Mitch McConnell just received the only justification he should need for pushing the vote on the Senate health care bill to the absolute last minute:

Dec. 23 (Bloomberg) — The Congressional Budget Office challenged claims by health-care overhaul proponents that Medicare savings in Senate legislation would help finance expanded coverage and postpone the bankruptcy of the medical program for the elderly.

The nonpartisan agency said the $246 billion it projected the legislation would save Medicare can’t both finance new programs and help pay future expenses for elderly covered under the federal program.

Nor could those savings be used to extend the solvency of Medicare, set to run out of money in 2017, the budget office said in a letter to Senate Republicans.

“What we’ve seen is a colossal manipulation” by Democrats “of the accounting scores of CBO” and the independent actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, said Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, the Republican who requested the analysis from CBO. He called the letter “a potential game-changer.”

The estimated Medicare savings in the legislation overstate “the improvement in the government’s fiscal position,” the CBO said in the letter.

“The true increase in the ability to pay for future Medicare benefits or other programs would be a good deal smaller,” the budget office said…

…Arguments that the Medicare savings would both extend Medicare’s solvency and help finance “new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double count a large share of those savings,” the CBO said.

I’m a practitioner and advocate of recycling but I consider the title to this article to be the perfect embodiment of the the leftist worldview.

New York Times: In Public Housing, Talking Up the Recycling Bin

Irony free reporting from the Las Vegas Sun:

A former aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has been appointed by President Barack Obama as chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which will decide the fate of a Yucca Mountain nuclear repository.Gregory B. Jaczko has been a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission since 2005 and is serving a five-year term.

“I am honored President Obama has entrusted me with the responsibility of serving as the chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” Jaczko said after he learned of his appointment late today. “I look forward to continuing to work closely with the talented and dedicated agency staff and my fellow commissioners.

It is just a tad mystifying how this article went to print without a mention of the potential conflict of interest for Jaczko on Yucca Mountain. But then again, the reporter actually managed to publish this next sentence which is probably indicative of the quality of investigative journalism at the Sun.

After learning of the appointment of Jaczko as NRC chairman, Senator Harry Reid said, “I am pleased that President Obama has appointed such a qualified individual to lead the commission.

I am certain Senator Reid was pleasantly unsurprised by this appointment.

Crossposted at Conservatives for Science

When do you know your energy policy is on precarious footing? If you are Barack Obama, it is when your most trusted rubber stamp media voice is also calling your bluff.

New York Times Editorial: Follow the Science on Yucca

The administration’s budget for the Energy Department raises a disturbing question. Is President Obama, who has pledged to restore science to its rightful place in decision making, now prepared to curtail the scientific analyses needed to determine whether a proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada would be safe to build?…

…Before approving this truncated budget, Congress needs to ensure that it contains enough money to sustain a genuine licensing effort. We have no idea whether Yucca Mountain would be a suitable burial ground for nuclear wastes. But after the government has labored for more than two decades and spent almost $10 billion to get the site ready for licensing hearings, it would be foolish not to complete the process with a good-faith evaluation. Are Mr. Obama and Mr. Reid afraid of what the science might tell them?

Read the whole thing.

Crossposted at Conservatives for Science

Just when you though it wasn’t possible to be anymore pessimistic about the direction the Obama administration is pursuing on the economy and its attitude towards increased spending and using taxes as a punitive tool, the Washington Post has to come along and do an interactive feature on how Canada has balanced its budget every year since 1998 by cutting spending while reducing taxes.

Washington Post Interactive: Great Right North

Reports last week that the recession is draining Social Security and Medicare funds were just one more reminder that the United States needs to fix its finances. For inspiration, why not look to Canada? Long derided by American conservatives as “socialist” and praised by the left for its generous government spending, Canada is casting off those stereotypes. Over the past few years, while U.S. politicians presided over huge increases in spending and debt, the Canadian government tightened its belt, slashed tax rates and balanced budgets.

Chris Mooney, author of the Republican War on Science, has a piece entitled “Hail to the intellectual president” in the May edition of New Scientist.

The piece includes the usual mantra of the scientific Left: namely that George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin, and so forth, embody the tradition of American anti-intellectualism. By contrast, Barack Obama, who embraces intellectualism, has the potential to usher in a new spirit of intellectual rigor in policy making.

With the coming of Barack Obama to the presidency, the phrase “sea change” is not too strong. Here is a former academic who is deeply familiar with the world of thought. In his inaugural address, Obama pledged to restore science to its “rightful place” in our government; heck, he even extolled the virtue of “curiosity”. And for the first time in history, he has appointed a Nobel laureate to the presidential cabinet. The worm has turned in American life – but for how long?

Mooney was a dogged critic of the Bush administration’s energy policy and the former President’s attitudes towards climate change. However his enthusiasm for the promise of President Obama’s approach to both climate and energy can barely be contained.

If Obama pulls off governing as an intellectual president, the dividends could be enormous. Already, he has been more than true to his word when it comes to the support of science. It is too soon to tell, but his soaring language about building a new energy future could be his Apollo programme, and could dramatically improve America’s long-term competitiveness.

Strangely missing from the piece is any mention of one of the President Obama’s boldest initial actions on energy policy, the elimination of funds for the Yucca Mountain nuclear storage facility.

As has been documented on this blog, the President, in close coordination with Majority Leader Harry Reid, gutted the Yucca project without giving the slightest consideration to the ramifications for America’s nuclear industry. This action arbitrarily undid decades of planning at the cost of tens of billions of dollars in nuclear rate payer funded studies.

With no definitive solution to the waste issue, America’s nuclear power industry may be unwilling to make the enormous investments necessary to build new nuclear power generating facilities.

Given that nuclear power is responsible for 20% of our power supply and 70% of our CO2 free energy, Mooney and others who profess grave concern about global warming should be deeply disturbed by this development.

What should be even more disconcerting to Mooney personally is the Obama administration’s disregard for complying with the scientific protocol proscribed for the Yucca facility. As was reported in the New York Times:

The site’s suitability is supposed to be established in hearings by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which must decide whether to license the repository. Now, the Obama administration is proposing to provide only enough money that project officials can answer questions from the hearings.

While this blatant politicization of energy science has failed to register on Mooney’s radar screen, it has not escaped the attention of others in the media.

Toledo Blade Editorial: NIMBY Rules

Yucca Mountain has been the sole site under consideration since 1987 and the time and treasure spent on it have been immense. America is left with a government that encourages nuclear power with one hand, takes away its waste options with the other, avoids its legal obligations with eyes wide open, talks up the importance of global warming, but can’t put its policies where its mouth is.

The Free Lance Star Editorial: Captain Atom he ain’t

A bipartisan group in Congress, consulting with nuclear scientists, geologists, and others, pegged Nevada’s Yucca Mountain to receive the nation’s nuclear waste. Department of Energy studies confirmed that Yucca was one of the safest possible repositories. But after 22 years and $13.5 billion of preparation–and no scientific evidence to refute its selection–Mr. Obama has defunded Yucca Mountain…

…Preening about “restoring scientific integrity” on stem cells while ignoring research on Yucca Mountain and nuclear energy is disingenuous hypocritical pick your word. In the pursuit of alternative energy sources, nuclear must be in the mix. And Yucca Mountain should be back on the map.

USA Today Editorial: Obama’s budget puts politics above science, leaves waste issue unsolved

When Obama lifted the ban on stem cell research last week, his press secretary said the president made it clear that “politics should not drive science.” Unfortunately, that’s exactly what happened here.

Given Mooney’s past vilification of Republicans for supposedly letting politics instead of science drive their policy decisions, it would be expected that he and others similarly opinioned would express deep dissatisfaction with the President’s actions.

To date, that criticism has yet to appear.

It could be that the scientific Left is still basking in the return of “intellectualism” to the White House. Their exuberance must be blinding them to the fact that the era of “post-political science” has yet to be ushered in.

Crossposted at Conservatives for Science

Senate Republicans are calling President Obama’s bluff on Yucca Mountain.

Reuters:

Republican lawmakers in the U.S. Senate are demanding the Obama administration provide scientific and legal evidence to support its decision not to store nuclear waste at the long-planned Yucca Mountain depository in Nevada.

U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu testified at a congressional hearing in March that Yucca Mountain was no longer an option for holding radioactive waste from nuclear power plants and weapons complex sites around the country, repeating the position of President Barack Obama.

Republican senators want to know why Chu is against Yucca Mountain, given dozens of studies that show disposing of nuclear waste deep underground is the safest approach and the government has already spent billions of dollars to get the site ready.

“Given this history, President Obama’s memoranda that science will guide public policy and his commitment to an unprecedented level of openness, we find it difficult to reconcile your statement that Yucca Mountain is ‘not an option’ made after only six weeks in office,” the lawmakers said in a letter to Chu on Wednesday.

“Have you discovered, in a few short weeks, research that discredits the scientific work” that supports Yucca Mountain, they asked.

This video of Chris Matthews’ interview with Congressman Mike Pence is making the rounds on several blogs. In the segment Pence cannot seem to give a coherent answer to Matthews’ question about evolution.

Mike Pence is a strong fiscal conservative and an official I have a lot of respect for. But this video illustrates why the ambivalence towards science (particularly evolution) demonstrated by too many conservatives is a needless distraction.

John McCain showed how easily this issue could be acknowledged, framed and dispensed with in two sentences:

“I believe in evolution. But I also believe, when I hike the Grand Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also.”

That providing a concise response on evolution continues to trip up some conservative political leaders is silly. Mike Pence is too effective a voice on many of the issues most conservatives care passionately about to find himself getting bullied by the likes of Chris Matthews.

The sooner Pence and others calibrate their message along the lines of McCain’s response the sooner they can use these media opportunities to talk about the fiscal and national security issues they would rather be discussing.

Crossposted at Conservatives for Science

Marc Gunther at Climatebiz.com has a good piece on the counter productive hostility towards nuclear within the environmental movement and among Democratic congressional leaders.

It’s Time to Re-Think Nukes

The politics of nuclear are complicated. Chu, who’s probably the smartest guy in the Obama cabinet, supports nuclear energy but Carol Browner, who’s an experienced Washington power player (no pun intended) is said to be a strong opponent. Liberal Democrats on Capital Hill — Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid — also oppose nuclear power. Given a choice between nuclear and coal as a source of baseload power, they’re likely to favor coal.

Crane said: “Right now the dominant wing of the Democratic Party knows they need to accommodate the coal wing of the Democratic Party in order to get energy and environmental policy passed.” That leaves nuclear out of the deal-making.

We really should pause to consider this. The political posturing of those listed above is undoubtedly going to increase our near-term reliance on coal. While the Obama administration supports “clean coal” capture technology, no technical solution currently exists. Complicating this further is the strident opposition to even investing in clean coal by the same environmental organizations that are hostile to nuclear.

From a political standpoint, I can understand the Democratic leaderships need to placate its coal wing and we should aggressively support clean coal research. But this can be accomplished without undermining our only industrial scale source of CO2 free energy — nuclear power.

There is one point of clarification I would offer Gunther in response to his last paragraph:

President Obama hasn’t said much about nuclear. It may well be that technology breakthroughs in solar, geothermal, wind or battery storage will mean that we don’t need nuclear energy as a source of low-carbon power. But until those breakthroughs come along, shouldn’t we keep the nuclear option open?

It is not what President Obama has said about nuclear that is the problem, it is the direct action his administration has taken to give Harry Reid a political payback and gut what was supposed to be the country’s long-term nuclear waste storage solution.

Other Links:
Obama, Reid and Yucca Mountain
RFK Jr. implicates Obama in his crusade against coal
Democrats love clean energy in theory, just not in practice

Crossposted at Conservatives for Science

Now that antivaxxer hysteria has permeated the culture in America and abroad, the inevitable effects are being felt.

Phil Plait has a post on an Australian child that contracted whooping cough in a region of the country with lower than average vaccination rates. The child in this case has died.

Australia where vaccination rates have dropped considerably. The child in this case has died. The end result? Kids, including infants, are getting sick, and some of them are dying. Never, ever forget that, no matter how loudly these people yell, and no matter what garbage they spout (including, inevitably, in the comments that will follow this very post). Babies are dying.

In Australia, this movement is taking root as well. Calling the alarm to this, a TV program in Oz called “Sunday Night” aired an excellent exposé of what happens when parents don’t vaccinate their kids: they risk their children’s lives, and those of others. In the case shown on the TV show, a four-week-old baby, Dana McCaffery, died of whooping cough. This innocent infant wasn’t eligible for vaccination yet, but the lack of herd immunity — that region has lower-than-average vaccination rates — sealed her fate. The fact that other parents didn’t vaccinate their kids gave that little girl a death sentence.

Warning — the video in Plait’s post is very tough to stomach.

I am convinced that anti-vaccine activists really believe that they operate in a consequence free environment.

They are free to make baseless arguments and push discredited “evidence” to create a climate of confusion and ignorance, but will assume none of the responsibility when, remarkably, the rates of whooping cough increase tenfold in the region where this baby contracted the virus.

As the entire world has learned over the last few days, we are at risk of epidemics that we could not have foreseen and are scrambling to combat.

But the whooping cough vaccine has been in existence and widely available for decades. It is beyond disheartening to observe humanity attempting a global response to a dangerous new epidemic, while at the same time millions of people are consciously choosing to reenergize another virus that science and education have allowed us to contain.

Crossposted at Conservatives for Science