The Phony Science Behind Obama's EPA Ozone Regulation

According to the President's head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Gina McCarthy, we need to lower the current allowable ozone rates from 75 parts-per-billion (ppb) to at least 65-70 ppb, and eventually to 60 ppb.  Her primary argument for doing this is improved health; especially in children with asthma.  In a commentary that McCarthy wrote, that was published by CNN, she said this:

For our children, that means avoiding up to 1 million missed school days, thousands of cases of acute bronchitis, and nearly a million asthma attacks. Adults could avoid hundreds of emergency room visits for cardiovascular reasons, up to 180,000 missed work days, and 4 million days where people have to deal with pollution-related symptoms.

To further justify the EPA requirement, she added this:

Thousands of scientific studies (from renowned institutions like Harvard University, the University of North Carolina Medical School, and many others) tell us that cutting air pollution to meet ozone standards lowers the risk of asthma, permanent lung damage, cardiovascular harm, and premature death.

Now, there is no way that I or anyone else can factually prove that reducing ozone lowers the risk of permanent lung damage, cardiovascular disease, or premature deaths.  All of these health issues are the result of a number of other variables such as smoking, work environment, family histories, etc.  But, I can tell you one thing: Every year, Americans are living longer.

As to the theory that lowering ozone levels reduces the risk of asthma, especially in children, let me say this. From an emotional standpoint, it is always difficult to argue against any regulation that would help children, but please consider the following:

Instead of using anecdotal evidence from some government-sponsored Harvard study, I would prefer to use actual evidence from the Center for Disease Control (CDC); which, apparently, Gina McCarthy never heard of.  You see, the CDC collects physical data on all kinds of diseases.  In the period from 2006-2008, they found that 9% of children had prevalent asthma.  Then, in 2008, the EPA mandate of ozone levels of 75 ppb went into effect. Therefore, one would think that the risk of children getting asthma would have lessened.  However, 4 years later, in 2012, the CDC determined that the percentage of children with asthma actually went up to 9.3%.  Also, in 1996, the percent of children with asthma was only 6%. So, why is the rate of children with asthma so much higher?  This, despite a near 75% drop in ozone as this chart from the EPA shows:

Image link remove by EPA. I wonder why?

So, tell me. Where is the correlation between asthma and ozone? Are we once again being lied to by the Obama Administration and using junk science to establish more major impediments to business merely to make the liberal base of environmentalists happy? 

The proposed new regulation(s) on ozone is expected to cost our economy $3.4 trillion in economic output by 2040.  With, at the same time, a loss of 2.9 million jobs in the process.   Of course, the EPA claims that for every dollar spent in compliance, $3 in health benefits will be returned.  Obviously, then, we should see $10.2 trillion in health benefits by 2040.  To put that number into perspective, Americans spend about $2.8 trillion on health care each year.  So, we are now expected to believe that we will save nearly 4 years worth of all the current health care spending by 2040?  I doubt anyone who knows numbers would seriously think that is even possible.

References:

CNN: Gina McCarthy:  U.S. EPA: We need tougher ozone standards: http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/26/news/economy/epa-stronger-ozone-standard/

Americans Can Now Expect to Live Longer Than Ever | TIME: http://time.com/3481226/life-expectancy-record/

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html

‘The most expensive regulation ever’  Obama rolls out a major EPA rule: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/epa-ozone-standard-113183.html

Current Asthma Prevalence --- United States, 2006--2008: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6001a18.htm

CDC: Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Children: National Health Interview Survey, 2012: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_258.pdf

June 2000: Childhood Asthma: In 1996, 4.4 million children, or 6 percent of the U.S. population under 18 years of age, had asthma: http://www.agingsociety.org/agingsociety/pdf/asthma.pdf

EPA: Ozone Season NOx Reductions: http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/NBP_1.html

 

The Obama Administration "Surprised" Over The Border Crisis

When the news broke of mass numbers of unaccompanied children crossing the border, the response by officials at DHS and ICE were that they were "surprised" by the influx.  This first-we-heard-of-it tactic by the President and his people is getting a little tiring.  Remember the V.A. scandal.  The first they heard of it was when it was reported by CNN.  The same was true with the IRS scandal and Fast and Furious.

Now, with the border crisis raging, we are finding out that the Obama Administration knew for a least a year that there would be a massive influx of Central American children crossing the border.  Last January, they ran an ad seeking a contractor to handle the transportation of a very specific and calculated number of 65,000 unaccompanied children.  That amount seems to be right in sync with the projected numbers that we are now being given by the "surprised" Administration.  Then, just recently, we find out that, in August of last year, the Border Patrol built a makeshift processing and transportation center at Brownsville, Texas; specifically to handle unaccompanied children.  

This all begs the question: When is the most transparent Administration in the history of the United States going to start being transparent?

References:

Question: If DHS Is “Surprised” At The Number Of Unaccompanied Minors Crossing The Border, Then Why Were They Looking For A Vendor To Support 65,000 Unaccompanied Minors In January ?…: http://agenda21radio.com/?p=10185

Stunning: DHS solicited bids for vendor to handle 65,000 unaccompanied minors -- IN JANUARY!: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/06/stunning_dhs_solicited_bids_for_vendor_to_handle_65000_unaccompanied_minors__in_january.html

White House says Obama only learned of VA wait-list scandal on TV (just like the IRS, Fast and Furious and reporter snooping scandals): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2633103/White-House-says-Obama-learned-VA-wait-list-scandal-TV-just-like-IRS-Fast-Furious-reporter-snooping-scandals.html

Obama aides were warned of brewing border crisis: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-aides-were-warned-of-brewing-border-crisis/2014/07/19/8b5d2282-0d1b-11e4-b8e5-d0de80767fc2_story.html
 

Obama Wants $62k Per Child To Clean Up Border Mess

It is currently estimated that about 60,000 unaccompanied children from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador will reach our southern border this year; all seeking asylum.  President Obama has told Congress he wants $3.7 billion to fix this immigration nightmare.  But, if you do the math, his funding requests equals  about $61,700 per child;  and, this amount is above the thousands that this government is already spending to detain, health check, and bus these kids to either families or other detention centers throughout the United States.

All indications are that almost all of the $62K per child is really needed to feed and cloth and process these children through the immigration and court systems and "not" to prevent, deter, or block these children from overrunning the country.  Of course, any sane person would say that's a lot of money, on a per child basis to be spending, and still not stop the migration of these kids.

Once again, Obama wants to throw money at the symptom and not address the real issue.  Of course, if the Republican House doesn't approve his funding request, he will do what he always does and blame them for blocking his efforts to solve the problem.  This is all he really wants so that he can again use it a campaign tool in advance of the Fall elections; never once putting this country above political maneuvering.

References:

Surge in unaccompanied child immigrants spurs White House reaction: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/surge-in-unaccompanied-child-immigrants-spurs-white-house-reaction/

Obama holds off on deportation changes, seeks $3.7B to address border crisis: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/08/white-house-funding-border-policy-changes/

The Hidden Agenda Of The Labor Department Ban On Children Doing Chores On Farms

Unless Congress is able to step in, It appears that Hilda Solis' Department of Labor will issue new child labor rules that will effectively ban all farm children from doing any daily chores on their parent's farms.  The Labor Department claims that the ban is needed because the children are being injured in the process of these chores and they are being abused by having to work long hours.

While I can't address the "long hours" issue, I can say that accident statistic for children on farms is about 7 per 1000 farms per year.  By contrast, 1 in every 5 high school athletes will suffer a painful injury in all their years of sports participation.  So, the "accident" claim seems to be a canard.  And, if one claim is a canard, the other on "long hours" just may also be falsified.

For as long as there have been farms in America, parents have their children working on them.  It helps farmers lower operating costs and it teaches the children many valuable life and work ethic lessons.  Generally, it prepares children so they can eventually run the farm themselves.  Now, all of a sudden, the Obama Administration has decided to break that long tradition.

But, why now?  To me, the "real agenda" here is all about forcing farmers to hire more workers.  Hilda Solis knows that the work will have to be done by paid workers if the children are no longer involved. This means more jobs for both nationals as well as illegals.  However, it also means that the farmer's costs will go up.  Of course, with higher costs you get higher food prices.  For the working poor, that means even more food stamps. Lastly, it also means that some number of farms will go bankrupt because the higher costs will make them less able to operate profitably.

Update:  Apparently the political heat got too hot for Obama and the idiots at his Labor Department and the new rules on farm children have been dropped.  But, mark my words.  The rules haven't been actually dropped.  They've just been shelved.  I guarantee you that, if Obama is reelected and he no longer has anything to lose, those child labor rules will be reissued.