Wednesday Mashup (8/25/10)

I give you Smokey Joe Barton at The Hill (here)…

News leaked out this weekend that the Obama administration knew that the moratorium on oil production (in the Gulf) would cost 23,000 jobs, yet rushed ahead anyway and that could be on the low side. The Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association predicts 46,200 jobs potentially lost due to the moratorium and a Global Insight analysis says that job losses could reach 120,000 in 2014 if the moratorium is extended beyond six months.

In fact, Louisiana State University economist Joseph Mason told the Corpus Christi Caller Times, “the moratorium could be more costly than the oil spill itself.”

I’ll cut Barton a bit of slack on Global Insight, but “The Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association” is an oil industry trade group, so of course they’re going to come up with the most dire possible scenario on the job impact of the moratorium (and as a commenter noted here, LSU received over $1 million from ExxonMobil in 2008).

And as far as moratorium itself is concerned, the following should be noted (from here)…

… the administration's moratorium covers only new deepwater Gulf drilling; moreover, more than 5,000 Gulf oil wells that are already producing oil and gas reportedly can remain in operation.*

And as the Houston Chronicle tells us from Media Matters, “the administration's ban on approving new deep-water drilling permits for at least six months and the suspension of deepwater exploration do not affect the 4,515 shallow-water and the 591 deepwater Gulf wells now producing oil and gas.”

And by the way, can someone explain to me how a moratorium of six months (and believe me when I tell you it will not extend beyond that point) could affect job forecasts about four years into the future?

As noted here, though, Barton is perhaps Congress’ most notorious offender on the environment (hence his nickname); in 2008, he helped scuttle the Clean Air Interstate Rule, which was aimed at reducing smog and acid rain pollutants from power plants in the eastern half of the country, and he also took a leading role in killing the moratorium on offshore drilling.

And let’s not forget this charming moment from Smokey Joe also.

Update 8/26/10: Gosh, color me shocked - looks like Smokey Joe tried to "snooker" us on that "23,000 jobs" claim (here).

Also, I’ll bet you thought we were done with “death panels” in health care reform, didn’t you? Well, Armstrong Williams isn’t (here)…

The initial stages of ObamaCare death panels have begun by targeting the 40,000 American women killed by breast cancer annually. The FDA has recommended rescinding government approval of Avastin, a treatment for later-stage breast cancer, due to its high cost. Avastin can cost as much as $88,000 annually, but can have significant results in expanding the life of those suffering.

The federal government needs to stay away from the personal health decisions of Americans. Yes, there are some who wouldn’t care to live longer after suffering from breast cancer. However, there are many women suffering from the illness who would like to spend every extra day possible with their families. Our government doesn’t have the right to withhold that from them.

Oh, cute.

As noted here, though…

The debate over Avastin, prescribed to about 17,500 women with breast cancer a year, has become entangled in the politically explosive struggle over medical spending and effectiveness that flared during the battle over health-care reform: How should the government balance protecting patients and controlling costs without restricting access to cutting-edge, and often costly, treatments?

The Food and Drug Administration is reviewing the recommendation of influential scientific advisers to revoke authorization of the drug to treat metastatic breast cancer. Contrary to initial research, new studies indicate that the benefits of the drug, which costs $8,000 a month, do not outweigh its risks, the advisory panel concluded.

Citing a dearth of evidence of the drug's effectiveness, its potential toxic side effects, and its high cost, many cancer experts, patient advocates and others are welcoming the prospect that Avastin's authorization for breast cancer might be repealed. But the possibility is alarming other cancer specialists, women taking the drug, some members of Congress and advocates for giving patients as much access to as many treatments as possible.

Yes, this is a tough call, but it’s one that must be made after a careful review of clinic evidence (and without injecting the rancorous partisan BS that raged over this issue about a year ago).

And as we know, only the government makes life-or-death decisions about patient treatment partly based on cost.

Right.

Next, we have this bit of philosophical tut-tutting from Beltway know-it-all Kathleen Parker (here)…

Given the leadership vacuum, responsibility falls where it must -- to the transformative power of the individual. Enough of us retain a memory of what it means to be American, and it has nothing to do with race, ethnicity, religious belief or the date of one's citizenship. It has to do with a batch of exceptional ideas and a few simple rules of conduct.

A primer on the latter: Be considerate; tend your garden; mind your own business; lend a hand; keep your clothes on and your hands to yourself; honor your family and your country; don't air your dirty laundry or vocabulary in public. And for God's sake, don't talk about religion. Oh, and resist spectacle.

That last line is particularly funny when you consider that the author also concocted this based on a certain YouTube video (yes, we all know what John Edwards did to his personal and professional life, but that to me doesn’t absolve Parker in any way whatsoever from failing to “resist spectacle”).

What exactly was that Pulitzer for again?

Finally, I give you the following from National Journal (here)…

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) has some advice for Republicans going into the midterms: Offer more specifics.

McDonnell told Hotline On Call on Wednesday that he hasn't seen the level of detail in national proposals as he campaigned on in '09.

"I haven't heard as much as I would like," McDonnell said when asked about specifics in the GOP platform.

How about “specifics” such as reversing legal protections for gays and lesbians, Bob? Or “specifics” such as appointing Fred Malek to chair a 31-person advisory committee on reforming state government (Malek served under Nixon and, at Nixon’s request, compiled a list of employees at the Bureau of Labor Statistics with “Jewish-sounding names,” since Nixon thought he was being undermined by a “Jewish cabal” – everything in this paragraph can be verified here).

Oh, and how about “specifics” such as “slamming gays, unwed mothers, and no-fault divorce” as McDonnell did in his college thesis (here)? And let’s not forget “specifics” such as McDonnell’s “Confederate History Month” proclamation that omitted any reference to slavery (here).

Even though McDonnell is a highly imperfect example for any politician to emulate (something I hope I’ve made clear), I will grudgingly acknowledge that he’s right to call for honesty and transparency in political campaigns.

And if his fellow Repugs were to follow suit the way they should, it would become easily apparent that they seek only to perpetuate the comfort of the “pay no price, bear no burden” investor class and leave the rest of us to cope with an ever-shrinking economy and eroding prospects for the future that our children and families should be entitled to through our hard work and sacrifice (and offering only pointless squabbles over a never-ending parade of “wedge issues” instead).