SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Brumar89 who wrote (852575)4/27/2015 11:50:04 AM
From: FJB3 Recommendations

Recommended By
Bill
Brumar89
locogringo

  Respond to of 1574854
 
In 2013, The Clinton Foundation Only Spent 10 Percent Of Its Budget On Charitable Grants

Hillary Clinton's non-profit spent more on office supplies and rent than it did on charitable grants
APRIL 27, 2015
By Sean Davis
thefederalist.com

After a week of being attacked for shady bookkeeping and questionable expenditures, the Clinton Foundation is fighting back. In a tweet posted last week, the Clinton Foundation claimed that 88 percent of its expenditures went “directly to [the foundation’s] life-saving work.”

There’s only one problem: that claim is demonstrably false. And it is false not according to some partisan spin on the numbers, but because the organization’s own tax filings contradict the claim.




In order for the 88 percent claim to be even remotely close to the truth, the words “directly” and “life-saving” have to mean something other than “directly” and “life-saving.” For example, the Clinton Foundation spent nearly $8.5 million–10 percent of all 2013 expenditures–on travel. Do plane tickets and hotel accommodations directly save lives? Nearly $4.8 million–5.6 percent of all expenditures–was spent on office supplies. Do ink cartridges and and staplers directly save lives?

Those two categories alone comprise over 15 percent of all Clinton Foundation expenses in 2013, and we haven’t even examined other spending categories like employee fringe benefits ($3.7 million), IT costs ($2.1 million), rent ($4 million) or conferences and conventions ($9.2 million). Yet, the tax-exempt organization claimed in its tweet that no more than 12 percent of its expenditures went to non-life-saving overhead expenses.

How can both claims be true? Easy: they’re not. The claim from the Clinton Foundation that 88 percent of all expenditures go to life-saving work is demonstrably false. Conferences do not directly save lives. The internet connection for the group’s headquarters does not directly save lives.



But what if those employees and those IT costs and those travel expenses indirectly save lives, you might ask. Sure, it’s overhead, but what if it’s overhead in the service of a larger mission? Fair question. Even using the broadest definition of “program expenses” possible, however, the 88 percent claim is still false. How do we know? Because the IRS 990 forms submitted by the Clinton Foundation include a specific and detailed accounting of these programmatic expenses. And even using extremely broad definitions–definitions that allow office supply, rent, travel, and IT costs to be counted as programmatic costs–the Clinton Foundation fails its own test.

According to 2013 tax forms filed by the Clinton Foundation, a mere 80 percent of the organization’s expenditures were characterized as functional programmatic expenses. That’s a far cry from the 88 percent claimed by the organization just last week.



If you take a narrower, and more realistic, view of the tax-exempt group’s expenditures by excluding obvious overhead expenses and focusing on direct grants to charities and governments, the numbers look much worse. In 2013, for example, only 10 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s expenditures were for direct charitable grants. The amount it spent on charitable grants–$8.8 million–was dwarfed by the $17.2 million it cumulatively spent on travel, rent, and office supplies. Between 2011 and 2013, the organization spent only 9.9 percent of the $252 million it collected on direct charitable grants.

While some may claim that the Clinton Foundation does its charity by itself, rather than outsourcing to other organizations in the form of grants, there appears to be little evidence of that activity in 2013. In 2008, for example, the Clinton Foundation spent nearly $100 million purchasing and distributing medicine and working with its care partners. In 2009, the organization spent $126 million on pharmaceutical and care partner expenses. By 2011, those activities were virtually non-existent. The group spent nothing on pharmaceutical expenses and only $1.2 million on care partner expenses. In 2012 and 2013, the Clinton Foundation spent $0. In just a few short years, the Clinton’s primary philanthropic project transitioned from a massive player in global pharmaceutical distribution to a bloated travel agency and conference organizing business that just happened to be tax-exempt.

The Clinton Foundation announced last week that it would be refiling its tax returns for the last five years because it had improperly failed to disclose millions of dollars in donations from foreign sources while Hillary Clinton was serving as Secretary of State.



To: Brumar89 who wrote (852575)4/27/2015 11:54:03 AM
From: Brumar89  Respond to of 1574854
 
Why Is The CDC Lying About E-Cigarettes?

Seems pretty simple. Government makes big bucks off tobacco excise taxes. E-cigs are a threat to government revenue so they're attacked. Would "medical professionals" attack something because of it's effect on government revenue? Would climate researchers lie about climate change threats to protect their incomes? Yes and yes.

For years anti-smoking activists and public health officials have tried to justify their irrational hatred of electronic cigarettes by arguing that vaping leads to smoking, especially among impressionable young people who otherwise would never touch tobacco. But that is not happening. To the contrary, vaping and smoking rates among teenagers are moving in opposite directions. Rather than admit they were wrong to claim that e-cigarettes are a “gateway” to the conventional kind, opponents of vaping have escalated their prevarications by implying, in defiance of all scientific evidence, that there is no important difference between the two kinds of nicotine delivery devices.

According to the latest numbers from the National Youth Tobacco Survey, which the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released last week, 13.4 percent of high school students reported past-month use of e-cigarettes in 2014, up from 4.5 percent in 2013. During the same period, the rate of past-month e-cigarette use among middle school students rose from 1.1 percent to 3.9 percent. “E-Cigarette Use Triples Among Middle and High School Students in Just One Year,” said the headline over the CDC’s press release, which spawned myriad news reports highlighting that point.

Less noticed was a fact relegated to the fourth paragraph: “Cigarette use declined among high school students and remained unchanged for middle school students.” Among high school students, 9.2 percent reported past-month cigarette use in 2014, down from 12.7 percent in 2013. Among middle school students, 2.5 percent reported past-month cigarette use, down from 2.9 percent in 2013. The latter drop was not statistically significant, which is why the CDC says the rate “remained unchanged.”

Source: National Youth Tobacco Survey

The divergence between vaping and smoking is even more dramatic when you look at the period from 2011 through 2014, when the rate of past-month e-cigarette use rose from 1.5 percent to 13.4 percent among high school students and from 0.6 percent to 3.9 percent among middle school students. Meanwhile, past-month cigarette smoking fell from 15.8 percent to 9.2 percent in the older group and from 4.3 percent to 2.5 percent in the younger group. Needless to say, this is not what you would expect to see if vaping encouraged smoking.

If anything, these data suggest that e-cigarettes are replacing the real thing. As one tobacco researcher told The New York Times, “They’re not a gateway in, and they might be accelerating the gateway out.” That cannot be anything but good news from a public health perspective, given the huge difference in risk between vaping and smoking.

The CDC refuses to see it that way. “This is a really bad thing,” CDC Director Tom Frieden told the Times. “This is another generation being hooked by the tobacco industry. It makes me angry.”

Wait a minute. “The tobacco industry” is hooking kids on e-cigarettes? Although tobacco companies have begun to enter the e-cigarette business in recent years, the two industries are hardly synonymous. Leaving aside the question of ownership, e-cigarettes do not burn and contain no tobacco, which is why they are so much safer than traditional cigarettes. It is more than a little misleading to classify them as tobacco products.

Tom Frieden (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Yet that is what the CDC does. When it claims “there was no decline in overall tobacco use between 2011 and 2014,” it is counting e-cigarettes as tobacco products. That makes as much sense as counting nicotine gum or patches (which also contain nicotine derived from tobacco) as tobacco products. This is no mere word game, because it is not true that “there was no decline in overall tobacco use between 2011 and 2014.” The CDC is lying to us.

Similarly, the American Lung Association suggests that the decline in smoking is “offset by the dramatic increase in use of e-cigarettes,” which is scientifically absurd given the clear health advantages of vaping. This is not simply a matter of emphasis or opinion. In terms of health effects, it cannot possibly be true that the increase in e-cigarette use offsets the decline in smoking.

A recent article in New Scientist illustrates the extent to which critics of e-cigarettes are misleading the public:

[Brian] King [an epidemiologist with the CDC’s Office on Smoking and Health] says the CDC rejects any notion that replacing cigarettes with e-cigarettes is positive, and claims that e-cigarettes are actually prompting youngsters to take up smoking, not just taking the place of cigarettes. “In just one year, the number of kids using hookah doubled, and the number of kids using e-cigarettes appears to have tripled,” he says. “These increases are driving an uptick in the total number of our children who are using tobacco products for the first time in a generation.”



Again, this is true only if you insist on calling e-cigarettes tobacco products, which they aren’t. Michael Siegel, a Boston University public health professor who used to work at the CDC, wonders, “How can the CDC possibly claim that a youth smoker switching completely to e-cigarette use is not a good thing?”

Contrary to the impression left by the CDC, regular vaping, as opposed to experimentation, seems to be much more common among smokers trying to quit or cut back than it is among people who have never tried tobacco. That is true of teenagers as well as adults.

A study published last week in BMJ Open, based on surveys of students in Wales, found that only 1.5 percent of 11-to-16-year-olds reported using e-cigarettes at least once a month, and almost all of those monthly vapers were also smokers. “Many young people (including never-smokers) have tried e-cigarettes,” the researchers write. “However, regular use is less common, and is associated with tobacco cigarette use.” They conclude that “e-cigarettes are unlikely to make a major direct contribution to adolescent nicotine addiction.”

Michael Siegel (Image: HuffPost Live)

Michael Siegel notes similar findings in other surveys of British teenagers. “Among nonsmoking youth,” he writes, “all use of e-cigarettes was mere experimentation. There was zero (0) regular use of e-cigarettes (defined as using e-cigarettes more than once per week)….The only regular use of e-cigarettes was observed among current and former smokers.”

As Siegel points out, the CDC’s National Youth Tobacco Survey does not ask teenagers how often they use e-cigarettes, just whether they have used them in the previous month or the previous year. Hence the survey cannot tell us how many recent users are regular users rather than experimenters. Siegel argues that the CDC “is misleading the public not only through its outright lies, dishonesty, and deception about e-cigarettes, but also by its failure to ask the right questions to actually test its pre-determined conclusions.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2015/04/23/why-is-the-cdc-lying-about-e-cigarettes/