June 30, 2009
Jun 30 02:34 The Spinning Begins Jun 30 06:21 Dane Smith Cranks Up The DFL's PR Machine Jun 30 07:12 DC Democrats Flunk Simple Math
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May
The Spinning Begins
Predictably, President Obama said today that he's confident that the U.S. Senate will pass National Energy Tax legislation . Meanwhile, House GOP Leader John Boehner criticized the Waxman-Markey legislation for killing jobs and increasing taxes on the middle class.
Obama said House members who narrowly voted to pass the climate bill on Friday had put progress before petty Washington politics, and urged Senators to do the same ahead as they embark on a rocky road to their own vote.What the 219 representatives did wasn't to put progress ahead of petty politics. They voted to increase taxes on the middle class, the working poor and small businesses .
"The House of Representatives came together to pass an extraordinary piece of legislation," Obama said, at an event in the White House announcing new plans to improve energy efficiency across the United States. "In the months to come, the Senate will take up its version of the energy bill. And I am confident that they, too, will choose to move this country forward."
This isn't "an extraordinary piece of legislation." It's a huge job-killing tax increase that will kill jobs in hard hit places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wyoming, West Virginia and Kentucky. Here's House GOP Leader Boehner's response to President Obama:
Americans need real solutions to create jobs, lower energy prices, and clean up the environment, but Speaker Pelosi's national energy tax is a recipe for driving up prices for middle-class families and small businesses and shipping more American jobs overseas. The President repeated his claim that this bill will create jobs, but independent analysts suggest it's a job killer, while one of his prominent supporters, Warren Buffett, calls it a huge, regressive tax.Why would Democrats even think about bankrupting fossil fuel-burning power plants? Why would they want to kill the economies of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming and Kentucky while we're in the midst of a terrible economy? Is it that Democrats don't care about the blue collar workers in those states? Is it because they're so blinded by their ideology that they refuse to rethink things? Or, perhaps, is it because they can't afford to ignore the environmental extremists because they'll need their campaign contributions?
Republicans believe there is a better route to more jobs, reliable energy, and a cleaner, healthier environment. Our all-of-the-above plan will increase American energy production in an environmentally-safe way, encourage the use of alternatives such as nuclear and clean-coal energy, and promote new technologies and efficiencies. Unfortunately, Democrats in Congress and the Administration have chosen to go it alone with their costly, jobs-killing national energy tax scheme. Middle-class families and small businesses struggling during this recession won't support it. It's time for Democrats to work with Republicans on real solutions to create jobs and pave the way for a cleaner, more reliable energy future.
I think it's most of the above. I think they're blinded by their ideology and I think they can't afford to bite the hand that writes the campaign contributions. (You've noticed that they didn't give consideration to doing what's right for the country, right?)
The White House certainly will try justifying their actions with clever spin. The bad news for the Obama administration is that people are tired of the spin. The worst news for the Obama administration is that people are tired of his administration not producing cost-effective solutions.
Thus far, the Obama administration hasn't shown that they're problem solvers. Thus far, the only thing they've proven is that they're world class ideologues.
That won't cut it when people's wallets are stretched to the breaking point.
Posted Tuesday, June 30, 2009 2:37 AM
No comments.
Dane Smith Cranks Up The DFL's PR Machine
Dane Smith, of the Growth and Justice liberal special interest group, has an op-ed in this morning's St. Cloud Times that's just perfect for fisking. Let's have at it, starting here:
Minnesotans have been told frequently by Gov. Tim Pawlenty that it would be wrong and unusual, if not just plain crazy, to raise tax revenues in the midst of a recession, even on those high-income households that are most able to afford it.I'll agree with Mr. Smith that Gov. Pawlenty has said that raising taxes during the biggest recession of the last half century is "just pain crazy." I'll heatedly argue that Gov. Pawlenty has said that it's unusual to raise taxes when states are confronted with a deficit. Anyone beyond the age of toddler knows that Democrats gleefully and frequently attempt raising taxes. In fact, the DFL will raise taxes, whether we're experiencing times of prosperity or whether we in a deep recession.
What the DFL won't do is think about reforming government or setting intelligent priorities that help state government live within its means.
This past winter, the DFL's cherrypicked testimony tour visited St. Cloud . After listening to approximately an hour of people like Kirsty Smith exhort the legislators to "have the courage to raise taxes", I turned to Luke Yurczyk, the chairman of the SD-14 Republicans, and asked whether he'd heard the DFL's activist allies call for reform. He confirmed what I'd suspected, that the DFL activists hadn't called for rethinking how we did things.
The fatal flaw in the DFL's, and Dane Smith's, thinking is that it doesn't include setting priorities or rethinking the way government delivers services or whether it's important that government should be delivering services .
Why shouldn't Minnesota's taxpayers demand that our legislators and governor determine first whether they're spending money efficiently and whether they're spending money on essential things before proposing raising taxes? Why shouldn't Minnesota's taxpayers demand that the legislature first examine whether there aren't better ways of delivering essential services before raising taxes?
After all, don't they work for us, not vice versa? Doesn't the Declaration of Independence say early in its text that governments get their power by the consent of the governed? Here's a little refresher course on that principle:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.According to the first of our Founding Documents, government is limited to those things that We The People give it permission to do. The U.S. model is the direct opposite of the European model.
As of now, of those 20 states with the worst budget problems, only Louisiana, Georgia and Minnesota have failed to raise revenues to meet their budget-balancing obligation. (Louisiana, in particular, is hardly a role model for good governance, and it also happens to be the home of Gov. Bobby Jindal, another anti-tax conservative who may be seeking the White House.)TRUTH IN ADVERTISING REWRITE: As of now, of those 20 states with the worst budget problems, only Louisiana, Georgia and Minnesota have refused to raise taxes until their legislatures have enacted serious reforms that would protect their state's taxpayers' wallets. Louisiana isn't hospitable to free-spending liberal Democrats because Gov. Bobby Jindal is intent on reforming how Louisiana provides services to its citizens.
Gov. Pawlenty tried pushing a series of reforms, all of which were either ignored or defeated by the DFL. That's unforgivable at a time when Minnesota taxpayers' wallets are stretched thin and can't afford another tax increase.
Posted Tuesday, June 30, 2009 6:21 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 30-Jun-09 06:48 AM
If I recall correctly, the budget battle two years ago proceeded with a big tax increase first, a smaller tax increase second, and THEN all the spending bills. The DFL concerns itself first with grabbing all the money it can, then doling it out as rapidly as possible. It's the worst of the four possible ways to spend money and it's not reasonable to expect anything different.
Comment 2 by Charlie Quimby at 30-Jun-09 09:31 AM
Fisking: "a point-by-point criticism that highlights perceived errors, or disputes the analysis in a statement, article, or essay."
You wandered a bit off track there.
For those who actually care about what Growth & Justice actually thinks about setting priorities or rethinking the way government delivers services, they can try this:
http://growthandjustice.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/01/accountability-is-essential-to-a-government-that-works.html
Comment 3 by Walter Hanson at 30-Jun-09 02:30 PM
I got an idea for any person who isn't happy with the amount of state spending and tax rates. The state of California has higher taxes, much better weather, and higher government spending. If you don't like Minnesota's policies move to California.
By the way doesn't California have an unemployment rate of about 12% and a budget deficit of something like $15 billion?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
DC Democrats Flunk Simple Math
I'm thankful that Rich Karlgaard wrote this op-ed in this morning's Forbes. This simplifies what the Democrats are attempting to do. It's obvious that Pelosi's Democrats can't pass basic math:
In the U.S., electricity is produced from these sources. If you are reading this on a handheld and can't read Wikipedia's wonderful pie chart, here is the breakdown:Despite the fact that the overwhelming amount of electricity is created through fossil fuels or through nuclear power, Pelosi's Democrats want to destroy the United States' ability to generate electricity. Let's remember that President Obama said that he was perfectly comfortable with bankrupting coal-powered power plants :
48.9% -- Coal
20% -- Natural Gas
19.3% -- Nuclear
1.6% -- Petroleum
Got that? A tick over 88% of U.S. electricity comes from three sources: coal, gas and nuclear. Petroleum brings the contribution of so-called "evil" energy--that is, energy that is carbon- or uranium-based--to almost 90%.
I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.How can a thinking person attempt to bankrupt coal-powered power plants? What priorities is such a man setting? What type of people vote for these radical policies? HINT: Blue Dog Democrats like Collin Peterson vote for such things.
So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.
QUESTION: Rep. Peterson, was it worth those thirty pieces of silver, aka concessions, to betray your constituents?
The Waxman-Markey bill that passed the House on Friday by a 219-212 margin will punitively tax energy sources that contribute 90% of current U.S. electricity (or 71% if you want to leave out nuclear). The taxes will be used to subsidize the 10% renewable contributors (but really just 3% after you leave out hydro).What bunch of geniuses would pass a bill that would put the vast majority of power plants on life support? Here's a better question to ask: Why would anyone think that we'd be able to build the infrastructure needed to dramatically increase production from alternative energy sources?
In other words, Waxman-Markey is betting the future of U.S. electricity production on sources that now contribute 3% or supply 10 million Americans with electricity. That's enough juice for the people in Waxman's Los Angeles County. Or, if you prefer, for Nancy Pelosi's metro San Francisco plus Markey's metro Boston.
Well, what about electricity for the other 295 million? You can't get there from here with Waxman-Markey. At very best, solar, wind and cellulosic ethanol will make 20% contributions by 2025. The smart money would bet on 10%.
Meanwhile, traditional sources of electricity that are progressing in the direction of cleaner and more efficient are being ignored (or dissed by Waxman-Markey). Here are two must reads--the first on clean coal by Gregg Easterbrook , the second on fission energy by Robert Metcalfe . Study them if you take electricity production seriously.It's time we took this simple math seriously. Its time that we didn't put our stock in Pelosi's pie-in-the-sky projections.
Bottom line: There is no way the U.S. economy can enjoy future prosperity without the big three electrical energy sources of clean coal, natural gas and nuclear.
Finally, it's time that we changed directions away from Pelosi's special interest-driven energy policies and towards a serious energy policy.
Posted Tuesday, June 30, 2009 7:18 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 30-Jun-09 02:37 PM
I'm getting tired of hearing the term "clean coal." First of all, there is nothing "dirty" about CO2. Removing other things in coal-- sulfur especially-- WERE the definition of "clean coal," and obviously we should do all we can in that area. More efficiency is also good, no point in burning more coal than necessary.
But the problem is there is simply no way to reduce the amount of CO2 created by combining C with O2! Nor should we care, certainly not to the point of incurring great expense to keep a completely natural and harmless trace element of the atmosphere, out of the atmosphere.
Comment 2 by eric z at 30-Jun-09 02:44 PM
Hey, Gary, don't forget that after the last Republican depression they built Hoover Dam with all the hydro and water resources that entails. There's TVA and Bonneville on the Columbia basin.
Perhaps we'll have to build more of that, call one Bush Dam, just as with Hoover.
Gary - I think the corporate arm of the GOP, the General Electric sorts, are big on wind power. They are avid. They believe. They're big in that market.
Westinghouse, the US nuclear industry - check who's bought what, and guess how far that option will go other than in Germany and other parts of Europe.
It will be running the existing nuclear plants at a steady optimal performance level, running all that's there on fossil fuel as demand grows except for holding the microturbines back for peak demand spikes; and the new thing will be wind - investment in that plus new grid infrastructure to get the power from where the wind blows to where consumers sit. The grid has been overdue for overhauling and upgrade for years. It will be a matter of time before we have a less reliable grid than Brazil, if that situation is ignored much longer. The genco part of the industry will grow, but the transmission and distribution will grow more. And as long as Rockefeller represents West Virginia coal will have its genco share.
