VIDEO: Senator Ted Cruz standing with Houston’s Pastors
Texas Senator Ted Cruz at a press conference standing with pastors against the actions by the City of Houston: www.standwithpastors.com.
Politicizing a Plague
If President Obama does not want the Ebola virus to kill Americans, why has his administration done nothing to restrict any flights from Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone, the hot spots in Africa where it appears the virus is spreading?
One of the reason flights from Liberia were not stopped, we have been told, was the historical link of the U.S. with that nation, founded as a place freed slaves could migrate. That is no excuse in the face of the threat of a single Liberian with Ebola getting off a flight in any U.S. airport.
The decision not to stop flights has nothing to do with health and everything to do with politics, Obama’s far left ideology, and his dislike for America that has been on display for anyone paying any attention. It has driven every decision Obama has made since first taking office.
The White House has decided that stopping flights would heighten public concerns, possibly creating an aura of panic. This is a very bad, very lethal decision. It demonstrates the indifference to facts and to common sense for which the White House is now famous.
Every poll demonstrates that Americans want our borders protected and access from West Africa denied.
It is likely that the White House wants to tamp down any sense of heightened public concern until the midterm elections on Nov. 4. Then add to that the criminal lack of truthfulness that has accompanied anything affecting this White House has done from Benghazi to setting free five Taliban generals in exchange for someone likely to be deemed a deserter from the U.S. Army.
When the Director of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Dr. Thomas Friedman, became the focus of news media inquiries regarding the virus, it was clear that he did not have any greater knowledge of the problem, other than the scope of its threat, than anyone else. Indeed, within a week of his first press conference, he said that the CDC and U.S. medical community needed to come up with a whole new approach to Ebola.
When Thomas Duncan, the Liberian in whom the virus was not initially detected died, we were treated to scenes of intensive decontamination efforts at the Dallas hospital, but a nurse who treated him became the first U.S. victim and Dr. Friedman was quick to blame a “protocol breach” as the likely reason. Now a second nurse has Ebola.
The likely reason can be found in the fact that thousands of people die every year from viruses and infections they acquire at a hospital.
The first and likely the second nurse wore protective outfits from top to bottom while dealing with Duncan. In Africa, the earliest victims have been the doctors and hospital staff tending those with Ebola. Any U.S. medical personnel returning from Africa should be quarantined after they arrive. The President has dispatched more than 4,000 military personnel to Liberia and their quarantine should be far longer than the 21 days we keep hearing about. We are now hearing it should be up to 40 days.
The notion that airport staff has any capacity at all to spot someone with Ebola is ludicrous, yet we are being treated to the charade of passengers having a device waved over them to detect a fever.
All this is a political approach rather than a medical one. It is political theatre.
One example of this was a statement by Dr. Francis Collins, the head of the National Institutes of Health, who blamed the lack of funding the NIH has received for research, including vaccinations for infectious diseases. He noted that the NIH has been working on Ebola vaccines since 2001, but does it strike anyone as odd that in all the time since then nothing has been developed?
In fairness, though, the NIH budget has declined 23% over the past decade. The current budget, however, is $29.31 billion. That is a substantial amount.
Congress represents more politics. Dr. Collins remarked that it did not appear “enthusiastic” about passing an emergency supplemental appropriation. For those in government the only answer to any problem is to throw more money at it.
Worse, a Democratic Party advertisement even claimed that the Ebola threat is due to Republican cuts in funding of healthcare research, but those cuts were bipartisan by virtue of the sequestration limits imposed. Not mentioned was an Obama administration decision to abandon a set of regulations which the CDC considered essential to prevent international travelers from spreading deadly diseases inside the U.S. At this point, the question is why?
So far Ebola has been located in West Africa, but in this world of global air travel, but without rigid restrictions it is only a matter of time before it begins to show up elsewhere including here again.
When that happens you can point a finger at Barack Hussein Obama who thinks it’s more important to have good relations with Liberia than it is to shut down any possibility that an African or anyone else at risk of having Ebola will arrive on our shores.
At that point, however, it will be too late.
© Alan Caruba, 2014
RELATED ARTICLES:
Whether There’s an Ebola Outbreak in the U.S. Depends on the Definition of ‘Outbreak’
A Second Health Care Worker Has Contracted Ebola
Ebola Cases, Already Rampant in West Africa, Expected to Double Every 3 Weeks
FL Senator Marco Rubio: 5 Steps to beat Ebola
The United States is the country best equipped with the resources and power to tackle the medical and logistical nightmare that the Ebola epidemic has become. With over 8,000 people infected, more than 4,000 dead and infection rates increasing, this outbreak of Ebola is not going to go away quickly.
Yet while we need a more effective and rapid response to contain the outbreak in West Africa, we also need to make sure sufficient safeguards are in place to protect Americans. We have to make sure that every aspect of our federal government’s response — from our passenger screening efforts to our public health system — is effectively prepared to prevent the spread of Ebola.
To that end, the United States must take several steps to strengthen our response to this challenge.
First, Americans need to have some reassurance that someone in our country is in charge of confronting this epidemic and keeping Americans safe from it.
So far, inexcusably, this has not really happened. President Obama should publicly designate a senior government official to lead a task force. This person would be in charge of coordinating the U.S. response to this crisis, both domestically and internationally, including our military presence, which in a limited amount of time has already had a real impact on the ground in Liberia.
Second, we need to target the problem at the source. Containing the outbreak in Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone is the right thing to do for humanitarian reasons, but it’s also essential to protecting the American people.
The longer the outbreak lasts in those countries, the greater the chance of the disease being transmitted to other countries, including the United States. As part of the response abroad, we need to bolster public health systems in the region to help prevent the virus from expanding across more borders.
Third, we need to prevent the growing crisis in West Africa from leading to more cases in the United States.
The recent announcement of increased entry screening of those traveling from affected countries by Customs and Border Patrol at select points of entry in the United States is a good but, frankly, overdue first step. However, it will not be enough, and the State Department should institute a temporary ban on new visas to non-U.S. nationals seeking to travel to the United States from Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea.
Since March 1, 2014, over 6,000 visas have been issued to nationals of these countries. Foreign health workers coming to the United States to be trained should be exempted, provided they pass screening efforts. However, until we have a better handle on the problem, we need to prevent mass travel from the countries most affected. We should also ensure that Customs and Border Patrol agents at airports beyond the current transit points have the equipment and training to deal with potential cases. And additional travel restrictions should not be ruled out.
Fourth, the infection of two health care workers in Dallas during the treatment of Duncan raises questions about the ability of hospitals across the country to handle the extensive safety protocols required to treat Ebola patients.
Two medical facilities in the United States have already successfully treated patients that have now been cured and two others have specialized facilities for treating patients with the virus. We should consider centralizing all future cases at these medical facilities, but hospitals across the United States will still need to focus on screening and isolating suspected cases that may arrive at their facilities.
Finally, we need to increase our efforts to develop an Ebola vaccine and to increase production of antiviral drugs.
There are a few promising drugs to fight Ebola in test phases. We should speed up testing of these drugs and explore the possibility of scaling up drug manufacturing at the same time as clinical testing. Once we develop a drug with proven success, we should be ready to supply it in large numbers. In order to avoid bureaucratic red tape, we should begin discussion with the WHO, drug companies and West African governments on the processes for purchasing and distributing of these drugs.
The Ebola epidemic is a reminder of the evolving nature of our national security challenges. A sick child in Africa has advanced into a global health security issue that is now knocking on America’s door.
We can successfully address this problem, protect our people and once again demonstrate America’s compassion abroad. But much more needs to be done and it needs to happen quickly. Like other national security challenges, the longer we wait to engage, the more limited our options will become and the likelihood of success will be reduced.
Read the entire article here.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Here’s Why Budget Cuts Have Nothing to Do With Developing an Ebola Vaccine
Whether There’s an Ebola Outbreak in the U.S. Depends on the Definition of ‘Outbreak’
A Second Health Care Worker Has Contracted Ebola
Ebola Cases, Already Rampant in West Africa, Expected to Double Every 3 Weeks
RELATED VIDEO: Plane that carried Ebola patient also flew to South Florida
EDITORS NOTE: Senator Marco Rubio is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations and Intelligence committees. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.
Christian persecution in the U.S.: Openly gay Houston mayor demands pastors turn over sermons
My friends, the persecution of Christian pastors has begun in this country. We previously warned about the efforts of the Freedom from Religion Foundation and its secretive settlement with the IRS allowing them to demand sermons to scrutinize for “political activity.” Well, it has indeed happened, in one of the reddest of red states in the reddest county in America: Houston, Harris County, Texas.
Houston Mayor Annise Parker
As reported by Fox News, “The city of Houston has issued subpoenas demanding a group of pastors turn over any sermons dealing with homosexuality, gender identity or Annise Parker, the city’s first openly lesbian mayor. And those ministers who fail to comply could be held in contempt of court. “The city’s subpoena of sermons and other pastoral communications is both needless and unprecedented,” Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Christina Holcomb said in a statement. “The city council and its attorneys are engaging in an inquisition designed to stifle any critique of its actions.” ADF, a nationally-known law firm specializing in religious liberty cases, is representing five Houston pastors. They filed a motion in Harris County court to stop the subpoenas arguing they are “overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, and vexatious.”
If there is anything that should unify Americans, it should be an assault on Christian ministers. It is absolutely amazing that the Obama administration sends a personal congratulatory note to the Islamic center in Oklahoma that spawned Alton Nolen who beheaded a 54-year-old American grandmother — and we have this openly lesbian progressive socialist tyrant allowing a subpoena against Christian pastors.
This is the test case (and as it happens I was just in Houston last week and will be back next Monday) and this is unconscionable! However, if this case is successful, it will be replicated elsewhere — and where is the Left screaming out about First Amendment rights of these pastors: “Freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof?” Where is the ACLU? After all, they care so much about the rights of unlawful enemy combatants aka Islamic jihadists and terrorists.
“Political and social commentary is not a crime,” attorney Holcomb said. “It is protected by the First Amendment.” Fox says, “the subpoenas are just the latest twist in an ongoing saga over Houston’s new non-discrimination ordinance. The law, among other things, would allow men to use the ladies room and vice versa. The city council approved the law in June.”
This is just how upside down Mayor Parker is and reflects her intent to establish a radical far left, gender-blind agenda and through coercion and intimidation, destroy any opposition – including church leaders. This is the tyranny of the Left and the radical gay agenda in full display. And I just have to ask, how does this bring anyone into alignment with the gay community if they are fully supportive of these initiatives?
Houston is home to Pastor Joel Osteen and I wonder if he’s going to make a stand and speak out — or is his ministry just for show? I can bet that just up the road in San Antonio, Pastor John Hagee won’t be taking this lying down. And what about Pastor T.D. Jakes up in Dallas — where does he stand?
Many people laughed when the progressive socialists came out with their “Turn Texas Blue” campaign – who’s laughing now? The State Capitol of Texas, Austin, is well known as a bastion of progressive socialists and now look at what’s happened in Houston — perhaps Gov. Rick Perry should stop going to Blue states and asking them to move to Texas. Leftist progressives are like locusts; wherever they migrate they bring along their destructive policies and agenda in order to infest their new host — just look at how the migration of leftist progressives from California has affected Colorado? And now it’s happening to Texas.
Here’s a clear example of the radical gay agenda and tyranny of Houston Mayor Parker. Per Fox, “the Houston Chronicle reported opponents of the ordinance launched a petition drive that generated more than 50,000 signatures – far more than the 17,269 needed to put a referendum on the ballot. However, the city threw out the petition in August over alleged irregularities.” As voter referendums supporting traditional marriage are being tossed aside by courts, judicial activism and legislating from the bench is alive and well.
“After opponents of the bathroom bill filed a lawsuit, the city’s attorneys responded by issuing the subpoenas against the pastors. The pastors were not part of the lawsuit. However, they were part of a coalition of some 400 Houston-area churches that opposed the ordinance. The churches represent a number of faith groups – from Southern Baptist to non-denominational.”
Mayor Parker won’t explain why she wants to inspect the sermons — and what makes her believe she has the power to do so anyway. Mayor Parker’s director of communications, Janice Evans, said “We don’t comment on litigation.”
Fox reports that “ADF attorney Stanley suspects the mayor wants to publicly shame the ministers. He said he anticipates they will hold up their sermons for public scrutiny. In other words – the city is rummaging for evidence to “out” the pastors as anti-gay bigots. Among those slapped with a subpoena is Steve Riggle, the senior pastor of Grace Community Church. He was ordered to produce all speeches and sermons related to Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality and gender identity. The mega-church pastor was also ordered to hand over “all communications with members of your congregation” regarding the non-discrimination law. “This is an attempt to chill pastors from speaking to the cultural issues of the day,” Riggle told me. “The mayor would like to silence our voice. She’s a bully.” Rev. Dave Welch, executive director of the Texas Pastor Council, also received a subpoena. He said he will not be intimidated by the mayor.”
I’ve said before that America is under assault from the unholy alliance of progressive socialists, Islamo-fascists, and secular humanists. What is happening in Houston is wrong on so many levels, it defies logic and reason but it is to be expected from the tyranny of the Left.
If Mayor Parker is successful, it will happen in other major American cities under radical progressive socialist control. It is time for all — especially Christian Pastors — to stand up, “be strong and courageous,” and defy this illegal edict reminiscent of Henry the Eighth, who proclaimed himself head of state and head of church.
Mayor Annise Parker is out of control, and knowing the backbone of true Texans and Houstonians, she will be defeated. To the gay community, if this is what you support and believe in, you’re not positively advancing your case – but demonstrating you advocate coercion as a means.
Time to rally America, and let’s send a message to Mayor Annise Parker of Houston: Molon Labe!
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on AllenBWest.com.
Florida Governor Rick Scott asks ‘every hospital mandate Ebola training programs’
We have reported on three cases in Florida of people with “Ebola like symptoms.” The state of Florida is particularly vulnerable to infectious diseases due to its porous water borders, international air and sea ports. As the Ebola virus spreads, and American concerns heightened, Governor Scott has asked all precautions be taken to protect Florida’s citizens and healthcare professionals.
Last week, Governor Scott requested the CDC provide 100 units of protective gear to Florida, and to date, the CDC has not fulfilled the request. The Governor also requested 30 additional Ebola testing kits – of which only three have been provided by the CDC to date. The 30 testing kits would ensure each Florida public hospital has access to an Ebola testing kit, which are used to test for Ebola at the Department of Health’s lab in Miami.
Governor Rick Scott announced that he is asking every Florida hospital to mandate all healthcare professionals undergo Ebola protection training programs to ensure their safety.
Governor Scott said in a press release:
“In light of what happened in Dallas, we want to make sure those healthcare professionals on the frontlines have the training and equipment they need to protect their health and safety. We are asking every Florida hospital to mandate that all healthcare professionals undergo Ebola preparedness training to ensure knowledge of protocols and availability of necessary personal protective equipment. It is very important for Florida hospitals to have the protective gear recommended by the CDC to ensure our healthcare professionals are safe in the event we ever have a case of Ebola in Florida.
“We’re asking Florida hospitals to notify the Department of Health when their personnel have undergone the mandatory training programs. In Florida, we are continuing to hope for the best while we prepare for the worst and learn from the developments in Dallas to further improve our own preparedness efforts.”
To help ensure hospitals provide the training and education to all personnel, the Department of Health, in collaboration with the Agency for Health Care Administration, will provide a new reporting structure to all of Florida’s 210 acute care hospitals. This comprehensive outreach to Florida’s hospitals will document each facilities’ preparedness in terms of available protective equipment as well as the healthcare worker education and training that has taken place.
It is the expectation of Florida’s public health agencies that each acute care hospital be fully capable and prepared to identify a potential Ebola case, protect healthcare workers on the frontlines, isolate the individual for evaluation, and inform the Health Department immediately. The Department of Health is continuing to work with partners across every county in Florida, including the Florida Hospital Association and the CDC, to ensure Florida maintains a posture of readiness.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Here’s Why Budget Cuts Have Nothing to Do With Developing an Ebola Vaccine
New Ebola Cases May Soon Reach 10,000 a Week, Officials Predict
“Outsourcing” Makes Us Richer by Robert P. Murphy
This short video, put out by the Million Jobs Project, currently has more than 3.7 million views. It claims that US producers have been outsourcing jobs abroad in order to fatten their profits. It urges viewers to increase their purchases of American-made products by 5 percent, since this shift would ultimately create “a minimum” of a million new jobs for Americans. Unfortunately, everything about this video is wrong.
In the first place, the video takes for granted that it is a good thing if an American gets a job at the expense of a foreigner. After all, the whole point of urging viewers to spend more money on American products is that this will cause “insourcing.” Firms will lay off foreign workers and bring those jobs back home to the United States. But other things equal, why should we hold this ethical view? The question is even harder to answer once we consider that the foreign workers who, according to the video producers, will lose their jobs are probably extremely poor compared to the Americans who will get the jobs. Since when is it a noble thing to put a desperately poor person out of work?
This obvious (but unstated) national prejudice of the video provoked the following unintentionally ironic statement in the comments at YouTube: “I am Canadian but I always try to buy north american [sic] made when possible.” I wonder if this Canadian actually means all of North America, including Mexico? Or does he just mean Canada and the United States? If he feels kinship with the members of his continent, what about the entire Western Hemisphere? Should he “buy Western” to keep jobs for his buddies in Brazil, rather than shipping them to those parasites in Thailand? Going the other way, should Americans also try to increase their purchases of items made in state by 5 percent, so that Texans keep jobs in Texas, while Floridians keep jobs in Florida? Of course I’m kidding; I am trying to show the arbitrariness of adjusting one’s spending to “create jobs at home.”
Beyond the fuzziness of the value judgment involved, the fundamental error in the video is the notion that there are a fixed number of jobs in the world. This isn’t so. If an owner closes a factory in the United States and opens a factory in India, he has only “shipped jobs abroad” in the same way that a correspondent can “ship a pen pal abroad” by switching writing partners. Other employers can rush in to offer jobs to the newly laid-off workers, or the workers can start their own businesses and become self-employed.
Indeed, so long as the government (or a union threatening violence with impunity) doesn’t artificially prop up wages and salaries, there is really no problem of unemployment in the market economy. Wages and prices eventually adjust so that everybody who wants a job can get one. Some workers might complain that their income is too low, but that’s a different problem from truly being unable to get hired at all.
To see the relevance of this point, let’s consider exactly how the phenomenon of outsourcing occurs. As the video describes it, US employers realized “about 30 years ago” that they could hire foreign workers to do the same jobs at much lower wages, so they relocated their production facilities abroad. This assertion raises the question: Why didn’t employers just cut US wages down to what the foreigners were asking?
The answer is that US workers won’t take such low-paying jobs because they have better options. For example, suppose Americans are originally employed in a TV factory in Tennessee, making $16 an hour. The owner of the plant realizes he can relocate it to India, where he can hire workers who are half as productive (meaning they only make half as many TVs per hour) but who are willing to work for $4 an hour. He would never bother relocating if the American workers would simply accept a pay cut to $8 an hour. (The American workers make twice as many TVs per hour, remember.) Suppose they won’t do that, because their next-best job option is to work in a warehouse for $10 an hour. In this case, with the numbers I’ve invented, the original factory owner would “ship jobs to India,” not because of some horrible flaw in the labor market, but because American workers had better things to do than make TVs for $8 an hour. It was more efficient for those workers to go into the warehouse sector and for the Indian workers to make the TVs.
Notice also the point about government intervention. If we cut all of the numbers in half from my scenario about TVs, then all of a sudden the outsourcing would seem to cause US unemployment. Specifically, suppose the American workers originally made TVs in Tennessee and were paid $8 an hour. Then the owner of the factory realized the Indian workers were willing to make TVs for $2 an hour. In this case, the Americans (who are still twice as productive) would need to cut their asking wage to $4 an hour to stay competitive, and their other option is to work at a warehouse where they would generate $5 an hour in value for their boss. Alas, in this scenario, the factory owner still “ships jobs to India,” but the laid-off Americans are stuck: It is illegal for them to work at the warehouse for $5 an hour, because that would violate minimum wage laws. Thus, they really have been thrown out of work, but the true culprit was government intervention, not outsourcing per se.
“Outsourcing” is simply a manifestation of the more general phenomenon of trade between countries. As a general rule, giving individuals the freedom to trade with whomever they wish, around the globe, maximizes the “real income” of the groups involved.
Looking at the issue from the other direction, we can say that if the US government imposes a barrier to trade — such as restricting imports from a particular country — then it might make some American workers richer, but only by making the average US consumer poorer. Furthermore, the losses to the consumers outweigh the gains to the “protected” workers, meaning the country as a whole is poorer when the government enacts a trade barrier. There is an entire literature of commentary on the virtues of free trade, demonstrating these truths in various ways. For those who have never read it, I highly recommend Frédéric Bastiat’s famous satirical essay, “Petition of the Candlemakers.” For those readers who can invest more time, I refer them to chapters 8 and 19 of my textbook Lessons for the Young Economist (available online for free here), which explains the standard case for free trade in terms of what economists call “comparative advantage.”
The general logic of the benefits of free trade applies to outsourcing; a particular instance of outsourcing will (obviously) hurt the domestic workers involved, but it will shower on other Americans benefits that more than offset the loss. Immediately, the owners of the outsourcing firm benefit in the form of higher profits (because they’ve cut their wage bill). But the forces of competition will soon cause those cost savings to show up as lower prices for American consumers. Indeed, the video’s producers implicitly admit this when they acknowledge that their recommendation to buy 5 percent more American-made products would be more expensive for consumers.
The logic of free trade is irresistible once a person takes the first step on its path. By effectively paying foreign workers with US dollars when they send us TVs, clothes, and other goods, we give them the purchasing power to buy American exports such as wheat and aircraft components. The opposite holds as well: If American consumers reduce their purchases of foreign-made TVs and other goods, then those foreigners will cut back on their purchases of American wheat and so forth. Ultimately, the video’s suggestion to “buy American” won’t create more American jobs in total, but instead will merely rearrange employment among sectors, making Americans poorer in the process.
To be fair, the video’s narrator does try to defuse the standard economist response to his analysis, starting around the 1:05 point. The narrator says that Americans won’t simply find other, “thinking up” jobs to replace the manufacturing jobs that have been outsourced, because those “thinking up” jobs need to be outsourced as well, in order to stay close to the manufacturing process. Whether or not this is actually true — after all, there are plenty of “thinking up” jobs being created in Silicon Valley and elsewhere in the United States — it misses the more basic point: There is no reason that the United States should manufacture a certain product within its borders for the rest of time.
As foreign governments reduce their own institutional barriers to trade, and as communication and shipping costs fall, it only makes sense that production becomes more globally integrated. To insist that Americans favor products “made in the USA” is as arbitrary and impoverishing as people in Alaska insisting that they only eat oranges grown in Alaska (in greenhouses, presumably). There are serious obstacles to prosperity for the average American worker, but the problem isn’t “outsourcing.” The problem is government mandates and restrictions that hinder the operation of the market economy.
ABOUT ROBERT P. MURPHY
Robert P. Murphy has a PhD in economics from NYU. He is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism and The Politically Incorrect Guide to The Great Depression and the New Deal. He is also the Senior Economist with the Institute for Energy Research and a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute.
Emailgate: Two Sarasota County School Board members violate Florida Law – will they be removed from office?
We have run a series of columns about union employees violating policy by using the Sarasota County School District official email system to promote political candidates for public office and harassing district employees while on the clock.
Our initial reports just scratched the surface of the corruption within the Sarasota County School District.
Shirley Brown, Sarasota County School Board member.
We wrote that this would be a challenge to the leadership of Superintendent Lori White. Today we report that this “culture of corruption” has ensnared at least two sitting School Board members – Shirley Brown (D) and Caroline Zucker (R) and the District Communications Director Gary Leatherman, who reports directly to Superintendent White.
Florida Statutes 104.31 – Political activities of state, county, and municipal officers and employees, states:
(1) No officer or employee of the state, or of any county or municipality thereof, except as hereinafter exempted from provisions hereof, shall:
(a) Use his or her official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with an election or a nomination of office or coercing or influencing another person’s vote or affecting the result thereof.
[ … ]
(3) Any person violating the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
[Emphasis added]
In a string of emails we find both Shirley Brown and Caroline Zucker violating not only Florida Statues (FS) 104.31, but also FS 106.113. We also find School Board member Brown, Director Leatherman and the Ken Marsh campaign violating FS 106.15, which states:
A candidate may not, in the furtherance of his or her candidacy for nomination or election to public office in any election, use the services of any state, county, municipal, or district officer or employee during working hours.
Ken Marsh, former district bureaucrat and candidate for School Board.
In this string of emails we find Shirley Brown and the Ken Marsh campaign coordinating campaign donations. We also find the District Director of Communications and Community Relations Gary Leatherman giving advice to and editing a Ken Marsh for School Board campaign flyer. All of these actions violate district policy and state statues as the use of the district proprietary email system and the exchanges occur during working hours.
Ann Hankinson, teacher Pine View.
Items forwarded to staff, other school board members, the Ken Marsh campaign, Gary Leatherman and Superintendent White include:
- School Board member Caroline Zucker is asked by Aaron Watkins, from Carab Enterprises, for advise on who to vote for in the school Board primary election. Watkins asks Zucker who she voted for in the School Board primary. Zucker replies, “I voted for Jane Goodwin, Shirley Brown and Ken Marsh.” (NOTE: Read more about Zucker here.)
- An email from Ann Hankinson, a AP calculus and statistics teacher at Pine View school, sends a draft invitation to a Ken Marsh for School Board event to be held on October 1, 2014 to Gary Leatherman for review and editing. Leatherman states he reviewed the invitation and made minor corrections. Leatherman goes on to reply to Hankinson, “Hi, I’m just checking to see if my email replies are being received.” Hankinson then uses the district email system to send the invitation out to her “Dear Math Colleagues.”
- Information about the Lee County, FL School Board reversing its decision to opt-out of mandated Common Core testing sent to the Ken Marsh campaign.
- Ken Marsh sending an election night invitation to Pat Gardner, President of the Sarasota Teachers/Classified Association (SC/TA). (NOTE: We have covered SC/TA use of the district email system here.)
- Gary Leatherman in direct contact with Ken March and his campaign with a summery of “the various ways and media we employ to help parents and other interested community members watch school board meetings.”
- SC/TA President Pat Gardner in direct contact with the Ken Marsh campaign discussing strategies on how to attack his primary opponents “innovative ideas about public access to school board meetings.”
- A political fundraising letter sent to Shirley Brown, Gary Leatherman and others from Gabriel Hament seeking donations for the Ken Marsh campaign. Leatherman replies, “Thanks, I contributed $100 last night.”
- Shirley Brown responds to an email from Austin Jambor, a financial adviser at Morgan Stanley, stating, “…I am hosting a reception for Ken Marsh Oct. 1 in Prestancia. Hope you can join us!”
- Kenner Brooke from North Port High School sends out a Sarasota County Democratic Party flyer.
- Notice of a homosexual marriage event hosted by Equality Florida forwarded by Brown to the Ken Marsh campaign. Brown suggests that Marsh attend the event.
We will be publishing more about this “culture of corruption” within the Sarasota County School District. Stay tuned.
BACKGROUND
The following are some examples of the illegal use of the Sarasota County School District resources for political purposes:
September 9, 2014
Gary Leatherman, the Director of Communications and Community Relations for the Sarasota County School District uses the Sarasota County School District Email System to confirm a commitment to submit a political donation to the Ken Marsh Campaign, as well as to assist in the drafting and editing of a fundraising letter for the Ken Marsh Campaign. Email sent during school hours. (Page 294-302)
September 9, 2014
Gary Leatherman, the Director of Communications and Community Relations for the Sarasota County School District uses the Sarasota County School District Email System, during business hours, to work directly with the Ken Marsh for School Board Campaign to draft and edit a fundraising letter and suggest attacks on School Board Member Bridget Ziegler. His official title & government position appears in the email.
(Page 105-108)
September 10, 2014
Gary Leatherman, the Director of Communications and Community Relations for the Sarasota County School District uses the Sarasota County School District Email System to communicate directly with School Board Candidate Ken Marsh, Ann Hankinson (who appears to be a Ken Marsh campaign volunteer & school district employee) & Gabriel Hament (who we believe is acting as Ken Marsh’s campaign manager & has hosted a fundraising for Ken Marsh). Sent during school hours. (Page 131-133)
September 10, 2014
Gary Leatherman, the Director of Communications and Community Relations for the Sarasota County School District uses the Sarasota County School District Email System, during business hours, to work directly with the Ken Marsh Campaign to draft and edit a fundraising letter and suggest attacks on School Board Member Bridget Ziegler.In the email, he states “Good Job”. His official title & government position appears in the email. (Page 136)
September 21, 2014
Gary Leatherman, the Director of Communications and Community Relations for the Sarasota County School District uses the Sarasota County School District Email System to directly receive a campaign update from the Ken Marsh Campaign. Continues to show pattern of coordination between Gary Leatherman, in his official capacity, working with the Ken Marsh Campaign. (Page 172-173).
Additional abuses (there are numerous other examples).
August 13, 2014
Lisa Saul uses the Sarasota County School District Email System to forward endorsements and attacks on the Tea Party and various candidates. Sent during school hours. (Document 1 Page 76-78)
September 11, 2014
Shari Dembinski (looks to be Union Rep) uses the Sarasota County School District Email System to forward an attack on Bridget Ziegler and a list of contributors to Bridget Ziegler’s campaign. Recipients are encouraging to share with non-union members. (We suspect this is what caused an organized effort to threaten the boycott of businesses supporting the Bridget Ziegler for School Board campaign. Numerous businesses reported receiving countless calls threatening a boycott of their establishment if they did not stop donating and/or displaying a Bridget Ziegler campaign sign. (Document 1 Page 81-82)
September 12, 2014
Shannon Wynne, a School District Employee, uses the Sarasota County School District Email System to falsely attack Bridget Ziegler and one of her contributors. Sent during school hours. (Document 1 Page 98-99)
September 12, 2014
Joette Riggs, a school district employee, uses the Sarasota County School District Email System to attack Bridget Ziegler and a contributor to the Bridget Ziegler Campaign. Sent during school hours. (Document 1 Page 112-114)
And why not? The politics and illegal misuse of taxpayer funded public resources starts at the top.
August 27, 2014
Wilma Hamilton, former Superintendent of the Sarasota County District, uses the Sarasota County School District Email System to book a hotel room for Ken Marsh & his wife Tanice Knopp. Why is she booking them a room? Was this disclosed on his campaign finance report? (Page 47-49)
August 21, 2014
Sarasota County School Board Member Shirley Brown uses the Sarasota County School District Email System in her official capacity as a School Board Member to endorse three Sarasota County School Board Candidates. (Page 56-57)
August 23, 2014
Sarasota County School Board Member Shirley Brown uses the Sarasota County School District Email System in her official capacity as a School Board Member to notify Marie Baia, a School District Employee, about political endorsements received by Ken Marsh, School Board Member Jane Goodwin and herself. (Page 248-249)
August 21, 2014
Sarasota County School Board Member Caroline Zucker uses the Sarasota County School District Email System, in her official capacity as a School Board Member, to endorse political candidate for office.
October 3, 2014
SB Member Caroline Zucker sharing who she voted for in the SB race Goodwin-Brown-Marsh when asked for recommendations (Page 297 – Document 3)
To read the full list of emails click here, here and here.
PUBLISHERS NOTE: I, Dr. Rich Swier, regret having used the term “illegal” in this and any other article to describe actions by Ms. Pat Gardner and the SC/TA.
What is ‘the Basic Issue’ facing the World today?
If you believe the basic issue facing the world today is the Ebola pandemic, the Islamic State, an eminent financial collapse, famine, poverty, government corruption, climate change or war you would be wrong. Some times people can’t see the forest for the trees. If you can’t see the forest for the trees, then you can’t see the whole situation clearly because you’re looking too closely at small details, or because you’re too closely involved.
Ayn Rand wrote a short nineteen page paper asking: What is the basic issue facing the world today?
Rand, in her paper makes the case that, “The basic issue in the world today is between two principles: Individualism and Collectivism.” Rand defines these two principles as follows:
- Individualism – Each man exists by his own right and for his own sake, not for the sake of the group.
- Collectivism – Each man exists only by the permission of the group and for the sake of the group.
I had read Ayn Rand’s paper and recently went to the movie theater to see “The Giver“, a film based on a 1993 young adult novel by Lois Lowry. The Giver is set in a society which is at first presented as a Utopian [Collectivist] society and gradually appears more and more dystopian. The novel follows a boy named Jonas through the twelfth and thirteenth years of his life. The society has eliminated pain and strife by converting to “Sameness,” a plan that has also eradicated emotional depth from their lives.
One of the key quotes from The Giver is: We really have to protect people from wrong choices.
For Collectivists this is the key concept for their social system. Rand defines a social system as “a code of laws which men observe in order to live together.” For an individualist the power of society is “limited by the unalienable, individual rights of man.” For the Collectivist “the power of society is unlimited.”
There are several points in the film where the life of a new born child is taken, by lethal injection, because of a perceived defect that may negatively impact the collective. Ayn Rand wrote:
“Under individualism, it is illegal to kill the man and it is legal for him to protect himself. The law is on the side of the right.
Under collectivism, it is legal for the majority to kill a man and it is illegal for him to defend himself.
The law is on the side of a number.
In the first case, the law represents a moral principle.
In the second case, the law represents the idea that there are no moral principles, and men can do anything they please, provided there’s enough of them.
Rand gives examples of each principle. Individualism is embodied in the United States of America by the Declaration of Independence. The examples of Collectivism are the former Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.
Many are concerned that the United States is becoming a Collectivist society. Rand wrote, “When [Collectivism is] applied in practice, a principle which recognizes no morality and no individual rights, can result in nothing except brutality.” Rand notes:
Either the power of society is limited, or it is not. It can’t be both.
Rand and a growing number of Americans understand that the Constitution “is not a document that limits the rights of man – but a document that limits the power of society over man.” Rand defines a right as “that which can be exercised without anyone’s permission.” Inalienable rights means that, “Man cannot be forced to devote his life to the happiness of another man nor of any number of other men. It means that the collective cannot decide what is to be the purpose of man’s existence nor prescribe his choice of happiness.”
What is the shield that protects man’s inalienable rights? Moral Principles.
Rand wrote, “It is true that society can abandon moral principles and turn itself into a herd running amuck to destruction. Just as it is true that a man can cut his own throat any time he chooses. But a man cannot do this if wishes to survive. And society cannot abandon moral principles if it expects to exist… Without a moral code no proper human society is possible. Without the recognition of individual rights no moral code is possible.”
Rand concludes “there can be no social system which is a mixture of Individualism and Collectivism.”
You see the Ebola pandemic, the Islamic State, a financial collapse, famine, poverty, government corruption, climate change and war are all symptoms of Collectivism. The cure for each is Individualism.
RELATED VIDEO: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. perhaps expressed the ideal of individualism best in a three minute sermon titled “The Street Sweeper”. Many believe this was his greatest sermon.
EDITORS NOTE: To download a printable copy of Any Rand’s paper What is the Basic Issue in the World Today, click here. If you are looking for a holiday gift to give yourself, your children, grandchildren or a family member or friend may we suggest giving either the novel The Giver or a DVD of the film or both.
The Government vs. the American Spirit
Over the past 50 years, the purpose of the American government has radically transformed. Whereas its main goal in domestic matters used to be to protect liberty, it is now an entitlements machine, transferring over $2 trillion per year from some people’s pockets to others.
Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute explains how the explosions in social security, medicare, medicaid, and other welfare programs are changing the American character for the worse–from one that is focused on individual responsibility and giving, to one that is focused on grabbing as much of the pie as possible.
EDITORS NOTE: You may support Prager University by clicking here. Free videos are great, but to continue producing high-quality content, even small contributions are greater.
UnFair the Movie – FairTax Hits Theaters on October 14, 2014!
“He that can have patience can have what he will.” – Benjamin Franklin
On Thursdays, Facebook fans have adopted a growing ritual affectionately known as “Throw Back Thursday.” Users post their favorite remembrances from the past – a childhood picture, a tattered piece of high school memorabilia, news clippings of a place where the locals once gathered.
For Facebook, taking a walk down memory lane has proven to be a popular activity for many users. For the FairTax® campaign, taking time to look at the past provides a possible window into understanding the journey that has gone before us and lies ahead.
The FairTax legislation, first introduced in Congress 15 years ago, represents the greatest transfer of power from the Congress to the people since the Founding Fathers began drafting the Constitution in 1787. Some people say they love the FairTax but don’t think it will ever become law. Others believe that we have to repeal the 16th Amendment, and because repealing an amendment takes a long time, there is no reason to push the FairTax now.
It is important that doubters consider these historical facts:
- While the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery, may have taken less than a year to be ratified, the decades leading up to its passage divided the nation and engulfed it in a bitter and costly civil war, but its supporters persisted and it was enacted.
- The 27th Amendment, which prohibited increasing or decreasing the salary of Members of Congress until the next term of office begins for the House of Representatives, was introduced in 1798 and even though it took 202 years, 7 months and 12 days to ratify, its supporters persisted and it was enacted.
- The 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote, began as a serious movement in the mid-19th century. Congress passed the legislation in July 1919, and ratified it in August 1920. As noted by the National Archives, “Few early supporters lived to see final victory in 1920,” but it was enacted.
- The 26th Amendment, which lowered the voting age to 18 years of age, was debated for thirty years, but took three months and eight days to ratify after being passed by Congress.
Fulton Sheen said, “Patience is power. Patience is not an absence of action; rather it is “timing” it waits on the right time to act, for the right principles and in the right way.”
Those who seek to protect the control, power and abuse they have carved out with the current income tax system believe that if they just keep throwing up roadblocks and ignore the FairTax movement, we will eventually join the doubters and give up and go away.
We have a message for them.
Never underestimate our patience as being a lack of action. Never doubt our unwavering principles in our quest for simple and fair taxation for all. Never question that we understand the concept of timing, and we are confident our time will come.
What our opponents fear the most is that the FairTax is the right and the best thing to do for America. Many of them instinctively know the truth of what Victor Hugo said so long ago, “All the forces in the world are not so powerful as an idea whose time has come.”
To further help educate people on the FairTax, in just four days; one of the biggest FairTax events in 15 years will take place in theaters across the nation. The 90-minute movie, “UnFair: Exposing the IRS,” will be showing for one night only on October 14 at 7:00 p.m. across all time zones.
UnFair The Movie: Trailer from Unfair Movie on Vimeo.
This groundbreaking documentary promises to do what no other movie has done before – tell the stories of betrayal, corruption, intimidation and the harsh personal, economic and political realities of America’s income tax system and the IRS. More importantly, it presents the FairTax Plan as the only real solution!
Don’t delay. Buy your ticket today. And call your friends, family and neighbors and invite them to join you at the movies. Go to http://www.unfairmovie.com/
See you at movies!
Is Obama shutting down a power plant near you?
Six years ago, President Obama threatened thousands of hard-working Americans livelihoods with two sentences. “So if somebody wants to build a coal-fired plant they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them…”
And now, the President is trying to make good on his promise. The EPA’s new climate regulations would close down enough electrical generation capacity to reliably power 44.7 million homes. That’s enough power for twenty-one states west of the Mississippi.
More than 72 gigawatts (GW) of electrical generating capacity have already, or are now set to retire because of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulations. The regulations causing these closures include the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (colloquially called MATS, or Utility MACT)[1], proposed Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)[2], and the proposed regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants.
To put 72 GW in perspective, that is enough electrical generation capacity to reliably power 44.7 million homes[3]—or every home in every state west of the Mississippi River, excluding Texas.[4] In other words, EPA is shutting down enough generating capacity to power every home in Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana.
Over 94 percent these retirements will come from generating units at coal-fired power plants, shuttering over one-fifth of the U.S.’s coal-fired generating capacity.[5] While some of the effected units will be converted to use new fuels, American families and businesses will pay the price with higher utility bills and less reliability for their electricity.
This report is an update of a report we first issued in October 2011.[6] In the original report, we calculated that 28.3 GW of generating capacity would close as a result of EPA’s regulations. At the time, we warned, “…This number will grow as plant operators continue to release their EPA compliance plans.” Unfortunately, this statement has proven to be true and will continue to grow in the future as new EPA regulations continue to be released. This latest update shows that 72.7 GW of electrical generating capacity will now close—a 44.4 GW increase.
To calculate the impact of EPA’s rules, we first assumed that EPA’s modeling of the regulations correctly predicted which power plants would close as a result of the regulations. Then, we looked at statements, filings, and announcements from electrical generators where they stated they would be closing power plants and in which they cited EPA’s regulations as the precipitating cause of the plant closures. We then compared EPA’s modeling outputs with the announcements and created a master list of plant closures as the result of EPA regulations (the master list is below).
Combining actual announcements with EPA’s modeling shows that EPA’s modeling grossly underestimates the actual number of closures. Originally, EPA calculated that only 9.5 GW of electrical generating capacity would close as a result of its MACT and CSAPR rules. Before President Obama’s newly proposed regulations on existing power plants even begin take effect, however, it is clear that actual number will now be much higher. We predict that over 72 GW of power generating capacity will likely close—over seven times the amount originally predicted by EPA modeling. Worse, as utilities continue to assess how to comply with EPA’s finalized rules, there will again likely be further plant closure announcements in the future. In our original 2011 report there were 30 states with projected power plant closures. Today, that number has risen to 37.
NERC is Concerned about Reliability even though It Underestimates the Amount of Closures
It should be further noted that the North American Reliability Corporation’s (NERC) original modeling of the MACT rule and original CSAPR rules estimated that under the worst case, or “strict” scenarios, 16.3 GW of electricity capacity would be closed due to the regulations, and the Department of Energy’s (DOE) “stringent” test showed that only 21 GW of generating capacity would be closed. [7] More recently, however, NERC has admitted that, “Since January 2011, the introduction and implementation of several environmental regulations combined with increased natural gas availability has contributed to the closure of nearly 43 GW of baseload capacity.”[8] NERC has shown concern that the closures will cause electricity reliability problems.
According to their 2013 Summer Reliability Assessment, some areas of the country have not been able to build enough generation capacity to meet recent load growth. A major reason for this is uncertainty surrounding environmental regulations.[9] Because of these deficiencies, some areas will see their generation reserve margins fall below target levels that can jeopardize power reliability. According to NERC, “Insufficient reserves during peak hours could lead to increased risk of entering emergency operating conditions, including the possibility of curtailment…and even rotating outages of firm load.”[10]
How much greater will the reliability problems be, given that retirements appear to be higher than initial NERC estimates, and additional burdensome regulations are continually being added?
Announced and EPA Projected Retirements Are Significantly Higher than DOE’s Worst Case Scenarios
As noted in our previous update, public statements and the Utility MACT itself showed that EPA relies heavily on a DOE study claiming that even under a theoretical “stringent” test, EPA Utility MACT and CSAPR regulations would only close 21 GW of generation. EPA then claimed this study proves regulations will not threaten reliability. Our analysis, however, shows that with the addition of President Obama’s newest proposed rules, EPA projections and operator announcements will total more than 72 GW of generation retirements—over 50 GW more than DOE’s supposedly ultra-strict test scenario.
In fact, the initial reliability assessment released by the EPA with their new CO2 restrictions on existing power plants even points out that regions in the Southeast and Northeast may experience effects from the regulation that “…raise concerns over reliability.”[11]
EPA Regulations are Already Causing Electricity Prices to Dramatically Rise
Unfortunately, recent EPA regulations are already greatly reducing U.S. coal power capacity and raising electricity prices for homes and businesses across the country. According to Dr. Julio Friedman, Assistant Secretary for Clean Coal at the U.S. Department of Energy, wholesale electricity prices could end up rising as much as 80 percent from the effects of these rules.[12]
This past winter demonstrated in real time the value of the existing coal fleet. During the winter of 2014, coal was the only fuel with the ability to meet demand increases for electricity, providing 92 percent of incremental electricity in January/February, 2014 versus the same months in 2013. Americans were harmed as the relentless cold indicated that prudent utility practices require large, baseload coal plants to stabilize the grid, keep society functioning, and maintain electricity availability. Many regions suffered; for example, in late January and early February 2014 some locations in the Midwest experienced gas prices as high as $35/MMBtu, and the Chicago Citygate price exceeded $40/MMBtu. Those figures are nearly 10 times higher than EIA’s estimated average price of $4.46/MMBtu for natural gas in 2014.
The result of these and ongoing EPA rules, if put into force, will be no new coal-fired plants in the United States and massive closures of existing coal plants. Since coal is our single largest source of electricity generation, replacing these units will require the construction of higher-cost renewable generating technologies and/or natural gas units that will need massive infrastructure improvements to meet the higher demand. And, consumers will need to pay for these changes. Those added costs will make utility bills unaffordable for many families and force industry to curb production, relocate, or shut down altogether slowing any further recovery in an already lagging economy.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
LIST SOURCES
This list is derived from three sources: (1) EPA’s parsed modeling files, which identify the power-plant units that EPA models say will close as a result of either the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) or Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS Rule); (2) news releases or press stories where a power-plant operator says a unit will or is likely to close due to EPA regulations; and (3) filings with state public utility commissions where a power-plant operator says a unit will or is likely to close due to EPA regulations. This list does not include the EPA’s parsed modeling files for the 111(d) rule. All sources are publically available information. Note that many of the plants originally projected to close by EPA modeling have already been retired.
EPA PARSED FILES
Process to Identify Units Closed by EPA Regulation
Individual power plants often have multiple boilers, called “units,” that generate electricity. EPA, in addition to overall modeling, models the impact that the Agency believes its regulations will have on each unit, at each power plant in America. EPA lists these results in “parsed files.” When producing parsed files for a regulation, EPA will first create a business-as-usual “base” case parsed file where the Agency details what it believes will happen absent EPA’s new regulation. Next, EPA creates a “policy” or “remedy” case parsed file showing how EPA believes plants will respond to a regulation. Thus, one can find the difference between these two cases, and figure out the impact EPA believes a regulation will have, by comparing the policy/remedy case parsed file to the base case parsed file. As such, the following steps were CSAPR and MATS Rule:
- For CSAPR, data from the parsed files for the CSAPR’s base case and remedy case were put on a single spreadsheet. The combined results were organized by plant name. Each plant listed in both the base case and remedy case was removed. Thus, the resulting list only shows those plants that EPA believes will close because of the
CSAPR. Plants projected to close under CSAPR rules were retained in this update despite the uncertain legal status of the rule. Regardless of the legal status, many of the plants that were originally projected by EPA modeling to be impacted have already been retired or converted. In these instances, some of the citations will reflect the public statements or announcements made stating these impacts rather than the original EPA modeling.
- For the MATS Rule, data from the parsed files for the MATS Rule’s base case and policy case were put on a single spreadsheet. The combined results were organized by plant name. Each plant listed in both the base case and policy case was removed.
Thus, the resulting list only shows those plants that EPA believes will close because of the MATS Rule.
- The resulting base case-free CSAPR list and MATS Rule list were then put on a single spreadsheet. The combined results were organized by plant name. In each instance where the CSAPR and the MATS Rule independently said the same plant would retire, one of the entries was deleted so as to not double-count it. The citation was modified to attribute the unit closure to both the CSAPR and MATS Rule.
POWER-PLANT OWNER PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS
Ensuring that Retirements are Result of EPA Regulation
All retirements announced by plant owners in news releases or through public filings on this list were due to EPA regulation. In each such case, the source cited directly identifies EPA regulations as the sole or main reason for the power plant’s retirement.
Avoiding Double-Counting
If a unit was identified to close by both EPA parsed files and public announcements, then the duplicate entry was released. The unit’s citation was modified to indicate that both EPA and public announcements slated the unit for retirement.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Why is this list’s total retired capacity higher than EPA’s total?
The total retired capacity for this list is higher than EPA’s total because this list includes EPA’s projected unit retirements and unit retirements announced by power-plant operators. No unit cited by both sources was double counted.
Does this list include plants that will close even without the CSAPR or MATS Rule?
No. The parsed file results used in this list do not include business-as-usual base case results. In other words, if EPA modeled a unit to close even if the CSAPR or MATS Rule were not implemented, then that unit was not included.
EPA said only 4.7 GW will close, so why are these numbers higher?
The 4.7 GW retired coal-plant capacity figure is from the EPA Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the MATS Rule alone. The CSAPR RIA projects an additional 4.8 GW of coal-plant capacity to retire due to the CSAPR. When combined, the RIA’s project 9.5 GW of coal-plant capacity to retire due to the MATS Rule and CSAPR. As noted above, additional plant retirements are due to actually announced retirements.
When a power-plant operator announces that it is closing a certain unit, how do you know that is because of EPA regulations?
In each case where a retirement is attributed to public announcements, the cited source material lists EPA regulations as the sole or main reason for the plant’s retirement.
Some groups have said EPA regulations will retire up to 103 GW of coal-fired generation, but this list only shows 72 GW. Does this mean those projections are wrong?[13]
No. If anything this list gives more credibility to those higher retirement projections. This list is very conservative; it merely shows what units EPA says its regulations will close, plus specific units that plant-operators have said will close because of EPA regulations. Those analyses that show higher power-plant retirements than this list lay out what the final overall impact of EPA’s regulation will be. On the other hand, this list focuses just on the currently disclosed impact. Thus, this list will likely grow far higher, especially as states realize what will be needed to comply with recently announced 111(d) regulations. However, because this list already finds many more retirements than EPA projected, the Agency’s claim that its regulations will have minimal impact on electric generation are clearly incorrect.
EPA has said that other projections showing a high coal generation retirements were based on incorrect assumptions. Is that the case for this list?
No. The only modeling in this list is from EPA. Thus, any mistaken assumption would be EPA’s mistaken assumption. Otherwise, the remaining data is from actual public announcements detailing the imminent or highly possible closure of specific units at specific power plants. Since our initial release in 2011 it is evident that any claims of incorrect assumptions regarding coal plants were unfounded.
Does this list account for other EPA regulations that may impact power plants?
This list only includes the parsed files for EPA’s CSAPR and MATS Rule modeling. No other specific EPA models were consulted to compile this list. While some of the public statements from power plant operators cite specific EPA regulations like CSAPR, MATS and 111(d), many times the statements are more general and broadly cite EPA as the catalyst for retirement. Regardless, all of the publically announced plant retirements listed are due to EPA regulations.
REFERENCES
[1] Environmental Protection Agency, Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Proposed Toxics Rule, Mar. 2011, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/utility/ria_toxics_rule.pdf.
[2] Environmental Protection Agency, Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the final Transport Rule, http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/pdfs/FinalRIA.pdf. *** Note: At the time of this release, CSAPR is in legal limbo. In 2011, The D.C. Circuit issued a stay on CSAPR, but the D.C. Circuit’s opinion was vacated by the Supreme Court in 2014. EPA has filed a motion to have the stay on CSAPR lifted, but the D.C. Circuit has not yet ruled on the motion according to EPA’s website: http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/CSAPR/bulletins.html
[3] Assuming the 72 GW is made up solely of coal retirements with an 80 percent capacity factor
[4] http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/53000.html.
[5] Energy Information Agency, “Existing Net Summer Capacity by Energy Source and Producer Type, 2002 through 2012 (Megawatts)”, http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_04_02_a.html
[6] Institute for Energy Research, IER Identifies Coal Fired Power Plants Likely to Close as Result of EPA Regulations, Oct. 7, 2011,http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/2011/10/07/ier-identifies-coal-fired-power-plants-likely-to-close-as-result-of-epa-regulations/.
[7] see North American Electric Reliability Corp, 2011 Long-Term Reliability Assessment, Nov. 2011, http://www.nerc.com/files/2011LTRA_Final.pdf.
[8] North American Reliability Corporation, “2014 Summer Reliability Assessment”, May 2014,http://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ra/Reliability%20Assessments%20DL/2014SRA.pdf.
[9] North American Reliability Corporation, “2013 Summer Reliability Assessment”, May 2013, http://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ra/Reliability%20Assessments%20DL/2013SRA_Final.pdf.
[10] ibid.
[11] Environmental Protection Agency, “Technical Support Document: Resource Adequacy and Reliability Analysis,”http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-06/documents/20140602tsd-resource-adequacy-reliability.pdf. Pg. 6.
[12] Aaron Larson, “CCS Could Increase Coal-Fired Electric Generation Costs By 70%–80%,” Power Magazine, February 13, 2014.
[13]http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/clean_energy/EPA-standards-and-electricity-reliability.pdf
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of the Big Bend power plant emits plumes of smoke and steam. TECO Energy-owned Tampa Electric still generates 55 percent of its electricity using coal. Source: SKIP O’ROURKE | Times (2002).
National Poll: ‘Gun Violence’ is a Criminal Justice, Not a Public Health, Issue
More than eight out of ten Americans say that the misuse of guns in violent crimes is a matter for the criminal justice system, not a public health issue, and that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) should not spend resources on the study of “gun violence” but instead concentrate on viruses and disease.
These findings are among the results of a national scientific poll of 1055 likely voters conducted live by telephone Sept. 30-Oct. 2. The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) commissioned this survey to determine whether adults share the view of some gun control organizations and activists that the use of guns in crime, for which they use the short-hand “gun violence,” is a public health issue.
For a larger view click on the chart.
An overwhelming 84 percent of survey respondents said gun violence is a criminal justice issue, rather than a public health issue, such as viruses. An even higher 88 percent of respondents said they do not think the CDC should spend resources on studying the use of guns in crime rather than on studying viruses and disease.
For a larger view click on the chart.
Some 71 percent of respondents said that the federal government should not classify gun violence as a public health issue in the manner of viruses and diseases.
When asked whether the definition of gun violence should be expanded to include accidents and instances of self-defense, nearly three-quarters of respondents said gun violence is a crime committed using a firearm with the intent to injure another person.
The survey was conducted by Harper Polling. The margin of error is +/-3.02 percent. Respondents self-identified as 38 percent Democrat, 33 percent Republican and 30 percent independent. As to ethnicity, 74 percent of respondents said they were White, 11 percent African-American, 8 percent Hispanic; and 7 percent, other. As to age, 25 percent of respondents said they were 18-39; 27 percent, 40-54; 23 percent 55-65; and 25 percent, 66 or older.
For a larger view click on the chart.
“As the significant challenges posed by the Ebola epidemic demonstrate, the emphasis of the Centers for Disease Control should remain on the study, prevention and containment of viruses and infectious disease,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel. “For political reasons, many involved in gun control activism would like to re-define the criminal misuse of guns into a public health issue. We commissioned this survey to help determine where Americans stood on this issue. To put it plainly, they don’t buy it. And given the 20-year reduction in violent crime that the FBI reports, even as the number of firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens has increased, they shouldn’t buy it.”
ABOUT NSSF
The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the trade association for the firearms industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of more than 10,000 manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations and publishers. For more information, visit www.nssf.org.
Democrat Governor: Legalizing Pot Was ‘Reckless.’ A New Study Proves Him Right [+Video]
The top Democrat in Colorado, Gov. John Hickenlooper, said Monday during a gubernatorial debate that legalizing marijuana in Colorado was “reckless.” His Republican opponent, Bob Beauprez, agreed.
According to The Huffington Post, Hickenlooper said, “I think for us to that that [legalize recreational use] without having all the data, there is not enough data, and to a certain extent you could say it was reckless.”
Hickenlooper is right and wrong.
He is certainly correct, and gets credit for admitting that legalizing the recreational use of marijuana in Colorado was reckless. As we have shown here, here, here and here, the negative social costs are proof positive that this radical experiment is not only reckless, but dangerous.
But Hickenlooper is wrong that there is “not enough data.”
As former Obama administration drug policy expert Kevin Sabet has said, the trope that marijuana is harmless and non-addictive is a myth. His book, “Reefer Sanity: Seven Great Myths About Marijuana,” is a must-read for anyone who actually wants “the data.”
But now there’s even more “data.”
Marijuana and cannabis-infused products are displayed for sale at a marijuana dispensary in Denver, Colorado. Source: AP.
A definitive study published this week by the Journal of Addiction by professor Wayne Hall of Kings College London shows that marijuana is highly addictive, causes mental health problems and is a gateway drug to other illegal dangerous drugs.
Hall’s research, conducted over the past 20 years, confirms what other studies have shown:
- Regular adolescent marijuana users have lower educational attainment than non-using peers;
- Those users are more likely to use other illegal drugs;
- Adolescent use produces intellectual impairment;
- It doubles the risk of being diagnosed with schizophrenia;
- And, not surprisingly, increases the risk of heart attacks in middle-aged adults.
Hickenlooper’s warning to other states should be heeded. Legalizing marijuana is reckless, no matter what the pot pushers say to the contrary.
COMMENTARY BY CULLY STIMSON
Charles “Cully” D. Stimson is a leading expert in criminal law, military law, military commissions and detention policy at The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Read his research.
RELATED VIDEO: What are the physical effects of smoking cannabus/marijuana?
RELATED ARTICLES:
How Marijuana Legalization United Democrat, Republican Running for Governor
Florida House Speaker Will Weatherford on Amendment 2: ‘De Facto Legalization of Marijuana’
Tampa Bay Times recommends: Vote no on Amendment 2, medical marijuana
Why Every AMERICAN Must Vote!
The most common statement about today’s elections is that “elections don’t matter!” Yet, never has there been a moment in history when it was more critical for every AMERICAN to vote very carefully!
The reason can be stated in a single sentence… Because every non-American and anti-American will vote!
I choose to believe that the non-Americans and anti-Americans do not yet outnumber the AMERICANS, and all recent polling data supports that belief, showing more than 70% opposed to current federal leadership. But it won’t matter if the enemy outnumbers Americans at the polls.
Disenfranchisement
Not all U.S. residents of legal age are eligible to vote in U.S. elections. Yet many of them do vote in elections illegally and here’s how.
Under the U.S. Constitution, disenfranchisement of citizens convicted of crimes, especially federal crimes or felonies, is legal and just punishment for the crimes committed. It’s a highly just and practical punishment in a country governed of, by and for the people via the election process, preventing criminals from having equal access to determine the future of a nation, along with decent law-abiding citizens.
However, it is left up to each state to determine which crimes justify disenfranchisement and whether or not that loss of voting rights will be permanent or temporary, until the sentence is served. As a result, we do have convicted felons voting in elections today.
The current felon count is estimated at 6 million, 38% of whom are black and 20% of whom are Hispanic. Barack Obama and nearly all democrat politicians support returning all voting rights to convicted felons. Some republicans like Rick Santorum, have also fought to reinstate voting rights for felons.
In Richardson v. Ramirez (1974), the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of felon disenfranchisement statutes, finding that the practice did not deny equal protection to disenfranchised voters. Except for Maine and Vermont, every state prohibits felons from voting while in prison.
As of 2010, only Kentucky and Virginia continued to impose a lifelong denial of the right to vote to all citizens with a felony record, absent some extraordinary intervention by the Governor or state legislature.
Since criminals will vote, law-abiding citizens MUST vote.
Even without amnesty, millions of illegal aliens will vote in this election. If you live in a state that does not require any proof of legal citizenship or form of ID to vote, illegals will vote in your state. If your state issues drivers licenses to illegal aliens, illegals able to prove residency in your voting district and show proof of ID via their driver’s license will vote in your state.
Because illegal aliens will vote, legal U.S. Citizens MUST vote!
Because DEAD people vote democrat in every election, LIVE Americans MUST vote too!
The Lies People Buy
Since felons, illegal aliens, dead people and dual residency voters WILL vote in the election, who is the target of all efforts to keep voters at home or focused on third party fantasies on Election Day?
YOU ARE!
People seeking to vote themselves more wealth redistribution WILL vote, and so will millions of illegal aliens, felons and dead people. People with dual residency will vote in more than one district, and all of them have been trained to do so by the Democratic National Committee and their community organizing surrogates, in direct violation of all existing U.S. Election laws.
In 1982, the Republican National Committee settled a law suit filed by the Democrat Party by signing a consent decree agreeing to never challenge voter fraud in any “minority” districts, where 99% of all voter fraud takes place in the country. So, in “voter fraud districts,” voters of all illegal types can do whatever they want with total impunity.
(NOTE: The RNC consent decree only applies to the RNC, the “national committee.” Individual state Republican Parties can and must challenge election fraud within their own state election districts. All election rules are set and enforced by the state party.)
All current efforts to convince American voters to stay home or vote 3rd party in protest are aimed at YOU, the pro-American voter, the only people standing in opposition to Obama & Co. – Obama supporters are NOT the subject target of all efforts to demoralize voters. YOU ARE!
That’s why every American MUST ignore these lies and VOTE!
Which Elections are Important?
The last election is over and the next election is two years away. That alone makes THIS election the most important election.
Only the votes that are cast can count. Only votes cast wisely can have a positive impact.
As a general rule, the people have it backwards today. The true priority importance of elections is as follows…
- Local and State level elections are critical. The idea that there is no difference between Republican and Democrat is largely true at the federal level. But at the state level, nothing could be further from the truth. In terms of economics, peace, freedom and morally sound states, the top 10 best run states in the country are all run by Republicans, and the worst states in the country are all run by Democrats. Federal policies only affect us locally when local politicians are as bad as the federal politicians. (READ Balance of Powers)
- The local primary is the most important federal election of all. Bottom up government begins at the primaries. Who we have to choose from in a general election is decided at the primary earlier in the year. People complain that they only have people to vote against in the general election. But this is only true because voter turnout is lowest in the primaries. Further, because many states have open primaries, allowing the political enemy to cross party lines in the primary and help select our candidates for the general election. CLOSE THE PRIMARIES!
- Second to the primaries is the mid-term election, wherein the balance of congressional power can shift towards or away from the Executive Branch. When the vast majority of Americans agree with the direction of the country, voter turnout in the mid-terms is generally and reasonably low. But when over 70% of the country believes the country is headed in the wrong direction, it is critical to take away all congressional support from the Executive Branch in the mid-term election. Today, House Republicans have refused to impeach the most impeachable Executive Branch in history because they don’t currently control the Senate which must hold the impeachment trial. The people will have ONE opportunity to change that dynamic next month. They MUST hold the House and take the Senate.
- The presidential election is actually the least important in any Constitutional Republic wherein the Executive Branch has the most limited federal authority. Only when congress and the judiciary fail to uphold their oaths of obligation can the Executive Branch behave like a dictatorship. The people get to decide who is in congress and congress holds the broadest federal authority under the U.S. Constitution, not the president or the judiciary.
The people have it backwards. Traditionally, the presidential election gets the best voter turnout, mid-terms trail and primaries have the lowest voter turnout. This must change immediately! Because everyone who wants to destroy America will vote, regardless of their eligibility, EVERY TRUE AMERICAN MUST VOTE in order to counter that corruption in the election systems.
Making Sure Every American Vote is Counted
Massive voter fraud was reported to Congress in the 2012 election cycle and members of Congress were unable to do anything with the evidence as a result of the 1982 consent decree prohibiting the Republican Party from contesting election fraud in “minority” districts.
Meanwhile, evidence of disenfranchisement of the Military vote also went unchallenged by Congress.
So, pro-American change is solely up to AMERICAN voters.
The only way Americans can shift the balance of power in their own direction peacefully is to show up in massive numbers, overwhelming all of the anti-American voters and election fraud.
American voters must vote. They must also volunteer to poll watch and be the checks and balances to assure honest elections in their own districts. The people must challenge what the RNC long ago agreed not to challenge, “minority bloc voter fraud.”
The 2014 mid-term election is likely the very last chance Americans will have to overwhelm their enemies at the polls, moving the nation away from the global leftist assault on freedom and liberty and towards a continued march back to American principles and values.
People have been asking for six years now – “what can we do?”
YOU CAN VOTE! You can make sure that your vote isn’t wasted on candidates who can’t possibly win races. You can make sure that both chambers of the federal legislature are stripped away from Barack Hussein Obama and his merry band of Marxists. You can make sure that the most impeachable administration in U.S. history is impeached!
That, you can do!
People, who won’t do at least that, will never stand up to this criminal cabal anywhere else by any other means. Believe it!
President of Sarasota Teachers Union calls Superintendent White’s bluff — sends out another ‘political email’
PUBLISHERS NOTE: I, Dr. Rich Swier, regret having used the term “illegal” in this and any other article to describe actions by Ms. Pat Gardner and the SC/TA.
Superintendent Lori White has been called out by the Sarasota Teacher/Classified Association (SC/TA) President Pat Gardner. Who will prevail? Many are calling this a direct challenge to Superintendent White’s leadership as the district Chief-Education-Officer.
As we reported SC/TA President Patricia “Pat” Gardner and SC/TA Treasurer Kevyn Fitzgerald, the union representative at Riverview High School, have been using the district official email service to repeatedly send out political and harassing messages to all district employees in violation of District policy. Superintendent White’s staff admitted that:
“Outside of the SC/TA’s ability to communicate with the employees, you [Dr. Rich Swier] are correct that our procedures state that the district email system is not to be used for, among other things, political campaigning.
Superintendent White then sent a reminder to all employees of this prohibition. The reminder stated:
As our community is in the midst of a number of political campaigns, I want to remind all employees about the School Board’s Information Technology Guidelines and Procedures which prohibit, among other things, using the School Board’s email system for any communication that may be perceived as political campaigning. While I encourage all our employees to be civically engaged in the electoral process, this engagement should not occur on work hours, nor should the School Board’s email system be used for this purpose.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Photo of Pat Gardner from SC/TA website.
Gardner has ignored Superintendent White’s reminder. Gardner and Fitzgerald sent out the following message in direct violation of School Board policy:
From: Fitzgerald Kevyn
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 2:14 PM
To: REDACTED
Subject: FW: Newlsletter – Info for Restricted ClassFrom: Gardner Pat
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 1:50 PM
Subject: Newlsletter – Info for Restricted ClassPlease forward:
They’re running scared and starting to play dirty. I’m on the blogs today with a story that I’m doing illegal things by sending out email to my members. They used a picture of me from 12 years ago, so I’m feeling pretty good about that. Here I go again:
Get those absentee ballots in as soon as possible.
Our endorsed candidates are:
Charlie Crist – Governor
Ken Marsh – School Board District 1Our suggested candidate is George Sheldon for Attorney General.
NO on Amendment 3.
We will be getting Ken Marsh signs in the office and will deliver them if you would like them or feel free to pick them up. Let us know if you would like any. Ken Marsh will be doing sign waving and I will try to send out his schedule if you would like to join them.
Have a great day.
Pat
What will Superintendent White do now?
We have sent a request to Superintendent White and have not received a response as of the posting of this column.
This is a test of Superintendent White’s leadership and her staff’s ability to enforce school board policy equally upon all district employees.