built in Washington D.C., anchor Lester Holt explained that even though some are “angered” by Trump’s remarks, they “are striking a cord” “for others” as they “believe he’s calling attention to a vital threat along our border.” 

With surveillance footage of illegal immigrants crossing the border into Arizona being played, correspondent Mark Potter explained how “[f]or several years, hidden cameras in the Arizona desert have captured scenes like these, of drug and immigrant smugglers, sometimes armed, hiking through miles of American ranchland after illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexican border.

” Potter brought Trump into the equation by revealing that the footage just shown “was shot in May, south of Tucson, just two months before Donald Trump complained about boarder security.”  

Concerning ranchers that are confronted with the problem, Potter introduced “John Ladd, whom we visited several times before along the Mexican boarder fence” as he “and others have long complained...about what they say is an insecure boarder that leaves them facing security threats on their own land.”

 Ahead of Trump’s weekend visit to Arizona, Potter noted that, for ranchers like Ladd, “[t]hey applaud Trump for giving their concerns a national voice.” 

Potter then found two soundbites of business owners in Arizona (with one owning a restaurant near the border) who were against Trump’s comments, but their airtime was far less than what was given to both Ladd and fellow rancher Fred Davis.  Later, the NBC correspondent concluded by noting the GOP candidate has “plans to travel to Arizona this weekend, where he's already drawn lots of attention.” - 

Via: Newsbusters

Continue Reading....

Toledo judge refuses to perform gay marriage


A northwest Ohio municipal judge assigned to a courtroom where civil marriages are performed refused to marry two women less than two weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay marriage, the judge’s office confirmed on Wednesday.


Toledo Municipal Judge Allen McConnell was on a three-week rotation assigned to perform civil ceremonies on Monday when Carolyn Wilson and her partner asked to be married. McConnell acknowledged the decision in a Wednesday statement.

“On Monday, July 6, I declined to marry a non-traditional couple during my duties assignment,” he said. “The declination was based upon my personal and Christian beliefs established over many years. I apologize to the couple for the delay they experienced and wish them the best.”

On June 26, the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Constitution provides same-sex couples the right to marry, handing a historic triumph to the gay rights movement.

Toledo Municipal Court judges performed 98 marriages in 2014 and 49 marriages so far this year. Deputy court administrator Michael Zenk said the request by the women on Monday was the first time the court was asked to perform a same-sex marriage.

After McConnell refused, Judge William Connelly, Jr. performed the ceremony for the women, Zenk said.

“It is the policy of the court to accommodate wedding requests and we will continue to do that for both opposite and same-sex marriage,” Zenk said.

McConnell said he will continue to perform “traditional marriages” and is, “seeking an advisory opinion from the Supreme Court of Ohio” about whether he can “opt out of the rotation” that would have him perform civil marriages.



Republican Senator: Ted Kennedy ‘Set a Wonderful Example for Us’

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D.-Mass.) and Rep. John Boehner (R.-Ohio) stand behind President Bush as he signs the No Child Left Behind Act in 2002. (White House photo)
(CNSNews.com) - Sen. Lamar Alexander (R.-Tenn.) said on the Senate floor on Wednesday that the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D.-Mass) set a wonderful example for other senators.
“He set a wonderful example for us, and it is nice to be reminded of him,” said Sen. Alexander.
Alexander’s remarks came while the Senate was discussing his proposal to rewrite the No Child Left Behind Act that imposes federal regulations and sends federal money to local public schools. The initial No Child Left Behind Act was co-sponsored by Kennedy and Rep. John Boehner (R.-Ohio) and signed into law in 2002 by President George W. Bush.
During Wednesday’s debate on the No Child Left Behind Act--while discussing whether the law should be amended to require local public schools to do a criminal background check on applicants for teaching jobs--Sen. Dick Durbin (D.-Ill.) recalled that Sen. Kennedy had once been placed on the terrorist No-Fly List:
“It wasn’t that many years ago, our colleagues may remember, that our colleague Senator Ted Kennedy ended up on a no-fly list. He kept saying: Why am I on a no-fly list? It was a mistake. It was a government mistake that identified him as a danger to the country. Mistakes can be made. There needs to be a due process requirement in here so those accused of something that they are not guilty of have a chance to have their day to tell their story as best they can.”
Following on this, Sen. Alexander recalled what “a wonderful example” Sen. Kennedy had been:
“I thank the Senator from Illinois for his remarks. I was thinking, as he was talking about Senator Kennedy, whom we all loved, I think the mistake was that he was on a Republican no-fly list. That was the mistake. But he loved telling that story and enjoyed it very much. It is nice to be reminded of him today because he was chairman of this committee that is producing the fix for No Child Left Behind.
"He would make, in my view, the most outrageous liberal speeches from the back of the Senate, and then he would come to the front of the Senate and would work out a good bipartisan agreement and get a good piece of legislation. He set a wonderful example for us, and it is nice to be reminded of him.

CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATS TARGET TRUMP, CRUZ WITH ‘DIVESTMENT’ BILL

by ADELLE NAZARIAN10 Jul 2015

A group of California’s top Democratic lawmakers on Thursday introduced a bill targeting 2016 presidential candidates Donald Trump and 
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)
96%
 after Trump made controversial comments about illegal immigrants from Mexico, and Cruz defended him.

The resolution notes, in part:
Resolved, That the Senate condemns in the strongest terms possible the racist rhetoric against immigrant families made by Presidential candidate 
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)
96%
; and be it further

Resolved, That the Senate condemns in the strongest terms possible the racist rhetoric against immigrant families made by Presidential candidate Donald Trump; and be it further
Resolved, That the Senate calls upon the State of California to divest from Donald Trump, The Trump Organization, and any affiliated entities; and be it further
Resolved, That the Senate calls upon private businesses and individuals throughout California to end all business ties with Donald Trump, The Trump Organization, and any affiliated entities; and be it further
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate transmit copies of this resolution to the author for appropriate distribution.
“The state of California will not stand for this type of racist rhetoric and racist behavior. Today we stand and call upon the state of California to dump Trump!” Sen. Isadore Hall III (D-Compton), who co-authored the resolution (SR 39), said outside of the Senate chambers, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Donald Trump Raises Uncomfortable Truths

Donald Trump enjoyed a surge in the polls after his allegedly "racist" remarks about how all that diversity from South of the Border is not all it's cracked up to be.

The brash real-estate tycoon and TV star has struck a nerve, saying things that America's political elites would never publicly admit, with two notable exceptions being Sen. Ted Cruz, the Texas Republican, and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. Both said Trump had made some good points, even if they were expressed in less than diplomatic terms.

Trump's surge in the polls is being fueled by ordinary Americans. They are applauding or murmuring quiet approval because they probably live in areas that have gotten massive influxes of immigrants -- the majority from Mexico -- over the last decade or two. They know what the score is; that diversity has failed to provide the benefits that political elites said it would. They've seen public schools overwhelmed with non-English speakers, dumbed down, social problems increase, and crime go up -- and it all seems to have a Hispanic face as millions upon millions of immigrants have flooded over the border. Now at long last, they see Trump telling it like it is -- even if his remarks were undiplomatic and, well, not all that presidential.

Trump says many Mexican immigrants are losers -- part of Mexico's social problems that the country's elites are glad to “dump” on America. “When Mexico sends it's people, they are not sending its best,” Trump said. True or false?

Short answer: True.

Most Mexican immigrants, legal and illegal, are high school or grade-school dropouts, according to the data; and their offspring continue to be underachievers. On the later point, Harvard political scientist Samuel P. Huntington revealed some disquieting statistics in his must-read book, "Who Are We: The Challenges to America’s National Identity."

Citing statistics from the 1990 census, Huntington noted that high percentages of Mexican-Americans, from one generation to the next, lack high school diplomas. The first generation without diplomas was 69.9%; the second generation, 51.5%; the third generation, 33.0%; and fourth generation, 41.9%.

That last figure, incidentally, isn't a typo. The fourth generation is less educated than the third. So much for assimilation. Those dropout rates are far higher than America's overall dropout rate: 23.5% for all Americans, except Mexican-Americans.

Via: American Thinker


Continue Reading....

'President Trump' May Not Be So Far-Fetched - And the Polls Scare the Establishment to Death

Donald Trump
WASHINGTON — Republicans who started off viewing Donald Trump as an amusing sideshow are starting to fret that the real-estate billionaire is becoming the main event.
Since he defied skeptics and launched his presidential bid last month, Trump has rocketed in the polls, dominated media coverage and helped steer the debate on issues.
“I don’t know that he even knows how far he takes this,” former New York GOP Rep. Thomas Reynolds, who is close to GOP candidate and ex-Gov. George Pataki, told The Post. “He has the wherewithal . . . He has put together a pretty wholesale ground force in New Hampshire, and that has to be taken seriously.”
Trump accounted for a stunning 48 percent of all social-media and tra­di­tional-media conversation about politics over the last week, according to analytics group Zignal labs for The Washington Post. Trump had 1.9 million mentions, compared with just 448,000 for top Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Trump’s presidential rivals at first steered clear of his controversial comments about Mexican “rapists” pouring into the country — although several took opportunities in the last week to distance themselves from Trump. The pushback doesn’t seem to have hurt Trump, who continues to poll strongly and is assured a spot in next month’s Republican debate on Fox.
Trump told NBC’s “Today” show on Thursday he had “nothing to apologize for” and credits himself with raising the immigration issue in the campaign.
Trump’s success in early polling is undeniable.
He even leads the latest North Carolina poll, by Public Policy Polling, with 16 percent. He’s second to Jeb Bush in the latest CNN national poll and is also running second in Iowa.

FULL VIDEO: South Carolina’s Confederate Flag Removed from State Grounds

It comes down this morning at 10 a.m. ET.
After an astonishingly quick vote, South Carolina’s lawmakers voted to remove the Confederate battle flag from its state house grounds. Republican Gov. Nikki Haley signed the removal into law on Thursday afternoon.
UPDATE — 10:15 a.m. ET: Oh, hey, it came down in less than five minutes. Here’s the full video of the ceremony, via Fox News:

Gun Rights Groups Criticize Ban on Gun Carry on DC Metro in Wake of Murder

Gun rights groups are criticizing part of the Washington, D.C., gun carry law that bans firearms on public transit within the city after a man was stabbed to death on a Metro train on Saturday.
The National Rifle Association (NRA), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) expressed their opposition to the ban in the wake of a 4th of July murder on the Metro’s red line. As the train approached the NoMa-Gallaudet station, Jasper Spires stabbed Kevin Joseph Sutherland as many as 40 times, killing him.
The NRA warned that the incident was likely to be repeated until D.C. removes the ban.
“With so many threats in the nation’s capital, the fact that the District of Columbia government continues to deny residents and visitors the right to protect themselves is a travesty,” NRA spokesman Lars Dalseide said. “We’ll continue to hear stories like this until the District of Columbia affords every law-abiding citizen their constitutional right to self protection.”
When asked if the city was reviewing its ban, a Metro Police Department spokesman referred the Free Beacon to D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson (D.).
Mendelson told the Free Beacon that the Council has no plans to change the law, and appeared to place the burden for that decision on the Metro system, known officially as the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA).
“There are no amendments to the law being considered at this time,” said Mendelson in an email. “The law, as revised last fall, gives property owners the right to prohibit carrying on their premises. WMATA contacted the Council prior to our action on the legislation last fall to ask that their premises be off-limits to carrying. WMATA (busses, rail, etc.) was then added to the list. If we were to act to remove WMATA from the list, the effect would be unaffected.”
Mendelson did not respond immediately to a request for clarification about how removing Metro from the list of officially prohibited locations in D.C. law would leave the legal status quo unaffected, as his e-mail seemed to suggest.
The Second Amendment Foundation, which brought the case that forced D.C. to allow gun carry, said the Metro ban is a symptom of a larger problem.
“Gun free zones like the District of Columbia’s public transit system are really victim disarmament zones and a magnet for violent criminals to prey on unarmed people who have no means of protecting themselves,” SAF founder Alan Gottlieb said.
The Virginia Citizen Defense League, a leading gun rights group with a number of members that commute into the city for work, said bans such as this one encourage killings.
“Anytime a law-abiding citizen is denied the right to self defense, as D.C. has done in this case, it creates an environment ripe for such tragedies, as well as encouraging future mass killings,” VCDL president Philip Van Cleave said. “Gun-free zones are never gun-free for the criminals, who respect no laws, but only for the good, decent people, who are then setup to become victims.”

[VIDEO] [BREAKING] OPM director Katherine Archuleta resigns in wake of data breach

U.S. personnel chief Katherine Archuleta resigned Friday in the wake of massive data breach that allowed hackers to steal the records of more than 21 million people under her watch, Fox News confirmed.
Archuleta submitted her resignation to President Obama Friday morning. Her resignation is effective at the close of business today.
She will be replaced by Beth Cobert, who currently works in the White House budget office, White House sources told Fox News. 
"This is the absolute right call,” House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz said in a written statement following the announcement. “OPM needs a competent, technically savvy leader to manage the biggest cybersecurity crisis in this nation's history. The IG has been warning about security lapses at OPM for almost a decade. This should have been addressed much, much sooner but I appreciate the President doing what's best now.”
Calls for Archuleta to go grew in recent weeks following a massive government data breach on her watch.
Less than 24 hours earlier, Archuleta had rebuffed demands that she resign, telling reporters she had no intention of leaving and that her agency was doing everything it could to address concerns about the safety of data in its hands.
But on Friday morning, Archuleta told Obama it was best for her to step aside to let new leadership respond to the recent breaches and to improve systems to lessen risks in the future. 
White House spokesman Josh Earnest insisted Friday that Archuleta submitted her resignation at her own volition, and added it is "quite clear" to the president that new leadership at OPM is desperately needed. 
In a statement, Archuleta made no direct reference to the data breach, saying only that she believed it was best to allow the agency to "move beyond the current challenges." She praised the agency's employees as "some of the most dedicated, capable and hardworking individuals in the federal government."
"I have complete confidence in their ability to continue fulfill OPM's important mission of recruiting, retaining and honoring a world-class workforce to serve the American people," Archuleta said.
Archuleta's position appeared to become unsustainable given the scope of the data breach and the mounting calls from lawmakers in both parties for her to resign. On Thursday, within hours of the Obama administration releasing new details about the scope of the breach, House Republican leaders demanded new leadership in the agency, and a number of Democrats followed.
California Rep. Adam Schiff, the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said Archuleta's resignation "will help to restore confidence in an agency that not only poorly defended sensitive data of millions of Americans but struggled to respond to repeated intrusions."
"This change in leadership is also an acknowledgement that we cannot simply place blame on the hackers, but need to take responsibility for the protection of personal information that is so obvious a target," Schiff said.

Feds spent $2 million to have wives nag men about chewing tobacco

Since 2012 the government has spent nearly $2 million on a campaign to get women to nag the men in their lives to quit using smokeless tobacco.
The National Institutes of Health has sponsored a continuing grant for the Oregon Research Institute to “evaluate an innovative approach that encourages male smokeless tobacco users to quit by enlisting the support of their wives/partners, both to lead smokeless tobacco users to engage in treatment and to help them sustain abstinence.”
Researchers had already “established that women can be readily recruited” to get their husbands to quit chewing tobacco, but now the project is going a step further with a multimedia push that includes a website with an interactive and tailored support plan.
Researchers will conduct a randomized clinical trial to determine the effectiveness of the cessation program.
The program is raising eyebrows among taxpayer watchdogs, health advocates and activists on women’s issues, who see the expenditures as wasteful and gender pandering.
“American women don’t need the federal government spending money to get us to nag our husbands to stop using tobacco, we do that just fine on our own,” said Penny Nance, president and CEO of Concerned Women for America, a conservative women’s group. “Even if it were a worthwhile effort, we are $18 trillion in debt. We simply can’t afford it.”
Added Richard Manning, President of Americans for Limited Government, a spending watchdog: “One wonders if NIH has a companion grant program designed to teach dads how to cope with hostile environments in the household. With Congress in its annual appropriations season, defunding this unnecessary and destructive program should be an easy one.”
For using taxpayer dollars to recruit women for a task they are already quite capable of doing on their own, NIH wins this week’s Golden Hammer, a weekly distinction awarded by The Washington Times highlighting examples of wasteful federal spending.
NIH defended its research in an email to The Times, saying smokeless tobacco use has risen in certain populations and “positive support from a partner has been shown to be an important factor for effective quitting attempts.”

Californians Overcharged $4.5 Billion For Gasoline “Gouging Gap” Since Price Spike Began; Gas Prices Set To Climb Even More

Santa Monica, CACalifornian drivers, who have paid an average of 74 cents more per gallon at the pump than drivers nationwide, have shelled out $4.5 billion more for their gasoline than US drivers from February to June, Consumer Watchdog said today.
The nonprofit group’s analysis is based on statewide consumption and the higher amount oil companies have charged Californians compared to the rest of the nation for gasoline from February to June, when refineries started going down and gasoline prices began spiking.
Consumer Watchdog reported the “gouging gap” has cost California consumers $214 million extra per week or $180 more per California driver thus far since February. Gasoline prices are expected to rise in coming days by 15 to 30 cents as oil refiners continue to keep California drivers on tight supplies and imports of gasoline grind to a stop.
Oil refiners reported banner first quarter profits from the higher California gas prices and the companies’ executives celebrated refinery outages and tight supplies in investor calls.
“California oil refiners have overcharged drivers billions using every trick in the book to keep gasoline prices high from unusually low inventories, historically high exports, suspicious refinery maintenance, and unprecedented pricing strategies at their branded stations,” said Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog.  “Californians are paying unreasonably and artificially high prices and California’s oil refiners are getting rich off drivers’ pain at the pump.”
Last week Consumer Watchdog presented evidence to the California Attorney General that oil refiners were artificially manipulating gasoline prices by leveraging their branded gasoline station contracts. The Attorney General’s office has told the group it is now investigating the unusual pricing strategies by oil refiners.

Popular Posts