Independent Women's Forum RSS feed

Talking About the Coronavirus: Don’t Panic, But Do Be Informed and Prepared

Julie Gunlock — Mon, 2 Mar 2020 07:03:00 CST

On this pop-up episode of She Thinks, Julie Gunlock, Director of the Center for Progress and Innovation at Independent Women's Forum, talks with Independent Women Forum's foreign policy fellow Claudia Rosett on the Coronavirus, how it’s spreading from China and what you can do here in America to prepare.

TRANSCRIPT

Beverly Hallberg: Hey everyone. It's Beverly Hallberg. Welcome to a special pop-up episode of She Thinks, your favorite podcast from the independent women's forum where we talk with women and sometimes men about the policy issues that impact you and the people you care about most. Enjoy

Julie: Hi there everyone. I'm Julie Gunlock, the Director of the Center for Progress and Innovation at the Independent Women's Forum. Joining me today is a good, good friend and IWF senior foreign policy fellow, Claudia Rosett, who today is going to be talking about something that's on all of our minds, Coronavirus. Before Claudia and I get into this, I do want to give a quick bio on Claudia. She's an amazing journalist, a completely impressive resume. She's an award winning journalist who's reported over the past 37 years from Asia, the former Soviet Union, Latin America and the middle East. And she has done groundbreaking reporting on the corruption at the United nations actually. Claudia and I have known each other for a lot of years and that is when I started to get to know Claudia during her work, her investigation into the United nations. Incredibly impressive work there.

Claudia has also been a staff writer at the Wall Street journal. She served on the editorial board there and with the Moscow Bureau Chief in the mid 90s. She's published in numerous publications from the New York times, the Philadelphia Inquirer, and many other, that is just a tiny list of the many places that she's published.

So Claudia, I'm so glad to be talking to you today about this. I know you know a lot on the subject.

Claudia: Yeah, Julie, thank you for that lovely introduction. And this subject of this Coronavirus is really important. It will very likely affect us all in one way or another.

Julie: Definitely, definitely. So apparently now maybe you can update us a little bit on this, but the latest figures, as you say, you may have updated numbers, but it looks like it's in 42 countries. According to the CDC, there are 53 confirmed cases in the United States. It looks like the total is now around 78,000, maybe a little bit more than that, who knows, overnight, it might've increased even more. And it's killed around 3000 people worldwide. And I feel it's really important actually here to just before we get into the latest data on this stuff is to interject, sort of my job at IWF is to tamp down alarmism and to make people feel like they don't need the panic about things. But I will also say that it's also my job to point out when you actually should worry about things. This is definitely a virus I think you should worry about. But I think it's also important to say that this virus, for those who have died from this virus, they seem to have some sort of compromised immune system already. They're sick, they may have another disease, they may have been suffering from another disease and then they get this virus and it's just too much for their body.

So I want to say that on the outset, that it doesn't appear that this is like sort of... This isn't Ebola, the minute you get it, say your goodbyes and say your prayers. This is a fairly mild virus, it's flu like, but it still can kill. So, so with that said, I don't want people to listen into this because we are going to be talking about how this spreads so of course it's highly contagious. And I don't want people to think that they're immediately going to drop dead if they do get this. But I think it is important, the CDC, the head of immunology at the CDC basically told her family that they should expect a major disruption as this week through the United States. So I don't think if there's any doubt that we will all be experiencing this. And I think getting some information on it is good.

So with that said, Claudia, if you could kind of give us an update on what the current status is of the infections and what governments are doing.

Claudia: The bottom line is do not panic, but do be informed and keep a close eye on this. It's a sign of how rapidly this spreads, that even overnight, we're now up to almost 84,000 officially reported infections worldwide in something like 50 countries. And with the special concern, the place where it began is China and that has by far the greatest number of infections, almost 79,000. But there's been an enormous outbreak in South Korea. It's gone from about 30 infections a week and a half ago to 2300 now. And Italy, which went from a handful to 655 as I look at the current tallies. Iran, which seems to have a very high mortality rate compared to others suggesting they're probably under-reporting the number of cases, which has officially 388 cases reported today and so on. Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Germany, it is pretty much spreading. The cases are turning up at least in small numbers at this point, all around the globe.

So this things spreads very quickly. It's a strange new virus. It's neither precisely flu, nor is it some of the other things. It's got characteristics that scientists are still trying to figure out. All of that made harder by China's lies and secrecy where the main outbreak began. But in the statistics we're getting, and these could change, but this is a rough picture right now, in about 80% of the cases it's either so mild that there are no visible symptoms or it's an unpleasant flu, that's how it feels. But in about 20% of the cases it can turn critical. What basically happens is this is a virus that attacks the lungs and it can turn into very severe pneumonia needing hospitalization. In About 5% of the cases people end up in intensive care. And then the estimates of mortality right now are really kind of fluid, but roughly 2% which is a small number for if two in a hundred, and at the same time, that's many, many times the actual flu.

A few more things that people have observed, and again this is all sort of up in the air a little bit right now because it's new, and that is, it is worse for older people. As Julie mentioned, people with compromised immune systems tends to concentrate on that end of the spectrum. At the same time, quite relatively young people have died of this, notably a Chinese doctor who tried to blow the whistle on this early and was suppressed by the Chinese Communist Party, Li Wenliang, who died at the age of 34 earlier this month. So it's both. It's something where you want to wash your hands a lot and keep an eye on things and stockpile some provisions, and at the same time, this is not Ebola. This is something that can be fought and it's something above all to be informed about.

Julie: So you mentioned China. I'd like to kind of pivot to China for a little bit, just obviously you've mentioned that this originated in China and there's some really interesting theories on that. But I'd also like for you to tackle how has China been behaving during this outbreak? When we first heard news of this, and saw reports of this, was it just a small problem in China or had they waited? I'd kind of like to get a sense of how quickly China alerted the greater world community about this.

Claudia: Well, if there were awards for international awards for hypocrisy among dictatorships, China probably wins it with this one. What China's ruling communist party did, and I say the communist party, I could say the government, but the communist party runs the government, Xi Jingpin, China's president runs the communist party. And he has all these grand dreams that China is supposed to be the dominant world power in the century. He wants to make it that within his lifetime, part of this is that everything this huge party apparatus of surveillance and control, which is quite brutal, is used to try and burnish China's image as well as infiltrate, subvert and so on. And when this virus turned up, it emerged apparently in the large industrial, central China city of Wuhan, sort of the Chicago of China, it began circulating probably last November, December. We know by December it was out there.

A number of doctors, young doctors in Wuhan noticed this thing because they've been on high alert since the SARS outbreak in 2003, which was a deadly pneumonia, which then sort of faded away, but they watch for things like that. They know that. And in particular, it was a group of doctors, but the one who's really become the human face of what this tragic thing, this horrible thing that China's communist party did, is they noticed that the SARS like pneumonia, very serious, was turning up among a small group of patients, and they were talking about it in an online chat room. And this doctor, Li Wenliang, was one of the people who said, "Take extra precautions. It appears to be quite contagious. It's dangerous." Well, they keep an eye on everybody in China. You're not supposed to freely express yourself. So he and his colleagues were arrested and they were told by authorities that they had to admit that they were spreading rumors, that they were going to cause a panic, they were spreading lies, they were going to hurt China's reputation. So they were basically coerced into signing documents saying they would not spread rumors and they went back to work.

And the same Li Wenliang who rightly observed this, tried to report it and warn people, caught the virus and died of it on February 7th, which was just terrible. China, meantime, having shut up these doctors who were trying desperate, trying to say, "Be careful. Look at this thing..."

... I'm desperately trying to say, be careful. Look at this thing. China then tried to hush it up for three more weeks. The authorities and what they did was just beyond belief. They didn't just ignore it. They tried to suppress it. In fact, in Wuhan, where this outbreak was occurring, they closed down a seafood market where they suspect it might have come from. Although, I stress we do not know exactly where this emerged, but it clearly emerged in Wuhan.

And they shut down a seafood market. But they said it was for renovation. They didn't warn people that it was for a disease. Then they went on, they wanted to have a big party for Chinese New Years. They went on just saying this virus doesn't transmit from person-to-person. It's not a problem. Well, it clearly does. And they reached sort of the apotheosis of this insane approach just before Chinese New Year, just after mid December where they hosted in Wuhan, a potluck dinner for 40,000 families trying to get into the Guinness Book of World Records or something.

So you had tens of thousands of families bringing dinners to a common meal. I mean, if there's a way to spread a virus, that's it.

Julie: Right.

Claudia: And two days later, this case, finally something happened. We don't, still don't know exactly what, but within the Chinese Communist Party ruling mechanisms, they suddenly reversed engines and realized they had a huge problem, because of that case, at that point, people were dying in noticeable numbers. And it's quite likely, although, China has not admitted this, that they had thousands and thousands of cases already. And what they did was then they turned around and in a complete draconian way, they quarantined the entire city of Wuhan, the entire province. Basically, they ended up quarantining about a 100 million people. Okay? Forcing them to stay home. And that's how this thing got rolling.

So China, at the point we're now being urged to follow China's example of containment. Actually, China at the point where this probably was readily containable did everything possible to let it spread. And I would say it's completely reasonable to say China has infected the world with a truly troubling and dangerous virus.

Julie: Well, and I saw some, I don't follow this as closely as you do, but frankly, I feel like everybody is following it closer now. But I did see there were smuggled out videos and some really scary scenes of heavily armed police on the streets. I guess it was Wuhan, I'm not sure. Going house-to-house, people being locked in their apartment and housing units and not being allowed to leave. Who knows if they had adequate provisions. There was some pretty scary stuff. I mean, I'm not surprised to see that coming out of China, but those leaked videos were very, very chilling.

Claudia: Yeah. I mean, basically China has an enormous, China has been a very brutally repressive state for a long time. That's what brought us Tiananmen Square 31 years ago. But they have a huge apparatus of surveillance and control. That's what the communist party does. And once they turn that on the business of trying to control this virus, it is, yes, they can be highly effective in stopping movement, containing people, but the thing that is just vital to keep in mind, the thing that separates China from say a democratic society that decides it must impose a quarantine in an emergency or something like that, is in China there is no recourse for the people who are suffering what you just described.

They can't go to the newspapers. There are no private newspapers. They can't go to the courts. The courts aren't fair. They are left, they simply have to submit and that's the scene. And people briefly were able to get messages out, really talking about how bad things were, how badly they were being treated, as well as this epidemic that was now going on.

And China has now more and more shut that down and is now pumping out this flood of propaganda videos, sunsets over Wuhan, dancing patients and singing doctors. It's like Soviet propaganda. It's the same genre. That's what we're seeing now. The truth is it's brutal.

Julie: Well, two things I wanted to ask you about. You say in China they don't have any recourse and it's this brutal regime that will shut people up. But my question is how are the international organizations, you have an incredible background in investigating, for instance, the United Nations. How are international organizations, particularly international health organizations, how has WHO been on this?

Claudia: The WHO should really apply for a job in China's propaganda department, they have been doing everything in their power to praise China, ignoring, overlooking, throwing down the memory hole, China, the role of China's Communist Party and system in getting and letting this thing emerge. Get to the point where it's a real epidemic. The WHO was run by China's nominee for years, Margaret Chan, out of Hong Kong, which I love Hong Kong, but unfortunately China is in charge there.

She was effectively China. And it's now run by a former Foreign Minister of Ethiopia, which takes a lot of money from China for China's various development projects. And he went to Beijing sort of, or soon after China began quarantining, and came away praising Xi Jinping to the skies, not a word about this is a brutal dictatorship, nothing of that.

Julie: Of course.

Claudia: Then the WHO sent a team into China where they, in order to get them in, the deal they struck with China was that it wasn't actually a World Health Organization team. It wasn't independent in any way. It was a joint team between China and the WHO, so half international, half China. They were squired around China. They never actually interacted with any patients. They met with officials. They were given sort of, again, it's like the old Soviet tours except it's the old China tour at this point.

They had so little contact with patients that when the leader, the WHO team leader, Bruce Aylward, a Canadian, returned to Geneva. He got right off the plane from Beijing and gave a press conference in an open room with reporters and one of them asked, why aren't you wearing a face mask? You just came back from China. And his answer was, we haven't had contact with patients. Well, that's what's going on with the WHO, which is still refusing to call this disease a pandemic even though it's now in something like 50 countries. And I have to wonder, I don't know what their motivation is.

What they've said is they think it can still be contained. Well perhaps, but it looks to me, there are certainly many suggested things that suggest to me they are waiting until the chains of transmission do not lead directly back to China, because over and over, in fact, the team leader gave a conference in Beijing, the WHO team leader of this compromised mission, at which he praised China's techniques to such a degree. I thought, my God, if they said they won't let him go unless, he talked about China as extraordinary, agile, innovative, nimble, and I'm looking at this thing, China had quarantined scores of millions of people without adequate facilities or medical care, as you described, with keeping them with armed guards in their homes. So international organizations could use a little improvement on this front.

Julie: Yeah. And you said earlier, we were talking about this and you said that China just arrested a leading speaker who's been critical of the government and their response to this. Can you tell us a little bit about that?

Claudia: Yeah, well they've done this, they've arrested many. There's one specifically, but let me just first say, bloggers who were critical of what the Chinese government was doing, how brutally it was being, and sloppily and ruinously it was being done in places like Wuhan, have been disappeared. Okay. They're just gone. Into quarantine, into prison, who knows? What has most recently happened is in Hong Kong, one of the longtime leading democratic, voices democracy, a newspaper owner named Jimmy Lai was arrested on Friday morning in Hong Kong along with two other democratic leaders. And what was his crime? He took part in a protest March on August 31st. Now, the signal events that went with that-

Julie: ... do they know where he is?

Claudia: Yeah, during the protest. So this is all part of shutting people up, shutting people down. Hong Kong is the freest, the only place under China's flag where people have been free to speak out. And remember there were these huge democracy protests last year. And now everyone in Hong Kong has been trying to avoid this virus out of China where they've had 94 cases confirmed to date and they've all been washing things and going around in face masks. That's become the big preoccupation.

But what China is still doing, basically, even while fighting this virus, the people's war that Xi Jinping has declared on the virus, they still have time to suppress, arrest, threaten, bully. Remember they've also kicked out three Wall Street Journal reporters over a headline. They have been complaining to the world that, they complained when President Trump curtailed most air traffic between the US and China and put restrictions on entry and airports. They check people. China complained about that, which is quite again, quite a bit of hypocrisy from a country that is quarantining millions of its own.

They've just called off-

Julie: ... yeah, it's also, yeah I mean, also China building this mega hospital to hold, I don't know how many, and they built it in something like 10 days. And yet, you have these mixed messages as you say, that they're now saying, "It's contained. It's contained." That might be a good opportunity though, if we're looking at, and I don't remember how many countries. Did you say 58 countries that it's now present in?

Claudia: It's roughly present in 50, right now. And I will confidently predict it will be more before the end of next week.

Julie: Yeah, before we're done with this podcast.

Claudia: Yes.

Julie: Before we're done with this podcast.

Claudia: Yes. Yeah.

Julie: And for listeners know that this podcast, we're recording it in one day, but it does take time to process and be put up. So certainly by the time this podcast is put up on the IWF website, it will have increased. This might be a good time to talk a little bit about sort of domestic issues. And I want to talk a little bit about, I put up a blog this week that I said don't panic but prepare and I thought you're line. "Don't panic, but be informed." Are really, really a good line as well. Talk a little bit about how contagious this is. I mean, we've already talked about the global spread. Frankly, I don't really care what China's doing because they lie and they hide things and they're not honest brokers. But we do know now at least from, from more reputable sources, how quickly this spreads. So talk a little bit about the mortality rate associated with it and also just again, how contagious it is.

Claudia: Yeah. It appears to be very contagious. And again, they're still trying to figure this out and the problem is you can't rely on Chinese numbers. China is saying it's coming down. We don't know. We just don't know. We've no window there. But as it spreads in places like South Korea, Japan, here we do get more accurate information and a lot of scientists are now looking at this. So it appears pretty well a certainty that it spreads by cuffs, sneezes droplets in the air surface contact that these are the main vectors. There's some question about whether it can just travel through the air even if nobody sneezed but we don't know that yet.

Basically it's sort of centers on lungs, so it's when people breathe out, cough in their hands, touch something. And the most important advice, everyone I've spoken with points to this is simply this, wash your hands a lot and do not touch your face, at least not unless you wash your hands. If you're around anything where there might be contagion other people, places where other people have been. Things especially to be aware of, my pet peeve is those electronic pens in grocery stores and pharmacies where everybody who comes through has to hold it and sign something. If you have to do that, hold it with a hand wipe. Door pulls, elevator buttons and sort of be a more aware than usual of what are the things where everybody has come through that day would have touched it because that's how it can spread.

And face masks you're seeing on a lot of things they, unless they're very high level, which are really sold out by now or in professional custody, they are more useful for protecting other people than for protecting yourself, okay, they are some level of protection. But more vital is keeping your hands clean. This would be a good season not to shake hands with people. It's not rude. It's fine to say, "There's a thing, a problem out there." Even for Ebola, the doctors worked out this elbow bump if you need to do something or bow or nod. But it's not worth it, that's exactly how something can spread.

And how contained this is it? If I can just give you a quick, what happened in Korea is alarming because we didn't quite know what was going on in China. Were there other factors? In Korea a patient, they're now calling patient 31 flew back from China through the Seoul airport onto a city in Southern Korea where she's a member of a religious cult where they all get together and sit elbow to elbow and so on. And she did this. They weren't wearing masks, they were just doing their thing. And this spread to hundreds of them. And the thing is, as soon as that happens, they then go out and have contact with other people, which is how you went from 30 cases about a week and a half ago to 2,337 as I speak. That's explosive. That's exponential. So that's how contagious it can be. However, every step of discretion helps. So keep a distance where you don't have to be close, don't touch things you don't have to touch when you're out in public and wash your hands.

Julie: Well, Claudia, that that is good advice. And it was funny this morning as I was preparing for this podcast, I was just curious so I went on Amazon and not to sort of pinpoint Amazon, I think this is true of everywhere. But I went to see what the N95 so they tell you, "If you're going to get a face mask, get the on that's N95," which apparently is a much stronger face mask. And so I went in and I looked and there are some available for the low, low cost and $299 and up. There are some for a little less but that was sort of a three pack. You get a whole three math for that. So certainly you won't find it easy.

Now I will tell you, we do not have those masks, but we have some other masks. And one reason I think that if you can't find the N95 mask, but you find some lesser masks, I guess, if you will, why it's still good to have those is because I have this terrible habit where people tell me not to touch my face. I will touch my face, instantly. For instance, right now as I'm recording this, I am touching my face because I can't help myself. And there's actually studies about this that in certain situations you sort of automatically touch your face. So one thing that the mass will help you do is it'll at least keep you from maybe touching your face because you'll feel a mask up there. It'll feel weird to touch the paper. So that to me is a good thing.

But I wrote a little blog and I just want to tell people it's up on the IWF website and this is the thing that may happen if this disease, if this virus hits the city, they may ask people to do what's called sort of a voluntary shelter in place, okay. And it's sort of isolating yourself. And so families would be asked to kind of stay in doors, don't go to the store so much, try not to get out because they're going to try to stop the spread of this virus. And so they might ask people to shelter in place. And so it's not a bad idea.

And Claudia, you kind of went over a few things, but in addition to just face masks, I think it's important to have Pedialyte and children's Advil or children's Tylenol, adult Advil, right? And bleach and tissues and extra toilet paper and extra water. And then just a couple things that you'll eat anyway, like canned soups that your kids already like and peanut butter or granola bars or protein bars. These things are kind of important just because you want to avoid leaving your house for a certain amount of time. Look, I'm no prepper and I don't think this is a reason to dig a hole in your backyard and go live in it for three months. But I do think that a little bit of prep is probably good. Because again this will probably sweep through can considering how contagious it is, it will probably sweep through possibly your town. So I don't think it's a bad idea to get prepared. I think Claudia, you'd probably agree with me on that.

Claudia: Yeah, absolutely you should. Treat it like it's a hurricane that might last for awhile. What would you provide yourself with? In fact, I just add, one of the big effects is tremendous interruption of supply chains, the things that, for instance, China manufacturers and ships out. And it's not just finished products, it's components, it's elements of medication. China is the main source for the world of those face masks. One thing devoutly to be wished, normally we love free trade, but there is a security dimension to this that's becoming very clear. We cannot be reliant on China for things that in a crisis we will need, we need to do something about that. That should be a discussion in Washington now.

But among the other things you can do if you have pets because even if something isn't made in China, there are potentially a lot of disruptions in the work. So go out and get yourself enough pet food to ride that out because they can't eat the peanut butter. And on the rest of it, again, it's a matter of don't panic the world will go on. And it's possible that the US will simply word this off, but that's not where the probabilities point. It's more likely that it will come through and it's a good thing to avoid if you can.

Julie: And to any parents listening, look, there is no indication that this virus and any way upsets cable or wifi. So if you are having to stay in your home for a couple of days, I think you will survive. Just put the TV on, give him a couple tablets, let him play some games and consider it a vacation. I wanted to leave it on that kind of happier note because I know this is a very, very serious topic. And Claudia, I can't thank you enough for giving us some information here. This was a great conversation.

Claudia: Oh, thanks for the chance to talk about it. And everybody, do all you can to stay healthy.

Julie: Well, we hope you take away something new from today's conversation. And if you enjoyed this episode, of She Thinks or like the podcast in general, we'd love it if you could take a moment, leave us a rating or review on iTunes. This helps ensure our messages reach as many American as possible.

Claudia: Share this episode and let your friends know they can find more, She Thinks episodes on their favorite podcast app. From all of us here, thank you for tuning in. I think, you think, she thinks.

Talking About the Coronavirus: Don’t Panic, But Do Be Informed and Prepared

Julie Gunlock — Mon, 2 Mar 2020 07:03:00 CST

TRANSCRIPT

So Claudia, I'm so glad to be talking to you today about this. I know you know a lot on the subject.

Claudia: Yeah, Julie, thank you for that lovely introduction. And this subject of this Coronavirus is really important. It will very likely affect us all in one way or another.

So with that said, Claudia, if you could kind of give us an update on what the current status is of the infections and what governments are doing.

So you had tens of thousands of families bringing dinners to a common meal. I mean, if there's a way to spread a virus, that's it.

Julie: Right.

Julie: Of course.

Julie: ... do they know where he is?

They've just called off-

Claudia: It's roughly present in 50, right now. And I will confidently predict it will be more before the end of next week.

Julie: Yeah, before we're done with this podcast.

Claudia: Yes.

Julie: Before we're done with this podcast.

Claudia: Yes. Yeah.

Claudia: Oh, thanks for the chance to talk about it. And everybody, do all you can to stay healthy.

Did Life Expectancy Really Increase under Mike Bloomberg?

Julie Gunlock — Wed, 26 Feb 2020 16:02:00 CST

During last night’s Democrat debate, Former New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg said “Before I left, life expectancy in New York City had grown by three years during our 12 years in office such that, when I left, it was three years greater than the national average.”

Mike wants the public to think positively about his nanny state policies. He likes to present himself as a hero in the battle against obesity and unhealthy lifestyle choices. So, he’s suggesting his policies to force people to live healthier have resulted in these good outcomes.

But that simply isn’t true. First, it will take years to determine if there’s a causal link between Bloomberg’s ridiculous (not to mention wildly unconstitutional) policies to ban sugar, soda, Styrofoam, loud music, salt, trans fats, fun, happiness and personal joy. Second, there are more obvious reasons for New York City’s increase in life expectancy—reasons Mike doesn’t want to talk about.

First, in Bloomberg’s years in office, many poor people left New York City. The reasons are obvious. When a city gentrifies (as it did under Bloomberg), life expectancy rises because the population is wealthier and therefore able to afford better medical care and preventative medicine.

According to an extensive report by the WSJ on Bloomberg’s NYC record, the city became unlivable for those at or under the poverty line and even Bloomberg’s attempts to create affordable housing were a disaster:

His administration created a program that allowed developers to build higher in rezoned areas if they made a percentage of the housing affordable, which the de Blasio administration later made mandatory. It was meant to create more affordable housing but didn’t create enough to meet the city’s needs, some urban planners say.

The city’s public housing also suffered in Bloomberg’s era, as the federal government and the state gave less money to pay for upkeep.

Today, the New York City Housing Authority needs an estimated $31.8 billion in repairs, the de Blasio administration says. It was placed under monitorship after a federal judge ordered the city to produce a plan to address poor management and crucial health and safety concerns inside buildings, including lead paint that has sickened hundreds. Mr. de Blasio has said that the Bloomberg administration neglected the buildings.

Mr. Loeser said the Bloomberg administration tried to tackle backlogged repairs and check for lead at the same time, a plan developed in consultation with federal officials. “It did not always happen as planned,” he said.

Secondly, crime declined significantly under Bloomberg, including murders. That’s good but that decline also contributes to the increase in life expectancy. But these declines came at a cost. Again, the WSJ reports:

He increased the use of stop-and-frisk, a policing tactic that primarily affected black and Latino New Yorkers and resulted in thousands of arrests, despite most stops resulting in no charges. As more stops were made, opposition to the practice grew. New York City’s use of stop-and-frisk was ruled unconstitutional by a judge in 2013, Mr. Bloomberg’s final year in office.

By then, the annual number of murders in the city had fallen to 335, a figure as low as those seen in the 1950s. But the public’s relationship with the police had partly frayed. When Mr. de Blasio took office, he reduced the NYPD’s use of stop-and-frisk, and most crimes continued to fall.

On. Nov. 17, Mr. Bloomberg apologized for proliferating stop-and-frisk in a speech he delivered at the Christian Cultural Center, a black church in Brooklyn.

“I can’t change history,” he said. “However, today I want you to know that I realize back then I was wrong, and I am sorry.”

So sure, life expectancy went up in New York City. But it went up because poor, less healthy people were driven out of the city and crime went down. It isn’t because of Bloomberg’s nanny state policies. Those resulted in nothing more than lost jobs, shuttered businesses, inferior food products, and annoyed consumers.

Hardly something to brag about, Mike.

Coronavirus: Don’t Panic, Prepare

Julie Gunlock — Wed, 26 Feb 2020 11:02:00 CST

The coronavirus has now spread to 42 countries and according to the CDC, there are 53 confirmed cases in the United States. This week, the CDC immunization chief said that she told her family to be prepared for a "significant disruption of our lives" in the event that the Coronavirus hits their city.

Now, this post isn’t meant to encourage you to dig a bunker in your backyard and fill it with MREs and enough hand sanitizer and dry shampoo to last until 2030. But, as my friend and NY Post columnist Karol Markowicz (read her columns and follow her on Twitter!), suggested in a post on Facebook, it might be a good idea to prepare for what emergency management officials call “shelter in place,” which is when you’re advised not to leave your home for a certain amount of time—usually a few days to a week. This guidance will certainly be issued if and when Coronavirus hits an urban area, as public health officials will more than likely use “shelter in place” as a first step in trying to stop the spread of the disease.

As such, you might need to spend a few days or even a week or two indoors (don’t worry, there’s no evidence that Coronavirus makes the electricity, cable or Wi-Fi go out so you might survive!). So why not stock up on some things you will eventually use anyway. Karol compiled a short list of suggestions (to which I’ve added a few items), but obviously get whatever your family would need or prefer if deliveries are interrupted (such as the many products that are made in China) and you couldn’t make it to the grocery store.

It’s important to know that this will be true whether or not you are sick.

First off, if you're going to get a mask, get an N95, which is mostly sold out on Amazon. If so, check your local hardware store for the 3M masks and make sure they can fit the face of a child. You may want to also buy children’s masks if you can’t find one suitable mask for the entire family.

Other items to stock up on:

Water

Advil
Children's Advil
Pedialyte
Hand sanitizer
Lysol—spray and wipes
Bleach
Tissues
Toilet paper

Baby wipes
Paper towels
Pasta—you can get the type that cooks up fast too

Canned soups that kids like (chicken noodle is a hit with my guys)
Peanut butter
Granola bars and/or protein bars

Toothbrushes

Isopropyl alcohol

Disposable plates, cups and utensils

As Karol mentioned in her post—make this a personal list. She reminds people that if you have a baby, make sure you have extra diapers. If you have allergies, be sure to have extra packs of allergy medicine. If you take prescription drugs, many of which are made in China, see if you can get extra, in case the supply line takes a hit.

Karol is smart about what food to buy. She advises one not go crazy and buy a ton of prepper food that your family won’t eat after this is all over (and for heaven’s sake, don’t buy those doomsday food rations that are advertised on Fox News channel). Just buy the type of food your kids will eat any day. My kids love chicken noodle soup and plain pasta and protein bars and can eat peanut butter by the spoonful (no bread required!). But if your kid prefers raisins and crackers and beef jerky, stock up on those.

Just get what you'll use when everything turns out ok.

Karol ended her post with this great line: “Don't panic. But also don't put off planning because you don't want to panic.”

That’s good advice. Now, take a deep breath and do a little shopping.

Mike Bloomberg Once Said He Could 'Teach Anyone to Be a Farmer' Because Farming Needs Less 'Gray Matter' Than Modern Work

Julie Gunlock — Mon, 17 Feb 2020 09:02:00 CST

The Independent Women's Forum Center for Progress & Innovation director Julie Gunlock also weighed in on the resurfaced clip.

"Bloomberg is an enormous clown who doesn't know about farming and doesn't deign to speak to farmers," she posted. "If he did, he'd know farming is intensely high tech today."

Newsweek has contacted the Bloomberg campaign for comment on the resurfaced clip, and will update this article with any response.

The former mayor's controversial remarks at the Saïd Business School re-emerged less than a week after a clip of Bloomberg defending stop-and-frisk and putting "all the cops" in minority neighborhoods at a 2015 talk resurfaced.

Read full article here.

We Need a “National Crime Survivor Week”

Julie Gunlock — Fri, 14 Feb 2020 12:02:00 CST

Last week, anti-gun group Moms Demand Action heavily promoted “National Gun Violence Survivors Week” on their website and on social media. The group posted tragic stories of those who have been affected by or survived gun violence. You’d have to be a robot not to flinch while reading them.

Yet, the women reading these stories should also be aware of an equally important demographic: those who have been the victims of crimes because they weren’t able to defend themselves by using a firearm. The latest Department of Justice crime statistics shows that while crime overall has declined, rape and other sexual crimes have increased.

In New York alone, rape has increased 22.4%—going from 1,467 in 2017 to 1,795 in 2018. Other types of sexual assault, like groping and unwelcome touching, have increased 8.4%, according to The New York Times. The Times also reported that rapes in New York City have risen for 16 consecutive months since the fall of 2018.

Those are disconcerting statistics in a city where it’s nearly impossible to obtain a firearm. As Darren Leung, owner of Westside Rifle and Pistol Range—a shooting range in downtown Manhattan—said in an NPR interview last year: “It’s very, very difficult to obtain a license, very costly.” The New York City Police Department has full discretion on who gets a handgun license and, unsurprisingly, the police look for reasons to deny applications.

Even if you do somehow manage to get a permit in New York City, you have to keep your handgun unloaded and locked at all times. As Leung noted in his NPR interview, New York City officials, “… don’t want you to have the ability to use the firearm in a situation.”

Those situations might include rape or sexual assault. Yet, despite the increases in these crimes, a Marie Claire magazine poll recently found women want stricter gun laws at a rate 8-10% higher than men.

Mainstream media coverage of this issue is certainly part of the reason for these general public opinions. These polls are also very open to interpretation; after all, if a person simply believes that the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) needs to be improved, then they’d be counted as someone who wants greater restrictions on guns.

The mainstream media doesn’t often report that, for example, millions of Americans use firearms to protect themselves every day, most commonly without firing the gun. While there are differences in reported numbers, (Reason’s Brian Doherty has an article that’s worth reading on these figures) using firearms for self-defense is far more common than the media lets on.

Clearly, Moms Demand Action is showing one side of a story to push a dishonest agenda. They want people to believe that gun rights are a problem even though guns save lives every day. The Second Amendment empowers good citizens to live their lives freely—this is especially true for women, as a gun in the hands of a law-abiding citizen is an equalizer.

Moms Demand Action simply doesn’t want people to focus on the real problem, violent criminals, as the policy prescription for targeting bad guys, rather than our freedom, doesn’t fit into their real goals for control.

Vaping Lies from the WHO

Julie Gunlock — Wed, 12 Feb 2020 09:02:00 CST

The misinformation about vaping is ubiquitous. From national news stories to misinformation about lung diseases, to small-scale events at schools around the country, which often feature speakers from anti-vaping organizations, the message is always the same: Vaping is dangerous!

And sadly, this lie was repeated last month by the World Health Organization, which published a dishonest update to its Q&A document on e-cigarettes. In it, the WHO lied about the risks associated with using e-cigarettes, saying “There is no doubt that they [e-cigs] are harmful to health and are not safe, but it is too early to provide a clear answer on the long-term impact of using them or being exposed to them.” (Filter Magazine has a goods story on it here)

That is completely false!

First, rigorous, highly respected research has been done on the safety of e-cigarettes, whish has shown vaping is far more (to the tune of 95 percent) safer than traditional, combustible cigarettes. That’s according to the UK’s Royal College of Physicians and Public health England, which have exhaustively studied the safety of e-cigarettes. Cancer Research UK also confirms that vaping is safer than smoking and recommends smokers switch to vaping for health reasons.

Secondly, it’s simply false that no long-term studies have been conducted on e-cigarettes. E-cigarettes are not new to the marketplace. They’ve been around for more than a decade and have been a major disruptor to the tobacco industry. They’re also the reason we see historic low rates of smoking among all demographics—teens, adults, all races, men and women. And this decade’s worth of health studies show, conclusively, that e-cigarettes are a much safer alternative to traditional smoking.

And that’s not all. More recent studies have shown that smokers who switch to vaping are twice as likely to remain smoke-free. That’s a critical point often ignored by the anti-vaping crowd. Public health officials should be applauding a product that helps people stay away from dangerous habits. Instead, they lie about the product—ensuring people who might want to switch won’t, or that those who have made the switch might switch back because of the lies they hear from reputable organizations like the WHO.

What’s even more depressing is that the false information is winning. A recent poll conducted by IWF confirms this: 79 percent of respondents thought nicotine caused cancer and other cardiovascular and lung diseases. Another 12 percent were unsure. Only 9 percent of respondents knew the correct answer--that nicotine is not linked to cancer or cardiovascular and lung diseases.

Nicotine’s main side effects are an increase in adrenaline, which can cause a faster heartbeat, and a spike in blood pressure—similar results after drinking a cup of coffee. Yet, nicotine is not harmless. It is highly addictive and because it causes changes to the cardiovascular system, people with heart conditions shouldn’t vape or smoke.

It’s important to note though, that despite nicotine not being risk free, the FDA does approve two other nicotine delivery systems—gum and patches—to help people quit traditional cigarettes. If nicotine were carcinogenic, the FDA would never allow it in the marketplace. Vaping is really no different. It’s a tool that should be available to current smokers who want to quit traditional cigarettes.

When public health officials lie about vaping—saying it’s dangerous or harmful—they are doing an incredible disservice to current nicotine addicts—taking away a tool that has shown to be twice as effective at helping smokers quit.

Officials at the WHO should know better.

Banning Plastic Straws Won't Save the Oceans

Julie Gunlock — Fri, 7 Feb 2020 08:02:00 CST

It feels good to be a part of the solution, right? That's why so many people feel good about giving up plastic straws to save the oceans. Yet, sadly, banning plastic straws aren't going to solve this problem. It's true that ocean pollution is a serious issue in desperate need of a workable solution. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, billions of pounds of trash is dumped into the ocean each year. Yet, 90 percent of that comes from Asia and Africa—not the United States. In fact, analysis by the World Economic Forum found that 10 rivers—the Yangtze, Indus, Yellow, Hai He, Fanges, Pearl, Amur, and Mekong in Asia, and the Nile and Niger in Africa are responsible for the vast majority of trash in the ocean.

Considering this data, maybe it's time to rethink straw bans and consider better, more realistic solutions instead.

Rush, Trump’s State of the Union address, the Iowa meltdown, and impeachment • The Steve Gruber Show

Julie Gunlock — Wed, 5 Feb 2020 00:02:00 CST

Limbaugh's Biggest Fight

Julie Gunlock — Mon, 3 Feb 2020 15:02:00 CST

Rush Limbaugh announced today that he’s been diagnosed with advanced lung cancer. This is heartbreaking news and very sad day for all of his longtime and loyal listeners.

I’ve been listening to Rush since my early years in college. Even then, nearly 30 years ago (yikes!), college campuses were, for the most part, unwelcoming to conservative kids.

Rush offered a respite. In the safety of my dorm room, I’d listen to Rush on the radio, sometimes with my ear pressed against the speaker so I wouldn’t be outed as a conservative republican, or worse, a Rush fan! I was often late to class or missed class completely. And you know what? That’s okay because Rush taught me more than any of my lefty professors combined.

On hearing the terrible news, Republican Congressman Chip Roy from Texas tweeted that Rush has been a part of his entire adult life, adding, “He was anti-establishment before it was 'cool'.”

Rep. Roy’s tweet immediately brought me back to my dorm room, squatting next to my bed with my boombox pressed against my ear listening to Rush tell me it was okay to be conservative, to believe in traditional values, religious freedom, a constitutional right to bear arms, a strong military, free markets, lower taxes, a smaller administrative state, and the simple fact that America was a wonderful place to live.

Prayers for a speedy recovery, Rush!

Using Alarmism To Bash Synthetic Meat

Julie Gunlock — Mon, 3 Feb 2020 12:02:00 CST

Not all of the ads during last night’s Super Bowl were funny or entertaining. Alarmism was on full display and no doubt, some consumers are more worried today than they were before the game. That’s too bad.

Take this ad targeting lab-grown or synthetic meat. In it, a cute little girl is standing on a stage competing in a spelling bee. She is given the word “methylcellulose.” Looking stumped, she asks for the word’s meaning.

The spelling bee’s announcer offers this: “It’s a chemical laxative that is also used in synthetic meat.”

The girl looks horrified and so should consumers, right?

A female narrator then says, “You may need a PhD to understand what’s in synthetic meat. Fake bacon and burgers can have dozens of chemical ingredients. If you can’t spell it or pronounce it, maybe you shouldn’t be eating it.”

This sort of alarmist narrative is usually used by food scolds who rail against what they view as overly processed foods, deli meats, sugary or salty snack foods, and quick to prepare convenience meals sold in the canned or frozen part of the grocery store.

Even the lowly loaf of sliced sandwich bread came under fire a few years ago when a semi-famous food nanny said sandwich bread was loaded with a chemical called Azodicarbonamide. The food nanny claimed that since this chemical was also used in yoga mats, the chemical’s use in any sort of food product was tantamount to eating a yoga mat (she would often pose in pictures biting her yoga mat to accompany her overwrought blog posts about toxic bread).

Yet what this food nanny failed to mention is that the sliced bread she was freaking out about only contained trace amounts of this chemical – a chemical that has been proven to be totally safe for human consumption and is included on the FDA’s GRAS list (GRAS stands for Generally Recognized As Safe). And she also forgot to mention the reason bread companies use the preservative: so that bread stays fresher, softer and mold-free longer on store shelves. That leads to less food waste and lower costs for consumers—a win for the environment and for the budget-conscience shopper.

Sadly, this same tactic is being used today to scare people about synthetic meat. That’s wrong for several reasons.

First, it’s a cheap way to hurt your competition. The cattle and dairy industries see the popularity of synthetic meat (it still only makes up a small amount of the market but synthetic meat’s popularity is growing) as a threat and they’re clearly using alarmism to fight back.

Scaring people off of these products is pretty easy to do considering the words used to describe them (even by some of the companies themselves). Words like “synthetic” and phrases like “lab grown” and “cultured meat” all generally have negative connotations for consumers—particularly at a time when the food phrase “all natural” is the hot trend.

Yet, mass-produced, lab-generated products like Beyond Meat, Impossible Burger, Just Eggs, and Beyond Eggs are a positive and safe innovation. The products tested for safety before hitting shore shelves. They offer vegans and vegetarians larger food choices and greater variability in a diet with so many limitations. Greater choices in the marketplace should be celebrated.

Second, the ad tells consumers that if you can’t pronounce or spell something, you shouldn’t eat it. For heaven’s sake, I had to spell check quinoa while writing this and I certainly can’t spell most of the ancient grains on the shelves of my fancy grocery store (a problem I share with an unnamed family member who still says coocoo instead of couScouS). What about ethnic food? Should we avoid all foods with complex names and steer clear of multisyllabic items on a menu?

And what about healthy and nutritious foods. What would people make of the humble banana? Should we all stop eating bananas because we can’t pronounce some of the things on its ingredient list?

The truth is, alarmism is everywhere these days. Even meat replacement companies use the alarmist tactic—suggesting their products will solve climate change or heal all the world’s health problems. Just watch this nauseating video produced by the Just egg replacement company to get a sense of how intolerable these people are (eating Just egg foods at a picnic while Ian the pet chicken roams around? Subtle).

Perhaps the most important lesson for consumers here is that alarmism is wrong, no matter who’s doing it. Consumers deserve better.

Vape Ban - More Losers Than Winners

Julie Gunlock — Fri, 31 Jan 2020 14:01:00 CST

In January, the Food and Drug Administration finalized its policy on flavored cartridge-based e-cigarettes, saying that companies must stop all manufacturing of these particular devices. Flavored e-liquid will still be available for tank-based e-cigarettes. As with any new regulation, there will be winners and losers, but you may be surprised by who falls into each category.

Winner: Big Tobacco

Tobacco companies are threatened by the popularity of e-cigarettes because the vaping industry has cut into their profits. The latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show cigarette smoking is at its lowest point ever with only 14 % of adults in the U.S. smoking traditional cigarettes in 2017, down from 15.5 % in 2016.

While vaping, which is 95 % less harmful than smoking, has risen both among adults and teens, smoking rates continue to plummet. In fact, teen smoking continued to decline after e-cigarettes entered the market. In banning cartridge-based e-cigarettes, policymakers are effectively limiting access to the biggest competition to cigarettes. That’s a win for tobacco companies.

Winner: Misinformation

Many people see vaping as simply a high-tech way to smoke and worry there haven’t been enough safety studies despite more than a decade of reassuring research.

When an outbreak of lung diseases emerged in 2019, public health officials and the media were eager to stoke fears. Without waiting for evidence, they blamed vaping and sought to strictly limit all vaping products. The assumption that vaping was the cause was understandable early on, since patients reported vaping prior to becoming sick.

Yet, even after it was clear that it wasn’t vaping itself, but what was being vaped (illegally obtained, contaminated THC vape liquid, which the CDC eventually found caused the lung diseases), officials continued to beat the alarmist drum about the device itself. That’s akin to trying to outlaw hypodermic needles because of a spike in heroin deaths. What’s worse, former smokers were told to stop vaping until an investigation was completed, making them vulnerable to returning to traditional smoking.

The harm from this misinformation campaign lingers today. Many Americans continue to believe that vaping itself caused the lung diseases, and are therefore making poor choices about what’s best for their health.

Losers: Teens

Of course, everyone wishes that teens didn’t like to experiment. And while today’s “generation sensible” has been praised for eschewing such Fast Times-like behaviors as drinking, smoking, drugs and casual sex, the illegal act of teen vaping is popular with this demographic. Yet, teens prefer the very type of e-cigarette the FDA just banned. So, it might follow that banning these e-cigarettes will reduce vaping among teens.

But that logic misses an important factor: teens are already breaking the law to vape. Why wouldn’t they turn to the black market to get the flavor and vape device they prefer? And, couldn’t it be that further restricting the availability of vaping products would encourage teens to experiment with more dangerous substances?

Losers: Adult Smokers

Adult nicotine addicts seem to be the red-headed stepchild to public health officials. According to a large, randomized study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, e-cigarettes were twice as effective as other nicotine-replacement therapies at helping smokers quit. Considering this, one might consider e-cigarettes a public health win.

Yet, instead of rejoicing, public health officials ignore this tremendous progress and focused, almost exclusively, on the very low number (around 5.7 %) of teens who illegally vape habitually. While it’s certainly a worthy goal to formulate policies to help reduce the already small number of teen vapers, the solution shouldn’t be to harm adult smokers.

More Winners

This FDA’s action may result in harm to both teens who are experimenting and adults who are trying to quit smoking. A better solution is for public health officials and the media to provide accurate information to a worried public about the real and relative health risks of vaping and for the FDA to strengthen enforcement efforts against black-market sales of e-cigarettes.

That’s a way to create more winners.

Julie Gunlock directs the Center for Progress and Innovation at the Independent Women’s Forum. She wrote this for InsideSources.com.

Johnson & Johnson’s Tough Choice: Consumer Confidence or Survival?

Julie Gunlock — Thu, 30 Jan 2020 13:01:00 CST

Last week, a friend was visiting from out of town. She needed a washcloth so I directed her to the hall closet.

“Julie, why do you have talcum powder in here!” she yelled from the second floor.

“It causes cancer! Throw it away!” she added.

Sigh…

I chose not to say anything at the moment. Most of my friends are tired of me constantly trying to debunk some scary story they saw on the Internet or scolding them for wasting money on essential oils. So I bit my lip…hard.

But it was a sad reminder of what trial lawyers along with the click-hungry press can do to consumers—frighten them, change their consumer habits, and promote myths about perfectly safe products.

For those who don’t know the background, here’s a quick primer. For years, the giant personal care company Johnson & Johnson has been fighting lawsuits that claim their talcum powder causes cancer. More damaging though, are the false accusations by the media that Johnson & Johnson knew all along that its powder contained cancer-causing asbestos and yet kept this information from consumers.

Both charges are false.

First, Johnson & Johnson has been producing talcum powder for more than 100 years. And the company constantly tests the product to ensure it’s safety. While some studies do show an elevated risk of cancers in African American women who use talcum powder, many other studies do not show this elevation. As with many scientific studies, those that show the elevation show a correlative connection, not causation.

Yet, doubts remain. And those doubts are only strengthened by the news that Johnson & Johnson has chosen to settle some lawsuits. Naturally that leads many consumers to believe that the company is guilty and just wants to pay off these annoying claimants so the whole issue goes away. There are, of course, other convincing reasons for these settlements that don’t suggest guilt.

When cases are scientifically dense, a company must consider the risk that a jury will not understand the complexities of the case. I’m not trying to insult the average juror as being scientifically illiterate, but just consider this study examining the ways in which asbestos is detected in talc:

The currently used analytical methods for identification, characterization and quantitation of asbestos fiber in consumer talcum products include polarized light microscopy, x-ray diffraction analysis, transmission electron microscopy with selected area electron diffraction and electron microprobe techniques.

I consider myself a pretty smart person but those aren’t areas with which I’m familiar because I’m not a mineralogist or geologist or a toxicologist. If I was a juror on this case, I’d be at a disadvantage as my political science degree, my ability to get three kids to three different locations at the same time, and my excellent casserole baking skills would not prepare me to hear evidence about the complexity of asbestos detection in certain minerals.

Large corporations also make cost-benefit analyses every day. In the talc case, the company might ask, is it worth risking billions of dollars in legal fees and potential payouts to defend these lawsuits (now numbering 15,000!) for decades to come? Or would it be better to save money by settling some of these cases now?

Johnson & Johnson pretty much admitted this in media interviews after settling one lawsuit, saying, “In litigation of every nature there are one-off situations where settlement is a reasonable alternative…The decision to resolve any particular case in no way changes our overall position that our talc is safe, is asbestos free and does not cause cancer.”

Sure, sure. It’s a statement from a company spokesperson. Why believe them? Well, because this company is under immense scrutiny. Is it worth lying, especially if that lie will be exposed in a hot second by the press? I doubt it.

There are two important lessons here: For J&J and other large companies, the lesson is that when they cave, even if doing so makes financial or other business sense, their reputation suffers. The other lesson is for consumers who need to realize that they'll only see press stories about the rulings against J&J and the huge payouts from J&J because that fits the media's anti-corporate narrative. What they won't hear about is the fact that Johnson & Johnson won the last four recent court cases and that since 2018, the verdicts have been pretty evenly split--with 8 plantiff wins and 10 defense wins. The media also ignores that judges often reduce the absurdly high settlements awarded by juries.

All of these details matter when it comes to consumer confidence.

Administration Rolls Back Counterproductive School Lunch Requirements

Julie Gunlock — Tue, 21 Jan 2020 14:01:00 CST

In order to increase food options for children while at school, the administration has announced a new proposal that would roll back problematic reforms made to the school lunch program in 2010.

The new rules would allow schools to reduce the amount of vegetables and fruits required from one cup to a half cup and replace these calories with other snack options. This would give schools more flexibility to meet children’s needs and preferences while also preventing food waste and mismanagement of taxpayer dollars.

The changes former First Lady Michelle Obama pushed through Congress in 2010 created a massive school-based food waste problem. The problem was so bad that cafeteria workers reported whole trays of food being dumped into trash cans. Kids were being given foods that weren’t flavored because these rules required no butter, cheese, or salt.

You don’t have to be a child nutritionist to understand that what kids like and prefer. NO one was advocating unhealthy food, but boiled broccoli or green beans with no added flavorings is unlikely to appeal to kids, or adults! Kids around the country posted pictures on social media of grotesque, unappetizing, and downright inedible school lunches with the hashtag #thanksmichelleobama.

The Government Accountability Office found massive food waste was systemic throughout the national program during the years after the reforms were implemented. In Los Angeles County, it was so bad that the schools began partnering with a local homeless shelter to offload the food school kids refused to eat.

But it wasn't just food waste, taxpayer dollars were also wasted.

In 2018, U.S. taxpayers spent $17 billion on federal school lunch programs combined. The Government Accountability Office found that these programs have had improper payment rates of around 20 percent, on average. These programs have been plagued by fraud, waste, abuse and improper payments (such as free meals provided to ineligible children). According to the Office of Management and Budget, the National School Lunch Program lost nearly $800 million owing to improper payments in fiscal year 2018, while the School Breakfast Program lost $300 million. The Office of Management and Budget calls these programs “high-priority” programs because of the misspending.

According to the latest Government Accountability Office report, the estimated error rates for 2018 were lower than in prior years because the Department of Agriculture has “changed what it considers to be an improper payment.” As a result, it is impossible to compare the most recent error rates with prior years.

What’s clear, though, is that these reforms have been a disaster. Kids aren’t eating the so-called healthier food. Food waste is a serious problem. Taxpayer dollars are being wasted.

The administration should be praised for rolling back these so-called reforms.

Vaping and Taxation

Julie Gunlock — Wed, 15 Jan 2020 11:01:00 CST

A new working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research is confirming what many have worried would happen: when you tax e-cigarettes, people go back to smoking.

As Nicole Kaeding at the National Taxpayers Union Foundation writes in her post about the paper, e-cig taxes could dissuade up to 2.75 million adult smokers from quitting.

Why is that? As Kaeding explains, the reason is that many states aren’t taking into account that e-cigarettes are far safer than cigarettes:

Excise taxes are special taxes assessed on products that pose a risk to others, known as an externality. Creating a special, product-specific tax raises the cost of the product, reducing consumption of the product and the externality. We use excise taxes for any number of items, such as alcohol, gasoline, tanning booths, and yes, cigarettes.

With the launch of e-cigarettes, states have wondered how to tax them. Should the tax rate match that of traditional cigarettes or should the rate be different? Ideally, economic theory tells us the rate should match the risk of the product, since it’s related to the externality caused by the product. So if e-cigarettes are safer than cigarettes, the rate should be lower. Using the study above, economists would say that rate should be up to 95 percent lower than the excise tax imposed on cigarettes.

Not all states have followed that approach. Minnesota was the first state to impose a tax on e-cigarettes, taxing vapor products at 95 percent of their wholesale price. (The tax started at 35 percent.) This natural experiment allowed economists to investigate the impact of high vapor taxes, using other states as controls. The assumption is that if vapor taxes are set too high it would discourage individuals from quitting smoking. Many smokers should want to switch to vapor products to reduce their health risk, but there is a financial calculation too. If the vapor product is too expensive, they would be unable or unwilling to make the switch. Put another way, setting the rate too high could increase the adult smoking rate.

Unfortunately for the state of Minnesota, they set their tax rate far too high.

According to the authors, “we find consistent and robust evidence that the e-cig tax in MN increased adult smoking relative to what it would have been in absence of the tax.” Their estimates are that “32,400 additional adult smokers would have quit smoking in Minnesota in the absence of the tax.”

The authors went a step further. They estimate that a new national vapor tax would deter 1.8 million smokers from quitting. If Congress went a step further and adopted a proposal that taxed vapor the same as cigarettes, 2.75 million smokers would be deterred from quitting smoking. Sadly, many in Congress have endorsed such a policy. In October, the House Ways and Means approved a bill that would have created a new federal vapor tax equaling the current tobacco tax rate.

Naturally, this doesn’t matter to people who don’t know that vaping is 95 percent less harmful than cigarettes. It also doesn’t matter to those who don’t know that those who use vaping to quit traditional cigarettes are twice as likely to continue to abstain as those who use other means (cold turkey, patches, gum).

The truth is, it’s getting much more difficult for folks to vape, which means, sadly, it’s going to get tougher for smokers to quit traditional cigarettes. Between FDA flavor bans, corporate capitulation to government bullies (ahem, Juul), and the constant media misinformation driven by so-called health organizations that profit off cigarette sales (and therefore have an interest in keeping cigarette sales high) smokers’ choices in smoking cessation systems are limited. Meanwhile, cancer-causing cigarettes are sold in every drug store, corner store, bodega, gas station and convenience store nationwide. Makes sense!

The real life stories of how these policy decisions are shaking out are pretty depressing. In 2019, before the flavor bans were announced, I did a podcast with Victoria Vasconcellos, a former smoker who quit using e-cigarettes. Durign the podcast, talked about her own fears of vaping bans and how she worried that she’d have a hard time staying off cigarettes if she was forced to vape tobacco flavor, instead of her favorite mango flavor. To her, the taste of tobacco would be a trigger—making her want to smoke again.

Or consider the story told by Michael Moynihan on the January 3^rd episode of the Fifth Column podcast in which he talks about a friend in San Francisco who is having such a hard time finding the mint flavored e-cigarettes he prefers that he went back to smoking (forward to the 38 minute mark). As Moynihan tells it, his friend just didn’t have the time to go hunting around for his favorite flavor.

It’s sad that people, who successfully transitioned to a far safer means of nicotine delivery, are switching back to a deliver system that kills. Where’s the outrage about that?