On 8/30/2011 the DC Examiner ran this story about a power plant closing in Alexandria, VA: Alexandria power plant to shut down
On 7/11/2011 the DC Examiner ran this story about Pepco's customer satisfaction sinking to 16 year lows: Satisfaction with Pepco plunges
Environmental extremists hale the announcement of the closing of the Potomac River Generating Station as reported by the Examiner on 8/31. Meanwhile, consumers award Pepco with a score of 54 on a scale of 1-100, and Business Insider declares Pepco the, "most hated," company in America. The low rating comes from none other than repeated outages during adverse weather conditions that leave customers without power for a few hours or even a few days. If these extremists continue to have their way with coal fired power plants, energy rationing is just around the corner. And if that happens, energy customers will yearn for the days when they complained about outages lasting for hours or days. In its place policy makers will institute peak usage surcharge rates and regularly scheduled blackouts. Don't be surprised if brownouts become commonplace too. The extremists cite asthma as a primary reason for the advocating the plant's closure. Take it from somebody with asthma, the extremists successful efforts to replace my effective albuterol inhaler with the, "more ozone friendly," version have done far more harm to me than the Potomac River Generating Station. Alexandria mayor Bill Euille calls this great news. Why doesn't he put actions to words and sever every power line to his personal home until a new plant generates what the closing power plant won't?
Monday, September 5, 2011
Friday, August 26, 2011
Dueling Governors is Federalism at Work
The dialog and comparisons between Governor O'Malley and Governor McDonnell published in the past few issues of the Examiner are very informative.
McDonnell, O'Malley spar over economy, spending
McDonnell, O'Malley differ on unions' rights
Each of the two state so may enact its own policies and the people can choose to vote with their feet if they prefer one set
of policies versus the other. We have two states in very comparable situations. Both sit adjacent to the nations capitol, both have a large presence of government jobs and related contracting fueling their respective economies, and of course both have very similar climates. The differences of the state lay rooted in policy. One has right-to-work legislation while the other imposes collective bargaining. One taxes at low rates, and the other taxes at high rates. One believes government spending serves as a major component to economic recovery, and the other believes that the private sector does that better than government. DC has it's own approaches to these issues, more similarly to our neighbor directly to the north. Let's
watch this ongoing comparison and judge them on results.
As a DC resident who is trying to decide where I may want to live on a more permanent basis one day, I'm watching this debate very closely. Which of the three areas will offer me the best environment as a resident, taxpayer, and recipient of government services? I asked Mayor Gray at a town hall several months ago what he's doing to make DC more competitive to bring new business investment into DC, citing how low DC ranks in business friendliness. To paraphrase his answer, he claims DC doesn't have to worry about attracting new business because it already offers a competitive environment. Decide for yourself if that addresses the issue.
Given all the evidence of budgets, deficits, and unemployment figures, Virginia is cleaning the other two's clock. This is federalism at work, where we can observe which ideas work the best in our nation, and our federal government should recognize that for this reason amongst others state governments should drive most public policy, not the federal government. If each respective party believes their ideas truly are the better ideas, they should embrace this concept to far
greater degree.
McDonnell, O'Malley spar over economy, spending
McDonnell, O'Malley differ on unions' rights
Each of the two state so may enact its own policies and the people can choose to vote with their feet if they prefer one set
of policies versus the other. We have two states in very comparable situations. Both sit adjacent to the nations capitol, both have a large presence of government jobs and related contracting fueling their respective economies, and of course both have very similar climates. The differences of the state lay rooted in policy. One has right-to-work legislation while the other imposes collective bargaining. One taxes at low rates, and the other taxes at high rates. One believes government spending serves as a major component to economic recovery, and the other believes that the private sector does that better than government. DC has it's own approaches to these issues, more similarly to our neighbor directly to the north. Let's
watch this ongoing comparison and judge them on results.
As a DC resident who is trying to decide where I may want to live on a more permanent basis one day, I'm watching this debate very closely. Which of the three areas will offer me the best environment as a resident, taxpayer, and recipient of government services? I asked Mayor Gray at a town hall several months ago what he's doing to make DC more competitive to bring new business investment into DC, citing how low DC ranks in business friendliness. To paraphrase his answer, he claims DC doesn't have to worry about attracting new business because it already offers a competitive environment. Decide for yourself if that addresses the issue.
Given all the evidence of budgets, deficits, and unemployment figures, Virginia is cleaning the other two's clock. This is federalism at work, where we can observe which ideas work the best in our nation, and our federal government should recognize that for this reason amongst others state governments should drive most public policy, not the federal government. If each respective party believes their ideas truly are the better ideas, they should embrace this concept to far
greater degree.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Answering Warren Buffet's Call to Mega-Tax the Mega-Wealthy
Warren Buffet has called for the government to drastically increase taxes on the very wealthy: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=3.
But does this really serve our nation's best interest?
Our country is better off with a few billion airs who can amass the kind of wealth to have enough power to challenge government. Government being the only big guy on the block isn't good for the country. When billion airs and large corporations spend money to confront the government over poorly crafted regulations that inhibit private sector growth, for example, we all benefit. I think of this is as class action law suit against government on behalf of the people, albeit corporations and billion airs very well do this for the purposes of self benefit, but that doesn't change the fact that society as a whole may benefit too. It's not realistic to take the position that if we don't like certain rules and regs, then we just vote them out. First, nobody can vote on one single issue. Second, waiting for an election cycle to exercise voting power may not offer the necessary expediency of addressing the issue.
All that said, as a catholic and a person who values charity, I do believe that billion airs have a moral responsibility to help improve the lives of those around them who are less fortunate. However, giving excessive amounts of dollars to a government to (a) pay out to the special interest, (b) funnel the money to those who carry their favor, and (c) take it's cut along the way resembles no real sense of morality. Neither does imposing this mandate on other billion airs resemble any sense of morality either.
But does this really serve our nation's best interest?
Our country is better off with a few billion airs who can amass the kind of wealth to have enough power to challenge government. Government being the only big guy on the block isn't good for the country. When billion airs and large corporations spend money to confront the government over poorly crafted regulations that inhibit private sector growth, for example, we all benefit. I think of this is as class action law suit against government on behalf of the people, albeit corporations and billion airs very well do this for the purposes of self benefit, but that doesn't change the fact that society as a whole may benefit too. It's not realistic to take the position that if we don't like certain rules and regs, then we just vote them out. First, nobody can vote on one single issue. Second, waiting for an election cycle to exercise voting power may not offer the necessary expediency of addressing the issue.
All that said, as a catholic and a person who values charity, I do believe that billion airs have a moral responsibility to help improve the lives of those around them who are less fortunate. However, giving excessive amounts of dollars to a government to (a) pay out to the special interest, (b) funnel the money to those who carry their favor, and (c) take it's cut along the way resembles no real sense of morality. Neither does imposing this mandate on other billion airs resemble any sense of morality either.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Global Warming Alarmists Foiled by Non-Agenda Driven Science
Well, I'm not going to hold me breath for an apology from global warming alarmists for comparing people who prefer non-agenda driven, junk science to Holocaust deniers.
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
Apparently CO2 doesn't contribute to a greenhouse effect on the planet.
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
Apparently CO2 doesn't contribute to a greenhouse effect on the planet.
Monday, July 25, 2011
7 Untruths of the President's July 25, 2011 Speech
Falsehood #1: In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus, but instead of using it to pay off our debt, the money was used to pay off new tax cuts.
Why it's false: After tax cuts in 2003, from 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. (Even with the recession, 2008 revenues exceeded 2000 revenues by $1T.)
Falsehood #2: The recession meant less money was coming in, and it required us to spend more.
Why it's false: The government spent $278K per job created. In March, 2009 US underemployment stood at 15.6%. In July of 2011, US underemployment stands at 18.7%. This outcome does not substantiate this need.
Falsehood #3: ...if nothing is asked of the top of the income scale.
Why it's false: The top 1% income earners pay greater than 40% of total US government revenue. The bottom 95% pay less than 60% of the total US government revenue.
Falsehood #4:Republicans in the house are insisting on a cuts-only approach.
Why it's false: The House of Representatives passed a bill entitled Cut, Cap, and Balance. It raises the debt ceiling by $2.4T, as requested by the Democrats.
Falsehood #5: Most Americans don't understand how we can ask a Senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare benefits before we ask a corporate jet owner or the oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don't get.
Why it's false: The oil companies benefit from a $4B per year tax credit. Eliminating the corporate jet loophole would increase government revenue by $3B over the next decade. The federal debt is >$14T. If the US government collected 100% of income earned above $250K/year, 100% of all fortune 500 company profits, and 100% of the assets owned by individuals worth $1M or more, the US government could only pay for January through August of the 2011 budget. Loopholes aside, the rich pay their fair share.
Falsehood #6: If [a spending cuts only approach] happens and we default, we would not have enough money to pay all of our bills, bills that include monthly social security checks.
Why it's false: Social security has a trust fund and revenues capable of funding all social security checks through the end of President Obama's current term. A prioritization of loan payments avoids a default of any kind, which the government has sufficient revenue to pay without a debt ceiling increase.
Falsehood #7: Our AAA rating would be downgraded. Interest rates would skyrocket.
Why it's false: See answer to falsehood #6. Side Note: The US risks a loss of it's AAA rating and skyrocketing interest rates with an increase of it's debt to GDP ratio, which a debt ceiling increase will cause.
Why it's false: After tax cuts in 2003, from 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. (Even with the recession, 2008 revenues exceeded 2000 revenues by $1T.)
Falsehood #2: The recession meant less money was coming in, and it required us to spend more.
Why it's false: The government spent $278K per job created. In March, 2009 US underemployment stood at 15.6%. In July of 2011, US underemployment stands at 18.7%. This outcome does not substantiate this need.
Falsehood #3: ...if nothing is asked of the top of the income scale.
Why it's false: The top 1% income earners pay greater than 40% of total US government revenue. The bottom 95% pay less than 60% of the total US government revenue.
Falsehood #4:Republicans in the house are insisting on a cuts-only approach.
Why it's false: The House of Representatives passed a bill entitled Cut, Cap, and Balance. It raises the debt ceiling by $2.4T, as requested by the Democrats.
Falsehood #5: Most Americans don't understand how we can ask a Senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare benefits before we ask a corporate jet owner or the oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don't get.
Why it's false: The oil companies benefit from a $4B per year tax credit. Eliminating the corporate jet loophole would increase government revenue by $3B over the next decade. The federal debt is >$14T. If the US government collected 100% of income earned above $250K/year, 100% of all fortune 500 company profits, and 100% of the assets owned by individuals worth $1M or more, the US government could only pay for January through August of the 2011 budget. Loopholes aside, the rich pay their fair share.
Falsehood #6: If [a spending cuts only approach] happens and we default, we would not have enough money to pay all of our bills, bills that include monthly social security checks.
Why it's false: Social security has a trust fund and revenues capable of funding all social security checks through the end of President Obama's current term. A prioritization of loan payments avoids a default of any kind, which the government has sufficient revenue to pay without a debt ceiling increase.
Falsehood #7: Our AAA rating would be downgraded. Interest rates would skyrocket.
Why it's false: See answer to falsehood #6. Side Note: The US risks a loss of it's AAA rating and skyrocketing interest rates with an increase of it's debt to GDP ratio, which a debt ceiling increase will cause.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Making a Case for Federalism
On 7/24, a story ran about Dodd-Frank where Amy Friend illustrates pigs feeding at the troughs, even the very ones they’ve built.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/07/dodd-franks-winners-revolving-door-regulators
This story addresses the same issue at a macro level. American public loves to rail against lobbying while hailing the regulations that enable it. There’s no coincidence lobbying escalated over the past decade and regulations such as Sarbanes-Oxley, Obamacare, and Dodd-Frank passed. During the dot com boom, tech industry focused more of its investment in products and personnel. After the Microsoft anit-trust trials, they now spend on lobbying. Tax dollars leave states to the federal government, and the states have to grovel to get those dollars back. State legislators even have lobbying representation! These circumstances call for state to do more while the federal government does less with respect to taxing and regulating. This also has a role in solving our debt crisis because states can’t print money. They have to balance their budgets. This way, conservative locales could have the regulations and taxing they want while liberal locales could respectively have the same, and we could all happily coexists with less lobbying related gridlock in
Washington.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/07/dodd-franks-winners-revolving-door-regulators
This story addresses the same issue at a macro level. American public loves to rail against lobbying while hailing the regulations that enable it. There’s no coincidence lobbying escalated over the past decade and regulations such as Sarbanes-Oxley, Obamacare, and Dodd-Frank passed. During the dot com boom, tech industry focused more of its investment in products and personnel. After the Microsoft anit-trust trials, they now spend on lobbying. Tax dollars leave states to the federal government, and the states have to grovel to get those dollars back. State legislators even have lobbying representation! These circumstances call for state to do more while the federal government does less with respect to taxing and regulating. This also has a role in solving our debt crisis because states can’t print money. They have to balance their budgets. This way, conservative locales could have the regulations and taxing they want while liberal locales could respectively have the same, and we could all happily coexists with less lobbying related gridlock in
Washington.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Self Defense is a Human Right
Events at the Caribbean Carnival serve as another example of what dangers DC residents regularly face. This incident and others connected to it have resulted in harm to innocent bystanders. DC residents can find themselves in the paths of vicious, violent perpetrators at any time. Each person is endowed with the human right of self defense. Whether and how is for that individual to choose, but DC government impedes upon this by infringing upon our right to carry concealed firearms. As the article documents, gangs and teen mobs are increasingly tech savvy, creative, and ambitious. Police can’t be on scene at a second’s notice. 3:42 elapsed during video capturing Saturday’s melee before a policeman enters the footage. A lot can happen in 3:42. It’s time for the mayor and council to get real about gun ownership.
Video link: http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhafNEnJmHv3Sr08EL
Video link: http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhafNEnJmHv3Sr08EL
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)