The Hype of ARRA: shovel ready jobs created and saved

Now that even the President as admitted (New York Times) that there never were "shovel ready" projects, the hype and tripe we were fed the past 2 years sound even worse. Plus the subtle message is that the government was doing nothing before Obama descended from the lofty heights of white guilt to save us, despite the fact that President Bush was the biggest spender on social programs in all the history of the U.S., only to be outdone by the raging trillion dollar deficits of Obama!

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) was signed into law by President Obama on February 17th, 2009. It is an unprecedented effort to jumpstart our economy, create or save millions of jobs, and put a down payment on addressing long-neglected challenges so our country can thrive in the 21st century. The Act is an extraordinary response to a crisis unlike any since the Great Depression, and includes measures to modernize our nation's infrastructure, enhance energy independence, expand educational opportunities, preserve and improve affordable health care, provide tax relief, and protect those in greatest need."

If there were challenges "long neglected" then where was Congress--controlled by the Democrats for most of my voting years? Jobs have not been created or saved, and if you laid the graph of our economic ups and downs since 2008 on top of one from the 1930s, you'd see Obama is following FDR's failed template.

The above quote came from the National Eye Institute where I was researching the number of Americans at risk for glaucoma over the age of 40. When I tried to check on how much of ARRA for the NIH (over $10 billion) has been spent, I found "spin doctors" from left wing think tanks and golly gee-whiz writers for government agencies all saying the same thing about saved or created.

Look folks, the health research industry (mainly universities) lives on government grants--this was a huge infusion for NIH, but I seriously doubt hiring a temp researcher or newly minted doctor on a project started 5-10 years ago really "created" anything. The time and effort to solicit and process the grant proposals, plus the special quasi-government companies that sprang up to do all this probably ate up 50% of it. All these jobs are temporary--a bit more glamorous than FDR's CCC camps of the 1930s, but from them we at least got some parks and roads.

You don't need Sean or Rush to be a skeptic

Knowing I don't believe that humans control the climate, a friend asked me if I get my information from Sean and Rush. Why she would think that, I'm not sure since she knows how I love research and I question everything, regardless of the political slant and I seriously doubt she ever listens to either one of them. But the librarian in me just has to list this, 500 peer-reviewed papers supporting skepticism. . . Now I wouldn't agree with all of them, however, they represent an interesting span--some back to the early 1980s. But it's important to understand how government and foundation research grants are doled out, how peer-review is done, and how if you're not in the main stream (which could be flowing the wrong direction), you will be underfunded, understaffed, and under-promoted, whether in climate, astronomy, economics, library science, or war games. Even getting a published work to the shelf of a public library is political.

The low down on the uptick in AIDS

The newest JAMA isn’t available to me yet, but for the typical New York Times hysterical editorializing of health information news, see yesterday’s paper. I read about the "big government cover up" (subtext: it’s all Bush’s fault) story at the coffee shop this morning.

Opening paragraph: “The AIDs epidemic in the U.S. is about 40% worse than the government has reported.”

First of all, there is no epidemic in the U.S. AIDs or HIV affect a tiny percentage of the population--mostly promiscuous, young, risk-taking gay men and IV drug users. Studies as early as 15 years ago in public health journals showed that after all the valiant efforts of the gay community to clean up their behavior or die (and many of them did both), the younger gay men rushed right back to the bath houses and sex without condoms once the drug cocktails became effective in extending their lives, but they also spread the disease and picked up other STDs which lowered their resistance. You don’t find out the role of gay men in this story until about paragraph 15 (53% of new infections are in young gay men, an extremely small demographic).

Second, you find out if you read far enough, more accurate measures account for the increase changing the results and numbers. There’s no government plot folks, move along. The CDC, which did the most recent study and all the previous studies, IS THE GOVERNMENT (think FEMA with a little black bag and clip boards) .

Third, the author of the NYT article attempts to hint at a conspiracy to keep this quiet because 2 peer review journals returned it when it came out in October 2007. That’s not the least bit unusual--I used to be a peer reviewer. Often they are sent back because the statistics or procedures are not clearly explained, they exceed the word limit, the citations are incorrect, or the data false or misleading. The redo improves the piece. That JAMA will report it is also not unusual--its editorial policies are about as liberal as the NYT. It was embargoed so it could be presented at a conference, but someone violated that--all in the public’s best interest, of course (sarcasm alert).

Fourth, in true NYT fashion, President Bush is faulted for the billions spent on AIDS in foreign countries, rather than attacking the epidemic at home. The guy just can't win.

Fifth, here’s the best line in the article. Someone in CDC is quoted as saying “We’re not effectively reaching men who have sex with men and African Americans to lower their risk.” Yeah, like no gay man knows that gay bars and bath houses and downlow (closeted homosexual) with the ladies is risky behavior. And I just know that gay teens and 20-somethings would most certainly stop having sex if CDC just put out enough posters, TV ads and brochures. Just the way the government has successfully controlled smoking and obesity.