(NPR, All Things Considered) May 4, 2009 · President Obama sent a broadside Monday across the bow of those companies that now avoid taxes by keeping much of their business on the books of offshore subsidiaries. The practice is perfectly legal right now (1), but the White House wants that to change.
President Obama vowed Monday to "detect and pursue" American tax evaders(2) and go after their offshore tax shelters.
In announcing a series of steps aimed at overhauling the U.S. tax code, Obama complained that existing law makes it possible to "pay lower taxes if you create a job in Bangalore, India, than if you create one in Buffalo, N.Y."
The president said he wants to prevent U.S. companies from deferring tax payments by keeping profits in foreign countries rather than recording them at home, and called for more transparency in bank accounts that Americans hold in notorious tax havens like the Cayman Islands.
"If financial institutions won't cooperate with us, we will assume that they are sheltering money in tax havens and act accordingly," Obama said. (3)
The president, who hammered on this issue during his long campaign for the White House, said at a White House event that his plan would generate $210 billion in new taxes over 10 years and "make it easier" for companies to create jobs at home. (4) Over a decade, $210 billion would make a modest dent in a federal deficit expected to swell to $1.2 trillion in 2010.
He said the government also is hiring nearly 800 new IRS agents to enforce the U.S. tax code. (5)
Under the plan, companies would not be able to write off domestic expenses for generating profits abroad. The goal is to reduce the incentive for U.S. companies to base all or part of their operations in other countries. (6a)
"The plan will reduce the ability of U.S. companies to compete in foreign markets," said John Castellani, who heads the Business Roundtable, which represents some of the largest U.S. companies. "We believe it will not only reduce jobs, but it will also cripple economic growth here in the United States. It just couldn't have come at a worse time."
Gary Hufbauer, a senior fellow with the Peterson Institute for International Economics, says eliminating the deduction on U.S. expenses associated with foreign profits would encourage multinationals to move more of their essential functions abroad. (6b)
"Those are the good jobs at good pay that America should want," Hufbauer said. "I mean, do we want these headquarters' expenses to be incurred in Singapore or London?" (6c)
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said the proposals would end "indefensible tax breaks and loopholes which allow some companies and some well-off citizens to evade the rules that the rest of America lives by." (7) Geithner called them "common-sense changes designed to restore balance to our tax code."
Once again I ask you - can you believe what you just read? I highlighted in the copy some key statements woven into this story. Here are my observations based on these key statements in the same order they appear in the story.
1. First and very important to note, while the administration may not like it, the practice they are complaining about is not illegal.
2. Even though it is not illegal, the President referred to the users of this “legal loophole” as “American tax evaders.” He also vowed to “detect and pursue” them. What does that mean? If it’s not illegal, does this mean the administration plans to bully, harass and attempt to publicly embarrass these companies? At a minimum it means that Obama’s full scale assault on capitalism and American business will continue. The administration seems to be intent on making the business community the bad guys for everything in the eyes of the public. Of course, the savior for the average citizen in “Obama World” is more government oversight and control.
3. Now for the scariest statement in the article "If financial institutions won't cooperate with us, we will assume that they are sheltering money in tax havens and act accordingly," - what does he mean by this? In America, there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. We don’t assume guilt and persecute. Plus let’s not forget that what these companies are doing is not illegal under the current rules. The financial institutes the President is referring to are in foreign countries so what is their incentive to cooperate with his administration? So without the cooperation of these foreign institutes the result will mostly likely be a smear campaign against these “evil corporations”.
4. The President goes on to assert that by closing these loopholes it will “make it easier" for companies to create jobs at home. What?? So paying higher taxes will stimulate job growth? What school of economics teaches this business theory? This quite possibly the dumbest thing I have heard from the administration so far.
5. We are also finally getting to see how the president is going to stimulate job growth. He is going to make government bigger by adding IRS agents to persecute real businesses. This will result in increased job loss in the private sector. Is it possible to have a prosperous economy with a giant government workforce? Who are you going to tax in that model? The last time this model was tried we referred to it as the Soviet Union and as I recall their economy collapsed.
6. (a, b,& c) In yet another stroke of business genius, the administration asserts that by eliminating certain write off and deductions it will reduce the incentive for U.S. companies to base all or part of their operations in other countries. However, conventional wisdom would indicate just the opposite is likely to occur. Rather than moving things back to the U.S., it is more likely that large multinational companies would move their headquarters offshore taking high paying executive and management positions with them.
7. Of course this brilliant strategy would not have been be complete without a comment on this “common sense” approach to fair taxes by everyone’s favorite “tax evader” Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner who is certainly an expert on “indefensible tax breaks and loopholes which allow ……some well-off citizens to evade the rules that the rest of America lives by." Apparently it is O.K. to be a “tax cheat” as long as you have a cabinet post but “make no mistake”, this won’t be tolerated in the private sector. The arrogance of this administration is at times overwhelming considering how little any of them seem to understand about how business works in the real world. Maybe they should all go get a job at a company that produces a product. Then they could learn what it takes to satisfy customers, to stay competitive, and make a profit so that the business can succeed.
So what is the solution - instead of creating more ways to tax businesses which drives jobs to other countries, let’s lower business taxes to stimulate job growth domestically. The U.S. has some of the highest business taxes in the industrialized world which is why jobs are leaving the country. The U.S. has been steadily climbing the world rankings for business taxes. We are currently ranked #1. Since 2000, Japan, Germany, France, Canada, Greece, Italy and Mexico have all lowered their business taxes to stimulate business growth, some by more than 10%. Since 1993 U.S. business tax rates have remained virtually flat. Currently, the effective federal business tax rate is 39.3% in the U.S. which is down from 39.4% in 2000. Japan is at 30% down from 40.9% in 2000. However most of Europe has rates between 25 and 35%. Of course, China arguably the world’s largest competitor is communist and they succeed in the global economy on the back of their people and the ability to play by their own rules.
This administration has capitalism and business squarely in it’s sights. America became the great nation it is by becoming the preeminent economic force in the world. Government jobs do not improve the economy or the GNP. The only way that America can remain a powerful and respected nation that can protect its’ people, its’ sovereignty and its’ way of life is to remain an economic powerhouse. The only way this happens is, we change our tax laws to make America more competitive, instead of forcing us to compete with one hand tied behind our back.
I have made the tough decisions, always with an eye toward the bottom line. Perhaps it's time America was run like a business. - Donald Trump
The budget should be balanced, the treasury should be refilled, the public debt should be reduced and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled. - Ross Perot
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
You’ve got to stand for something or you’ll fall for anything……………
This is the chorus from a country song that is so grounded in common sense that you wonder why more people don’t get it. I thought about the song as I was listening to a group of radio political pundits debate whether the Republican Party needed a makeover to re-establish its’ clout. Ironically, most of the debate was about style over substance and if the party should move more to the center or more to the right.
As I listened to their babbling I couldn’t help but think that political parties are supposed to represent an ideology that is based on a system of values. So if that is true – how much room do they really have to move before they begin to compromise their beliefs?
It seems that politics today is more about winning the election than it is about a commitment to principles and values. Ideally, candidates in a political contest would debate clearly articulated points of differentiation providing the voters a choice between approaches to problem solving and philosophies of governing.
However, the political strategists of the day seem content with and adept at blurring those lines. Combine that with a little help from the media and often you don’t know who you are really electing until the election is over and the candidate is in office. This by the way is not a shot at any single elected official but rather a comment on the sad state of our political system. Both parties are guilty!
Back to our pundits – they talked about strategies to recruit younger, better looking, more energetic candidates. They suggested a need for candidates who had a better TV presence and were more gifted speakers. One of the esteemed panel even went as far as to say that the content of the message doesn’t matter as much as how it is delivered.
I am not sure what horrifies me more; the fact that this might be true or that we have become a nation of media junkies. It seems we are no longer capable of telling the difference between a commercial and the program.
What I never heard discussed by the panel was the importance of leadership, experience, a record of performance and a well defined ideology by which the candidate would govern. Aren’t these the characteristics that you would want to understand about a candidate that you were considering voting for?
However, this is the real rub. The candidates aren’t the only ones that have to stand for something. As voters, our responsibilities are the same as the candidate’s. We need to invest enough time in the process that we have well thought out and defined positions on the issues. We also have a responsibility to understand, at least conceptually how the candidate will solve a problem or address an issue.
Unfortunately, far too many of us don’t make the time to study the issues instead we get our news in sound bites. We vote for what sounds “good” without ever knowing if it is good. In the end the only ones that can hold the candidates accountable are the voters. This accountability should start on the campaign trail not once they are in office. There should be no surprises once elected. If we understand the issues and set expectations of our elected officials we won’t have to worry about “falling for anything.”
So in the end the pundits got it all wrong! It is not about if the Republicans should move right, center or left. It is not about if they should be more moderate or more conservative. It is about both parties deciding what they stand for and sticking to it. Both parties need to use the election process to honestly sell their views and let the voters decide.
If you lose, you try again next time but you don’t sell out your principles to get in office and then rediscover them once elected. That is corrupt and corruption will destroy trust in the government. When the government loses the trust of the people the country will cease to be great.
One of the key problems today is that politics is such a disgrace; good people don't go into government. - Donald Trump
As I listened to their babbling I couldn’t help but think that political parties are supposed to represent an ideology that is based on a system of values. So if that is true – how much room do they really have to move before they begin to compromise their beliefs?
It seems that politics today is more about winning the election than it is about a commitment to principles and values. Ideally, candidates in a political contest would debate clearly articulated points of differentiation providing the voters a choice between approaches to problem solving and philosophies of governing.
However, the political strategists of the day seem content with and adept at blurring those lines. Combine that with a little help from the media and often you don’t know who you are really electing until the election is over and the candidate is in office. This by the way is not a shot at any single elected official but rather a comment on the sad state of our political system. Both parties are guilty!
Back to our pundits – they talked about strategies to recruit younger, better looking, more energetic candidates. They suggested a need for candidates who had a better TV presence and were more gifted speakers. One of the esteemed panel even went as far as to say that the content of the message doesn’t matter as much as how it is delivered.
I am not sure what horrifies me more; the fact that this might be true or that we have become a nation of media junkies. It seems we are no longer capable of telling the difference between a commercial and the program.
What I never heard discussed by the panel was the importance of leadership, experience, a record of performance and a well defined ideology by which the candidate would govern. Aren’t these the characteristics that you would want to understand about a candidate that you were considering voting for?
However, this is the real rub. The candidates aren’t the only ones that have to stand for something. As voters, our responsibilities are the same as the candidate’s. We need to invest enough time in the process that we have well thought out and defined positions on the issues. We also have a responsibility to understand, at least conceptually how the candidate will solve a problem or address an issue.
Unfortunately, far too many of us don’t make the time to study the issues instead we get our news in sound bites. We vote for what sounds “good” without ever knowing if it is good. In the end the only ones that can hold the candidates accountable are the voters. This accountability should start on the campaign trail not once they are in office. There should be no surprises once elected. If we understand the issues and set expectations of our elected officials we won’t have to worry about “falling for anything.”
So in the end the pundits got it all wrong! It is not about if the Republicans should move right, center or left. It is not about if they should be more moderate or more conservative. It is about both parties deciding what they stand for and sticking to it. Both parties need to use the election process to honestly sell their views and let the voters decide.
If you lose, you try again next time but you don’t sell out your principles to get in office and then rediscover them once elected. That is corrupt and corruption will destroy trust in the government. When the government loses the trust of the people the country will cease to be great.
One of the key problems today is that politics is such a disgrace; good people don't go into government. - Donald Trump
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Cars, part 2 - Now open for business…………..Obama Motorworks!
(The New York Times) WASHINGTON — President Obama forced Chrysler into federal bankruptcy protection on Thursday so it could pursue a lifesaving alliance with the Italian automaker Fiat, in yet another extraordinary intervention into private industry by the federal government.
Flanked by his automobile task force of cabinet secretaries and business advisers in the White House’s grand entrance way, Mr. Obama announced a plan that would allow the United Automobile Workers, through their retirement plan, to take control of Chrysler, with Fiat and the United States as junior partners. The government would lend about $8 billion more to the company, on top of the $4 billion it had already provided.
The arrangement came after an intensive round of White House-sponsored negotiations among the Treasury Department, the union and Chrysler’s executives and creditors. After working through the night, a small group of debt holders balked at Mr. Obama’s final terms, leading the president to decide that bankruptcy could not be averted.
It was a stark moment, and one unseen in modern times, as the fledgling president deepened his involvement in a struggling but iconic American company. Chrysler, which Mr. Obama called “a pillar” of the industrial economy, invented the minivan and owns the Jeep brand.
Bringing to bear his White House megaphone on Thursday, Mr. Obama laid out the terms of a deal that he said would save well over 35,000 jobs. And with a hint of anger, he railed against the holdout lenders, now effectively a hostile group of business partners, whom he called “speculators.”
“They were hoping that everybody else would make sacrifices, and they would have to make none,” Mr. Obama said of the creditors, among them several hedge funds and boutique investment funds. “I don’t stand with them.”
Stop and think about what you have just read! Let me break this down for you:
1. In the words of The New York Times “President Obama forced Chrysler into federal bankruptcy protection …… in yet another extraordinary intervention into private industry by the federal government.” The President is deciding that a private company must file for bankruptcy! This on the heels of firing the CEO of GM and retroactively taxing bonuses on Wall Street. What is wrong with this picture. This is NOT the role of the Federal government!
2. Mr. Obama announced a plan that would allow the United Automobile Workers, through their retirement plan, to take control of Chrysler. The President and his advisors have allowed the union to use their retirement fund to purchase controlling interest in Chrysler after forcing it into bankruptcy. This will allegedly save their jobs but what happens if Chrysler continues to flounder and destroys the value of the pension fund? Who gets to pay for that, the taxpayers? If the union is willing to make this investment are they willing to live with the consequences of failure? If you or I lost our jobs and decided to empty our 401k to start a business, nobody would bail us out if it was a bust.
3. After the Administration could not broker a deal with Chrysler’s creditors, the President lashed out at them for being “greedy”! Imagine the nerve of those guys expecting to get paid as much as possible for a bad debt. I mean they had the audacity to think that they actually deserved more than $0.30 or $0.40 on the dollar.
This of course, is just the beginning. Now they are making plans for GM and the path seems to be the same - forced bankruptcy and protection for the union. The airline unions must be pissed off. After all to save their jobs they had to take cuts and make concessions. That was before our new age of socialism and nationalization of businesses.
There are still more conditions of this bailout. And yes, it is still a bailout because the taxpayers are kicking in an additional $8 billion to make the “deal” work. The government as part of its' "special bailout conditions" will require Chrysler to produce “cleaner and greener” cars.
So where does this end? Or more appropriately, where will this go next? Later this week the government will release the results of their banking stress tests and tell us which banks will require “additional repairs”. Still looming on the horizon is the impending commercial real estate collapse and new legislation for regulation of credit cards.
What happened to good, old fashioned bankruptcy? You know where company officials, creditors and a judge go and work out a plan to either save or dissolve a failing business. It wasn't perfect but at least the government wasn't calling the shots and the taxpayers footing the bill.
For Americans who choose to pay attention there are red flags everywhere. We are allowing the government to take control of the economy, nationalize businesses and the banking system. If we don’t stand up and make our voices heard the result will ultimately be a shift from capitalism to socialism. Are you ready to trade the American Dream for Socialism? Think about it, time is running out.
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." -- Patrick Henry
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Calling all Leaders, Statesmen and Patriots.................
"Come forward, then, and give us the aid of your talents and the weight of your character towards the new establishment of republicanism." --Thomas Jefferson to Robert Livingston, 1800.
Warning: Today’s blog is mostly based on my opinion, observations and perception of what I see going on in Washington, the government and the media. The things I see could cause me to lose faith and hope in our great country but I refuse to give in to those feelings. Instead, I am recommitting myself to spreading the word, partnering with others who also refuse to give in and making a passionate call to American citizens across our country to step forward. It is time to get involved and make a difference.
Webster offers a couple of variations on the definition of a “politician” but the one that seems most fitting these days is “one who seeks partisan or personal gain often by crafty or dishonest means.”
In recent years it seems we have had a difficult time attracting anyone other than “politicians” to take leadership roles in our government, real leaders want less and less to do with elected office. This is most likely due to the harsh light cast on those in public life. The level of personal scrutiny that an individual must endure to embark on the path to public service is enough to scare off most sane people.
Successful, intelligent and ethical individuals who have lived a “normal” life and made common mistakes shy away from throwing their hat in the ring. The personal sacrifices that they and their families must make are often too steep a price to pay for the privilege of serving ones’ country, state or community.
Ironically, character is often what is most lacking in today’s political leaders. Yet the very mistakes, trials and tribulations that become the subject of scrutiny are often the life changing experiences that build character and moral fiber.
And of course, there are the games, compromises and the abandonment of values that seems to be a requirement of “getting anything done.”
Today’s politicians have become largely a collection of “actors’ playing the part of leaders. They have self serving agendas that are equally split between their personal goals and repaying debts to those who supported their candidacy. Most are career politicians who have made a job out of “public service”.
How do we change this trend? How do we get real leaders and statesmen to get involved in government again? Let’s start electing real people with character, ethics, morals and flaws, who were forged in the real world under fire.
We need:
- principled men and women who are willing to represent the values of their constituents and do what’s best for their country, their state or community
- true leaders that will not mortgage our future for short term victories or sell their values to the highest bidder in exchange for support on an item they want
- leaders who have common sense, love their country and believe in the American dream
I’ll close the same way I opened with the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson:
“Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, rottenness begins in his conduct.” – Thomas Jefferson
"Public offices were not made for private convenience." -Thomas Jefferson
“I have the consolation of having added nothing to my private fortune during my public service, and of retiring with hands clean as they are empty.” – Thomas Jefferson
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” – Thomas Jefferson
Calling all Leaders, Statesmen and Patriots.................
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Cap and Trade or ….Bait and Switch?
What is cap and trade?
The Cap - It is a system that sets a limit or a cap on emissions generated by fossil fuel use. Companies will be given an emission limit based on either a formula or a historical profile. Over time the limit would be reduced to achieve a target that in theory would reduce the cumulative global output to 80% of 1990 actual output by 2050.
The Trade - Companies that perform below their allocated levels can bank the unused units and sell them to companies that exceed their allocated units.
Theoretically, the system would be adopted worldwide and the total global cap would be designed to reduce global warming. This sounds great right?
So are you ready for the rest of the story?
First, the implementation of this program will have a major impact on our economy and your wallet.
- The implementation of this type of program could result in an increase in electricity rates by as much as 60% in the next 10 years.
- It could add an additional $0.30 to $0.40 to the price of a gallon of gas.
Second, the various proposals all require quick implementation so there are no provisions for easing into them. Since, 85% of the energy used in the U.S. is a by product of fossil fuel moving quickly to alternative energy sources will be difficult. First the technology and required infrastructure must be built before it can be adopted. This will be an expensive change. Europe has been attempting to implement these measures since 1997 when many European nations signed the Kyoto Protocol which is an international treaty to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The time and cost to implement have exceeded original projections. The bottom line for American businesses is their costs will go up making them less competitive in the global economy.
Why would a global treaty unfairly penalize U.S. businesses? To start with, our government will hold our businesses to the standard through federal legislation. This would be fine if the rest of the world would play on the same field. However, this is not the case. Under the terms of the Kyoto Protocol developing and emerging third world nations are exempt from the guidelines. The theory is that the U.S., Europe and Japan were unencumbered by such restrictions during our early growth years so the only fair thing to do is give these developing nations a break in their formative years. As a result China and India are building new coal burning power plants at an alarming rate and by the way these plants are not utilizing clean coal technology. China is now the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide but they are completely exempt from Kyoto.
Meanwhile back at home in the U.S., the federal government has piled on the regulations and restrictions that continue to reduce America’s global competitiveness. The Congress and environmental groups have objections to almost every solution to America’s move toward energy independence which translates into a healthier economy.
Here is a list of potential solutions along with the associated objection:
Nuclear power: Cheap and surprisingly safe, despite the safety concerns the industry has had a long record of safe operations in the U.S. There are 439 nuclear power plants operating in 30 countries around the world, 104 in the U.S. This is one of the largest sources of power in Europe. It also has a smaller carbon footprint than other energy sources. Legitimately, nuclear power is the easiest to argue against due to storage, safety and potential target for terrorism.
Coal Powered Electric Generation: The largest source of power in the U.S. coal plants produce the highest level of carbon dioxide of the primary sources. While there is a lot of work on building clean coal technology debate rages over whether it is real and cost effective. Ironically, coal provides the most immediate solution to U.S. energy independence because we have some of the world’s largest reserves. However, if we are not allowed to use it here at home I am sure we will eventually sell our coal reserves off to China and India allowing them to use the cheaper fuel while we pay higher prices at home.
Oil, Off Shore Drilling: The U.S. also has large potential reserves of our shore line but environmentalists go crazy at the thought of off shore drilling. Again, modern technology has made this much safer and more cost effective. While it may not be the answer long term, increased domestic oil production could help bridge the gap short term while we ramp up alternative energy sources.
Ironically, even the green solutions raise the ire of environmentalists:
Solar Power: Solar technology has evolved to a point where base load solar power is now technically feasible. California has started exploring the possibility of constructing such plants in the Mohave Desert. While today it remains relatively expensive 4x the cost of coal powered electricity per kilowatt hour there is confidence in the engineering community that costs could be cut by as much as two thirds as the technology continues to be refined. The only known negative environmental impact is construction of the plants and the use of transmission lines to bring the power back to the population centers. The environmentalists have already started their campaigns to protect the desert and all the areas the transmission lines will be built on. Prompting a frustrated California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to say, “They say we want renewable energy but they say they don’t want us to put it anywhere. I don’t know if this is ironic or absurd. But, I mean, if we can’t put solar power plants in the Mohave Desert, I don’t know where the hell we can put them.”
Wind Power: While wind power is one of the cleanest and most environmentally friendly sources for power it still receives continuous attacks from environmental and citizens groups. The primary complaints from environmentalists focus on birds and bats with regard to migratory patterns. While citizen groups often complain about the aesthetics of the turbines themselves. Even Sen. Ted Kennedy, supposedly a supporter of all things green, complained about the Cape Wind Project near his summer home. Of course, wind turbines will also require those nasty transmission lines.
I think you are starting to get the point. Ironically, the U.S. Senate already voted 95-0 against participation in the Kyoto Treaty or any similar treaty.
Recognizing that there is not support in Congress to vote this type of legislation into law, on April 17th the Administration used its’ regulatory power through the EPA and announced that greenhouse gas emission were a threat to public health because they contribute to climate change. This sets the stage for the EPA to regulate emissions from a wide spectrum of sources including vehicles, power plants, manufacturing facilities, oil refineries and airplanes. Soon we will be chasing environmental standards that are unrealistic and hurt our ability to compete in the world. These standards will raise the cost of power, transportation and products for both citizens and most American businesses. This feeds into the larger cycle of government rules and regulations that reduce the profitability of our economy, put us at a disadvantage in the global market and slows economic recovery.
The only winners in this situation will be the multi-national businesses such as GE which spent an estimated $20 million on lobbying efforts on all things green. In addition to their huge footprint in wind and solar power, GE has announced the launch of a new subsidiary called Greenhouse Gas Services, which will facilitate the trading of carbon tax credits. GE and others are poised to cash in on this “crisis” while the rest of us are left to foot the bill.
A few more fun facts on the mythical climate change/global warming that is the driver of these efforts:
In the last 100 years the earth has warmed 0.74 degrees Celsius.
Both man and natural changes have both contributed to these changes.
Historically, weather patterns have changed in cyclical patterns.
In support of weather being cyclical here are a few blast from the past: In 1924 both the N.Y. Times and Time magazine wrote alarming articles about global cooling but by the mid 1930’s both were reporting that we were headed for a period of scary global warming. Then in the mid 70’s, during my high school years, both were back to reporting cooling trends and even a potential second ice age.
There is not conclusive evidence that all of the claims being made by the forces of Al Gore are accurate. In fact there is a large group within the scientific community that do not agree. However, media coverage of this opposing view is limited and most attempts at public debate on the issue gets no notice.
Nitrous oxide and methane which warms the planet at 296 times and 23 times the rate of carbon dioxide respectively is a natural emission of live stock so maybe we should all be vegans and eliminate the pesky livestock population all together. Wait PETA will never go for that.
Environmentally friendly (hybrid) cars seem like a good idea. However here is some perspective - it would take 3 billion Ford Expeditions driving 15,000 miles a year each to equal the amount of carbon dioxide emissions that will enter the atmosphere from China’s increased use of coal powered electricity by 2020. (side note: it would take Ford 15,000 years to sell that many Expeditions based on current sales stats)
Last but not least a few of quotes from leading environmentalist that should leave you wondering if climate change initiatives are about protecting the planet or social reengineering:
“To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest.” - Stephen Schneider, 1989 Schneider was the lead author of the 2007 UN IPCC report. In 1970 he was also the author of one of the reports that lead to the global cooling scare.
From Paul Ehrlich, current president of the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford University a series of predictions:
1969 - “I’ll take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000”
1970 - “In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.”
1978 - “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
And the one that should frighten you the most……
“Climate change (provides) the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
“No matter if the science is all phony, there are still collateral environmental benefits” to global warming policies - Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environmental Minister
This brings us back to Cap & Trade and the Bait and Switch:
The Bait: We are in the midst of an environmental melt down and all good citizens of the world must work together to avert impending disaster. This seems logical and reasonable on the surface if the rules are fair.
The Switch: Turns out the rules are not fair. The U.S. government is not protecting America’s economy or the best interests of its’ citizens by not insisting on a level playing field.
In the end Cap & Trade will be just another undisclosed tax and financial burden on the citizens of the U.S. It is an international wealth shifting program that holds the U.S. to the highest standard while holding China arguably the other super power to none.
Write your representatives and tell them we are not interested in Cap & Trade or subsidizing the cost of switching to alternative energy systems on an artificial schedule. We will be good citizens of the world. Through American innovation we will continue to move toward cleaner energy and more thoughtful environmental policies but not at the expense of our own economic security. Scare tactics aside, we have time to both “fix” the problems and protect our economy.
(Some of the Fun Facts and Quotes courtesy of an Inconvenient Book by Glenn Beck)
The Cap - It is a system that sets a limit or a cap on emissions generated by fossil fuel use. Companies will be given an emission limit based on either a formula or a historical profile. Over time the limit would be reduced to achieve a target that in theory would reduce the cumulative global output to 80% of 1990 actual output by 2050.
The Trade - Companies that perform below their allocated levels can bank the unused units and sell them to companies that exceed their allocated units.
Theoretically, the system would be adopted worldwide and the total global cap would be designed to reduce global warming. This sounds great right?
So are you ready for the rest of the story?
First, the implementation of this program will have a major impact on our economy and your wallet.
- The implementation of this type of program could result in an increase in electricity rates by as much as 60% in the next 10 years.
- It could add an additional $0.30 to $0.40 to the price of a gallon of gas.
Second, the various proposals all require quick implementation so there are no provisions for easing into them. Since, 85% of the energy used in the U.S. is a by product of fossil fuel moving quickly to alternative energy sources will be difficult. First the technology and required infrastructure must be built before it can be adopted. This will be an expensive change. Europe has been attempting to implement these measures since 1997 when many European nations signed the Kyoto Protocol which is an international treaty to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The time and cost to implement have exceeded original projections. The bottom line for American businesses is their costs will go up making them less competitive in the global economy.
Why would a global treaty unfairly penalize U.S. businesses? To start with, our government will hold our businesses to the standard through federal legislation. This would be fine if the rest of the world would play on the same field. However, this is not the case. Under the terms of the Kyoto Protocol developing and emerging third world nations are exempt from the guidelines. The theory is that the U.S., Europe and Japan were unencumbered by such restrictions during our early growth years so the only fair thing to do is give these developing nations a break in their formative years. As a result China and India are building new coal burning power plants at an alarming rate and by the way these plants are not utilizing clean coal technology. China is now the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide but they are completely exempt from Kyoto.
Meanwhile back at home in the U.S., the federal government has piled on the regulations and restrictions that continue to reduce America’s global competitiveness. The Congress and environmental groups have objections to almost every solution to America’s move toward energy independence which translates into a healthier economy.
Here is a list of potential solutions along with the associated objection:
Nuclear power: Cheap and surprisingly safe, despite the safety concerns the industry has had a long record of safe operations in the U.S. There are 439 nuclear power plants operating in 30 countries around the world, 104 in the U.S. This is one of the largest sources of power in Europe. It also has a smaller carbon footprint than other energy sources. Legitimately, nuclear power is the easiest to argue against due to storage, safety and potential target for terrorism.
Coal Powered Electric Generation: The largest source of power in the U.S. coal plants produce the highest level of carbon dioxide of the primary sources. While there is a lot of work on building clean coal technology debate rages over whether it is real and cost effective. Ironically, coal provides the most immediate solution to U.S. energy independence because we have some of the world’s largest reserves. However, if we are not allowed to use it here at home I am sure we will eventually sell our coal reserves off to China and India allowing them to use the cheaper fuel while we pay higher prices at home.
Oil, Off Shore Drilling: The U.S. also has large potential reserves of our shore line but environmentalists go crazy at the thought of off shore drilling. Again, modern technology has made this much safer and more cost effective. While it may not be the answer long term, increased domestic oil production could help bridge the gap short term while we ramp up alternative energy sources.
Ironically, even the green solutions raise the ire of environmentalists:
Solar Power: Solar technology has evolved to a point where base load solar power is now technically feasible. California has started exploring the possibility of constructing such plants in the Mohave Desert. While today it remains relatively expensive 4x the cost of coal powered electricity per kilowatt hour there is confidence in the engineering community that costs could be cut by as much as two thirds as the technology continues to be refined. The only known negative environmental impact is construction of the plants and the use of transmission lines to bring the power back to the population centers. The environmentalists have already started their campaigns to protect the desert and all the areas the transmission lines will be built on. Prompting a frustrated California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to say, “They say we want renewable energy but they say they don’t want us to put it anywhere. I don’t know if this is ironic or absurd. But, I mean, if we can’t put solar power plants in the Mohave Desert, I don’t know where the hell we can put them.”
Wind Power: While wind power is one of the cleanest and most environmentally friendly sources for power it still receives continuous attacks from environmental and citizens groups. The primary complaints from environmentalists focus on birds and bats with regard to migratory patterns. While citizen groups often complain about the aesthetics of the turbines themselves. Even Sen. Ted Kennedy, supposedly a supporter of all things green, complained about the Cape Wind Project near his summer home. Of course, wind turbines will also require those nasty transmission lines.
I think you are starting to get the point. Ironically, the U.S. Senate already voted 95-0 against participation in the Kyoto Treaty or any similar treaty.
Recognizing that there is not support in Congress to vote this type of legislation into law, on April 17th the Administration used its’ regulatory power through the EPA and announced that greenhouse gas emission were a threat to public health because they contribute to climate change. This sets the stage for the EPA to regulate emissions from a wide spectrum of sources including vehicles, power plants, manufacturing facilities, oil refineries and airplanes. Soon we will be chasing environmental standards that are unrealistic and hurt our ability to compete in the world. These standards will raise the cost of power, transportation and products for both citizens and most American businesses. This feeds into the larger cycle of government rules and regulations that reduce the profitability of our economy, put us at a disadvantage in the global market and slows economic recovery.
The only winners in this situation will be the multi-national businesses such as GE which spent an estimated $20 million on lobbying efforts on all things green. In addition to their huge footprint in wind and solar power, GE has announced the launch of a new subsidiary called Greenhouse Gas Services, which will facilitate the trading of carbon tax credits. GE and others are poised to cash in on this “crisis” while the rest of us are left to foot the bill.
A few more fun facts on the mythical climate change/global warming that is the driver of these efforts:
In the last 100 years the earth has warmed 0.74 degrees Celsius.
Both man and natural changes have both contributed to these changes.
Historically, weather patterns have changed in cyclical patterns.
In support of weather being cyclical here are a few blast from the past: In 1924 both the N.Y. Times and Time magazine wrote alarming articles about global cooling but by the mid 1930’s both were reporting that we were headed for a period of scary global warming. Then in the mid 70’s, during my high school years, both were back to reporting cooling trends and even a potential second ice age.
There is not conclusive evidence that all of the claims being made by the forces of Al Gore are accurate. In fact there is a large group within the scientific community that do not agree. However, media coverage of this opposing view is limited and most attempts at public debate on the issue gets no notice.
Nitrous oxide and methane which warms the planet at 296 times and 23 times the rate of carbon dioxide respectively is a natural emission of live stock so maybe we should all be vegans and eliminate the pesky livestock population all together. Wait PETA will never go for that.
Environmentally friendly (hybrid) cars seem like a good idea. However here is some perspective - it would take 3 billion Ford Expeditions driving 15,000 miles a year each to equal the amount of carbon dioxide emissions that will enter the atmosphere from China’s increased use of coal powered electricity by 2020. (side note: it would take Ford 15,000 years to sell that many Expeditions based on current sales stats)
Last but not least a few of quotes from leading environmentalist that should leave you wondering if climate change initiatives are about protecting the planet or social reengineering:
“To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest.” - Stephen Schneider, 1989 Schneider was the lead author of the 2007 UN IPCC report. In 1970 he was also the author of one of the reports that lead to the global cooling scare.
From Paul Ehrlich, current president of the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford University a series of predictions:
1969 - “I’ll take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000”
1970 - “In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.”
1978 - “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
And the one that should frighten you the most……
“Climate change (provides) the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
“No matter if the science is all phony, there are still collateral environmental benefits” to global warming policies - Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environmental Minister
This brings us back to Cap & Trade and the Bait and Switch:
The Bait: We are in the midst of an environmental melt down and all good citizens of the world must work together to avert impending disaster. This seems logical and reasonable on the surface if the rules are fair.
The Switch: Turns out the rules are not fair. The U.S. government is not protecting America’s economy or the best interests of its’ citizens by not insisting on a level playing field.
In the end Cap & Trade will be just another undisclosed tax and financial burden on the citizens of the U.S. It is an international wealth shifting program that holds the U.S. to the highest standard while holding China arguably the other super power to none.
Write your representatives and tell them we are not interested in Cap & Trade or subsidizing the cost of switching to alternative energy systems on an artificial schedule. We will be good citizens of the world. Through American innovation we will continue to move toward cleaner energy and more thoughtful environmental policies but not at the expense of our own economic security. Scare tactics aside, we have time to both “fix” the problems and protect our economy.
(Some of the Fun Facts and Quotes courtesy of an Inconvenient Book by Glenn Beck)
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
After the Tea Party.............
So what's next? Now that the Tea Parties are over, will those who participated go quietly into the night after having their moment in the sun as many in the liberal media are predicting? If our little group in St. Paul, MN is any indication, I think not.
As our emcee Sue Jeffers said, "This isn't a one-time hissy fit; this is the start of something big."
Our grassroots steering team is already planning future events for July 4th (Independence Day) and Sept. 17th (Constitution Day). We are also going support the events of other groups that became part of the coalition that made our event so successful, starting with the Jason Lewis Tax cut Rally on May 2nd.
The inaccurate media coverage and the continued bashing of the Tea Parties by the liberal press has only strengthened our commitment to our message and our cause. We are not a bunch of right wing extremists trying to be disruptive; we are concerned citizens trying to make our voices heard and participate in our political process. We are not protesting people or political parties; we are protesting the direction and policies of the current Congress and the new Administration.
Our issues are:
· excessive taxes
· out of control government spending
· nationalization of private businesses
· redistribution of wealth
· the T.A.R.P. bailout plan
· loss of individual freedoms
· excessive government regulation
· socialized medicine
· loss of national sovereignty
It is time for concerned citizens everywhere to find a way to get involved. We have a unique right as Americans to participate in the process of government. If you value your freedom, you have a responsibility to exercise these rights. Our Constitution is the most original government charter every created and it gives to Americans guarantees of liberties and freedoms that exist no where else in the world. Those rights and freedoms fueled America's greatness, the American Dream and the innovation that made us the most powerful nation in the world.
As Dr. W. Cleon Skousen asserts in his book, The 5000 Year Leap, the founding fathers established 28 principles of freedom which were framed into the Constitution. Adherence to these principles in our laws and beliefs for the past 200 years has created more progress than had been made in the previous 5000 years. Why would we want to give this up?
America it is time to wake up! Let's take back our country and our destiny. We are a good and generous country. We need to return to a government that follows our Constitution and its principles. The Tea Parties represent a desire by many citizens to return to these roots. Through our peaceful rallies we attempted to promote these ideals and make our voices heard by those that we elected.
As Thomas Jefferson said,” I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms are in the physical."
So go, find your voice and join us. We are not going away, we are here to stay!
As our emcee Sue Jeffers said, "This isn't a one-time hissy fit; this is the start of something big."
Our grassroots steering team is already planning future events for July 4th (Independence Day) and Sept. 17th (Constitution Day). We are also going support the events of other groups that became part of the coalition that made our event so successful, starting with the Jason Lewis Tax cut Rally on May 2nd.
The inaccurate media coverage and the continued bashing of the Tea Parties by the liberal press has only strengthened our commitment to our message and our cause. We are not a bunch of right wing extremists trying to be disruptive; we are concerned citizens trying to make our voices heard and participate in our political process. We are not protesting people or political parties; we are protesting the direction and policies of the current Congress and the new Administration.
Our issues are:
· excessive taxes
· out of control government spending
· nationalization of private businesses
· redistribution of wealth
· the T.A.R.P. bailout plan
· loss of individual freedoms
· excessive government regulation
· socialized medicine
· loss of national sovereignty
It is time for concerned citizens everywhere to find a way to get involved. We have a unique right as Americans to participate in the process of government. If you value your freedom, you have a responsibility to exercise these rights. Our Constitution is the most original government charter every created and it gives to Americans guarantees of liberties and freedoms that exist no where else in the world. Those rights and freedoms fueled America's greatness, the American Dream and the innovation that made us the most powerful nation in the world.
As Dr. W. Cleon Skousen asserts in his book, The 5000 Year Leap, the founding fathers established 28 principles of freedom which were framed into the Constitution. Adherence to these principles in our laws and beliefs for the past 200 years has created more progress than had been made in the previous 5000 years. Why would we want to give this up?
America it is time to wake up! Let's take back our country and our destiny. We are a good and generous country. We need to return to a government that follows our Constitution and its principles. The Tea Parties represent a desire by many citizens to return to these roots. Through our peaceful rallies we attempted to promote these ideals and make our voices heard by those that we elected.
As Thomas Jefferson said,” I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms are in the physical."
So go, find your voice and join us. We are not going away, we are here to stay!
Sunday, April 19, 2009
States’ Rights Bills: a legitimate move by state governments or a plot by right wing extremists……………
Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or the people.
- The United States Constitution
Ever heard of the 10th Amendment? It was put in the U.S. Constitution by the founding fathers to protect us from a run away federal government. The Constitution clearly and deliberately delegates the authority that is allocated to the federal government. Everything else falls to either state or local government and allows the will of the citizens to be the deciding factor in many aspects of the law. The idea being that local and state governments would be better able to determine community needs than the federal government.
Why were the founding fathers so intent on delineating state and federal government? Probably because many of them or their families had left Europe to escape oppressive governments or monarchies that thought they knew what was best for everyone on all issues from religion to taxes. By limiting the scope of the federal government they were creating a union of sovereign states that allowed for unique differences based on the desires of each states’ population.
“The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.” James Madison, The Federalist
Continuous over reaching by the federal government for the last twenty years is causing a backlash at the state level. The movement for state sovereignty has gained momentum because the balance of power has tilted too far and for too long in the direction of the federal government. These bills are not political statements of independence. They are a rejection of the increasing cost of unfunded mandates being placed upon the states by the federal government. Currently, there are at least 30 states with bills before their state legislatures. As out of control federal spending increases, so do the odds of some of these sovereignty bills passing in the next year.
Last week just in time for April 15th and the Tax Day Tea Parties that had been announced, the Department of Homeland Security released a report that detailed the department’s concerns about increased security threats from “right wing extremists”. One of the ideologies warned about in the report was … states’ rights. Contrary to rumors most supporters of states’ rights are not interested in secession or avoiding their tax obligations but rather restoring the appropriate balance (as defined by the Constitution)
between states and the federal government. Make no mistake those in power at the federal level are not in favor of reducing the size and scope of Washington’s authority. As this movement gains momentum expect increased friction and fighting over this important issue.
More things to consider as this story unfolds…..
“Right wing extremists” are not the problem - radical legislators and activist judges are a bigger threat. A threat that the founding fathers anticipated, so they provided no Constitutional power for Congress to override state laws. Also if they really intended to give Congress the authority to act in the interest of the “general welfare,” why would Article I, Section 8, have been included ? Keep in mind, it also did not give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over the states.
The Tenth Amendment was written after the Constitutional was ratified. It was added to reinforce that the states remained individual and unique sovereignties and as such, were empowered in areas that the Constitution did not delegate to the federal government. Therefore, any federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress’ authority is a usurpation of state sovereignty making it illegal.
As the Administration and the Congress make plans for massive bailouts and expanded social programs, state governments are wondering where the money will come from. If they don’t comply they can lose federal funding and if they do, many of these programs come with long strings that result in unfunded obligations for the states. Reasserting their sovereignty maybe the only way to take a stand.
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." -- Patrick Henry
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” — James Madison
- The United States Constitution
Ever heard of the 10th Amendment? It was put in the U.S. Constitution by the founding fathers to protect us from a run away federal government. The Constitution clearly and deliberately delegates the authority that is allocated to the federal government. Everything else falls to either state or local government and allows the will of the citizens to be the deciding factor in many aspects of the law. The idea being that local and state governments would be better able to determine community needs than the federal government.
Why were the founding fathers so intent on delineating state and federal government? Probably because many of them or their families had left Europe to escape oppressive governments or monarchies that thought they knew what was best for everyone on all issues from religion to taxes. By limiting the scope of the federal government they were creating a union of sovereign states that allowed for unique differences based on the desires of each states’ population.
“The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.” James Madison, The Federalist
Continuous over reaching by the federal government for the last twenty years is causing a backlash at the state level. The movement for state sovereignty has gained momentum because the balance of power has tilted too far and for too long in the direction of the federal government. These bills are not political statements of independence. They are a rejection of the increasing cost of unfunded mandates being placed upon the states by the federal government. Currently, there are at least 30 states with bills before their state legislatures. As out of control federal spending increases, so do the odds of some of these sovereignty bills passing in the next year.
Last week just in time for April 15th and the Tax Day Tea Parties that had been announced, the Department of Homeland Security released a report that detailed the department’s concerns about increased security threats from “right wing extremists”. One of the ideologies warned about in the report was … states’ rights. Contrary to rumors most supporters of states’ rights are not interested in secession or avoiding their tax obligations but rather restoring the appropriate balance (as defined by the Constitution)
between states and the federal government. Make no mistake those in power at the federal level are not in favor of reducing the size and scope of Washington’s authority. As this movement gains momentum expect increased friction and fighting over this important issue.
More things to consider as this story unfolds…..
“Right wing extremists” are not the problem - radical legislators and activist judges are a bigger threat. A threat that the founding fathers anticipated, so they provided no Constitutional power for Congress to override state laws. Also if they really intended to give Congress the authority to act in the interest of the “general welfare,” why would Article I, Section 8, have been included ? Keep in mind, it also did not give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over the states.
The Tenth Amendment was written after the Constitutional was ratified. It was added to reinforce that the states remained individual and unique sovereignties and as such, were empowered in areas that the Constitution did not delegate to the federal government. Therefore, any federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress’ authority is a usurpation of state sovereignty making it illegal.
As the Administration and the Congress make plans for massive bailouts and expanded social programs, state governments are wondering where the money will come from. If they don’t comply they can lose federal funding and if they do, many of these programs come with long strings that result in unfunded obligations for the states. Reasserting their sovereignty maybe the only way to take a stand.
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." -- Patrick Henry
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” — James Madison
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)