Happy Darwin Day!

Yes, yes, I know that today is Abraham Lincoln's birthday.

But did you also know that it's Charles Darwin's birthday?  The exact same day?

HAPPY DARWIN DAY!

A few days ago a Resolution was introduced in the House of Representatives  "Expressing support for designation of February 12, 2014, as ``Darwin Day'' and recognizing the importance of science in the betterment of humanity."

Here's the text:Whereas Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by the mechanism of natural selection, together with the monumental amount of scientific evidence he compiled to support it, provides humanity with a logical and intellectually compelling explanation for the diversity of life on Earth;

Whereas the validity of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is further strongly supported by the modern understanding of the science of genetics;

Whereas it has been the human curiosity and ingenuity exemplified by Darwin that has promoted new scientific discoveries that have helped humanity solve many problems and improve living conditions;

Whereas the advancement of science must be protected from those unconcerned with the adverse impacts of global warming and climate change;

Whereas the teaching of creationism in some public schools compromises the scientific and academic integrity of the United States education systems;

Whereas Charles Darwin is a worthy symbol of scientific advancement on which to focus and around which to build a global celebration of science and humanity intended to promote a common bond among all of Earth's peoples; and

Whereas February 12, 2014, is the anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin in 1809 and would be an appropriate date to designate as ``Darwin Day'': Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives-- (1) supports the designation of ``Darwin Day''; and (2) recognizes Charles Darwin as a worthy symbol on which to celebrate the achievements of reason, science, and the advancement of human knowledge.

Unfortunately, the resolution's been sent to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.  A committee chaired by Lamar Smith of Texas a climate science denier.  The chair of the committee's subcommittee on oversight is chaired by another southerner and science denier named Paul Braun who has said this about evolution:

God’s word is true,” Broun said, according to a video posted on the church’s website. “I’ve come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior.”

Oh, and he thinks that the planet's about 9,000 years old.

So much for scientific literacy on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

Today is The Day We Fight Back

Yea...The Trib's Still Misleading About The ACA

From today's Tribune-Review:

The Toledo, Ohio, Block Bugler derides “conservatives who don't want to subsidize anyone” for criticizing ObamaCare as “a proven job killer.” (The Congressional Budget Office says the law could reduce full-time equivalent employment by 2.5 million jobs by 2024. We report, you deride.) But in the process, The Bugler appears to tacitly endorse gaming the system — in which lower income workers can reduce their hours or not work at all in order to continue receiving subsidized ObamaCare — as just another “choice.” Pity the poor schmucks who choose to work and are forced to pay for ObamaCare's sloths. [Emphasis added.]

Ooo, so close - but still not close enough for their reading audience not to in mistakenly think that "Obamacare's a job-killer!"  Heck they were told only last Wednesday that the ACA would, "force the equivalent of more than 2 million workers out of the labor market by 2017."  Something we now know to be false and an assertion still left uncorrected on the pages of Richard Mellon Scaife's Tribune-Review.

For the record this is what the Post-Gazette actually said - the actual lines from which Scaife's braintrust so surgically quotes:

While it has been reported — or misreported, some now say — in terms of jobs, what the respected, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office actually reported was a decrease in full-time equivalent employment, a figure it put at 2.3 million by 2021 and 2.5 million by 2024.

In short, it’s not that the Affordable Care Act is killing huge numbers of jobs. The jobs may remain. It’s about choices people are likely to make about the jobs in response to the incentives in the law.

Some Americans, mostly in lower-paying jobs, may choose to reduce their hours to part-time or not work at all to keep their income low enough to stay eligible for federal health care subsidies or Medicaid. That may still be objectionable to conservatives who don’t want to subsidize anyone, but that is different from calling Obamacare a proven job killer.

And about that "sloth" part?  Funny thing, the Post-Gazette addresses that in the very next paragraph:

It can be looked at this way: When Social Security was introduced, was that a job killer because older people decided to retire with dignity rather than work until they dropped, as they had formerly done with no retirement benefit? Of course not.

But let's address the real issue here.  What's being discussed is something called "job lock."  The business directory defines it as:

The inability of an employee to voluntarily terminate employment with a particular company because he or she would lose current health care benefits. This becomes an issue for individuals that have pre-existing health conditions that may not be covered under the new employer's health care coverage. This situation is possible because most insurance companies have a pre-existing health care clause that prevents them from being liable for any condition that the employee had before requesting coverage.

And it's a bad thing.  Hey, how about a health care plan that addresses it? Yea!  How about a plan that would:

...accommodate the mobility of a highly advanced economy, increas­ing productivity and particularly enhancing the ability of small businesses to grow and expand. Individuals would have a level playing field- undistorted by the tax code-to choose whether to select a health policy from their workplaces or from other sources.

Today, leaving a job or changing jobs means leav­ing behind the health insurance provided at the place of work. Individuals who wish to take a better job, change careers, or leave the workforce to raise a family or to retire early take substantial risks. They may find themselves going without coverage, pur­chasing non-group insurance with substantial tax penalties, or giving up a well-developed relation­ship with a physician or medical specialist. This health insurance obstacle to labor mobility is some­times called "job lock."

See?  Job-lock.  This plan...

...which links tax breaks directly to individuals instead of to their place of work, individuals would no longer feel obligated to stay with their employers simply because they need to keep their employer-based health insurance. If the worker lost a job, changed jobs, or retired early, he or she could buy an insurance policy and offset its cost with the McCain health care tax credit.

Wait, what?  The MCCAIN HEALTH CARE TAX PLAN?   What the heck is that?

Oh gee sorry, I should've told you.  The text about that health care plan that so easily addresses "job lock"?  That's from the Scaife-funded Heritage Foundation.

No discussion back then about how health care reform gaming the system.  I wonder why.  I guess they were against job lock before they were for it.

What Planet Does Daryl Metcalfe Live On?

A letter from today's Tribune-Review written by State Representative Metcalfe:

A Democrat Pennsylvania judge has struck down the state voter-identification law in an activist partisan maneuver. The Corbett administration filed an appeal to the judge's ruling, and I believe the law eventually will be found to be constitutional.

Chairing the State Government Committee, I have heard convincing testimony about Pennsylvania's history of election fraud. As recently as 2008 and 2009, ACORN staffers in Allegheny, York and Chester counties have been prosecuted for election law violations. Voter ID will help restore integrity and confidence in our elections.

Last fall, after an online election, I won the unsolicited honor of being inducted into the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO's “Hall of Shame.” That's because of my support for making Pennsylvania a right-to-work state, authoring the voter ID law and defending marriage as between one man and one woman.

On Jan. 27, union members came to the Capitol to protest a proposed law to ban the use of taxpayer resources to collect public-sector union dues. I co-sponsored this legislation because it's not fair to use public money to benefit private political organizations such as the public-sector unions. Former legislators are sitting in prison for using taxpayer resources for campaign purposes, yet our law allows those resources to collect money for unions.

On Jan. 30, about 20 union protesters picketed outside of my Cranberry office. I am sorry I missed their visit because I had not yet returned from the Capitol. I would have enjoyed discussing the protesters' concerns with them, although I would not have been a sympathetic ear.

I will continue my fight to protect taxpayers.

Let's start at the top.  Here's the Voter ID decision Metcalfe so longingly predicts is unconstitutional.  In the next paragraph, he states that he's "heard convincing testimony" about our state's history of election fraud.

Perhaps he should have informed the attorneys defending Pennsylvania's law before the Commonwealth Court because:

[Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard] McGinley also said the state failed to demonstrate the law was necessary to preserve the integrity of elections, as they “wholly failed to show any evidence of in-person voter fraud” either occurring or being in imminent danger of occurring. 

So what did Representative Metcalfe mean by his claims of voter fraud in Allegheny York and Chester counties?  Perhaps he meant this:

For starters, in May 2009, a six-month FBI investigation led to forgery and election fraud charges against seven Pittsburgh area ACORN employees. In October 2008, Philadelphia's deputy city commissioner submitted approximately 8,000 fraudulent ACORN-collected voter registration forms for investigation.

Also in October 2008, another ACORN canvasser was arrested in York County for, according to new reports, submitting more than 100 fraudulent voter registrations "on at least 19 applications he randomly picked names out of the phone book and registered them."

Daryl wrote this in 2011, by the way.

You'll note that he's also not actually talking about voter fraud (which McGinley's decision calls "in-person voter fraud" but voter registration fraud.  A completely different thing.

He even said so in 2011:

...Philadelphia's...commissioner submitted approximately 8,000 fraudulent...voter registration forms...

And:

...another ACORN canvasser was arrested in York County for...submitting more than 100 fraudulent voter registrations...

And Allegheny County?  You guessed it:

Seven Pittsburgh-area ACORN workers were charged with falsifying voter registration forms, with six accused of doing so to meet the group's alleged quota system before last year's general election.

District Attorney Stephen Zappala Jr. said he's hoping the workers charged Thursday will help authorities determine whether Allegheny County ACORN officials will be charged with requiring the illegal quotas or otherwise directing that voter registrations be faked. [Emphases added.]

The crime of voter registration fraud is different from in-person voting fraud.  Pennsylvania's Voter ID law was an attempt (an unconstitutional one, as it turns out) to combat in-person voting fraud.  And yet Representative Metcalfe is dishonestly using evidence of registration fraud in an attempt to show that in-person voting fraud exists.

Even though the state stipulated:

• There have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania; and the parties do not have direction personal knowledge of any such investigations or prosecutions in other states
• The parties are not aware of any incidence of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania and no not have direct personal knowledge of in person voter fraud elsewhere
• Respondents will not offer any evidence in this action that in-person voter fraud has in fact occurred in Pennsylvania or elsewhere

So WHAT IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT'S GOOD IS DARYL METCALFE TALKING ABOUT?

Given the court's decision that "Voting laws are designed to assure a free and fair election; the Voter ID law does not further this goal" when have to ask that when State Representative Daryl Metcalfe writes:

I will continue my fight to protect taxpayers.

We have to assert that he's got it backwards. It's the voters who have to be protected from him.

I Guess The Trib's Randy Bish Didn't Get The Memo

...or maybe he got a different one.

...or maybe he didn't read the news today (oh, boy).

Take a look at today's editorial cartoon:

The message is clear: "Obamacare is a jobs killer."  This is an obvious reference to yesterday's blurb in the Tribune-Review asserting the same thing.

Except we know all know it just isn't true.  Again, from the CBO report:

The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses’ demand for labor, so it will appear almost entirely as a reduction in labor force participation and in hours worked relative to what would have occurred otherwise rather than as an increase in unemployment (that is, more workers seeking but not finding jobs) or underemployment (such as part-time workers who would prefer to work more hours per week). [Emphasis added.]

And here's something new that my friends at the Trib may or may not have read.  From the Washington Post:

Under questioning today before the House Budget Committee from Dem Rep. Chris Van Hollen, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf confirmed that in reality, his report suggests Obamacare will reduce unemployment...[Italics in original.]

And:

...Van Hollen cited the report’s findings on Obamacare’s impact on labor demand, rather than supply. On page 124, the report estimates that the ACA will “boost overall demand for goods and services over the next few years because the people who will benefit from the expansion of Medicaid and from access to the exchange subsidies are predominantly in lower-income households and thus are likely to spend a considerable fraction of their additional resources on goods and services.” This, the report says, “will in turn boost demand for labor over the next few years.”

“When you boost demand for labor in this kind of economy, you actually reduce the unemployment rate, because those people who are looking for work can find more work, right?” Van Hollen asked Elmendorf.

“Yes, that’s right,” Elmendorf said.

Elmendorf added that the factor Van Hollen had identified was something CBO thinks “spurs employment and would reduce unemployment over the next few years.”

So there it is: The CBO report found the opposite of what some foes of the law claimed.

Randy Bish included.

Um, No...

Scaife's Editorial Board over at the Trib joins the rest of the right wing media today in their CBO/ACA mislead:

ObamaCare is the gift that keeps on taking. The Congressional Budget Office says the health care law will explode the debt and force the equivalent of more than 2 million workers out of the labor market by 2017. It says ObamaCare's incentives are driving businesses and people to choose government-sponsored benefits rather than work. It's yet another sorry example of how “progressive” economics is bankrupting America. [Bolding in original.]

The important phrase here are how the ACA will "force the equivalent of more than 2 million workers out of the labor market" and how the AVA's incentives "are driving businesses and people to choose government-sponsored benefits..."

Now let's go to exactly what the CBO wrote:

The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses’ demand for labor, so it will appear almost entirely as a reduction in labor force participation and in hours worked relative to what would have occurred otherwise rather than as an increase in unemployment (that is, more workers seeking but not finding jobs) or underemployment (such as part-time workers who would prefer to work more hours per week). [Emphasis added.]

How they go from the report saying that "workers choose" to reporting that the CBO says that workers will be "forced" out of the labor market is a question for greater minds than mine.  In the meantime, let's just call it "dishonesty."

In fact the guy who wrote the report has more (this is from think progress):

On Wednesday, Congressional Budget Office (CBO) director Doug Elmendorf refuted the claim that the Affordable Care Act is a job killer — a misleading takeaway from his agency’s new report that is being touted by Obamacare critics.

Testifying before the House Budget Committee on the CBO’s newly released economic projections for the next decade, Elmendorf addressed the report’s finding that the Affordable Care Act will reduce the labor participation rate and the total number of hours worked by an equivalent of 2 million jobs in 2017. According to Elmendorf, that statistic is being taken out of context to suggest that Obamacare will eliminate jobs.

“The reason we don’t use the term ‘lost jobs’ is there is a critical difference between people who like to work and can’t find a job — or have a job that’s lost for reasons beyond their control — and people who choose not to work,” he explained. “If someone comes up to you and says, ‘The boss says I’m being laid off because we don’t have enough business to pay,’ any other person feels bad about that and we sympathize for them having lost their job. If someone says, ‘I decided to retire or stay home and spend more time with my family and spend more time doing my hobby,’ they don’t feel bad about it — they feel good about it. And we don’t sympathize. We say congratulations.”

Now go back and look at how Scaife's braintrust described the report.  That cognitive dissonance (sorry, Ed) you're experiencing?  That's a recognition of the braintrust's dishonesty.

Jack Kelly Sunday

I guess I have to ask it again:

Doesn't anyone at the P-G fact-check Jack Kelly?

Why am I asking this, yet again?

Because this showed up in today's column:

But his small ball, recycled initiatives — he even plagiarized lines from Mr. Bush’s 2007 SOTU, according to former Bush speechwriter Mark Thiessen...

Except he didn't.  Thiessen was wrong and Jack is wrong for passing it along.

Let me show you why.

According to David Weigel of Slate.com:

This one comes from Fox News, which hosted former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen after he claimed that President Obama's speech had been lifted from the 2007 State of the Union.

The link above leads to this Breitbart page. Here's what it says:

Following President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address on Tuesday, former George W. Bush speechwriter Mark Thiessen told Fox News Channel’s “The Kelly File” host Megyn Kelly that Obama’s speech plagiarized lines from Bush’s 2007 speech, for which he said he was the lead speechwriter.

“It was eerily familiar,” Thiessen said. “There were lines like, ‘Our job is to help Americans build a future of hope and opportunity. A future of hope and opportunity begins with a growing economy. A future of hope and opportunity requires our citizens have affordable and available health care.’ ‘Extending opportunity and hope depends on a stable supply of energy.’ All of that came from the 2007 State of the Union address by George W. Bush. So, Barack Obama has gone from blaming George W. bush to plagiarizing George W. Bush.”[Emphasis added.]

Ok, so let's go to Obama's State of The Union Address to see if those lines are actually in there.

Guess what?  They're not.

Weigel's done almost all of the heavy lifting here, so I'll just add a few details of my own.

Asserted plagiarism #1 ("Our job is to help Americans build a future of hope and opportunity.")  And to that Weigel writes:

This appears in the Bush speech: "Our job is to make life better for our fellow Americans, and to help them to build a future of hope and opportunity—and this is the business before us tonight." Nothing like it appears in the Obama speech—the closest is "Opportunity is who we are."

In fact, the only time the phrase "our job" shows up in Obama's SOTU is in response to this passage:

Today, after four years of economic growth, corporate profits and stock prices have rarely been higher, and those at the top have never done better. But average wages have barely budged. Inequality has deepened. Upward mobility has stalled. The cold, hard fact is that even in the midst of recovery, too many Americans are working more than ever just to get by – let alone get ahead. And too many still aren’t working at all.

To which the President follows:

Our job is to reverse these trends. It won’t happen right away, and we won’t agree on everything. But what I offer tonight is a set of concrete, practical proposals to speed up growth, strengthen the middle class, and build new ladders of opportunity into the middle class. Some require Congressional action, and I’m eager to work with all of you. But America does not stand still – and neither will I. So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that’s what I’m going to do.[Emphasis added.]

That's it.  That's the overlap - and it's hardly plagiarism.  No mention of "hope" in that section Bush's SOTU, by the way.  How telling.

Asserted plagiarism #2 ("A future of hope and opportunity begins with a growing economy -- and that is what we have.").  And to that Weigel writes:

That's the next line in the Bush speech. Nothing like it appears in the Obama speech. He doesn't even use the phrase "growing economy."

In fact there's only one use of the word "hope" and it's in this sentence:

That’s what most Americans want – for all of us in this chamber to focus on their lives, their hopes, their aspirations.  [Emphasis added.]

No overlap here at all.

Asserted plagiarism #3 ("Extending opportunity and hope depends on a stable supply of energy.").  And to that, Weigel writes:
Also in the Bush speech. Obama—see the pattern?—does not repeat this. He says instead that "one of the biggest factors in bringing more jobs back is our commitment to American energy," which is a similar sentiment. In fact there's no usage of the phrase "extending opportunity" or "stable supply of energy."  In fact the word "stable" shows up only once in Obama's speech at all.  Here:

But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact. And when our children’s children look us in the eye and ask if we did all we could to leave them a safer, more stable world, with new sources of energy, I want us to be able to say yes, we did.

Again, no overlap, no plagiarism.

Now if you wanna talk about something far closer to actual plagiarism, I bring up something I wrote five and a half years ago.  The P-G's Jack Kelly wrote this about then-Governor Sarah Palin:

When she was leading her underdog Wasilla high school basketball team to the state championship in 1982, her teammates called her "Sarah Barracuda" because of her fierce competitiveness. Two years later, when she won the Miss Wasilla beauty pageant, she was also voted Miss Congeniality by the other contestants.

Compare that to something Fred Barnes wrote a year or so before:

Gov. Palin grew up in Wasilla, where as star of her high school basketball team she got the nickname "Sarah Barracuda" for her fierce competitiveness. She led her underdog team to the state basketball championship. Palin also won the Miss Wasilla beauty contest, in which she was named Miss Congeniality, and went on to compete in the Miss Alaska pageant.

Jack, that's far closer to actual plagiarism than anything Marc Theissen alleged.  And you did that.

I'll ask it again:

Doesn't anyone at the P-G fact-check Jack Kelly?

I guess the answer is, "no, not so much."