Back in May, California had 6 ballot intiatives designed to fund the gap between state income and outgo, and 5 of them were heavily backed by the political class, the big newspapers, and the public sector unions. The sixth one limited elected officials' salaries.
Guess which one passed and which five failed. You got it.
Now, the political class is up in arms. They won't cut back anywhere. So California is broke and issuing IOUs instead of paying in cash.
Reason has piece by Matt Welsh that covers it pretty well:
"During the last two decades, the Golden State has been transformed from what was once known as the nation’s most anti-labor outpost to a state essentially run by public-sector unions. Nearly three in five publicsector workers are unionized, compared to less than two in five public employees in other states. The Democratic Party, which is fully in hock to unions, has controlled the legislature and most statewide posts, with the notable exception of the governor’s mansion, for more than a decade. That means more government workers, higher salaries, and drastically higher pension costs. "
Now, the public is rebelling, and its about time.
"California is the Ghost of Federal Government Future."
Is what has been happening in California something we can look for in the rest of the country? Well, consider this:
"The federal government is now run by a president and Congress more responsive to union concerns than any in at least two decades. The same bloat currently bogging down statehouses and city halls is being duplicated in boomtown Washington, D.C. President Barack Obama even brought Andy Stern in to help warn Schwarzenegger that federal stimulus money would not be disbursed to California unless the governor rescinded some proposed state job cuts. Though that threat was later withdrawn, Schwarzenegger at press time was pushing for a measly work force reduction of 2 percent."
So, what can we conclude?
"Faced with a political class that ignored bureaucratic inefficiency, that demanded higher taxes, that filled the newspapers with scare stories about people who will literally die as a result of budget cuts, the citizens of one of the bluest states in the nation collectively said we just don’t believe you anymore. If even California’s famous fruits and nuts can call the statists’ bluff, there may be hope for the rest of the country. "
Read the whole thing here.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Congress and medicine
Starting the blogging day wondering why, if socialized medicine is so good for us, Congress is exempting itself from the rules.
Of course, Congress is very good at exempting itself from onerous rules it passes for those of us in the hinterland.
We need to throw all the bums out and start over.
Of course, Congress is very good at exempting itself from onerous rules it passes for those of us in the hinterland.
We need to throw all the bums out and start over.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Debt is capitalism’s dirty little secret
Ben Funnell has a commentary over on the Financial Times that makes some very interest and thought provoking points.
We have seen a huge concentration of wealth over the years into the hands of the elite, and this has been made possible by debt, which enabled the bulk of the population to maintains its living standards while it was occurring. This is capitalism's "dirty little secret."
He points out that incomes have increased for the highest 20% of earners by 60% since 1970, but have decreased by 10% for the rest. He points out that the Walton Family, of Wal Mart fame is wealthier than the bottom 100 million people in the US put together. If that is true, we have a problem, that is certain.
He goes on to say:
"Put simply, the benefits of economic growth have gone into the pockets of plutocrats rather than the bulk of the population. So why has there been no revolution? Because there was a solution: debt. If you couldn’t earn it, you could borrow it. Cheap financing was made widely available. Financial innovations such as the asset-backed securities market aided this process, as did government-sponsored agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Regulators welcomed it all while perhaps taking insufficient account of the moral hazard problem it posed: that ever-increasing leverage meant the authorities had to keep interest rates low, otherwise the debt burden would cripple consumption. This prompted more leverage, which exacerbated the problem."
Now here comes the crash, so what do we do? The debt is no longer available to help cover the problem.
"What can be done? First, although it is not ideal, we should not be too hasty about abandoning the capitalist model. It is less bad than any other system yet invented. But we should redouble our efforts to increase productivity through innovation and creating new markets; simply squeezing lower-income workers is a bad option, which helped get us into this mess in the first place. This requires investment in education and research. Second, we have to learn to live within our means. This means spending less than we earn, perhaps doing without the BMWs, flat-screen television sets and leather sofas. Third, we should be careful in distributing the higher tax burden that we will inevitably have to bear over the coming decade. Very high marginal tax rates did not work in the 1970s and will not work now. That said, income disparity at current levels is a political time-bomb that needs to be dealt with. Finally, we should all come to terms with the fact that these are structural issues needing structural solutions; they need to be enforced over a longer time period than any one government’s term. So we need a new political consensus, one aimed at reducing overall debt levels while reducing inequality by encouraging education, entrepreneurship and investment in innovation."
So, do we need a political revolution? Both of our political parties are tied to the old paradigm. If this is the problem, neither one of them is really positioned to do the right thing. They are both bought and paid for by the special interests that have gotten us where we are.
The changes he proposes, if his premise is correct, will be difficult to implement. Every politician in DC and every bureaucrat working for the government has a vested interest in the staus quo.
This seems to be something we should research. If he is right, our democracy can't last long without changes.
The last of his recommendations, which I have boldened, should be done whether or not his entire premise is correct.
If so, who will lead the revolution?
We have seen a huge concentration of wealth over the years into the hands of the elite, and this has been made possible by debt, which enabled the bulk of the population to maintains its living standards while it was occurring. This is capitalism's "dirty little secret."
He points out that incomes have increased for the highest 20% of earners by 60% since 1970, but have decreased by 10% for the rest. He points out that the Walton Family, of Wal Mart fame is wealthier than the bottom 100 million people in the US put together. If that is true, we have a problem, that is certain.
He goes on to say:
"Put simply, the benefits of economic growth have gone into the pockets of plutocrats rather than the bulk of the population. So why has there been no revolution? Because there was a solution: debt. If you couldn’t earn it, you could borrow it. Cheap financing was made widely available. Financial innovations such as the asset-backed securities market aided this process, as did government-sponsored agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Regulators welcomed it all while perhaps taking insufficient account of the moral hazard problem it posed: that ever-increasing leverage meant the authorities had to keep interest rates low, otherwise the debt burden would cripple consumption. This prompted more leverage, which exacerbated the problem."
Now here comes the crash, so what do we do? The debt is no longer available to help cover the problem.
"What can be done? First, although it is not ideal, we should not be too hasty about abandoning the capitalist model. It is less bad than any other system yet invented. But we should redouble our efforts to increase productivity through innovation and creating new markets; simply squeezing lower-income workers is a bad option, which helped get us into this mess in the first place. This requires investment in education and research. Second, we have to learn to live within our means. This means spending less than we earn, perhaps doing without the BMWs, flat-screen television sets and leather sofas. Third, we should be careful in distributing the higher tax burden that we will inevitably have to bear over the coming decade. Very high marginal tax rates did not work in the 1970s and will not work now. That said, income disparity at current levels is a political time-bomb that needs to be dealt with. Finally, we should all come to terms with the fact that these are structural issues needing structural solutions; they need to be enforced over a longer time period than any one government’s term. So we need a new political consensus, one aimed at reducing overall debt levels while reducing inequality by encouraging education, entrepreneurship and investment in innovation."
So, do we need a political revolution? Both of our political parties are tied to the old paradigm. If this is the problem, neither one of them is really positioned to do the right thing. They are both bought and paid for by the special interests that have gotten us where we are.
The changes he proposes, if his premise is correct, will be difficult to implement. Every politician in DC and every bureaucrat working for the government has a vested interest in the staus quo.
This seems to be something we should research. If he is right, our democracy can't last long without changes.
The last of his recommendations, which I have boldened, should be done whether or not his entire premise is correct.
If so, who will lead the revolution?
For those who think we can deal with China....
The Financial Times has a story, Four Rio Tinto staff detained in China. Seems there is a dispute over the negotiations over a new contractual price for the iron ore Rio Tinto sells to China.
China is also mad because Rio Tinto backed out of a deal for a Chinese company to buy into Rio Tinto.
What a way to negotiate!
China is also mad because Rio Tinto backed out of a deal for a Chinese company to buy into Rio Tinto.
What a way to negotiate!
The funeral story we should be following, but won't
Right after I posted the foregoing on Michael Jackson's funeral coverage, a friend sent me a story from the Orlando Sentinel.
Its a story of a Little League father who loved his son, and when it came down to it was willing to give his life that his son might play. Briefly, here is what happened:
"As Austin was swimming in that mountain river, he got caught in the current, his foot got jammed beneath a rock and he couldn't pull free. We all say we would give our own life for the life of our child, and we would. But Mike did it. He actually did it.
He plunged into the icy river like a shot, made his way to Austin and got himself stuck between two rocks to keep his balance. He then proceeded to hold his son's head above water for 30 minutes until he and others were able to dislodge Austin, who is named after the city where Mike went to college and rooted on his treasured Texas Longhorns."
They got a rope to Austin and the Dad gave a last heave and they pulled Austin free. But:
"Moments after he saw Austin being lifted to safety, he died in the river of hypothermia, exhaustion, drowning."
He was buried on July 2. No TV. no national coverage, no sympathy from our free press, except in Orlando.
This Dad was a better man than an infinite number of Michael Jacksons.
Perhaps we can determine the character of people by whom they celebrate. If so, there are a lot of Americans who fail the test.
Sad.
Its a story of a Little League father who loved his son, and when it came down to it was willing to give his life that his son might play. Briefly, here is what happened:
"As Austin was swimming in that mountain river, he got caught in the current, his foot got jammed beneath a rock and he couldn't pull free. We all say we would give our own life for the life of our child, and we would. But Mike did it. He actually did it.
He plunged into the icy river like a shot, made his way to Austin and got himself stuck between two rocks to keep his balance. He then proceeded to hold his son's head above water for 30 minutes until he and others were able to dislodge Austin, who is named after the city where Mike went to college and rooted on his treasured Texas Longhorns."
They got a rope to Austin and the Dad gave a last heave and they pulled Austin free. But:
"Moments after he saw Austin being lifted to safety, he died in the river of hypothermia, exhaustion, drowning."
He was buried on July 2. No TV. no national coverage, no sympathy from our free press, except in Orlando.
This Dad was a better man than an infinite number of Michael Jacksons.
Perhaps we can determine the character of people by whom they celebrate. If so, there are a lot of Americans who fail the test.
Sad.
Excess is right
A friend just called me to say that he had scrolled through his TV to find the news, and had discovered that the nine major networks had set aside 3 hours of broadcasting to cover Michael Jackson's funeral.
William Katz over at urgent Agenda has some excellent comments. Among them:
"Say nothing bad about the dead. I'm sure Jackson was an exciting entertainer. But the excess here is vulgar, a sad reflection on the values of many Americans. "
Vulgar, indeed. If one wanted to see exactly what is wrong with our news system, here it is.
It also speaks to the inanity in so many lives that they would spend that time on a person of that character, without regard to how good an entertainer one might think he was.
Shameful.
William Katz over at urgent Agenda has some excellent comments. Among them:
"Say nothing bad about the dead. I'm sure Jackson was an exciting entertainer. But the excess here is vulgar, a sad reflection on the values of many Americans. "
Vulgar, indeed. If one wanted to see exactly what is wrong with our news system, here it is.
It also speaks to the inanity in so many lives that they would spend that time on a person of that character, without regard to how good an entertainer one might think he was.
Shameful.
Calfornia's bonds now near "junk" status
CNNMoney.com is now reporting that Fitch has reduced California's debt to a rating of BBB, just shy of "junk" status. And they are still on "watch" for further downgrade. The other ratings agencies still have California rated higher, but one must remember that they rated all that subprime paper that has defaulted AAA up until the day it all crashed.
Would you buy California paper?
Well, according to the Wall Street Journal, the big banks won't accept their IOU's.
Of course, the state's employees and the politicians don't have to worry, they got cash. The next to worthless IOUs are held by the poor and elderly, who really need the money to live on. (California says the IOUs will be repaid in October, but they will be in a $17 billion hole then.)
What's more, the state has now added to the pain by changing the terms of the IOUs to require a notarized bill of sale before anyone but the recipient can cash one. That means that the holders are stuck with them until they can be redeemed.
Talk about a train wreck.
Would you buy California paper?
Well, according to the Wall Street Journal, the big banks won't accept their IOU's.
Of course, the state's employees and the politicians don't have to worry, they got cash. The next to worthless IOUs are held by the poor and elderly, who really need the money to live on. (California says the IOUs will be repaid in October, but they will be in a $17 billion hole then.)
What's more, the state has now added to the pain by changing the terms of the IOUs to require a notarized bill of sale before anyone but the recipient can cash one. That means that the holders are stuck with them until they can be redeemed.
Talk about a train wreck.
Who killed California's economy?
There's a good article at Forbes by Joel Kotkin that tries to answer that. He points out 5 suspects: the governor, the public employees, the environmentalists, the business community, and the public.
He is not kind to any of them, because all of them are responsible.
About the public sector:
"Who needs an economy when you have fat pensions and almost unlimited political power? That's the mentality of California's 356,000 workers and their unions, who make up the best-organized, best-funded and most powerful interest group in the state."
The environmentalists have their share of the blame:
"In California today, everyone who makes a buck in the private sector--from developers and manufacturers to energy producers and farmers--cringes in fear of draconian regulations in the name of protecting the environment. The activists don't much care, since they get their money from trust-funders and their nonprofits."
The business community has failed to make its case:
"...so far California's business executives have failed to adopt a strategy to make this case to the public. Nor can they count on the largely clueless Republicans for support, since GOP members are often too narrowly identified as anti-tax and anti-immigration zealots to make much of a case with the mainstream voter."
And the general public has also failed:
"At some point Californians--the ones paying the bills and getting little in return--need to rouse themselves. The problem could be demographic. Over the past few years much of our middle class has fled the state, including a growing number to "dust bowl" states like Oklahoma, Texas and Arkansas from which so many Californians trace their roots."
But the governor won't be much help:
" Now he's posturing as the strong man who stands up to dominant liberal interests. But few on the left, few on the right or few in the middle take him seriously anymore. He may still earn acclaim from Manhattan media offices or Barack Obama's EPA, but in his home state he looks more an over-sized lame duck, quacking meaninglessly for the cameras. "
What needs to be said, though, is that what got California in trouble was excessive credit. They, like the United States, borrowed against the future without regard to having to pay back the money. They thought the party could go on forever, or at least it would be someone else's problem when the bills came due.
That is a terrible way to run a government. We have all been responsible at the national level. It is time we put a stop to it. Only we can do it.
He is not kind to any of them, because all of them are responsible.
About the public sector:
"Who needs an economy when you have fat pensions and almost unlimited political power? That's the mentality of California's 356,000 workers and their unions, who make up the best-organized, best-funded and most powerful interest group in the state."
The environmentalists have their share of the blame:
"In California today, everyone who makes a buck in the private sector--from developers and manufacturers to energy producers and farmers--cringes in fear of draconian regulations in the name of protecting the environment. The activists don't much care, since they get their money from trust-funders and their nonprofits."
The business community has failed to make its case:
"...so far California's business executives have failed to adopt a strategy to make this case to the public. Nor can they count on the largely clueless Republicans for support, since GOP members are often too narrowly identified as anti-tax and anti-immigration zealots to make much of a case with the mainstream voter."
And the general public has also failed:
"At some point Californians--the ones paying the bills and getting little in return--need to rouse themselves. The problem could be demographic. Over the past few years much of our middle class has fled the state, including a growing number to "dust bowl" states like Oklahoma, Texas and Arkansas from which so many Californians trace their roots."
But the governor won't be much help:
" Now he's posturing as the strong man who stands up to dominant liberal interests. But few on the left, few on the right or few in the middle take him seriously anymore. He may still earn acclaim from Manhattan media offices or Barack Obama's EPA, but in his home state he looks more an over-sized lame duck, quacking meaninglessly for the cameras. "
What needs to be said, though, is that what got California in trouble was excessive credit. They, like the United States, borrowed against the future without regard to having to pay back the money. They thought the party could go on forever, or at least it would be someone else's problem when the bills came due.
That is a terrible way to run a government. We have all been responsible at the national level. It is time we put a stop to it. Only we can do it.
Wondering why
Starting the blogging day today wondering why Obama gets along better with dictators and tyrants that are our enemies than he does with democratically elected friends of the United States, particularly those in Britain, Germany and Israel.
Monday, July 6, 2009
July 6, 2009
Doing away with independent Inspectors General? It certainly looks like it. The Washington Post has the story.
Obama has already run off three of them, illegally, of course. The guy in charge of "hope and change" turns out to be another corrupt Chicago pol. No surprise except to those who drank the Koolaid.
The South Plainsman
The Best of the Web with James Taranto follows up my initial question of the day about Honduras with one of his own.
After the following quote from Rosalinda Cruz, a Justice on the Honduran Supreme Court:
"The only thing the armed forces did was carry out an arrest order," Cruz, 55, said in a telephone interview from the capital, Tegucigalpa. "There's no doubt he was preparing his own coup by conspiring to shut down the congress and courts.",
he asks his own question:
Why won't Obama listen? Does he have something against wise Latina women?
My speculation is that Obama won't listen because he likes and feels close to leftist dictators.
The South Plainsman
The Telegraph in the UK is saying the "US is lurching toward a debt explosion with interest rates on course to double."
That is not particularly a new concept, but it is rare to see the media actually report it. Of course this is from the UK, so the US media is not implicated in telling a bad truth about the economy. That would reflect upon their Messiah, Mr. Obama.
They quote a paper from 2003 by the senior Economist at the Federal Reserve, Thomas Laubach. You can read the paper here.
Really, what it says is that the more the government borrows and spends, the higher the debt gets and the higher interest rates go. Who knew?
Actually, they just predict a doubling of interest rates. My view is that they are quite likely to go even higher. But it doesn't matter. Any higher will prolong recovery.
The conclusion of the story:
"Should the cost of raising or refinancing public debt in the markets double, “the debt could just explode”, he said, adding that it would come to a head in “five to 10 years”. "
Have I worn out the Banana Republic reference? Sorry, it just keeps coming to mind.
The South Plainsman
14% Unemployment? Surely not. But that is what Louis Woodhill is predicting over at Real Clear Markets.
But what about simulus? Well, he says it won't work:
""Stimulus" is based upon the superstition that government borrowing and spending creates "demand". In reality, it does no such thing. "Stimulus" is like trying to raise the level of the Hudson River by dipping out a bucket of water, walking five feet downstream, and pouring it back in. The only difference between the Bush and Obama plans is that Obama's bucket is bigger (and will create more debt). Ironically, the July 2 jobs report prompted calls from leftist economists for Obama to go back to the river with an even bigger bucket."
His conclusion:
"Virtually everything the Obama administration wants to do will have the effect of increasing unemployment. As bad as joblessness is now, be prepared for it to get much, much worse."
It is really that simple. Our problems are caused by too much government, too much spending and too much debt. Obama's main aims are to expand each of them as far as he can.
Anybody ever been broke before?
The South Plainsman
Correcting the President. Scott Ott, who writes some great satire at his site Scrappleface is now also blogging over at Townhall, seriously. He has a great piece posted on July 4 in response to Obama's invocation of the Founding Fathers this weekend to justify his programs. Go to the site for the whole thing, which is great. Here is the conclusion:
"Finally, Mr. President, the 13 colonies did not become free and independent states by confiscating wealth from the productive sector of society and doling it out to the unproductive sector in a way that guarantees the perpetual enslavement of both.
"This new nation, conceived in liberty, was brought forth by people who said 'Enough' to a tyrant who capriciously ruled from afar -- people who were willing to risk their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor that succeeding generations might live the freedom they bought with blood.
"Mr. President when you compare your socialized insurance program, your speculative wealth confiscation program or your Niagara Falls of spending with the endeavors of those bold patriots, you trivialize their sacrifice while you crown yourself with the Styrofoam diadem of a clown."
Well said.
The South Plainsman
California IOUs. According to the Financial Times, Wall Street is gearing up to trade in California's IOUs. And so are opportunistic entrepreneurs on Craigslist.
“If you are receiving a California IOU and you need cash immediately,
please contact me. I may be of assistance,” reads one posting."
How much are those things worth? Well, one guy wants to pay half price:
"Brandon Schlichter, a 23-year-old self-employed online marketer and blogger from
Columbus, Ohio, is among those advertising on Craigslist. He is hoping to buy
the IOUs for about half face value and has set up a website to connect buyers
and sellers for 5-10 per cent commission."
Will US Treasuries be next? Don't be so sure they won't if Obama and the liberals in Congress have their way.
Does the term "Banana Republic" ring a bell with anyone?
The South Plainsman
Robert McNamara has died. The Washington Post accurately calls him the "architect" of the Viet Nam War, which he was.
I have never understood why the voters blame the Republicans for the war when the Democrats started it, screwed it up royally, then did everything they could to undermine Republican effforts to end it honorably.
I guess if you have the press, fiction can become some version of truth. We are seeing more of that phenomenum every day.
The South Plainsman
Good news for coffee drinkers! From the University of South Florida:
"The new findings provide evidence that caffeine could be a viable 'treatment' for established Alzheimer's disease, and not simply a protective strategy," said lead author Gary Arendash, PhD, a USF neuroscientist with the Florida ADRC. "That's important because caffeine is a safe drug for most people, it easily enters the brain, and it appears to directly affect the disease process."
The whole story is here.
The South Plainsman
Ross Douthat writing in the New York Times, says Palin should have just said "no." I have to agree with that. She was not ready for prime time.
He goes on to point out that her popularity has as much to do with class as ideology
In this sense, she really is the perfect foil for Barack Obama. Our president
represents the meritocratic ideal — that anyone, from any background, can grow
up to attend Columbia and Harvard Law School and become a great American success story. But Sarah Palin represents the democratic ideal — that anyone can grow up to be a great success story without graduating from Columbia and Harvard.
She probably never understood the wringer she would be put through for agreeing to run with McCain, until it happened. Woefully unprepared, she blew it. She "tarnished" the "democratic ideal."
But, he says, its also been tarnished by the elites themselves, including the media, by the way they have treated her. I have to agree that they went far overboard, and still are doing so. The purveyors of "hope and change" have continued with the same old gutter politics we have come to expect from them. They hate anyone that is not like them.
Shame.
The South Plainsman
Kevin Hasset over at Bloomberg says that California's nightmare will cause Obamanomics a lot of trouble.The California morass has Democrats in Washington trembling. The reason is simple. If Obama’s health-care plan passes, then we may well end up paying for it with federal slips of paper worth less than California’s. Obama has bet everything on passing health care this year. The publicity surrounding the California debt fiasco almost assures his resounding defeat.
The cause is simple, he says:
All that you need is two political parties that are always willing to offer easy government solutions for every need of the voters, but never willing to make the tough decisions necessary to finance the government largess that results. Voters will occasionally change their allegiance from one party to the other, but the bacchanal will continue regardless of the names on the office doors.
This sounds awfully familiar. In fact it seems like the pols in Washington have been doing the same thing for four decades.
The result will be the same, too. Busted!
The South Plainsman
Starting out the blogging day wondering why Obama is siding with the socialist/communist dictators in the Caribbean and South America, guys like Castro and Chavez, against the Congress and Supreme Court of Honduras, who removed the President thereof for having violated their constitution. Birds of a feather?
Sunday, July 5, 2009
July 5, 2009
Sarah Palin
It seems the whole world is talking about Sarah Palin, and her resignation as Governor of Alaska.
What is she going to do? Is she still running for President? Is she leaving politics? Did she commit political suicide, or is it a smart tactic? Why in the world would she do that?
Some of those questions are impossible to answer....only she and time will be able to do that. The answer to the last question above may be easier.
Ever since she exploded upon the national scene with her appointment as McCain's VP, the liberals and the press (sorry for the redundancy) have scrutinized her every move and every word, all quite critically. They have even done the same to her family. In my seventy years, I have never seen anything quite like it.
Why would they hate her so? One could easily conclude that the have that visceral anti-Palin feeling because she scares them.
She is different from them. She is not an elite like they are. She is pretty much a down home ordinary type of lady who happened to be bright enough to get herself elected Governor of her state. She is not afraid to take on the left, but had a good record of bi-partisanship in Alaska before the destruction began in earnest.
Her speech at the GOP Convention electrified the base of the party, something that neither John McCain nor any of the other candidates could do. She was not up on the national issues, and was not really ready for prime time, but she struck a real chord with the people who were dissatisfied with the nominee and all of the other choices. This is probably what frightened the left.
So the left set out to destroy her. They have done a lot of damage to her and her family. Much of what they did has been beyond the pale. We will see if that ever comes back to haunt them.
Will she be back? I suspect so. A friend pointed out that in 2020 she will only be 52. That is prime age for national leaders.
Will she come back prepared? We will see.
She is going to have to spend some time in the political wilderness, study, learn, get around and meet people, and build a base in the electorate.
Perhaps with the resignation, the media will now go elsewhere for a while.
The South Plainsman
David Boaz talks about how our current politicians from both political powers misuse quotes and misstate beliefs of the Founders of our country for their own purposes in The Politicians and the Founders over at Cato. Both Obama and McCain were guilty of this in their radio broadcasts this weekend. His conclusion after having given examples:
"....Maybe each week there should be three national radio broadcasts: one from the incumbent president, one from the other big-government party, and one reflecting the views of the Founders."
Read it all.
The South Plainsman
John Hinderaker over at Powerline quotes Mark Steyn who is discussing horrors of the British medical system:
"......When we quote stories like these at NRO, we get a lot of e-mail saying these are just "anecdotes". And yes, if you look on yourself as being part of a government health system of millions of people, getting a bedsore and dying in hideous pain is no big deal in the scheme of things. But I look on myself as being part of the Mark Steyn health system. So if I get a bedsore and die, as far as I'm concerned, that's a 100% systemic failure. The difference between government health care and a private system is that, under the latter, you're free to say, "This dump's filthy. I'm going to the state-of-the-art joint five miles up the road." You may have to get out your checkbook, but ultimately the decisions are yours.
In a government system, the decisions are the bureaucrats', and that's that. My father is currently ill, and the health "system" is doing its best to ensure it's fatal. When an ambulance has to be called, they take him to a different hospital according to the determinations of the bed-availability bureaucrats and which facility hasn't had to be quarantined for an infection outbreak. At the first hospital, he picked up C Difficile. At the second, MRSA. At the third, like the lady above, he got septicaemia. He's lying there now, enjoying the socialized health care jackpot - C Diff, MRSA, septicaemia. None of these ailments are what he went in to be treated for. They were given to him by the medical system......"
The discussion was about a woman who went to the hospital in Britain and died from a bedsore which was ignored by the staff.
Read the whole thing here.
The South Plainsman
Thought for the day:
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on to them to do the same." Ronald Reagan
The South Plainsman
Now Biden chimes in: the US will not stand in the way of an Israel attack on Iran. Is it the official word? Or is he just running his mouth again with his brain disengaged? How would we know?
The New York Times has the story, and an editorial comment within the story:
"....Mr. Biden’s comments came at a particularly sensitive time, amid the continuing tumult over the disputed Iranian elections, and seemed to risk handing a besieged President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a new tool with which to fan nationalist sentiments in Iran....."
A policy change for the Obama administration? Don't bet on it.
The South Plainsman
David Warren, who writes for the Ottawa Citizen hits the nail on the head when discussing affairs in the United States. Today he says we are crazy, and getting crazier for trying to solve problems in the economy which were caused by too much debt by adding much more debt. And , he says, even crazier, at the same time we are socializing medicine at great cost and initiating "cap and trade" law that will further ruin the economy. Crazy, indeed.
Read the whole thing. [link is fixed now]
The South Plainsman
The Saudis will do what we won't. The Times has the story. The Saudis will permit the Israelis to fly over Saudi Arabia to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. The US won't let them use the somewhat more direct route over Iraq.
The South Plainsman
It seems the whole world is talking about Sarah Palin, and her resignation as Governor of Alaska.
What is she going to do? Is she still running for President? Is she leaving politics? Did she commit political suicide, or is it a smart tactic? Why in the world would she do that?
Some of those questions are impossible to answer....only she and time will be able to do that. The answer to the last question above may be easier.
Ever since she exploded upon the national scene with her appointment as McCain's VP, the liberals and the press (sorry for the redundancy) have scrutinized her every move and every word, all quite critically. They have even done the same to her family. In my seventy years, I have never seen anything quite like it.
Why would they hate her so? One could easily conclude that the have that visceral anti-Palin feeling because she scares them.
She is different from them. She is not an elite like they are. She is pretty much a down home ordinary type of lady who happened to be bright enough to get herself elected Governor of her state. She is not afraid to take on the left, but had a good record of bi-partisanship in Alaska before the destruction began in earnest.
Her speech at the GOP Convention electrified the base of the party, something that neither John McCain nor any of the other candidates could do. She was not up on the national issues, and was not really ready for prime time, but she struck a real chord with the people who were dissatisfied with the nominee and all of the other choices. This is probably what frightened the left.
So the left set out to destroy her. They have done a lot of damage to her and her family. Much of what they did has been beyond the pale. We will see if that ever comes back to haunt them.
Will she be back? I suspect so. A friend pointed out that in 2020 she will only be 52. That is prime age for national leaders.
Will she come back prepared? We will see.
She is going to have to spend some time in the political wilderness, study, learn, get around and meet people, and build a base in the electorate.
Perhaps with the resignation, the media will now go elsewhere for a while.
The South Plainsman
David Boaz talks about how our current politicians from both political powers misuse quotes and misstate beliefs of the Founders of our country for their own purposes in The Politicians and the Founders over at Cato. Both Obama and McCain were guilty of this in their radio broadcasts this weekend. His conclusion after having given examples:
"....Maybe each week there should be three national radio broadcasts: one from the incumbent president, one from the other big-government party, and one reflecting the views of the Founders."
Read it all.
The South Plainsman
John Hinderaker over at Powerline quotes Mark Steyn who is discussing horrors of the British medical system:
"......When we quote stories like these at NRO, we get a lot of e-mail saying these are just "anecdotes". And yes, if you look on yourself as being part of a government health system of millions of people, getting a bedsore and dying in hideous pain is no big deal in the scheme of things. But I look on myself as being part of the Mark Steyn health system. So if I get a bedsore and die, as far as I'm concerned, that's a 100% systemic failure. The difference between government health care and a private system is that, under the latter, you're free to say, "This dump's filthy. I'm going to the state-of-the-art joint five miles up the road." You may have to get out your checkbook, but ultimately the decisions are yours.
In a government system, the decisions are the bureaucrats', and that's that. My father is currently ill, and the health "system" is doing its best to ensure it's fatal. When an ambulance has to be called, they take him to a different hospital according to the determinations of the bed-availability bureaucrats and which facility hasn't had to be quarantined for an infection outbreak. At the first hospital, he picked up C Difficile. At the second, MRSA. At the third, like the lady above, he got septicaemia. He's lying there now, enjoying the socialized health care jackpot - C Diff, MRSA, septicaemia. None of these ailments are what he went in to be treated for. They were given to him by the medical system......"
The discussion was about a woman who went to the hospital in Britain and died from a bedsore which was ignored by the staff.
Read the whole thing here.
The South Plainsman
Thought for the day:
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on to them to do the same." Ronald Reagan
The South Plainsman
Now Biden chimes in: the US will not stand in the way of an Israel attack on Iran. Is it the official word? Or is he just running his mouth again with his brain disengaged? How would we know?
The New York Times has the story, and an editorial comment within the story:
"....Mr. Biden’s comments came at a particularly sensitive time, amid the continuing tumult over the disputed Iranian elections, and seemed to risk handing a besieged President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a new tool with which to fan nationalist sentiments in Iran....."
A policy change for the Obama administration? Don't bet on it.
The South Plainsman
David Warren, who writes for the Ottawa Citizen hits the nail on the head when discussing affairs in the United States. Today he says we are crazy, and getting crazier for trying to solve problems in the economy which were caused by too much debt by adding much more debt. And , he says, even crazier, at the same time we are socializing medicine at great cost and initiating "cap and trade" law that will further ruin the economy. Crazy, indeed.
Read the whole thing. [link is fixed now]
The South Plainsman
The Saudis will do what we won't. The Times has the story. The Saudis will permit the Israelis to fly over Saudi Arabia to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. The US won't let them use the somewhat more direct route over Iraq.
The South Plainsman
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Musings
Just musing today after reading all of the frightening economic and political news.
The stock market is up good today on the news that Citi made a profit. I will bet it is not net of all the taxpayer dollars that have been and will be poured into it. Absurd.
There is news that the Democrats have introduced the "Employee Freedom of Choice Act." This is one that actually does away with freedom of employees to have a secret ballot when deciding whether or not to unionize. Typically of Democrats, its all a lie.
I note that some people are saying that the next shoe to fall on the banks will be huge credit card losses. Not a surprise. Banks were sending out many cards for years, not only to adult people, but to children, dogs, cats and canaries. Without regard to credit ratings. Now we are going to have to bail the banks out for that, too.
Does anybody know how many trillions of dollars all this bailout business is going to cost?
No?
Didn't think so.
Does anybody know who is going to pay for it?
Your children and grandchildren, that's who.
Sigh.
The stock market is up good today on the news that Citi made a profit. I will bet it is not net of all the taxpayer dollars that have been and will be poured into it. Absurd.
There is news that the Democrats have introduced the "Employee Freedom of Choice Act." This is one that actually does away with freedom of employees to have a secret ballot when deciding whether or not to unionize. Typically of Democrats, its all a lie.
I note that some people are saying that the next shoe to fall on the banks will be huge credit card losses. Not a surprise. Banks were sending out many cards for years, not only to adult people, but to children, dogs, cats and canaries. Without regard to credit ratings. Now we are going to have to bail the banks out for that, too.
Does anybody know how many trillions of dollars all this bailout business is going to cost?
No?
Didn't think so.
Does anybody know who is going to pay for it?
Your children and grandchildren, that's who.
Sigh.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Resuming, once again
It seems like every time I post here it has been a long time since the last one. When I started this, I had no intention of doing it daily. I just didn't want to be tied down to it. I still don't.
From the beginning, I have been operating under the strictures of the judicial code of ethics which limits us in commenting upon political candidates. As a result. most of my posts about politics were restrained, to say the least.
This year there are no candidates, so I can be less restrained, and that is a huge relief. There will be a lot to post about.
Last year I pointed out the strange relationships that now President Obama had with some really unsavory characters. The first three that come to mind are Reverend Wright, whose church Obama attended for around 20 years; Saul Alinsky, a radical community organizer whom Obama did not know, but whose philosophy and methods Obama faithfully follows; and the terrorist, Bill Ayers, who should still be in prison, but instead holds a prestigious job at a university in Chicago.
What do these three have in common? They are all radicals wanting to greatly change America. But is it the change we want?
Alinsky worked closely with Communists in much of his organizing. He says he was not one, but he certainly empowered them within the labor movements of the 1920s and 1930s.
Reverend Wright, of course, follows the Black Liberation Theology introduced by James Cone. It, in turn, is based upon the Liberation Theology that originated in Central America which clearly had Marxist roots. He and his followers clearly hate our America.
Ayers? Well, Bill Ayers was a terrorist. People died as a result of his efforts. He has no regrets.
Strange bedfellows? Of course. And the list doesn't include his pals in the Chicago and Illinois political machines, some (or many?) of whom are headed to prison.
Are you now still wondering who Obama is? If so, just look at what he has tried to do just since the inauguration.
He is exactly who he said he was if you had listened and heard what he really was saying. He is a Marxist/Socialist redistributionist who will destroy our free economy in search of equality of outcomes. Just like Marx preached.
The gloves are off.
From the beginning, I have been operating under the strictures of the judicial code of ethics which limits us in commenting upon political candidates. As a result. most of my posts about politics were restrained, to say the least.
This year there are no candidates, so I can be less restrained, and that is a huge relief. There will be a lot to post about.
Last year I pointed out the strange relationships that now President Obama had with some really unsavory characters. The first three that come to mind are Reverend Wright, whose church Obama attended for around 20 years; Saul Alinsky, a radical community organizer whom Obama did not know, but whose philosophy and methods Obama faithfully follows; and the terrorist, Bill Ayers, who should still be in prison, but instead holds a prestigious job at a university in Chicago.
What do these three have in common? They are all radicals wanting to greatly change America. But is it the change we want?
Alinsky worked closely with Communists in much of his organizing. He says he was not one, but he certainly empowered them within the labor movements of the 1920s and 1930s.
Reverend Wright, of course, follows the Black Liberation Theology introduced by James Cone. It, in turn, is based upon the Liberation Theology that originated in Central America which clearly had Marxist roots. He and his followers clearly hate our America.
Ayers? Well, Bill Ayers was a terrorist. People died as a result of his efforts. He has no regrets.
Strange bedfellows? Of course. And the list doesn't include his pals in the Chicago and Illinois political machines, some (or many?) of whom are headed to prison.
Are you now still wondering who Obama is? If so, just look at what he has tried to do just since the inauguration.
He is exactly who he said he was if you had listened and heard what he really was saying. He is a Marxist/Socialist redistributionist who will destroy our free economy in search of equality of outcomes. Just like Marx preached.
The gloves are off.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
"The World Turned Upside Down"
That is the title of the song played by the English band as the troops under Lord Cornwallis marched out to lay down their arms outside Yorktown on October 19, 1781. Indeed, the world was upside down in English eyes that day. After over six years of bloody rebellion and very hard times for the people of America, victory was at hand, although it took another two years before the signing of the Treaty of Paris.
It was amazing how Americans undertook every hardship, risked their lives and fortunes, to throw off the yoke of repressive government and bring freedom and liberty to their country.
Of course, it was not a country, yet. It was not until eight years after Yorktown that a new Constitution was hammered out and adopted, creating the United States of America.
It was not easy to get there, of course. Then, like now, there were factions in the body politic, and they fought fiercely for their points of view.
One faction wanted a very strong central government, perhaps even a monarchy; another did not trust government at all, and wanted a very weak central government.
The result came down on the side of a central government that was strong enough to regulate commerce between the states and with foreigners, and to provide for national defense, but with very detailed limitations on the exercise of other powers. The real story is that the Constitution would not have been adopted without the first ten amendments that were added. All of those placed very specific restrictions upon the government, and reserved all those powers not specified in the Constitution to the states and to the People.
Through the years, disputes have continued, with some wanting to expand the powers of the central government far beyond the limitations of the Constitution, and others fighting to maintain appropriate limitations as provided by the Constitution. In spite of the tendencies of the courts to tinker with the limitations over the years, we still have had limited government to a large extent.
Until now.
Now we see the Treasury of the United States, in league with the Federal Reserve, engaged in distributing trillions of dollars to private institutions, mostly financial, without a shred of legal basis either in the Constitution or laws of the United States. Worse, they won't even tell the people or the Congress the specifics of how much and to whom.
George W. Bush, the lame duck President of the United States, who was elected supposedly supporting limited government, is now authorizing acts that go far beyond what is allowed by the Constitution. The Congress seems to be acquiescing, although it has certainly not passed any legislation permitting what they are doing.
It seems like the President and the Congress cannot just say "No" when the expenditure of large sums of money is concerned. Mr. Bush never has. The Congress gets its campaign funds with the ability to pass out taxpayers' money, so there is no hope there.
If one looks at where the money is going, one can immediately see that it is going to the big contributors to our politicians. Just check out the contributions by all those institutions to our politicians. Hundreds of millions of dollars have gone into political campaigns the last few years from those companies and their employees. Now we see what they have bought.
The most outrageous part of all of this bailout business is that the people who did everything wrong, who created this economic mess, who profited from it, who ought to be the big losers, are the ones getting all of this Federal money.
Who pays you might ask?
Everyone who did the right thing, that's who will pay.
"The World Turned Upside Down," indeed.
It was amazing how Americans undertook every hardship, risked their lives and fortunes, to throw off the yoke of repressive government and bring freedom and liberty to their country.
Of course, it was not a country, yet. It was not until eight years after Yorktown that a new Constitution was hammered out and adopted, creating the United States of America.
It was not easy to get there, of course. Then, like now, there were factions in the body politic, and they fought fiercely for their points of view.
One faction wanted a very strong central government, perhaps even a monarchy; another did not trust government at all, and wanted a very weak central government.
The result came down on the side of a central government that was strong enough to regulate commerce between the states and with foreigners, and to provide for national defense, but with very detailed limitations on the exercise of other powers. The real story is that the Constitution would not have been adopted without the first ten amendments that were added. All of those placed very specific restrictions upon the government, and reserved all those powers not specified in the Constitution to the states and to the People.
Through the years, disputes have continued, with some wanting to expand the powers of the central government far beyond the limitations of the Constitution, and others fighting to maintain appropriate limitations as provided by the Constitution. In spite of the tendencies of the courts to tinker with the limitations over the years, we still have had limited government to a large extent.
Until now.
Now we see the Treasury of the United States, in league with the Federal Reserve, engaged in distributing trillions of dollars to private institutions, mostly financial, without a shred of legal basis either in the Constitution or laws of the United States. Worse, they won't even tell the people or the Congress the specifics of how much and to whom.
George W. Bush, the lame duck President of the United States, who was elected supposedly supporting limited government, is now authorizing acts that go far beyond what is allowed by the Constitution. The Congress seems to be acquiescing, although it has certainly not passed any legislation permitting what they are doing.
It seems like the President and the Congress cannot just say "No" when the expenditure of large sums of money is concerned. Mr. Bush never has. The Congress gets its campaign funds with the ability to pass out taxpayers' money, so there is no hope there.
If one looks at where the money is going, one can immediately see that it is going to the big contributors to our politicians. Just check out the contributions by all those institutions to our politicians. Hundreds of millions of dollars have gone into political campaigns the last few years from those companies and their employees. Now we see what they have bought.
The most outrageous part of all of this bailout business is that the people who did everything wrong, who created this economic mess, who profited from it, who ought to be the big losers, are the ones getting all of this Federal money.
Who pays you might ask?
Everyone who did the right thing, that's who will pay.
"The World Turned Upside Down," indeed.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Hope and change
It was only a few months ago that I posted the last item here, and what a change has occurred. Crude oil is below $40, the economy is in the tank, and everything said before seems hardly relevant any more.
During the time, I just decided to stop posting. There was too much going on with the election and the economy. I had plenty of thoughts, but everything was so fluid, I decided not to write and show my ignorance.
We are now in the Christmas season, and have a new President coming on board next month. This President will probably face a very difficult situation, perhaps as difficult as any President has ever faced.
Before I renew my posting, let us all be thankful for our great country, and pray for its continued strength. Let us also pray for the success of our new President, and that he will be successful in preserving our nation in a difficult time.
During the time, I just decided to stop posting. There was too much going on with the election and the economy. I had plenty of thoughts, but everything was so fluid, I decided not to write and show my ignorance.
We are now in the Christmas season, and have a new President coming on board next month. This President will probably face a very difficult situation, perhaps as difficult as any President has ever faced.
Before I renew my posting, let us all be thankful for our great country, and pray for its continued strength. Let us also pray for the success of our new President, and that he will be successful in preserving our nation in a difficult time.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
I'm Still Mad, Eddie
And Getting Madder by the Day
Back in the late 1970s, during the last oil "crisis" and Jimmy Carter was more or less in charge, his policies were much like our current Democrats' policies. Nothing but talk and CAFE standards and "windfall" profits taxes and price controls on domestic production. Remember MEOW? That stands for Carter's moral equivalent of war. That war was fought much like our current Democrats would fight any war: surrender.
During those days we had a Texan named Eddie Chiles who ran a bunch of radio and TV ads about the energy policies of the government. They all started out with "I'm mad." They were very good and told the truth about the effects of the misguided and harmful government policies.
Soon, bumper stickers started showing up all over Texas and Eastern New Mexico: "I'm Mad Too, Eddie." They were ubiquitous in the oil patch.
(Other favorites during those days were: "Let the Bastards Freeze to Death in the Dark" and "Please Don't Tell My Mom I work in the Oil Patch; She Still Thinks I'm a Piano Player in a Whorehouse." That first one may be predictive: I understand there may be real problems in the northeast with fuel oil this winter, and the authorities are concerned many might go without heat. That would be bad, indeed.)
Now, here we are, thirty years later, and nothing has been done to solve the problem of reliance on foreign oil.
Back then we did not have the technology to drill on the Outer Continental Shelf as we do now. We did not have the technology to drill in sensitive places like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge like we do now. As a result, back then there were no real alternatives to foreign oil but coal, nuclear, natural gas, and the far out hope that someday some new technologies would come along. What did we actually do? We built some coal and natural gas plants, but abandoned the cleanest and most efficient source of energy: nuclear.
Now the crisis is back on the front pages, after we have spent thirty years sending our dollars to foreigners for their oil. Trillions of dollars. Now we are still sending hundreds of millions of dollars to foreigners every year.
The cost of all of this is not just paying more for gasoline. It also creates a very serious national security problem. A lot of the folks that are holding those dollars are not exactly trusted friends of ours, and do not necessarily have our interests at heart.
This means we MUST address the problem now. We do not have the luxury of putting it off. We also do not have the luxury of picking and choosing our desired domestic energy sources. They must all be put on the table. NOW!
That means we must invest in wind, solar, fuel cell, coal, oil shale, oil sands, geothermal, ANWR oil and gas, outer continental shelf oil and gas, and whatever else someone can dream up that will work. Picking and choosing among those is just silly. We should be doing ALL of it. Let the free markets pick the winners.
There are those that say that production from ANWR or the OCS would be so far off that there is no use doing it. They are wrong. Actually, we would already have 2 million barrels a day on stream from ANWR if Bill Clinton had not vetoed the bill authorizing it some years ago. He said then that it would take too long to do any good. How right was he? That would have driven down oil prices. It will take only two or three years to start getting that oil onstream, more for the OCS.
What are our politicians doing? Wringing their hands and pointing fingers. Both Presidential candidates act like they don't really want to discuss the problem. Others trot out the same old MEOW stuff from the Carter years. When a group of Republican Congressmen tried to force the House to debate energy, the Speaker adjourned the House and had the lights and microphones turned off. The Democratic leadership is afraid to address the issue. That group of Republicans stayed for a while to make a point, but didn't persevere. No guts, no glory.
How bad can it get? Stay tuned. It will get a lot worse. Maybe OPEC will let the price go down some to make it less painful.
That is why I'm still mad, and getting madder.
Back in the late 1970s, during the last oil "crisis" and Jimmy Carter was more or less in charge, his policies were much like our current Democrats' policies. Nothing but talk and CAFE standards and "windfall" profits taxes and price controls on domestic production. Remember MEOW? That stands for Carter's moral equivalent of war. That war was fought much like our current Democrats would fight any war: surrender.
During those days we had a Texan named Eddie Chiles who ran a bunch of radio and TV ads about the energy policies of the government. They all started out with "I'm mad." They were very good and told the truth about the effects of the misguided and harmful government policies.
Soon, bumper stickers started showing up all over Texas and Eastern New Mexico: "I'm Mad Too, Eddie." They were ubiquitous in the oil patch.
(Other favorites during those days were: "Let the Bastards Freeze to Death in the Dark" and "Please Don't Tell My Mom I work in the Oil Patch; She Still Thinks I'm a Piano Player in a Whorehouse." That first one may be predictive: I understand there may be real problems in the northeast with fuel oil this winter, and the authorities are concerned many might go without heat. That would be bad, indeed.)
Now, here we are, thirty years later, and nothing has been done to solve the problem of reliance on foreign oil.
Back then we did not have the technology to drill on the Outer Continental Shelf as we do now. We did not have the technology to drill in sensitive places like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge like we do now. As a result, back then there were no real alternatives to foreign oil but coal, nuclear, natural gas, and the far out hope that someday some new technologies would come along. What did we actually do? We built some coal and natural gas plants, but abandoned the cleanest and most efficient source of energy: nuclear.
Now the crisis is back on the front pages, after we have spent thirty years sending our dollars to foreigners for their oil. Trillions of dollars. Now we are still sending hundreds of millions of dollars to foreigners every year.
The cost of all of this is not just paying more for gasoline. It also creates a very serious national security problem. A lot of the folks that are holding those dollars are not exactly trusted friends of ours, and do not necessarily have our interests at heart.
This means we MUST address the problem now. We do not have the luxury of putting it off. We also do not have the luxury of picking and choosing our desired domestic energy sources. They must all be put on the table. NOW!
That means we must invest in wind, solar, fuel cell, coal, oil shale, oil sands, geothermal, ANWR oil and gas, outer continental shelf oil and gas, and whatever else someone can dream up that will work. Picking and choosing among those is just silly. We should be doing ALL of it. Let the free markets pick the winners.
There are those that say that production from ANWR or the OCS would be so far off that there is no use doing it. They are wrong. Actually, we would already have 2 million barrels a day on stream from ANWR if Bill Clinton had not vetoed the bill authorizing it some years ago. He said then that it would take too long to do any good. How right was he? That would have driven down oil prices. It will take only two or three years to start getting that oil onstream, more for the OCS.
What are our politicians doing? Wringing their hands and pointing fingers. Both Presidential candidates act like they don't really want to discuss the problem. Others trot out the same old MEOW stuff from the Carter years. When a group of Republican Congressmen tried to force the House to debate energy, the Speaker adjourned the House and had the lights and microphones turned off. The Democratic leadership is afraid to address the issue. That group of Republicans stayed for a while to make a point, but didn't persevere. No guts, no glory.
How bad can it get? Stay tuned. It will get a lot worse. Maybe OPEC will let the price go down some to make it less painful.
That is why I'm still mad, and getting madder.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Musings
Its been six weeks or so since my last entry. I have been busy working and just have not had a desire to write about anything, although there are world's of thing to write about.
The work is one reason, of course. There are so many things that I have to be very careful about. Straight talk about some matters is verboten. The PC police are out there, and I cannot offend anyone except for white male Republicans, rednecks, and the State of Israel. Everyone and everything else seems to be protected and off limits for straight talk. The result is that I have to write on a very straight line. That takes a lot of the fun out of it.
One of the things that I can and have written on is the energy situation. There will be more, but not in this entry. Suffice it to say that the stupidity of our leaders in the Congress never fails to amaze me.
Back when I started this blog, I made up a folder on my computer called "Corruption in Congress" and started saving information about that subject, with the intention of writing a short piece on it. After several months, I just quit. There was so much information about corrupt members that it overwhelmed me. I don't have time to write a book on the subject, but to cover the entire story would take multiple volumes.
The problem, of course, is money. It takes millions of dollars to run for Congress, more millions for the Senate, and hundreds of millions to run for President. While some may come from Joe Sixpack, the real big bucks come from big money folks who have a real interest in policies of the government. Now some of this interest is benign. But much is not.
The more powerful a Congressman or Senator, the more money he gets. Congressmen serving on the Ways and Means Committee get huge donations from those with big interests in tax policy. Does this "buy" influence? You decide. But consider why our tax code is so complex. And why a simplified "flat tax" cannot get any interest up there. If everyone were treated the same, there would be no special interest money for the Congress. That money goes to buy special treatment, and special treatment for many multiples of interests make the tax code very complex.
Make the same analysis for yourselves with each committee and each Congressman or Senator. Also consider the so-called "earmarks" which are basically using your money to buy votes in most instances.
Its a wonder that Congress' approval rating is as high as it is at 14%.
The work is one reason, of course. There are so many things that I have to be very careful about. Straight talk about some matters is verboten. The PC police are out there, and I cannot offend anyone except for white male Republicans, rednecks, and the State of Israel. Everyone and everything else seems to be protected and off limits for straight talk. The result is that I have to write on a very straight line. That takes a lot of the fun out of it.
One of the things that I can and have written on is the energy situation. There will be more, but not in this entry. Suffice it to say that the stupidity of our leaders in the Congress never fails to amaze me.
Back when I started this blog, I made up a folder on my computer called "Corruption in Congress" and started saving information about that subject, with the intention of writing a short piece on it. After several months, I just quit. There was so much information about corrupt members that it overwhelmed me. I don't have time to write a book on the subject, but to cover the entire story would take multiple volumes.
The problem, of course, is money. It takes millions of dollars to run for Congress, more millions for the Senate, and hundreds of millions to run for President. While some may come from Joe Sixpack, the real big bucks come from big money folks who have a real interest in policies of the government. Now some of this interest is benign. But much is not.
The more powerful a Congressman or Senator, the more money he gets. Congressmen serving on the Ways and Means Committee get huge donations from those with big interests in tax policy. Does this "buy" influence? You decide. But consider why our tax code is so complex. And why a simplified "flat tax" cannot get any interest up there. If everyone were treated the same, there would be no special interest money for the Congress. That money goes to buy special treatment, and special treatment for many multiples of interests make the tax code very complex.
Make the same analysis for yourselves with each committee and each Congressman or Senator. Also consider the so-called "earmarks" which are basically using your money to buy votes in most instances.
Its a wonder that Congress' approval rating is as high as it is at 14%.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Dithering through an energy crisis
Barack Obama and John McCain have discussed energy policy the last day or so, and both are about to announce what their policy is, although McCain has already called to end the moratorium on offshore drilling, if the affected states agree. Obama seems to believe that we can tax ourselves to an energy solution. McCain's policy is weak, and Obama's policy is absurd. Neither will be much or any help with our energy problems. Nor has any other "energy policy" that has been pursued by our government been anything more than a hindrance for many decades. This includes the corn into ethanol boondoggle.
Clearly, in the long run, we must find alternatives to fossil fuels. Equally clearly, we must also look for shorter term help for our economy and to reduce the huge amounts of our treasure we are sending overseas to OPEC and others. The huge balance of payments deficit that we have been running for many years endangers us all.
For the short term, there are plenty of domestic reserves that could be developed or are in the process of being developed. With intelligent leadership we could, in a few years, substantially increase domestic production. This would help keep the "oil tax" on our economy far lower than it otherwise would be. We need to start now, not wring our hands about it for another decade or two.
Some of the potential reserves:
The Bakken is a shale formation in the Williston Basin that is similar to the Barnett Shale in the Ft. Worth Basin. The techniques developed in the Barnett play are being adapted to produce the oil in the Bakken, as well as other similar shales all over the country. This will undoubtedly increase domestic production over time, but it is not going to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil any time soon. It will certainly help.
Some other deposits are the western oil shales...again, a similar deposit to the Barnett and the Bakken, but these are mainly on the surface. These deposits do contain upwards of a trillion barrels of oil, and the technology exists to extract it. The difficulty with this is the damage that will be done environmentally. There could be really serious damage done to the western states to strip mine that shale, unless there are restrictions on the way it is done. Studies on this are being held up in the Senate.
Reserves in ANWR, that are now off limits, are approximately 15-20 billion barrels. If Bill Clinton had not vetoed legislation allowing limited drilling up there, we would have over 1 million barrels per day of that producing now, which would significantly reduce the costs of gasoline at this time. This is substantial production that could now be online, and with appropriate environmental protections.
Reserves on the Outer Continental Shelf off Florida and the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts are estimated at 100 billion barrels of oil and 500 trillion cubic feet of gas. These reserves are now off limits as well. These regions can be drilled with current technology with NO environmental risks.
One reserve that is in Canada is rarely mentioned. That is the huge oil sands deposit up there. There are about 1+ trillion barrels of oil in those sands, and they are now being developed. The first new refinery in the US in over 30 years has been approved in North Dakota to refine oil from that deposit. Unfortunately, our Congress, in its infinite stupidity, has classified that as unconventional oil, thereby making it largely unavailable for use in the US.
The United States also has the largest coal reserves in the world. There has existed since before World War II a technology to make gasoline from coal. The Germans used that process to fuel their war machine during the war, since they had no oil reserves. We could be doing that as well. The largest single reserve of "clean" coal in the United States was put "off limits" by Bill Clinton, who put it into a national monument.
The bottom line: mostly unreasonable environmental concerns and the Democratic Party and it's policies have put our potential for true energy security completely out of reach. The Republicans have done little to counter this. We have the reserves and the technology to safely produce a lot of oil or equivalent, but our political leadership has failed to allow this to happen, and in fact prevents it. When you add up the huge costs we are paying for energy, together with the huge costs of the resulting balance of payments deficit, you can see that our leaders in the government have totally failed. And they apparently plan to continue to do so.
Clearly, in the long run, we must find alternatives to fossil fuels. Equally clearly, we must also look for shorter term help for our economy and to reduce the huge amounts of our treasure we are sending overseas to OPEC and others. The huge balance of payments deficit that we have been running for many years endangers us all.
For the short term, there are plenty of domestic reserves that could be developed or are in the process of being developed. With intelligent leadership we could, in a few years, substantially increase domestic production. This would help keep the "oil tax" on our economy far lower than it otherwise would be. We need to start now, not wring our hands about it for another decade or two.
Some of the potential reserves:
The Bakken is a shale formation in the Williston Basin that is similar to the Barnett Shale in the Ft. Worth Basin. The techniques developed in the Barnett play are being adapted to produce the oil in the Bakken, as well as other similar shales all over the country. This will undoubtedly increase domestic production over time, but it is not going to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil any time soon. It will certainly help.
Some other deposits are the western oil shales...again, a similar deposit to the Barnett and the Bakken, but these are mainly on the surface. These deposits do contain upwards of a trillion barrels of oil, and the technology exists to extract it. The difficulty with this is the damage that will be done environmentally. There could be really serious damage done to the western states to strip mine that shale, unless there are restrictions on the way it is done. Studies on this are being held up in the Senate.
Reserves in ANWR, that are now off limits, are approximately 15-20 billion barrels. If Bill Clinton had not vetoed legislation allowing limited drilling up there, we would have over 1 million barrels per day of that producing now, which would significantly reduce the costs of gasoline at this time. This is substantial production that could now be online, and with appropriate environmental protections.
Reserves on the Outer Continental Shelf off Florida and the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts are estimated at 100 billion barrels of oil and 500 trillion cubic feet of gas. These reserves are now off limits as well. These regions can be drilled with current technology with NO environmental risks.
One reserve that is in Canada is rarely mentioned. That is the huge oil sands deposit up there. There are about 1+ trillion barrels of oil in those sands, and they are now being developed. The first new refinery in the US in over 30 years has been approved in North Dakota to refine oil from that deposit. Unfortunately, our Congress, in its infinite stupidity, has classified that as unconventional oil, thereby making it largely unavailable for use in the US.
The United States also has the largest coal reserves in the world. There has existed since before World War II a technology to make gasoline from coal. The Germans used that process to fuel their war machine during the war, since they had no oil reserves. We could be doing that as well. The largest single reserve of "clean" coal in the United States was put "off limits" by Bill Clinton, who put it into a national monument.
The bottom line: mostly unreasonable environmental concerns and the Democratic Party and it's policies have put our potential for true energy security completely out of reach. The Republicans have done little to counter this. We have the reserves and the technology to safely produce a lot of oil or equivalent, but our political leadership has failed to allow this to happen, and in fact prevents it. When you add up the huge costs we are paying for energy, together with the huge costs of the resulting balance of payments deficit, you can see that our leaders in the government have totally failed. And they apparently plan to continue to do so.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Energy Policy in the United States
This past week, after the appearance by President Bush at the Israeli Knesset referred to in the previous post, the President went hat in hand to see the Saudis and beg them to increase oil production in order to reduce gasoline prices in the United States. Of course, the answer was "no."
This is not an unexpected response. The Saudis have us over a barrel (pun intended) and have no reason to reduce the price of crude.
This is a result of the failure of our politicians over the years since World War II to adopt a sensible policy on energy.
In that period, we have had essentially two policies. From the end of the War until about 1972, the policy was to keep gasoline as cheap as possible by encouraging the use of foreign oil, which was then very cheap. The Texas Railroad Commission tried to support the price of oil ( and the domestic oil industry) by reducing production limits in Texas for about 20 years, but, inevitably, production in Texas declined, demand increased, and by 1972 the State could no longer be the "swing producer."
Then the "swing producer" became Saudi Arabia, and since then, our energy policy has essentially been begging the Saudis to keep the oil prices low. This has met with mixed success, depending upon what the Saudis needed from us.
The first policy led inevitably to the conditions that created the need for the second.
Neither of those are real policies. Our country acted as if the party would go on forever, and of course, parties always end. Now the party is over, and we are left to clean up after it. And we have to pay the band. That will not be cheap.
All colors of our political spectrum want to point fingers and blame the others. The fact is that we are all at fault, and pointing fingers now will only delay action. We cannot afford the delay.
Each side is going to have to reconsider positions taken in the past...decisions made without regard to the cost of and effect on energy production. Politicians playing "gotcha" aren't going to accomplish anything. Politicians trying to favor particular constituencies may well fail everyone else. We need to have people in elective office that will put partisan interests aside and make decisions based upon what is good for the country. I don't see any on the horizon.
Our political class has failed us for years, but we have also failed by electing people who make promises not backed by appropriate actions. It is time for a change, but who will act to make the right changes?
All I see now are empty promises.
This is not an unexpected response. The Saudis have us over a barrel (pun intended) and have no reason to reduce the price of crude.
This is a result of the failure of our politicians over the years since World War II to adopt a sensible policy on energy.
In that period, we have had essentially two policies. From the end of the War until about 1972, the policy was to keep gasoline as cheap as possible by encouraging the use of foreign oil, which was then very cheap. The Texas Railroad Commission tried to support the price of oil ( and the domestic oil industry) by reducing production limits in Texas for about 20 years, but, inevitably, production in Texas declined, demand increased, and by 1972 the State could no longer be the "swing producer."
Then the "swing producer" became Saudi Arabia, and since then, our energy policy has essentially been begging the Saudis to keep the oil prices low. This has met with mixed success, depending upon what the Saudis needed from us.
The first policy led inevitably to the conditions that created the need for the second.
Neither of those are real policies. Our country acted as if the party would go on forever, and of course, parties always end. Now the party is over, and we are left to clean up after it. And we have to pay the band. That will not be cheap.
All colors of our political spectrum want to point fingers and blame the others. The fact is that we are all at fault, and pointing fingers now will only delay action. We cannot afford the delay.
Each side is going to have to reconsider positions taken in the past...decisions made without regard to the cost of and effect on energy production. Politicians playing "gotcha" aren't going to accomplish anything. Politicians trying to favor particular constituencies may well fail everyone else. We need to have people in elective office that will put partisan interests aside and make decisions based upon what is good for the country. I don't see any on the horizon.
Our political class has failed us for years, but we have also failed by electing people who make promises not backed by appropriate actions. It is time for a change, but who will act to make the right changes?
All I see now are empty promises.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)