Not with a scream, but with a muffled whimper, as it drowns under a flood of corporate money.
At this point, our only hope is for Google to run for president.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
A modified health care bill
My health care bill would consist of a single paragraph:
This would make for a very popular bill. Of course, there would be an enormous incentive for people to jump off the insurance roles until they ran into a situation where they needed intensive medical care. That's what the individual mandate was supposed to fix.
Without a mandate to get coverage, premiums for those who remain on the insurance rolls would skyrocket, causing even more people to jump off the rolls. Within a decade, the health insurance industry would be dead.
Then we could finally get a decent Medicare-style single payer system for all Americans.
It's simple, people: If you're going to get to universal coverage (which most Americans want) and you're not going to cut the insurance industry out of the picture (which most Americans want, God only knows why) then you have to mandate that insurance companies take anyone who comes along. If you mandate that, you also have to mandate that everyone purchase insurance, in order to avoid the premiums death spiral I described above, and you need subsidies for Americans who are too poor to afford health insurance on their own.
This plan, or something very much like it, is what is needed to effect universal coverage without socializing the entire health insurance industry*.
Ask the right wingers what their ideas are for reforming health care. I've heard three ideas, none of which would work:
1) Tort reform: According to the CBO, "defensive medicine" and malpractice payouts comprise about 2% of overall health care spending. You can't make big gains there. Health insurance overheads, on the other hand, takes about 30% from the top.
2) Let insurers sell across state lines: We'll end up with something like the credit card industry, where all insurance is sold by companies based out of the one state with the fewest consumer protections.
3) Let people feel the costs of their health care decisions: Sounds market friendly in theory, and it has been shown that people who pay more out of pocket for individual treatments use less medical services. But the studies have shown that people don't have the expertise to distinguish between medically necessary and unnecessary treatments, and when exposed to greater market pressures, they are as likely to cut back on the former as the latter. Which is why health care services make for a lousy market in the first place.
The Republican idea barrel is pretty empty. According to the CBO, the Republican alternative bill for health care reform would leave the uninsured population unchanged in ten years. They have absolutely no idea how to get more people more access to health care, and they know it.
* Which wouldn't be such a bad thing. Health insurance isn't an industry where massive innovation is either needed or desirable.
"Health insurance companies may no longer deny applicants coverage due to pre-existing conditions. They may not change their premiums based on a person's medical history."
This would make for a very popular bill. Of course, there would be an enormous incentive for people to jump off the insurance roles until they ran into a situation where they needed intensive medical care. That's what the individual mandate was supposed to fix.
Without a mandate to get coverage, premiums for those who remain on the insurance rolls would skyrocket, causing even more people to jump off the rolls. Within a decade, the health insurance industry would be dead.
Then we could finally get a decent Medicare-style single payer system for all Americans.
It's simple, people: If you're going to get to universal coverage (which most Americans want) and you're not going to cut the insurance industry out of the picture (which most Americans want, God only knows why) then you have to mandate that insurance companies take anyone who comes along. If you mandate that, you also have to mandate that everyone purchase insurance, in order to avoid the premiums death spiral I described above, and you need subsidies for Americans who are too poor to afford health insurance on their own.
This plan, or something very much like it, is what is needed to effect universal coverage without socializing the entire health insurance industry*.
Ask the right wingers what their ideas are for reforming health care. I've heard three ideas, none of which would work:
1) Tort reform: According to the CBO, "defensive medicine" and malpractice payouts comprise about 2% of overall health care spending. You can't make big gains there. Health insurance overheads, on the other hand, takes about 30% from the top.
2) Let insurers sell across state lines: We'll end up with something like the credit card industry, where all insurance is sold by companies based out of the one state with the fewest consumer protections.
3) Let people feel the costs of their health care decisions: Sounds market friendly in theory, and it has been shown that people who pay more out of pocket for individual treatments use less medical services. But the studies have shown that people don't have the expertise to distinguish between medically necessary and unnecessary treatments, and when exposed to greater market pressures, they are as likely to cut back on the former as the latter. Which is why health care services make for a lousy market in the first place.
The Republican idea barrel is pretty empty. According to the CBO, the Republican alternative bill for health care reform would leave the uninsured population unchanged in ten years. They have absolutely no idea how to get more people more access to health care, and they know it.
* Which wouldn't be such a bad thing. Health insurance isn't an industry where massive innovation is either needed or desirable.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Avatar: The free market speaks, calls America a douche
[spoiler alert, blah blah who cares you've probably seen it already]
Conservatives are up in arms over Avatar. Does it surprise anyone that David Brooks is too?
His whole review has an air of self-pity to it. How dare James Cameron portray the military industrial complex as ruthless? Why should I have to spend a moment questioning the superiority of my culture? And how can those ingrates -- whether within our borders or beyond our shores -- enjoy the sight of a clearly American force being beaten, even killed, after all we've done for the world these last ten years? And psssh, the environment? Are we really still talking about that elitist liberal stuff? We live in a post-Climategate world, you know.
But to avoid being outed as the reactionary he is, he dresses up his objections, couching them in terms of how disrespectful the movie is to the natives. Er, yeah. The movie that shows a clearly Americanized military slaughtering the natives and pouring explosives into their holiest sites, all so they can strip mine the planet, is doing a grievous disservice to, well, whatever culture or cultures the Na'vi represent. That's what Brooks is really steamed about.
So rather than speaking plainly about how he thinks his side is being slandered, he tries to tap into the same rich vein of white guilt and use it to his advantage. Isn't it disrespectful, the way those poor, benighted Na'vi needed a white warrior to come save them? Isn't it suspicious that the white guy is not just part of the tribe, but the awesomest tribesman ever?
Not only is it sneaky, I don't think it's even a fair reading of the movie. Jake doesn't become the bravest or the boldest of the tribe's warriors, or the most skilled hunter or flier. At least, I saw no evidence of it. He eventually gets skilled enough to endure the same coming of age ritual that everyone else in the tribe underwent as teenagers.
He gets the girl, yes, but not through the power of White Awesome. He does so because they spent time together, shared adventures, and found common ground. Also, never underestimate the power of a sexy, exotic accent.
Only in mastering the "big red bird" does Jake step fully into the realm of awesome, and even then it isn't made clear why nobody else did it first. What did seem clear is that a long military career taught him to approach it as he would any tactical situation, and that he was taking a new and untested approach to the bird problem.
This is something that Brooks' criticism doesn't make allowances for. Cameron is pulling out one of the ancient archetypes/tropes: a man who shares the heritage of two worlds, and who is exceptional because he can draw on the strengths of each. Jake is exceptional, but not because he's smarter, or stronger, or braver than the other members of his tribe. He leads the attack because he has the best understanding of the enemy. He eventually wins the war not by his own strength, but because only an outsider could convey to The Great Treebrain the true nature of the threat it faced.
The point of movies like these isn't that we should all dump our iPhones and MRI machines, break out the loincloths, and go smoke peyote in the desert until we find our spirit guides. The Right just likes to spin it that way because it's easier than trying to tackle the actual, more reasonable message. You remember the line about "seeing" that Cameron drove into our heads with all the subtlety of an Irishman pounding in a railroad spike?* Maybe he was so blatant about it because that was the real message. Jake couldn't be anything to the tribe until he learned to cast aside his old preconceptions and see the world with new eyes.
A bit corny, perhaps. But eight years into the "war on terror," and our elected officials still seem unable to articulate why the terrorists want to do us harm. To the detriment of both our military efforts and the greater peace, we insist on treating Al Qaeda not just as evil,** but as moustache-twirling cartoon villains. The message is simple, maybe even simplistic, but it's relevant, and we would do well to heed it.
Yes, underneath the blue, tattooed skin of Avatar lies a blunt morality tale about respect for other cultures, the perils of technological exuberance, and the merits of a simple, peaceful life. Oh, and not invading foreign lands to secure their mineral wealth. In that way, Avatar is a litmus test of sorts. If you think the basic premise of the United States as benevolent dictator to the world is a wonderful one -- and I've always gotten the impression that Brooks does -- then I can see why you might have a problem with Avatar.
For others, for those who can see the ugliness of America's recent past, maybe a movie where we can root for the demise of that ugliness could be a small step toward recommitting to the ideals we still hope to uphold.
And for the rest of us, omigod this 3D stuff is awesome!
Afterthought: Brooks closes with the deep-sounding thought, "benevolent romanticism can be just as condescending as the malevolent kind." As condescending perhaps, but less dangerous. When America adopted the attitude that Native Americans needed our religion, our political structures, our writing, we sent federal agents to take their children, uproot them from their homes, taught our ways, and forbidden to speak their own language. When Americans adopted the attitude that we needed their culture, we sent a small army of hippies out to ask for wise words and maybe a hit of peyote.
* What? Too soon?
** Which it is, of course. But I shouldn't have to go on the record and say that, yes, it's evil to try and blow up a plane full of civilians, or to crash a plane into a tower full of people. Really, some right wingers don't seem to grasp the idea that we all hate terrorism.
Conservatives are up in arms over Avatar. Does it surprise anyone that David Brooks is too?
His whole review has an air of self-pity to it. How dare James Cameron portray the military industrial complex as ruthless? Why should I have to spend a moment questioning the superiority of my culture? And how can those ingrates -- whether within our borders or beyond our shores -- enjoy the sight of a clearly American force being beaten, even killed, after all we've done for the world these last ten years? And psssh, the environment? Are we really still talking about that elitist liberal stuff? We live in a post-Climategate world, you know.
But to avoid being outed as the reactionary he is, he dresses up his objections, couching them in terms of how disrespectful the movie is to the natives. Er, yeah. The movie that shows a clearly Americanized military slaughtering the natives and pouring explosives into their holiest sites, all so they can strip mine the planet, is doing a grievous disservice to, well, whatever culture or cultures the Na'vi represent. That's what Brooks is really steamed about.
So rather than speaking plainly about how he thinks his side is being slandered, he tries to tap into the same rich vein of white guilt and use it to his advantage. Isn't it disrespectful, the way those poor, benighted Na'vi needed a white warrior to come save them? Isn't it suspicious that the white guy is not just part of the tribe, but the awesomest tribesman ever?
Not only is it sneaky, I don't think it's even a fair reading of the movie. Jake doesn't become the bravest or the boldest of the tribe's warriors, or the most skilled hunter or flier. At least, I saw no evidence of it. He eventually gets skilled enough to endure the same coming of age ritual that everyone else in the tribe underwent as teenagers.
He gets the girl, yes, but not through the power of White Awesome. He does so because they spent time together, shared adventures, and found common ground. Also, never underestimate the power of a sexy, exotic accent.
Only in mastering the "big red bird" does Jake step fully into the realm of awesome, and even then it isn't made clear why nobody else did it first. What did seem clear is that a long military career taught him to approach it as he would any tactical situation, and that he was taking a new and untested approach to the bird problem.
This is something that Brooks' criticism doesn't make allowances for. Cameron is pulling out one of the ancient archetypes/tropes: a man who shares the heritage of two worlds, and who is exceptional because he can draw on the strengths of each. Jake is exceptional, but not because he's smarter, or stronger, or braver than the other members of his tribe. He leads the attack because he has the best understanding of the enemy. He eventually wins the war not by his own strength, but because only an outsider could convey to The Great Treebrain the true nature of the threat it faced.
The point of movies like these isn't that we should all dump our iPhones and MRI machines, break out the loincloths, and go smoke peyote in the desert until we find our spirit guides. The Right just likes to spin it that way because it's easier than trying to tackle the actual, more reasonable message. You remember the line about "seeing" that Cameron drove into our heads with all the subtlety of an Irishman pounding in a railroad spike?* Maybe he was so blatant about it because that was the real message. Jake couldn't be anything to the tribe until he learned to cast aside his old preconceptions and see the world with new eyes.
A bit corny, perhaps. But eight years into the "war on terror," and our elected officials still seem unable to articulate why the terrorists want to do us harm. To the detriment of both our military efforts and the greater peace, we insist on treating Al Qaeda not just as evil,** but as moustache-twirling cartoon villains. The message is simple, maybe even simplistic, but it's relevant, and we would do well to heed it.
Yes, underneath the blue, tattooed skin of Avatar lies a blunt morality tale about respect for other cultures, the perils of technological exuberance, and the merits of a simple, peaceful life. Oh, and not invading foreign lands to secure their mineral wealth. In that way, Avatar is a litmus test of sorts. If you think the basic premise of the United States as benevolent dictator to the world is a wonderful one -- and I've always gotten the impression that Brooks does -- then I can see why you might have a problem with Avatar.
For others, for those who can see the ugliness of America's recent past, maybe a movie where we can root for the demise of that ugliness could be a small step toward recommitting to the ideals we still hope to uphold.
And for the rest of us, omigod this 3D stuff is awesome!
Afterthought: Brooks closes with the deep-sounding thought, "benevolent romanticism can be just as condescending as the malevolent kind." As condescending perhaps, but less dangerous. When America adopted the attitude that Native Americans needed our religion, our political structures, our writing, we sent federal agents to take their children, uproot them from their homes, taught our ways, and forbidden to speak their own language. When Americans adopted the attitude that we needed their culture, we sent a small army of hippies out to ask for wise words and maybe a hit of peyote.
* What? Too soon?
** Which it is, of course. But I shouldn't have to go on the record and say that, yes, it's evil to try and blow up a plane full of civilians, or to crash a plane into a tower full of people. Really, some right wingers don't seem to grasp the idea that we all hate terrorism.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Jason Chaffetz is an inspiration
Well, he's an inspiration to me. He's constantly inspiring me to blog, and that counts for something.
Here's his speech from the floor of the House yesterday:
He was proud enough of this performance that he pointed to it on Twitter. He really shouldn't have been, because the whole speech sounds like he's attempting some sort of Republican Buzzword Bingo record, a bunch of half-baked ideas delivered auctioneer-style.
But let's focus on the substance of his comments.
First up, his deep concern for the families of the United States. Where is the concern for the families without health insurance? Or for those who have seen their premiums skyrocket? Does Chaffetz have any ideas for dealing with these?
It's the only idea he's got.
The accusation that the bank bailout hasn't helped ordinary Americans seems fairly accurate to me. If the goal was to keep credit available, I think there were better ways to do it. But despite the fact that lots of fat, rich bastards got fatter, richer, and bastardier from the bailout, it did keep us from plunging off an economic abyss of George Bush's making, which was good for everybody.
But the stimulus bill is a completely different and far superior animal, and by lumping the two together, Chaffetz shows either his ideological myopia, or an actual intent to deceive. You can't talk about the stimulus package solely as money spent, or money added to the national debt. You have to go line by line, project by project, and ask if the thing we're spending the money on is a good investment. By and large, Republican attempts to show the waste and pork in these projects have left me unconvinced.
But even if the stimulus spending was wasted, it has still created jobs, and will continue to create more. Elsewhere, Chaffetz has argued that the price per job is too high. Well, we could have slashed those numbers by just giving people $30K a year, plus $30 for a shovel to lean on. But in order for those jobs to actually be investments in the future, those workers need equipment to run, material to move, concrete to pour, etc. Those things tend to drive the cost up.
The Republicans in general have been very dishonest in their handling of the stimulus jobs numbers, and Chaffetz has happily cited these arguments. Their argument essentially boils down to, "The stimulus is supposed to create jobs, yet unemployment keeps rising. The stimulus is therefore a failure." Which is akin to tapping lightly on the brakes (the stimulus was, by Paul Krugman's estimation, far too small), then saying that your brakes are out because you're still moving forward. Things would look much bleaker right now without the stimulus bill.
The "Chinese-financed" meme is making a mountain out of a molehill. China owns about $1T in U.S. debt, which isn't exactly a good thing, but that's only 1/12th of the outstanding debt. The Chinese are just a useful bogeyman for Chaffetz to invoke. Boo!
The debt presents a serious long-term problem. But Chaffetz wants to tackle it in the middle of a recession, which is a horrible idea for the same reason that raising taxes in a recession is a horrible idea. Government spending -- whether Chaffetz likes it or not -- is an important part of the economy. If that sector contracts suddenly, people lose their jobs, businesses with government contracts scale back or go out of business, and suffering ensues. Whereas if government increases its spending, these businesses flourish, which provides a buffer against economic downturns. That's Keynesian economics in a nutshell.
Government should be ratcheting up the debt right now, and tackling the debt problem when the economy is good. Clinton did that, lowering the deficit during good years. Bush did the opposite, piling up a mountain of debt when the economy was doing okay, mostly to pay for tax cuts for the rich and a war that should never have been fought.
Health care is an investment, just like the stimulus package was an investment. We should have been making these investments when the economy was doing okay. But we're stuck with the present. The investments we make in health care now are going to reap long term rewards. The bill isn't perfect by any means, but it will give us a healthier, more productive population, lower health care costs, more competition in the insurance market, and hopefully a greater focus on preventative care. Plus, when everyone has insurance, fewer people will rely on expensive emergency room visits for their health insurance needs, driving down costs for everybody.
This plan is characterized as a government takeover of health care, but it should really be talked about as a takeover of the health insurance industry. Lots of people like their doctors (Chaffetz doesn't seem to want anyone standing between his doctor and his wife, so he must be really fond of his doctor). But who has nostalgic feelings about their family HMO?
Health insurance is a market that cries out for government takeover like no other. Insurance companies compete not just on price and services, but on selecting the healthiest populations, by excluding the people who need it most, and by denying claims, regardless of whether the procedures were medically justified. In short, the free market demands that health insurance companies be very bad at what they are supposed to do: spread risk.*
Chaffetz believes -- ignoring the evidence of the last eight years -- that the government is invariably worse at choosing wise investments than the private sector. Chaffetz also fears that a "D.C. politician" will stand between his family and health care, even though his plan probably wouldn't change. Yet he cares not a whit that, for forty-five million Americans, what stands between them and the health care they need is a hospital security officer with a tazer.
He's a bit of a tool, is what I'm saying.
* Note: This is one reason why the public option shouldn't have to compete on an equal footing with private sector plans. I want a public plan that would be required to take all comers, and that would pay for medically justifiable procedures without trying to weasel out of its obligations. That puts it at a huge disadvantage in competition with private insurers.
Here's his speech from the floor of the House yesterday:
Mr. Speaker, I rise with deep concern about families of United States of America. The economics of this credit card congress are not working. Where are the jobs?
You cannot tax and spend our way out of our challenges. I fervently believe that President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and the Democrats in Congress are taxing, spending, and borrowing too much money.
This credit card congress has now put us nearly twelve trillion dollars in debt. We're spending nearly 600 [million? billion? it sounds like he said "billion", though that makes no sense] dollars per day, just in interest on that debt. Bailouts, stimulus money by the billions it is not helping the average person at home.
And now we have a proposal to slam through a government run, Chinese-financed health care system, that puts a Washington D.C. politician between our doctor and my wife.
The tax and spend, credit card driven, Chinese-financed economics driven by the Democrats don't work. We need fiscal discipline, limited government, accountability, and a strong national defense.
We need to restore liberty to the American people and small business men and women. That's where you'll find the jobs. Stand up, America, let your voice be heard, put a stop to this credit card congress.
He was proud enough of this performance that he pointed to it on Twitter. He really shouldn't have been, because the whole speech sounds like he's attempting some sort of Republican Buzzword Bingo record, a bunch of half-baked ideas delivered auctioneer-style.
But let's focus on the substance of his comments.
First up, his deep concern for the families of the United States. Where is the concern for the families without health insurance? Or for those who have seen their premiums skyrocket? Does Chaffetz have any ideas for dealing with these?
We need fiscal discipline, limited government, accountability, and a strong national defense.
It's the only idea he's got.
The accusation that the bank bailout hasn't helped ordinary Americans seems fairly accurate to me. If the goal was to keep credit available, I think there were better ways to do it. But despite the fact that lots of fat, rich bastards got fatter, richer, and bastardier from the bailout, it did keep us from plunging off an economic abyss of George Bush's making, which was good for everybody.
But the stimulus bill is a completely different and far superior animal, and by lumping the two together, Chaffetz shows either his ideological myopia, or an actual intent to deceive. You can't talk about the stimulus package solely as money spent, or money added to the national debt. You have to go line by line, project by project, and ask if the thing we're spending the money on is a good investment. By and large, Republican attempts to show the waste and pork in these projects have left me unconvinced.
But even if the stimulus spending was wasted, it has still created jobs, and will continue to create more. Elsewhere, Chaffetz has argued that the price per job is too high. Well, we could have slashed those numbers by just giving people $30K a year, plus $30 for a shovel to lean on. But in order for those jobs to actually be investments in the future, those workers need equipment to run, material to move, concrete to pour, etc. Those things tend to drive the cost up.
The Republicans in general have been very dishonest in their handling of the stimulus jobs numbers, and Chaffetz has happily cited these arguments. Their argument essentially boils down to, "The stimulus is supposed to create jobs, yet unemployment keeps rising. The stimulus is therefore a failure." Which is akin to tapping lightly on the brakes (the stimulus was, by Paul Krugman's estimation, far too small), then saying that your brakes are out because you're still moving forward. Things would look much bleaker right now without the stimulus bill.
The "Chinese-financed" meme is making a mountain out of a molehill. China owns about $1T in U.S. debt, which isn't exactly a good thing, but that's only 1/12th of the outstanding debt. The Chinese are just a useful bogeyman for Chaffetz to invoke. Boo!
The debt presents a serious long-term problem. But Chaffetz wants to tackle it in the middle of a recession, which is a horrible idea for the same reason that raising taxes in a recession is a horrible idea. Government spending -- whether Chaffetz likes it or not -- is an important part of the economy. If that sector contracts suddenly, people lose their jobs, businesses with government contracts scale back or go out of business, and suffering ensues. Whereas if government increases its spending, these businesses flourish, which provides a buffer against economic downturns. That's Keynesian economics in a nutshell.
Government should be ratcheting up the debt right now, and tackling the debt problem when the economy is good. Clinton did that, lowering the deficit during good years. Bush did the opposite, piling up a mountain of debt when the economy was doing okay, mostly to pay for tax cuts for the rich and a war that should never have been fought.
Health care is an investment, just like the stimulus package was an investment. We should have been making these investments when the economy was doing okay. But we're stuck with the present. The investments we make in health care now are going to reap long term rewards. The bill isn't perfect by any means, but it will give us a healthier, more productive population, lower health care costs, more competition in the insurance market, and hopefully a greater focus on preventative care. Plus, when everyone has insurance, fewer people will rely on expensive emergency room visits for their health insurance needs, driving down costs for everybody.
This plan is characterized as a government takeover of health care, but it should really be talked about as a takeover of the health insurance industry. Lots of people like their doctors (Chaffetz doesn't seem to want anyone standing between his doctor and his wife, so he must be really fond of his doctor). But who has nostalgic feelings about their family HMO?
Health insurance is a market that cries out for government takeover like no other. Insurance companies compete not just on price and services, but on selecting the healthiest populations, by excluding the people who need it most, and by denying claims, regardless of whether the procedures were medically justified. In short, the free market demands that health insurance companies be very bad at what they are supposed to do: spread risk.*
Chaffetz believes -- ignoring the evidence of the last eight years -- that the government is invariably worse at choosing wise investments than the private sector. Chaffetz also fears that a "D.C. politician" will stand between his family and health care, even though his plan probably wouldn't change. Yet he cares not a whit that, for forty-five million Americans, what stands between them and the health care they need is a hospital security officer with a tazer.
He's a bit of a tool, is what I'm saying.
* Note: This is one reason why the public option shouldn't have to compete on an equal footing with private sector plans. I want a public plan that would be required to take all comers, and that would pay for medically justifiable procedures without trying to weasel out of its obligations. That puts it at a huge disadvantage in competition with private insurers.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
More hand-waving on the energy bill
Jason Chaffitz tweeted our attention to an overlooked detail of the energy bill that just passed the House. The measure would give money to utility companies and non-profit tree planting organizations money to plant trees around homes, as a way to promote energy efficiency.
Chaffetz didn't explicitly state his disapproval, but he did link to an outraged condemnation of the provision:
Which makes it sound as pointless as anything can be. Bill? Justify your existence!
The bill takes no official position on whether Republicans are being slimy and dishonest in touting this tiny line item as a waste of money. But sources close to the bill -- speaking under conditions of anonymity -- report that the bill once asked Senator Inhofe (R-OK) if he wanted to "take it outside."
The Republicans won't argue this portion of the bill on its merits. I pointed out to Chaffetz that it was actually a very reasonable thing to spend money on, and he sent me a PM saying, "The taxpayers shouldn't be paying for it." That's consistent with Chaffetz' overall political philosophy, but that's not what he was implying to his followers. The message that came across wasn't just that it was a misuse of government power, but that the whole idea was patently stupid, and that the bill could just as well be ordering the creation of a giant ball of aluminum foil.
If you're going to point to something as a laughable waste of money, it generally helps if the thing being pointed at doesn't create jobs, increase property values, beautify neighborhoods, clean our air, and reduce energy bills.
This is such a common sense measure, I suspect that the Republicans are only drawing attention to it because they think they can spin it as "your hard-earned dollars spent on tree-hugging hippie crap." But trees aren't just fun to hug; trees -- especially the ones planted by this program -- are infrastructure, just like roads, houses, factories, and casinos. They serve human needs, and they do so in a way that will touch your heart and make that little brat look like a total user.
More important to the Republicans' political futures, people like trees. Coming out against trees is like coming out against puppies, ice cream, and "the troops." Outside of a small fringe who hate every sliver of the environmental movement, planting a tree is an act of hope for the future and generosity towards those who follow. When I see Republicans taking a stand against planting trees, I wonder at the smallness of their souls.
Given that their stance against green energy is already hurting them, I think the Republicans would do well to let this one drop. Thanks to @david_h_roberts for that last link.
Chaffetz didn't explicitly state his disapproval, but he did link to an outraged condemnation of the provision:
What this means for Americans: Almost half a million people lost their jobs in June alone and Democrats want taxpayers to subsidize retail power providers and their tree planting programs. Runaway reckless spending is not going to get America back to work. Because of the Democrats’ national energy tax millions more jobs will be lost as American manufacturers relocate overseas, but at least homes and empty warehouses will have shade.
Which makes it sound as pointless as anything can be. Bill? Justify your existence!
(1) the utility sector is the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States today, producing approximately one-third of the country’s emissions;
(2) heating and cooling homes accounts for nearly 60 percent of residential electricity usage in the United States;
(3) shade trees planted in strategic locations can reduce residential cooling costs by as much as 30 percent;
(4) shade trees have significant clean-air benefits associated with them;
(5) every 100 healthy large trees removes about 300 pounds of air pollution (including particulate matter and ozone) and about 15 tons of carbon dioxide from the air each year;
(6) tree cover on private property and on newly-developed land has declined since the 1970s, even while emissions from transportation and industry have been rising;
(7) in over a dozen test cities across the United States, increasing urban tree cover has generated between two and five dollars in savings for every dollar invested in such tree planting.
(H.R. 2454, American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, Sec. 205)
The bill takes no official position on whether Republicans are being slimy and dishonest in touting this tiny line item as a waste of money. But sources close to the bill -- speaking under conditions of anonymity -- report that the bill once asked Senator Inhofe (R-OK) if he wanted to "take it outside."
The Republicans won't argue this portion of the bill on its merits. I pointed out to Chaffetz that it was actually a very reasonable thing to spend money on, and he sent me a PM saying, "The taxpayers shouldn't be paying for it." That's consistent with Chaffetz' overall political philosophy, but that's not what he was implying to his followers. The message that came across wasn't just that it was a misuse of government power, but that the whole idea was patently stupid, and that the bill could just as well be ordering the creation of a giant ball of aluminum foil.
If you're going to point to something as a laughable waste of money, it generally helps if the thing being pointed at doesn't create jobs, increase property values, beautify neighborhoods, clean our air, and reduce energy bills.
This is such a common sense measure, I suspect that the Republicans are only drawing attention to it because they think they can spin it as "your hard-earned dollars spent on tree-hugging hippie crap." But trees aren't just fun to hug; trees -- especially the ones planted by this program -- are infrastructure, just like roads, houses, factories, and casinos. They serve human needs, and they do so in a way that will touch your heart and make that little brat look like a total user.
More important to the Republicans' political futures, people like trees. Coming out against trees is like coming out against puppies, ice cream, and "the troops." Outside of a small fringe who hate every sliver of the environmental movement, planting a tree is an act of hope for the future and generosity towards those who follow. When I see Republicans taking a stand against planting trees, I wonder at the smallness of their souls.
Given that their stance against green energy is already hurting them, I think the Republicans would do well to let this one drop. Thanks to @david_h_roberts for that last link.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Rep. Boehner on the cap and trade bill
House Minority Leader John Boenher, who not surprisingly hails from the landlocked state of Ohio, recently released his Top 10 Facts on Why Speaker Pelosi's National Energy Tax Is a Bad "Deal" for America.
1) Speaker Pelosi’s National Energy Tax Will Impose a National Energy Tax on Every Single American
"The national energy tax will impose a national energy tax." Look, I know you paid a small fortune to have Frank Lunz focus test this "Pelosi Energy Tax" verbiage, and it would be a waste not to use it to the hilt. But come on! Pay attention to what you're writing!
It certainly won't apply to Every Single American, as there are a handful of people who are already living off the grid, but that's quibbling. The more important thing to remember is that some of the money collected by the cap and trade auctions will be returned to taxpayers as tax refunds. So if you're poor, or if you take the time to cut your personal energy consumption, you'll actually be better off overall.
Sidenote: Every one of the ten "facts" starts with "Speaker Pelosi's National Energy Tax." I realize that Pelosi isn't at her most popular right now, but I think only the Limbaugh/Hannity/Beck crowd considers her name an actual cuss word.
"Boenher," however, comes pretty close.
2. Speaker Pelosi’s National Energy Tax Will Cost American Jobs, Shipping Them Overseas to China & India
Via some study by some chamber of commerce (sorry, I've never seen a chamber of commerce ever support the sane side of any issue) Boenher claims that we'll lose over 2M jobs every single year.
Now, back in the nineties when NAFTA was passed, Republicans were all over the idea that, despite the lower labor costs in Mexico, we wouldn't lose a significant number of jobs, because the quality and ingenuity of The American Worker was second to none. I wonder what happened to that confidence?
My guess? That confidence only manifests when exhibiting such confidence leads to wage cuts for workers and extra profits for businesses.
Business interests have a tendency to publish studies vastly inflating the costs of any new legislation, while underestimating their ability to adapt to it, and demonstrating that under such assumptions, they would go out of business. That's how the American auto industry blocked fuel efficiency standards (though historically, they adapted to previous rises in those standards quite easily). That's how they tried to block the sulfur dioxide permit sales, a program that reduced sulfur emissions by 70%, at a price that was about 1/10th of what the doomsayers predicted.
Listening to studies like these, you get the impression that businesses are fragile hothouse flowers, not the dynamic, adaptive, and innovative institutions that are supposed to drive our economy.
3. Speaker Pelosi’s National Energy Tax Will Cause Electricity Bills to “Skyrocket.”
As evidence, Boenher points out that a major utility has already requested a rate increase, despite getting their permits for free for the next several years. Hell, despite the legislation not even being signed into law. That's some powerful legislation right there.
Googling for "duke energy rate increase" brought up several reports on Duke's request. All of them mentioned that the company had put a lot of money into upgrading their plants recently. Not one of them claims that the hike has anything to do with the climate change bill. Boenher isn't being honest with his facts.
4. Speaker Pelosi’s National Energy Tax Will Hurt Family Farmers & Rural America
This one basically boils down to "the people who use the most energy will be hit hardest," a not unexpected result. I'd be all for a program that helps the rural poor buy more fuel efficient cars and energy efficient appliances, or even low-interest loans for home solar/wind installations. But Boenher expects us to never do anything about climate change because some people will be hit harder than others. Bah!
5. Speaker Pelosi’s National Energy Tax Will Not Improve the Environment
Basically a rehash of the old "China and India won't do anything" argument, which is a very weak one. Despite finding a couple of out-of-context quotes that indicate their stubbornness on the issue, I think China and India will come along. There are a couple of reasons for this.
China and India have long been using our refusal to curb our own emissions as a talking point for their own delay. If we show that we're serious about cutting our own emissions, and if we're developing technology that makes such cuts easier and less costly, they'll start moving in the same direction. The Chinese don't like breathing dirty air any more than we do.
We also have to accept the fact that a large fraction of the Chinese and Indian populations live under impoverishment that Americans cannot understand unless they've seen it firsthand. It's not fair for us to say that they cannot increase their emissions, when our per-capita emissions are about for times what theirs are.
6. Speaker Pelosi’s National Energy Tax Will Cause Gasoline and Diesel Prices to Spike Further
This talking point is brought to you by the Heritage Foundation, motto: "Actually, we are entitled to our own facts." The figure they publish -- 58% increase in gasoline prices -- makes no sense to me. Europe has already implemented the market we're trying to implement, and their prices for CO2 are about $20/ton. You have to burn about 83 gallons of gas to emit a ton of CO2, so the cost should be closer to $0.25 per gallon, rather than the $1 or $2 that Heritage is predicting.
It should be noted that a lot of the volatility in gas prices comes from the fact that we're producing as fast as we can, and still not keeping up with demand. Dropping demand should decrease volatility a little.
7. Speaker Pelosi’s National Energy Tax Will Be A Bureaucratic Nightmare
There isn't much to be said on this. But when Boehner says that the plan involves "a long and confusing web of government agencies," I have to say two things. First, lists are long. Webs are generally described as tangled, sticky, dense, invisible, etc. Hire. Better. Writers.
Second, I'm not convinced that "long and confusing" and "long and confusing (to John Boehner)" bear much resemblance to each other.
8. Speaker Pelosi’s National Energy Tax Will Send Billions of US Taxpayer Dollars Overseas
The criticism here is that the plan allows American companies to purchase international offsets. So, rather than paying $1m to install a more energy efficient boiler at home, a business could pay $200K to someone in Nicaragua to protect a forest, resulting in similar carbon savings. Boenher, in what can only be described as "a flat out lie" describes this as "forcing [American taxpayers] to bankroll another global bailout."
Boenher, nobody will be forcing anybody to purchase international offsets. Businesses will buy them when it makes sense for them to do so. Nor will this money be given away for nothing. You see, in a "free market," people often pay others to do things that they'd rather not do themselves. We would be sending them money in exchange for a service that they provided. This is exactly the sort of behavior you'd expect from a carbon market, and there is nothing nefarious about it.
9. Speaker Pelosi’s National Energy Tax Will Raise Food Prices
First, I don't think that "small businesses and middle class families" aren't spending much time worrying about what will happen to food prices in 2035. I think they should be doubly indifferent to the Heritage Foundation's wild-assed guesses, since their studies invariably have a finger on the scales. After all, their cost estimates for this plan come in at around ten times the Congressional Budget Office's projections.
I think that The Heritage Foundation would predict that by 2035, the world would be a nuke-charred hellscape where a handful of survivors are hunted by killer robots, if they thought such a prediction could help keep this bill from passing.
Our current food system is too reliant on economies of scale and cheap energy. A more decentralized, localized system will be more expensive, but would also give us more nutritious food, be less susceptible to terrorist attacks, give more farmers a better living, and be more resilient in the face of an uncertain energy future. That's the direction this bill would be pushing the agricultural industry, and a direction I'd like to see it headed.
10. Speaker Pelosi’s National Energy Tax Will Set the Stage for Another Market Meltdown
At this point, Boenher shows some real Marxist cred. He cites an article from Mother Jones, and implies that capitalism necessarily contains the seeds of its own destruction.
The prediction here is that -- wait for it -- the legislation will create a market for carbon emissions. Maybe I should just agree with Boehner on this one. If you don't have a market, then that market cannot fail. This line of reasoning should be expanded. Comrade Boehner, your brothers and sisters in the People's Revolution welcome you!
----------------------------
Well, despite all his hemming and hawing, the bill narrowly passed the House. It now goes on to the Senate, where it will fail because the Democrats are too chicken to actually force Republicans to filibuster.
1) Speaker Pelosi’s National Energy Tax Will Impose a National Energy Tax on Every Single American
"The national energy tax will impose a national energy tax." Look, I know you paid a small fortune to have Frank Lunz focus test this "Pelosi Energy Tax" verbiage, and it would be a waste not to use it to the hilt. But come on! Pay attention to what you're writing!
It certainly won't apply to Every Single American, as there are a handful of people who are already living off the grid, but that's quibbling. The more important thing to remember is that some of the money collected by the cap and trade auctions will be returned to taxpayers as tax refunds. So if you're poor, or if you take the time to cut your personal energy consumption, you'll actually be better off overall.
Sidenote: Every one of the ten "facts" starts with "Speaker Pelosi's National Energy Tax." I realize that Pelosi isn't at her most popular right now, but I think only the Limbaugh/Hannity/Beck crowd considers her name an actual cuss word.
"Boenher," however, comes pretty close.
2. Speaker Pelosi’s National Energy Tax Will Cost American Jobs, Shipping Them Overseas to China & India
Via some study by some chamber of commerce (sorry, I've never seen a chamber of commerce ever support the sane side of any issue) Boenher claims that we'll lose over 2M jobs every single year.
Now, back in the nineties when NAFTA was passed, Republicans were all over the idea that, despite the lower labor costs in Mexico, we wouldn't lose a significant number of jobs, because the quality and ingenuity of The American Worker was second to none. I wonder what happened to that confidence?
My guess? That confidence only manifests when exhibiting such confidence leads to wage cuts for workers and extra profits for businesses.
Business interests have a tendency to publish studies vastly inflating the costs of any new legislation, while underestimating their ability to adapt to it, and demonstrating that under such assumptions, they would go out of business. That's how the American auto industry blocked fuel efficiency standards (though historically, they adapted to previous rises in those standards quite easily). That's how they tried to block the sulfur dioxide permit sales, a program that reduced sulfur emissions by 70%, at a price that was about 1/10th of what the doomsayers predicted.
Listening to studies like these, you get the impression that businesses are fragile hothouse flowers, not the dynamic, adaptive, and innovative institutions that are supposed to drive our economy.
3. Speaker Pelosi’s National Energy Tax Will Cause Electricity Bills to “Skyrocket.”
As evidence, Boenher points out that a major utility has already requested a rate increase, despite getting their permits for free for the next several years. Hell, despite the legislation not even being signed into law. That's some powerful legislation right there.
Googling for "duke energy rate increase" brought up several reports on Duke's request. All of them mentioned that the company had put a lot of money into upgrading their plants recently. Not one of them claims that the hike has anything to do with the climate change bill. Boenher isn't being honest with his facts.
4. Speaker Pelosi’s National Energy Tax Will Hurt Family Farmers & Rural America
This one basically boils down to "the people who use the most energy will be hit hardest," a not unexpected result. I'd be all for a program that helps the rural poor buy more fuel efficient cars and energy efficient appliances, or even low-interest loans for home solar/wind installations. But Boenher expects us to never do anything about climate change because some people will be hit harder than others. Bah!
5. Speaker Pelosi’s National Energy Tax Will Not Improve the Environment
Basically a rehash of the old "China and India won't do anything" argument, which is a very weak one. Despite finding a couple of out-of-context quotes that indicate their stubbornness on the issue, I think China and India will come along. There are a couple of reasons for this.
China and India have long been using our refusal to curb our own emissions as a talking point for their own delay. If we show that we're serious about cutting our own emissions, and if we're developing technology that makes such cuts easier and less costly, they'll start moving in the same direction. The Chinese don't like breathing dirty air any more than we do.
We also have to accept the fact that a large fraction of the Chinese and Indian populations live under impoverishment that Americans cannot understand unless they've seen it firsthand. It's not fair for us to say that they cannot increase their emissions, when our per-capita emissions are about for times what theirs are.
6. Speaker Pelosi’s National Energy Tax Will Cause Gasoline and Diesel Prices to Spike Further
This talking point is brought to you by the Heritage Foundation, motto: "Actually, we are entitled to our own facts." The figure they publish -- 58% increase in gasoline prices -- makes no sense to me. Europe has already implemented the market we're trying to implement, and their prices for CO2 are about $20/ton. You have to burn about 83 gallons of gas to emit a ton of CO2, so the cost should be closer to $0.25 per gallon, rather than the $1 or $2 that Heritage is predicting.
It should be noted that a lot of the volatility in gas prices comes from the fact that we're producing as fast as we can, and still not keeping up with demand. Dropping demand should decrease volatility a little.
7. Speaker Pelosi’s National Energy Tax Will Be A Bureaucratic Nightmare
There isn't much to be said on this. But when Boehner says that the plan involves "a long and confusing web of government agencies," I have to say two things. First, lists are long. Webs are generally described as tangled, sticky, dense, invisible, etc. Hire. Better. Writers.
Second, I'm not convinced that "long and confusing" and "long and confusing (to John Boehner)" bear much resemblance to each other.
8. Speaker Pelosi’s National Energy Tax Will Send Billions of US Taxpayer Dollars Overseas
The criticism here is that the plan allows American companies to purchase international offsets. So, rather than paying $1m to install a more energy efficient boiler at home, a business could pay $200K to someone in Nicaragua to protect a forest, resulting in similar carbon savings. Boenher, in what can only be described as "a flat out lie" describes this as "forcing [American taxpayers] to bankroll another global bailout."
Boenher, nobody will be forcing anybody to purchase international offsets. Businesses will buy them when it makes sense for them to do so. Nor will this money be given away for nothing. You see, in a "free market," people often pay others to do things that they'd rather not do themselves. We would be sending them money in exchange for a service that they provided. This is exactly the sort of behavior you'd expect from a carbon market, and there is nothing nefarious about it.
9. Speaker Pelosi’s National Energy Tax Will Raise Food Prices
First, I don't think that "small businesses and middle class families" aren't spending much time worrying about what will happen to food prices in 2035. I think they should be doubly indifferent to the Heritage Foundation's wild-assed guesses, since their studies invariably have a finger on the scales. After all, their cost estimates for this plan come in at around ten times the Congressional Budget Office's projections.
I think that The Heritage Foundation would predict that by 2035, the world would be a nuke-charred hellscape where a handful of survivors are hunted by killer robots, if they thought such a prediction could help keep this bill from passing.
Our current food system is too reliant on economies of scale and cheap energy. A more decentralized, localized system will be more expensive, but would also give us more nutritious food, be less susceptible to terrorist attacks, give more farmers a better living, and be more resilient in the face of an uncertain energy future. That's the direction this bill would be pushing the agricultural industry, and a direction I'd like to see it headed.
10. Speaker Pelosi’s National Energy Tax Will Set the Stage for Another Market Meltdown
At this point, Boenher shows some real Marxist cred. He cites an article from Mother Jones, and implies that capitalism necessarily contains the seeds of its own destruction.
The prediction here is that -- wait for it -- the legislation will create a market for carbon emissions. Maybe I should just agree with Boehner on this one. If you don't have a market, then that market cannot fail. This line of reasoning should be expanded. Comrade Boehner, your brothers and sisters in the People's Revolution welcome you!
----------------------------
Well, despite all his hemming and hawing, the bill narrowly passed the House. It now goes on to the Senate, where it will fail because the Democrats are too chicken to actually force Republicans to filibuster.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Sen. Coburn lies about the "waste" in the stimulus bill (Part II)
Coburn cites two other stimulus projects as especially onerous. From his website:
FutureGen is a "clean coal" project. Personally, I'm against clean coal. I think we need to be pursuing other technologies instead. But a billion or so to find out if it can work doesn't seem like a lot, in the $3 trillion scheme of things.
The whole plant is supposed to be a proving ground for new technologies, so describing it as "a power plant that may never work" seems either flagrantly dishonest or just plain stupid. In his report, Coburn focuses heavily on former Energy Secretary Sam Bodman's criticism of the project, while ignoring current Energy Secretary Steven Chu's support for the project.
After poring over thousands upon thousands of projects, the #2 project on his list isn't nearly as dubious as Coburn portrays.
Regarding the "eco-passage", the latest research is indicating that fragmentation of habitat is dangerous to an ecosystem. Dividing a habitat in two (as a big highway does) can sometimes be as destructive as simply wiping out half of it. Wildlife corridors can help protect species.
If you are Republican enough, then any money spent protecting animals or preserving habitat is wasted by definition. That's probably the primary reason for putting this on the list. Either that, or Tom Coburn really likes the sound turtles make when they crunch under his wheels. But that's getting pretty damned Republican.
2. $1 billion for FutureGen in Mattoon, Illinois is the “biggest earmark of all time” for a power plant that may never work.
...
5. $3.4 million for a wildlife “eco-passage” in Florida to take animals safely under a busy roadway.
FutureGen is a "clean coal" project. Personally, I'm against clean coal. I think we need to be pursuing other technologies instead. But a billion or so to find out if it can work doesn't seem like a lot, in the $3 trillion scheme of things.
The whole plant is supposed to be a proving ground for new technologies, so describing it as "a power plant that may never work" seems either flagrantly dishonest or just plain stupid. In his report, Coburn focuses heavily on former Energy Secretary Sam Bodman's criticism of the project, while ignoring current Energy Secretary Steven Chu's support for the project.
After poring over thousands upon thousands of projects, the #2 project on his list isn't nearly as dubious as Coburn portrays.
Regarding the "eco-passage", the latest research is indicating that fragmentation of habitat is dangerous to an ecosystem. Dividing a habitat in two (as a big highway does) can sometimes be as destructive as simply wiping out half of it. Wildlife corridors can help protect species.
If you are Republican enough, then any money spent protecting animals or preserving habitat is wasted by definition. That's probably the primary reason for putting this on the list. Either that, or Tom Coburn really likes the sound turtles make when they crunch under his wheels. But that's getting pretty damned Republican.
Sen. Coburn lies about the "waste" in the stimulus bill
Senator Tom Coburn, M.D., junior Republican senator from the unpopulated wasteland of Oklahoma, hasn't been practicing medicine for quite some time. Clearly, he hasn't seen a patient in a while, so you can understand why he might mistake a national economy for a human being, and attempt to perform an examination. From his report, entitled 100 Stimulus Projects: A Second Opinion*:
So he says. I have trouble imagining a senator over the age of 60 as an Internet wiz. But he's clearly mastered the art of playing the Concern Troll. He doesn't want to help the stimulus succeed. He wants to manufacture outrage, in the hope of tilting the 2010 midterms in the Republicans favor.
If his goal was to start an honest debate about which projects were succeeding and which were failing, he would be a bit more honest about how he portrays the projects on his list. He selectively quotes this article to imply that the ARRA money actually cost the people of Perkins, Oklahoma.
Two points: the money did come with strings. But the strings are ones that support the aims of ARRA. The "strings" include better pay for workers (putting money in American pockets), a "buy American" stipulation for construction materials (again, putting money in American pockets), and increased reporting requirements, presumably to prevent all the fraud, waste, and abuse that Senator Coburn decries.
The other point: the $1.4M was just the grant portion of the funds. There was also a loan for $5.8M, at an interest rate of 2.9%, a steep discount from the 8% loans Perkins had been pursuing.
It's not clear that ARRA was a finanical windfall for this project. But it's not clear that it was supposed to be. Yes, sewer fees went up, which is counterintuitive when the government hands you a wad of free money. But the point was to get shovels moving on a shovel-ready project, and in that it succeeded. Where there used to be a set of diagrams, now something is being built, people are being put to work, and residents are getting the infrastructure they need.
In short, Sen. Coburn's #1 project -- his poster child for mismanagement and unintended consequences, is doing pretty much what it's supposed to.
One down, 99 to go.
* Cuz, you see, he used to be a doctor, and it's called "a second opinion." Har!
By offering 100 examples of questionable stimulus projects, worth $5.5 billion, this report does not attempt to prove that the stimulus is not working. Rather, the intent is to educate taxpayers, policymakers and the media on lessons that can be learned from some of the early missteps and prevent other questionable projects from moving forward.
So he says. I have trouble imagining a senator over the age of 60 as an Internet wiz. But he's clearly mastered the art of playing the Concern Troll. He doesn't want to help the stimulus succeed. He wants to manufacture outrage, in the hope of tilting the 2010 midterms in the Republicans favor.
If his goal was to start an honest debate about which projects were succeeding and which were failing, he would be a bit more honest about how he portrays the projects on his list. He selectively quotes this article to imply that the ARRA money actually cost the people of Perkins, Oklahoma.
Two points: the money did come with strings. But the strings are ones that support the aims of ARRA. The "strings" include better pay for workers (putting money in American pockets), a "buy American" stipulation for construction materials (again, putting money in American pockets), and increased reporting requirements, presumably to prevent all the fraud, waste, and abuse that Senator Coburn decries.
The other point: the $1.4M was just the grant portion of the funds. There was also a loan for $5.8M, at an interest rate of 2.9%, a steep discount from the 8% loans Perkins had been pursuing.
It's not clear that ARRA was a finanical windfall for this project. But it's not clear that it was supposed to be. Yes, sewer fees went up, which is counterintuitive when the government hands you a wad of free money. But the point was to get shovels moving on a shovel-ready project, and in that it succeeded. Where there used to be a set of diagrams, now something is being built, people are being put to work, and residents are getting the infrastructure they need.
In short, Sen. Coburn's #1 project -- his poster child for mismanagement and unintended consequences, is doing pretty much what it's supposed to.
One down, 99 to go.
* Cuz, you see, he used to be a doctor, and it's called "a second opinion." Har!
Thursday, May 28, 2009
The $4300 energy tax: my response
In case Herigate declines to publish my comment:
The $1500 in direct costs are passed on to consumers, because the government took in revenue from CO2 intensive industries, correct? And most of that money will go back into consumers pockets, through direct rebates or lowering other taxes. So won’t that money also “ripple through the economy, hitting consumer’s pockets again and again?
In the end, it should mostly balance out. The money taken from energy companies will go back into the economy, either directly, through lowered taxes, or after being spent on research into alternative energies. Once the scales are balanced, there’s very little change other than stronger incentives for energy efficiency.
It’s positively brilliant. So of course Heritage would be against it.
You might not be a Republican if...
I just read this little missive from Randall Hoven over at americanthinker.com. I've never heard of him, but he and I seem to hold the shared goal of driving moderates out of the Republican party. I hope he appreciates my assistance:
If you think global warming is more than a socialist plot to control our lives, or if you suspect that the vast majority of climate scientists should be given more credit than a handful of oil-funded skeptics, you might not be a Republican.
If you think that the person who rings you up at Wal-Mart deserves to be paid well enough that she can hope to someday send her kid to college, you might not be a Republican.
If you think that government has a role in protecting us from pollution and unsafe working conditions, you might not be a Republican.
If you think government has a role in preparing for and responding to natural disasters, you might not be a Republican.
If you think that health care is something everyone should be able to access, rather than a reward for not being unemployed or impoverished, you might not be a Republican.
If you think that not all of the twelve million illegal aliens in America have come here to flaunt our laws, steal our jobs, and defile our women; if you think many of them came here to work hard and make better lives for themselves, you might not be a Republican.
If you didn't like the way the Bush administration engaged in wars of choice, undermined the government's ability to enforce its own regulations, handed out no-bid contracts to politically favored cronies, fired talented and dedicated civil servants to replace them with party loyalists, and labeled critics of these actions "traitors", you might not be a Republican.
If you heard Rush Limbaugh say that Colin Powell only endorsed Barack Obama "because he's black", and your stomach lurched a bit, you might not be a Republican.
If you think the rich should shoulder more of the tax burden, you might not be a Republican.
If you don't find the comedic stylings of Ann "We Should Invade Islamic Countries, Kill Their Leaders, and Convert Them to Christianity" Coulter hilarious, you might not be a Republican. Or you might just be a sane Republican, which is cool with me.
If you think that every person deserves society's support in making the most of their lives, you might not be a Republican.
If you think giving the next generation a clean environment and healthy bodies is more important than passing on ever bigger houses and ever wider flatscreen TVs, you might not be a Republican.
If it worries you that the United States incarcerates proportionally more of its citizens than any other country in the world, you might not be a Republican.
If you look at the military budget of the United States -- which is roughly equivalent to the military budget of the rest of the world combined -- and think that some of that money could be better spent elsewhere, you might not be a Republican.
If you think President Obama is a decent human being, an inspiring orator, and (despite some mistakes) is doing his best to fix the mess he inherited, you might not be a Republican.
If you think life ought to be a joyous journey of discovery, rather than a red-toothed battle against enemies real and imagined, you might not be a Republican.
If you think teaching children to share their toys is good parenting, rather than preparation for a life of subservience to a socialist dictatorship, you might not be a Republican.
If you think global warming is more than a socialist plot to control our lives, or if you suspect that the vast majority of climate scientists should be given more credit than a handful of oil-funded skeptics, you might not be a Republican.
If you think that the person who rings you up at Wal-Mart deserves to be paid well enough that she can hope to someday send her kid to college, you might not be a Republican.
If you think that government has a role in protecting us from pollution and unsafe working conditions, you might not be a Republican.
If you think government has a role in preparing for and responding to natural disasters, you might not be a Republican.
If you think that health care is something everyone should be able to access, rather than a reward for not being unemployed or impoverished, you might not be a Republican.
If you think that not all of the twelve million illegal aliens in America have come here to flaunt our laws, steal our jobs, and defile our women; if you think many of them came here to work hard and make better lives for themselves, you might not be a Republican.
If you didn't like the way the Bush administration engaged in wars of choice, undermined the government's ability to enforce its own regulations, handed out no-bid contracts to politically favored cronies, fired talented and dedicated civil servants to replace them with party loyalists, and labeled critics of these actions "traitors", you might not be a Republican.
If you heard Rush Limbaugh say that Colin Powell only endorsed Barack Obama "because he's black", and your stomach lurched a bit, you might not be a Republican.
If you think the rich should shoulder more of the tax burden, you might not be a Republican.
If you don't find the comedic stylings of Ann "We Should Invade Islamic Countries, Kill Their Leaders, and Convert Them to Christianity" Coulter hilarious, you might not be a Republican. Or you might just be a sane Republican, which is cool with me.
If you think that every person deserves society's support in making the most of their lives, you might not be a Republican.
If you think giving the next generation a clean environment and healthy bodies is more important than passing on ever bigger houses and ever wider flatscreen TVs, you might not be a Republican.
If it worries you that the United States incarcerates proportionally more of its citizens than any other country in the world, you might not be a Republican.
If you look at the military budget of the United States -- which is roughly equivalent to the military budget of the rest of the world combined -- and think that some of that money could be better spent elsewhere, you might not be a Republican.
If you think President Obama is a decent human being, an inspiring orator, and (despite some mistakes) is doing his best to fix the mess he inherited, you might not be a Republican.
If you think life ought to be a joyous journey of discovery, rather than a red-toothed battle against enemies real and imagined, you might not be a Republican.
If you think teaching children to share their toys is good parenting, rather than preparation for a life of subservience to a socialist dictatorship, you might not be a Republican.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)