Dan Riehl at Riehl World View has discovered something amazing: that reducing exposure to lead poisoning leads to reduced crime rates. At least that’s what the Clintonistas want us to think:

Fairfax economist Rick Nevin has spent more than a decade researching and writing about the relationship between early childhood lead exposure and criminal behavior later in life.

Although crime did fall dramatically in New York during Giuliani’s tenure, a broad range of scientific research has emerged in recent years to show that the mayor deserves only a fraction of the credit that he claims. The most compelling information has come from an economist in Fairfax who has argued in a series of little-noticed papers that the “New York miracle” was caused by local and federal efforts decades earlier to reduce lead poisoning.

The Clintons must think we’re the most idiotic people in the history of western civilization if they think we’ll buy into that nonsense. When I googled NYC crime rates from 1990-2001, one of the first articles listed read:

NEW YORK CITY MURDER RATE EDGES HIGHER
Subscription - The Record - HighBeam Research - Oct 26, 1991NEW YORK — The CITY MURDER RATE was up 1.8 percent in The first eight months …

Another article further down the page said this:

New York City Crime Falls But Just Why Is a Mystery
$4.95 - New York Times - Jan 1, 1995Crime in New York City Is dropping. and dropping fast. … monthly figures show a link between the New Crime-fighting efforts and the Crime rates. …

Frankly, I wasn’t about to pay a sawbuck to the NY Times just to read their article. The question I’d love to ask Mr. Nevin is what criteria he’s using in saying that there’s a direct relationship between lowering lead poisoning rates and lower crime. Can he prove causation with anything remotely resembling scientific proof? Or is his opinion just that: an opinion?

Here’s the part that I really liked from Dan’s post:

But how did this research come to be? We can thank Bill Clinton for that. And it isn’t news, it’s several years old. It was written up already here three years ago but goes back to a Clinton initiative in 2000 when his administration paid, guess who, to do it and write it up? You guessed it … the WaPo source and his consulting group were working for Clinton’s administration. In fact, on page 60 of the pdf, you’ll see Nevin’s company actually prepared the formal report.

Economic consultant Rick Nevin, hired by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to do a cost benefit analysis of removing lead paint from public housing, said he was stunned to discover a strong relationship between the use of leaded gasoline and violent crime.

Can you say busted? That’s the lamest argument against Rudy’s crimefighting policies that I’ve ever seen. That the Clintons think they can rely on information that they bought and paid for shows that they’ll do or say anything to hurt a political opponent.

Hillary’s been dreaming of her coronation forever, which is why she won’t go gently into that good night. Nonetheless, she will go into that good night because she has to rely on Rick Nevin’s studies. Meanwhile, Fred Thompson can rely on his command of the issues, his skills at connecting with people and his good humor.

Technorati Tags: Rudy Giuliani, Violent Crime, Fred Thompson, Hillary, HUD, Election 2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

1. [...] Cross-posted at California Conservative Categories: Hillary, Crime, Reforms, Election 2008, Giuliani, Pinnochiocrats, Fred Thompson | [...]

   Pingback by Let Freedom Ring » Blog Archive » Reduce Lead Poisoning, Reduce Crime — July 8, 2007 @ 11:55 am

1. Hillary isnt worried about us, she knows she’ll never win our confidence.

   Unfortunately a lot of peole DO buy her bullshit, unquestionably, and cant wait to vote for her.

   Given the way the Repubicans are driving conservatives away from their party. The splintering of the conservative Republican base 30 ways from next Wednesday is very likely. Any one who wants to get elected on a conservative base has got ane helluva lot of work to do to coalesce the movement.

   Right now, I’d say Hillary has a damned good shot at winning.

   Comment by T. A. Gray — July 8, 2007 @ 10:40 pm

2. I thought conservatives were supposed to study scientific research and the facts before you called it bullshit. That was what conservatives complain about liberals that they don’t face reality. What IF the reality is that people who ARE being poisoned - by lead - react in a very unhealthy and illegal way to challenges in life than people who are NOT being poisoned.

   Comment by Alex Campbell — July 9, 2007 @ 11:00 am