Correction, please!

Big Brother vs. Obesity

ITEM: "Americans 'extra weight costs the nation as much as $93 billion in annual medical bills, and the government pays about half of that amount," reports USA Today for May 13th, citing a study funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The paper also reports, "Almost 65% of people in the USA are either overweight or obese."

It continues: "'There is an ongoing debate about whether obesity is an individual or societal issue,' says the study's lead author, Eric Finkelstein, a health economist for RTI International in Research Triangle Park, N. C. 'The fact that Medicaid and Medicare, and ultimately taxpayers, are financing half the cost lends credence to the notion that obesity is not solely a personal issue.'"

CORRECTION: If taxpayers are financing half the cost, then that is a much better argument for getting the government out of health care than it is for having the government police obesity.

Where this latest outcry is leading is clear: Americans are fat and Uncle Sam needs to shelter them from food makers and what they serve. And if you think the government won't get into a food fight, consider how tobacco users have been burned. Indeed, some of the same activists from the tobacco wars are gearing up legal troops for calorie battles. George Washington University Professor John Banzhaf, for example, told Fox News: "We're going to find a judge and we're going to find a jury and we're going to start winning these suits." Banzhaf, an anti-smoking zealot, would dish up extra taxes for fast foods and heavily regulate manufacturers.

The End Is Nigh! Again.

ITEM: "An examination of Earth's 'vital signs' reveals alarming trends of poverty, disease and environmental decline that threaten global stability, according to the Worldwatch Institute's annual report on trends shaping the world's future," reported the Environmental News Service (ENS) on May 23th.

"Vital Signs 2003," summarizes ENS, contends "that weather-related disasters are likely to worsen as the climate continues to change, a trend that highlights how the actions -- or inaction -- of the world's rich affect the poor. Last year was the second warmest since record keeping began in the late 1800s and most scientists are convinced this trend will result in more erratic weather and rising seas."

The report "finds that the burden of responsibility for climate changes falls squarely on the shoulders of the industrial nations, in particular the United States."

CORRECTION: These phony extrapolations and predictions of doom are not based on facts. The actual variability of temperatures has been declining worldwide, rather than increasing. Nor has there been an increase in the frequency or severity of hurricanes in the United States. Even alarmists have pulled back their more ludicrous claims about rising sea levels.

As Drs. Patrick J. Michaels and Robert C. Balling Jr. note in The Satanic Gases, the current best guess is that the sea level might go up 5-li inches during the next century, "a rise that most people might well not notice and to which they could easily adapt. After all, much of the city of New Orleans is currently below sea level."

The supposed cures would cause more damage than the ailments. And those ills are usually exaggerated. The EPA's Latest Findings on National Air Quality notes that since 1970, the six principal pollutants in U.S. air have been reduced 25 percent, while the gross domestic output increased 161 percent and energy consumption jumped 42 percent.

The alleged fix for global warming, implementing the Kyoto treaty, would be far more dangerous to the global community. If the U.S. slashed greenhouse gas emissions to the level demanded by the treaty (and all other nations implausibly met their targets), the average global temperature would be reduced less than one-half degree Celsius according to the National Center for Atmospheric Research. The price tag, say studies by the EPA and Energy Information Administration, would be a 50 percent increase in energy costs, a one percent drop in gross domestic product, and a million jobs lost.

Profligate States Bailed Out

ITEM: The states are getting a "windfall," reported the May 28th Washington Post. "The federal government will dole out $20 billion to states over the coming months. The money represents a one-time shot of relief to states, many facing budget shortfalls The Maryland legislature's "chief budget analyst, Warren Deschenaux, said it might be enough to cover a 'worst-case scenario' of unexpected declines in tax revenue. 'As a stimulus, this gives us, and other states, an alternative to cutting spending or raising taxes, which take money out of the economy,' Deschenaux said."

CORRECTION: It's easy to see why states are in financial trouble when top budget officers believe that cutting government spending takes money "out of the economy." Governments take from taxpayers. If governments spend less, they should tax less, leaving more money with those who earned it, who can spend or invest as they choose.

Squandering states apparently don't want to end their binges. Yet they are being rewarded with "free" money, just once of course ... until the next time. Between 1990 and 2001, says a Cato Institute study, "state tax revenue grew 86 percent -- more than the 55 percent of inflation plus population growth. If states had limited spending growth to that benchmark, budgets would have been $93 billion smaller -- representing savings roughly twice the size of today's budget gaps."