The WHO’s Overreach Bad for Health 
 
The proposed World Health Organization (WHO) Pandemic Treaty, aimed at addressing the glaring shortcomings exposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, has sparked a heated debate. Much of the criticism centers around concerns that the treaty could infringe on national sovereignty, giving the WHO unprecedented authority to impose lockdowns and other restrictive measures during health emergencies. While the WHO has dismissed these concerns as “fake news, lies, and conspiracy theories,” the experiences with the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) provide a cautionary tale. The FCTC, the WHO’s first and only global health accord (adopted in 2003), has shown that the WHO's approach is one of overreach, driven by narrow interests and lacking in transparency. As such, the FCTC experience underscores the need for the WHO to address its flaws before being entrusted with new and expansive powers under the Pandemic Treaty.
 
One of the primary criticisms of the FCTC process is the production of reports based on selective evidence. These reports are presented to national delegations, pressuring them to align with the WHO's position. This cherry-picking of data undermines the credibility of the treaty’s administration and raises concerns about the transparency and objectivity of the WHO. For the Pandemic Treaty to be effective and widely accepted, it must ensure that all relevant data and perspectives are considered, not just those that align with a predetermined agenda. Furthermore, the influence of significant funding from individuals like American billionaire Michael Bloomberg, a staunch opponent of safer nicotine alternatives such as vaping products, further complicates the FCTC process. Bloomberg's financial support shapes the reports and recommendations, skewing them towards his anti-vaping stance. This external influence raises questions about the independence of the WHO and its ability to provide unbiased guidance. It is difficult to trust the WHO to handle a global pandemic agreement when it can be so easily corrupted. The exclusionary nature of FCTC meetings is another major concern. By banning the public and other interested observers, the WHO limits transparency and accountability. Notably, even Interpol was once excluded from a meeting because it worked with the tobacco industry to track tobacco shipments, arguably its job. Shutting out dissenting voices and external scrutiny does not bode well for the Pandemic Treaty which requires broad collaboration and openness to be effective.
 
Additionally, the FCTC’s exclusion of media except for those vetted by the WHO to avoid critical reporting further stifles transparency. A free press is essential for holding taxpayer-funded institutions accountable and fostering informed public discourse. If the Pandemic Treaty intends to follow a similar path, it will abuse the public’s trust. The WHO must embrace media scrutiny as a means to improve its processes and policies. Finally, the FCTC's refusal to acknowledge input from industry and consumers stifles justified critical debate. This insular approach limits the potential for developing effective and evidence-based policies. Instead, the WHO should be prioritizing inclusivity and embracing a wide range of opinions to ensure that its guidelines are comprehensive and robust.
 
In light of these issues, it is clear that the WHO needs to clean up its act with regard to the FCTC treaty before it can be trusted with the expansive powers proposed under any Pandemic Treaty. The WHO must demonstrate a commitment to transparency, inclusivity, and impartiality to regain the trust of its member states and the global community. Without addressing these fundamental concerns, the WHO risks repeating the same mistakes, leading to further skepticism and resistance. If the WHO believes a Pandemic Treaty represents a critical opportunity to improve global health governance, it should be built on a foundation of trust and accountability which it has not displayed with its FCTC shenanigans. The WHO must address those shortcomings and implement necessary reforms before it can convince those who have serious doubts that its Pandemic Treaty will be a force for good.
 
What The F-35
 
At a congressional hearing last month, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall shockingly claimed that fewer than one-third of F-35s are operationally capable. However jarring that number may seem, it should be familiar to everyone paying attention.  The F-35 has been a taxpayer-funded boondoggle for decades. The price tag is approaching $2 trillion. It is long past the point where taxpayers stop being responsible for the mistakes of government and big military contractors. For most of the last two years, military contractors have been clamoring for a new engine program for the F-35. This came amid several problems with the current engines. The proposal rightly stalled out because of the many issues with the idea. The new adaptive engine transition program (AETP) would have taken years to integrate, and, even then, it would not have been fully functional with the Navy and Air Force’s variant of the fighter jet. Despite the AETP’s failure, the saga reveals a disturbing trend that has plagued the F-35 since its inception. When problems arise, military contractors come crawling to the government (taxpayers) with their palms out, asking for more taxpayer money. Instead of rightly demanding that these contractors fix the issues and deliver the products for which they have been paid $1.8 trillion already, they continuously take these requests seriously. Sadly, it is American taxpayers left on the hook.
 
If the overall cost of the program is not shocking enough, the cost of maintaining these jets will be 44 percent higher than 2018 projections. New estimates show the cost of maintaining the fleet will come out to $1.5 trillion. Of course, this was not what contractors quoted to the government — and will most assuredly bring the total price tag of the program’s lifetime to more than $2 trillion overall. Once more, it will not be those who miscalculated or mismanaged who pay the price. It will be the taxpayers. Not only are the estimates not what was advertised, but the performance of the F-35 jets also failed to meet expectations. The Project on Government Oversight dubs the F-35 the “part-time fighter jet.” When the Pentagon’s director of operational test and evaluation released their annual report in February, it was found that the F-35 fleet can perform its full range of combat roles only 30 percent of the time. Seven times out of 10, the F-35 cannot do what it is supposed to. This is unacceptable, yet the government continues to accept it. Because of these reliability issues, the Department of Defense plans to fly the aircraft less than initially intended. According to a report from the Government Accountability Office, “We have consistently found that the F-35 fleet is not meeting its availability goals, which are measured by mission capable rates (i.e., the percentage of time the aircraft can perform one of its tasked missions), despite increasing projected costs.”
 
The F-35 is one of the best encapsulations of government inefficiency and cronyism. Underestimating costs and making avoidable errors should come at the expense of those who made those errors. Not only are they not put on the hook, they are rewarded. The government is habitually handing out additional contracts to “support” the F-35 program. In other words, when they mess up, the government uses taxpayer money to pay them to fix it. These contracts are worth billions of dollars.
 
Only in Washington do spending fiascos get categorized as business victories for contractors. Ultimately, taxpayers lose while big military contractors win. The bitter injustice should be evident to all Americans. Because of profligate spending like this, the cost of goods and living continues to rise for Americans. Real wages have decreased. Americans know they would no longer have their jobs if they were as woefully inadequate at them as the contractors responsible for the F-35. American policymakers need to pick a side. Right now, their choice is sadly obvious.

BLOGS:

Monday: Title II Appeal Venue Set, but FCC Seeks Move to D.C. Circuit for Home Court Advantage

Tuesday: TPA Urges St. Petersburg City Council to Reject Taxpayer Funding for Tampa Bay Rays Stadium

Wednesday: Senate Report Shines Light on the Many Dysfunctions of American Foster Care

Friday: F-35 Continues to Disappoint as Politicians Pick Contractors Over Taxpayers

 
Media:
 
June 6, 2024: Bond Buyer quoted Johnny in their article, “Officials still wrestle with troubled Kentucky internet project.”
 
June 6, 2024: Daily Caller ran TPA’s op-ed, “Officials still wrestle with troubled Kentucky internet project.”
 
June 7, 2024: Real Clear Markets ran TPA’s op-ed, “Lina Khan's 'Wins' Are Judicial Rebukes of Her Radical Theories.”
 
June 7, 2024: WPTA ABC21 (Wayne, IN) quoted David in their story about COVID relief fraud.
 
June 10, 2024: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, MD) interviewed me about  changing in the board of estimates.
 
June 10, 2024: Florida Daily (Fleming Island, FL) ran TPA’s op-ed, “States submitting to NTIA’s price control overreach risk less participation in BEAD.”
 
June 10, 2024: Mail Online UK (United Kingdom) quoted me in their article, “ Jill Biden's 3,600-mile round trip from France to Delaware to spend two days at Hunter's trial could cost up to $345,000... and taxpayers could be on the hook for a huge bill.”
 
June 10, 2024: MSN UK (United Kingdom) quoted me in their article, “Dem Party will pay Jill Biden's flight costs to Wilmington from Paris.”
 
June 10, 2024: NY Breaking quoted me in their article, “Jill Biden’s 3,600-mile round trip from France to Delaware to spend two days at Hunter’s trial could cost up to $345,000… and taxpayers could be on the hook for a huge bill.”
 
June 10, 2024: MSN New Zealand (New Zealand) quoted me in their article, “Dem Party will pay Jill Biden's flight costs to Wilmington from Paris.”
 
June 10, 2024: MSN Malaysia (Malaysia) quoted me in their article, “Dem Party will pay Jill Biden's flight costs to Wilmington from Paris.”
 
June 10, 2024: MSN Australia (Australia) quoted me in their article, “Dem Party will pay Jill Biden's flight costs to Wilmington from Paris.”
 
June 10, 2024: Express Digest (Phoenix, AZ) quoted me in their article, “Jill Biden’s 3,600-mile round trip from France to Delaware to spend two days at Hunter’s trial could cost up to $345,000… and taxpayers could be on the hook for a huge bill.”
 
June 10, 2024: Daily Caller quoted me in their article, ”Jill Biden Reportedly Racks Up Huge Bill Jetting From France To Hunter’s Trial.”
 
June 11, 2024: St. Louis Record (St. Louis, MO) quoted Dan in their article, “'Junk science' continues to drive product litigation, producing taxpayer burdens, research shows.”
 
June 11, 2024:  American Greatness quoted me in their article, “Jill Biden Makes Expensive Flights from France to Hunter’s Trial.”
 
June 12, 2024: WTSP CBS (Tampa, FL) mentioned TPA in their story about the Tampa Bay Rays stadium subsidies.
 
June 13, 2024: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, MD) interviewed me about a property tax referendum.
 
June 13, 2024: I appeared on WBOB 600 AM (Jacksonville, Fla.) to talk about inflation and tax reform.

June 13, 2024: Inside Sources ran TPA's op-ed, "F-35 Continues to Disappoint as Politicians Pick Contractors Over Taxpayers."

June 13, 2024: Filter Magazine ran TPA's op-ed, "'Vapes Designed to Kill,' Claims Org Designed to Protect World Health."

June 14, 2024: The Washington Examiner quoted TPA in their article, "IRS Says Free Tax-Filing Pilot Program Direct File to be Made Permanent."

June 14, 2024: The Boston Herald (Boston, MA.) ran TPA's op-ed, "F-35 Continues to Disappoint as Politicians Pick Contractors Over Taxpayers."

June 14, 2024: The Herald-Dispatch (Huntington, WV) ran TPA's op-ed, "F-35 Continues to Disappoint as Politicians Pick Contractors Over Taxpayers."


Have a great weekend!