By Austin Hill
It’s an extraordinary thing when an American President says he wants to “bankrupt” an American industry. And while it’s difficult to know the implications of such a thing – we may be in the process of finding out.
Back in January of 2008, presidential candidate Barack Obama sat for an interview with the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper. In that discussion, our future President was quizzed aggressively about his “green energy” agenda, and how he would usher in an era of “green jobs.” He was also asked how, as President, he would curtail the manufacture, sale, and consumption of more traditional energy forms that are regarded as environmentally hazardous.
Responding to these questions, a fatigued and hoarse-voiced Senator Obama stated, in part:
“Let me describe my overall policy. What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade system in to place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out there. I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gasses that is emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market, and the ratcheted-down caps that are proposed every year. So if somebody wants to build a coal power plant, they can, it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re gonna be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted…”
From there, Mr. Obama went on to further explain that the revenues generated by “charging polluters” for their emissions, would be utilized to create wind and solar power plants. Thus, the candidate reasoned, America would begin a new era of “clean energy.”
For a variety of different reasons, these were some extraordinary remarks from a presidential candidate. For one, they presupposed that things always go according to plans, when the government is running the show. Take money away from the coal industry and give it to the “solar” and “wind” industries , so Mr. Obama reasoned, and everything would be fine – his idyllic vision of “green energy” would necessarily come to pass, simply because he said so. History shows that governmental endeavors are never this simplistic (even the fairly recent history of our government’s handling of the Gulf oil spill and Hurricane Katrina demonstrate this), but politicians of Mr. Obama’s ilk don’t like to be bound by the lessons of history.
The candidate’s remarks were also extraordinary for their callousness. People like Barack Obama who lack an adequate understanding of free market economics, often fail to understand the human dimensions of economic activity. They envision some sort of arbitrarily defined “collective good” in their policies – in this case it was Obama’s dream of “clean energy” – but they fail to understand that unless one first seeks to ensure the wellbeing of human individuals, then there will never be any “collective” wellbeing at all.
In the process, this dangerous kind of thinking reduces economic decision making down to only considering inanimate things – in this case for Mr. Obama, it was all about “coal,” “wind,” “pollution” and “dollars” -while the actual lives of people employed in the coal industry weren’t even considered.
Yet Mr. Obama’s remarks, in as much as he confidently stated that his policies would “bankrupt” the coal industry, did have real implications for real individual human lives. Why would anyone – least of all a future President of the United States – want to “bankrupt” an industry, and put people out of work? One would have thought that these remarks may have had struck a note of concern for voters in coal producing states like Pennsylvania, Colorado, Indiana or Ohio.
But now, less than two years into his presidency, some real human beings who are employed in the coal industry are suffering.
Last week in the coal mining town of Logan, West Virginia, residents there convened the first of several prayer vigils for the saving of their coal businesses. Members of the clergy joined the broader community to offer spiritual assistance as people suffer the loss of jobs, and to pray that their industry will be sustained and reinvigorated.
At least one participant in the event noted that part of the coal industry’s struggle may very well be a matter of bad public relations, and that there may very well be some people who don’t want the industry to exist. There are those, noted Jim Frye of the Logan County Chamber of Commerce, who are seeking to “severely limit our industry,” and there are also those “who would argue to destroy our industry…”
These concerns should not come as a surprise, given President Obama’s campaign pledge. Granted, his glorious “cap and trade” vision has not happened yet, but more stringent regulations on the coal industry have, with more “crack downs” from the E.P.A. are on the way in 2011. And it is a sad day in America when Americans must pray for protection from their own government.
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Monday, December 20, 2010
Magic Moment: Red Skelton Teaches "The Pledge Of Allegiance"
On January 14, 1969, while performing live on THE RED SKELTON HOUR, CBS TV, Red touched the hearts of millions of Americans with his "Pledge Of Allegiance", in which he explained the meaning of each and every word.
Red's "Pledge" has, on several occasions, been read into the Congressional Record of the United States and has also received numerous awards.
Every American, school child and adult should watch this video and from time to time watch it again.
Red's "Pledge" has, on several occasions, been read into the Congressional Record of the United States and has also received numerous awards.
Every American, school child and adult should watch this video and from time to time watch it again.
Click to view video
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Big Government Economics Is Dead (Again)
By Austin Hill
Does the government confiscation of private wealth stifle economic growth, or does government manage our money to better ends and produce greater economic results than private individuals?
This is the question that has been weighing in the balance, as the President and the Congress haggle over taxation rates for next year. And there’s only one correct answer to this question – if it is our collective American goal to “grow the economy” and “stimulate job creation” then we absolutely must arrive at the correct answer – and yet the President and much of the Congress seem to want it both ways.
The collective answer to this question was delivered from the American people via the U.S. Senate last weekend. President Obama’s plan to target “rich people” and raise their taxes while keeping taxation rates the same for other Americans went to a vote, and the Senate, controlled by the President’s own Democrat party, rejected the plan.
In response to this rejection, President Obama lambasted Republicans last Tuesday (despite the fact that HIS party delivered the “no” vote), calling them “hostage takers,” and struggling to make the case that all us middleclass Americans are being harmed because “rich people” aren’t getting sufficiently gouged by the IRS. It was a sad picture of a sitting U.S. President grappling with the dismissal of his agenda, and a painful example of what happens when rigid, left-wing ideology takes priority over rational, sound economics.
Put in proper context, it is understandable why a left-wing ideologue is our President right now, and why the last presidential election turned out the way it did. Think of all that was happening in the Fall of 2008. During the final weeks of the Obama versus McCain battle, multiple longstanding American financial institutions failed, mostly because of their overexposure to risky subprime mortgage loans.
This in turn touched off the failure of several banks in Europe, while the prices of stocks and commodities began to decline worldwide. And as this was happening, several countries temporarily closed down their respective stock markets to try and stop massive stock sell-offs, while the entire country of Iceland nearly slipped in to bankruptcy. Americans lost trillions of dollars in personal wealth, and the world seemed headed for collapse.
Those were dark and frightening days, to be sure. Beginning on October 6 of that year, the Dow Jones industrial average closed lower for five out of next five successive trading days, amid record breaking levels of trading volume. And although it was noted at the time that the daily stock market drops were not as severe as those of the 1987 stock market crash, the economic crisis that was unfolding before our eyes was nonetheless something very unique, and very scary.
Given these and other considerations, it’s not difficult to understand why Americans voted for “change” – and threw out the reigning party in exchange for something different. But now, nearly two years into this “something different,” even President Obama’s most ardent supporters are beginning to doubt that we have the right “something.”
President Obama has, in two short years, put in to place a system of tremendous governmental control over the otherwise private economy. On his watch, the President himself has become a de-facto C.E.O. over huge chunks of the economy, with the power to hire and fire executives, establish compensation limits for executive management, and to determine what products and services are produced.
Early on in this process of expansive governmental control, many Americans seemed fine with the President’s plans. Private business executives (so the reasoning went) had proven themselves to be unable or unwilling to “do the right thing” in their positions of leadership, yet President Obama could be trusted implicitly to “do the right thing” (so the reasoning went) if only he obtained enough power.
Yet now that he has the power, President Obama seems to have lost the trust. And the less-than-two-year-old Obama presidency serves as a grim reminder of a basic truth of economics: when it comes to the handling of material resources, everyone – even Barack Obama – operates with their own self-interest. And if there are insufficient checks-and-balances on one’s self interest, the individual can do harm to others.
After the 2008 financial system crisis, it was easy to look with disdain at bankers and executives who ran their enterprises into bankruptcy while still earning fat salaries. But do we examine our politicians with the same type of scrutiny, and do we see their selfishness being acted-out at our collective expense?
"If we were so scrutinizing, we’d see a President and Congress that were determined to “pass a healthcare bill” whether we wanted it or not, and went to unthinkable lengths (holding secret legislative meetings, and exempting their political allies from the law) to accomplish their objective.
We’d see a President who is so intent on fulfilling his “environmental” agenda of hybrid car manufacturing, that he is spending our tax dollars to artificially bolster the sales figures of the Chevrolet Volt vehicle (because private individuals are not buying the car in any large measure).
We’d see a President who has dramatically expanded federal payrolls – presumably because government workers frequently make good reliable Democrat voters – all the while our nation suffers the consequences of staggering national debt and excessive government spending.
Indeed, the self interest of our President and his party are raging out of control at the moment. And this very type of self interest is always at the epicenter of the failure of big government economics.
E-mail: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Does the government confiscation of private wealth stifle economic growth, or does government manage our money to better ends and produce greater economic results than private individuals?
This is the question that has been weighing in the balance, as the President and the Congress haggle over taxation rates for next year. And there’s only one correct answer to this question – if it is our collective American goal to “grow the economy” and “stimulate job creation” then we absolutely must arrive at the correct answer – and yet the President and much of the Congress seem to want it both ways.
The collective answer to this question was delivered from the American people via the U.S. Senate last weekend. President Obama’s plan to target “rich people” and raise their taxes while keeping taxation rates the same for other Americans went to a vote, and the Senate, controlled by the President’s own Democrat party, rejected the plan.
In response to this rejection, President Obama lambasted Republicans last Tuesday (despite the fact that HIS party delivered the “no” vote), calling them “hostage takers,” and struggling to make the case that all us middleclass Americans are being harmed because “rich people” aren’t getting sufficiently gouged by the IRS. It was a sad picture of a sitting U.S. President grappling with the dismissal of his agenda, and a painful example of what happens when rigid, left-wing ideology takes priority over rational, sound economics.
Put in proper context, it is understandable why a left-wing ideologue is our President right now, and why the last presidential election turned out the way it did. Think of all that was happening in the Fall of 2008. During the final weeks of the Obama versus McCain battle, multiple longstanding American financial institutions failed, mostly because of their overexposure to risky subprime mortgage loans.
This in turn touched off the failure of several banks in Europe, while the prices of stocks and commodities began to decline worldwide. And as this was happening, several countries temporarily closed down their respective stock markets to try and stop massive stock sell-offs, while the entire country of Iceland nearly slipped in to bankruptcy. Americans lost trillions of dollars in personal wealth, and the world seemed headed for collapse.
Those were dark and frightening days, to be sure. Beginning on October 6 of that year, the Dow Jones industrial average closed lower for five out of next five successive trading days, amid record breaking levels of trading volume. And although it was noted at the time that the daily stock market drops were not as severe as those of the 1987 stock market crash, the economic crisis that was unfolding before our eyes was nonetheless something very unique, and very scary.
Given these and other considerations, it’s not difficult to understand why Americans voted for “change” – and threw out the reigning party in exchange for something different. But now, nearly two years into this “something different,” even President Obama’s most ardent supporters are beginning to doubt that we have the right “something.”
President Obama has, in two short years, put in to place a system of tremendous governmental control over the otherwise private economy. On his watch, the President himself has become a de-facto C.E.O. over huge chunks of the economy, with the power to hire and fire executives, establish compensation limits for executive management, and to determine what products and services are produced.
Early on in this process of expansive governmental control, many Americans seemed fine with the President’s plans. Private business executives (so the reasoning went) had proven themselves to be unable or unwilling to “do the right thing” in their positions of leadership, yet President Obama could be trusted implicitly to “do the right thing” (so the reasoning went) if only he obtained enough power.
Yet now that he has the power, President Obama seems to have lost the trust. And the less-than-two-year-old Obama presidency serves as a grim reminder of a basic truth of economics: when it comes to the handling of material resources, everyone – even Barack Obama – operates with their own self-interest. And if there are insufficient checks-and-balances on one’s self interest, the individual can do harm to others.
After the 2008 financial system crisis, it was easy to look with disdain at bankers and executives who ran their enterprises into bankruptcy while still earning fat salaries. But do we examine our politicians with the same type of scrutiny, and do we see their selfishness being acted-out at our collective expense?
"If we were so scrutinizing, we’d see a President and Congress that were determined to “pass a healthcare bill” whether we wanted it or not, and went to unthinkable lengths (holding secret legislative meetings, and exempting their political allies from the law) to accomplish their objective.
We’d see a President who is so intent on fulfilling his “environmental” agenda of hybrid car manufacturing, that he is spending our tax dollars to artificially bolster the sales figures of the Chevrolet Volt vehicle (because private individuals are not buying the car in any large measure).
We’d see a President who has dramatically expanded federal payrolls – presumably because government workers frequently make good reliable Democrat voters – all the while our nation suffers the consequences of staggering national debt and excessive government spending.
Indeed, the self interest of our President and his party are raging out of control at the moment. And this very type of self interest is always at the epicenter of the failure of big government economics.
E-mail: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Friday, December 10, 2010
No Constitutional Convention -- Please!
This writer has received around two dozen E-mails claiming that if we could only get one Representative and one Senator to introduce a term limits bill, term limits would become a reality.
There have been a similar number of E-mails asking for the reader to support a Constitutional Convention to set term limits. The theory here is that you can bypass Congress because the states can call for a Constitutional Convention.
In the first case, calling on Congress to enact term limits – Congress (in either House) is NOT going to place term limits on themselves. And by the way, at least once every two years, a Representative and a Senator introduce a term limits bill in both houses. Usually, these bills don’t find any cosponsors. There is absolutely no hope for term limits via the Congressional route! Unless -- (See Item 5 of What the "new" House should do)
Now let’s address a Constitutional Convention being called by the states. The Constitution states that --
Article V - “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
Therefore, Thirty Four (34) states can call for and open a Constitutional Convention.
But does anyone really want to do that?
The fact is that once you open that convention, you have opened the entire constitution to change or even complete replacement. Do you want to run that risk?
The odds are over whelming that we will end up with something far worse than we now have.
The real problem with the current constitution is that neither Congress, nor the Courts, and certainly not the current President pay any attention to the document.
So how do we fix the problem? The founding fathers gave us the ballot box for this purpose. We the people have the responsibility to exercise due diligence when we elect people to office. We have failed in that responsibility!
This is what the “Tea Party” is all about—the election of men and women that have pledged to pass legislation that is compliant with the Constitution and to rein in spending. The “Tea Party“succeeded in this past election by helping large numbers of Conservatives elected in the House significant numbers in the Senate. The question, that remains to be answered, is did we start to reclaim our government at too late a date? 2012 will tell us!
The “new” House of Representatives should do the following:
1. Pass a bill that would require that all of the elected Congressman take a 10% pay cut and repeal ALL scheduled automatic pay raises.
2. Pass a bill to limit the number of Czars appointed by the President, without Congressional vetting, to 5 and to limit the maximum salary of each non vetted Czar to ¾ that of the Secretary of State.
3. Pass a bill banning ALL earmarks.
4. Pass a bill that makes the “Bush Tax cuts” permanent—across the board.
5. Propose a Constitutional Amendment that would set term limits. This bill should “Grandfather” ALL current members of Congress until they retire, die, or loose in a reelection bid. As a maximum, no one (Grandfather exception) should exceed 12 years in an office. The retirement packages for all future members of Congress should be made to comply with those plans offered by industry to middle management.
If the Senate fails to pass and forward these bills to the President, they should be recycled every month until the public knows where every member of Congress stands on these issues.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
There have been a similar number of E-mails asking for the reader to support a Constitutional Convention to set term limits. The theory here is that you can bypass Congress because the states can call for a Constitutional Convention.
In the first case, calling on Congress to enact term limits – Congress (in either House) is NOT going to place term limits on themselves. And by the way, at least once every two years, a Representative and a Senator introduce a term limits bill in both houses. Usually, these bills don’t find any cosponsors. There is absolutely no hope for term limits via the Congressional route! Unless -- (See Item 5 of What the "new" House should do)
Now let’s address a Constitutional Convention being called by the states. The Constitution states that --
Article V - “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
Therefore, Thirty Four (34) states can call for and open a Constitutional Convention.
But does anyone really want to do that?
The fact is that once you open that convention, you have opened the entire constitution to change or even complete replacement. Do you want to run that risk?
The odds are over whelming that we will end up with something far worse than we now have.
The real problem with the current constitution is that neither Congress, nor the Courts, and certainly not the current President pay any attention to the document.
So how do we fix the problem? The founding fathers gave us the ballot box for this purpose. We the people have the responsibility to exercise due diligence when we elect people to office. We have failed in that responsibility!
This is what the “Tea Party” is all about—the election of men and women that have pledged to pass legislation that is compliant with the Constitution and to rein in spending. The “Tea Party“succeeded in this past election by helping large numbers of Conservatives elected in the House significant numbers in the Senate. The question, that remains to be answered, is did we start to reclaim our government at too late a date? 2012 will tell us!
The “new” House of Representatives should do the following:
1. Pass a bill that would require that all of the elected Congressman take a 10% pay cut and repeal ALL scheduled automatic pay raises.
2. Pass a bill to limit the number of Czars appointed by the President, without Congressional vetting, to 5 and to limit the maximum salary of each non vetted Czar to ¾ that of the Secretary of State.
3. Pass a bill banning ALL earmarks.
4. Pass a bill that makes the “Bush Tax cuts” permanent—across the board.
5. Propose a Constitutional Amendment that would set term limits. This bill should “Grandfather” ALL current members of Congress until they retire, die, or loose in a reelection bid. As a maximum, no one (Grandfather exception) should exceed 12 years in an office. The retirement packages for all future members of Congress should be made to comply with those plans offered by industry to middle management.
If the Senate fails to pass and forward these bills to the President, they should be recycled every month until the public knows where every member of Congress stands on these issues.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Bankruptcy? No Worries! California Is “Going Green!”
By Austin Hill
First, let me make this clear: I’m a native Californian, and I grew up thinking that California was pretty much the center of the universe.
As a very small child I knew that President Richard Nixon was born about 25 miles north and his “Western White House” was about 35 miles south of where I lived (doesn’t every kid experience the President vacationing near his home?). While in elementary school, my favorite TV shows – “Emergency,” “Adam 12” and “The Rockford Files” to name a few – all included panoramic glimpses of cityscape's and freeways that were familiar. I didn’t “dream” about this California – for better or worse, I lived it.
College, graduate school, and my media career have taken me around the state – Sacramento, San Diego, Fresno, Santa Barbara, Los Angeles – all very different places, and all California. It’s a really big place that I know really well, and it is a part of me.
So it is with great personal sadness that I make this observation: while most of America made a sharp (and rational) turn to the right in this year’s election, California moved even further to the left. As a result, California will worsen.
California currently suffers with its’ self-inflicted $6 billion shortfall in this fiscal year’s budget (a wound that is supposed to swell to $24.5 billion over the next 18 months). 2 weeks ago outgoing Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger called for a “special legislative session” so the state Senate and Assembly can “fix” the budget crisis, but then quickly announced his legislative priority for the special session: a law to “ban” plastic grocery bags.
Earlier this year as the state continued to swim in debt without any budget at all, California’s legislature attempted a legislative ban on plastic bags. A budget full of accounting gimmicks got passed, but the bag ban failed.
So with the legislature called back to “fix” the phony budget, Governor Schwarzenegger is obsessed with creating his legacy: “We're going to try over and over again” he said, as he argued for a plastic bag ban, “because we have seen in the past that when you don't give up, eventually you can be successful."
Never mind that Rome is burning. California will “be green.”
Arnold may get his historic plastic bag ban (condolences to those who may subsequently lose their jobs in the plastics industry), but California will not seriously address its fiscal failures. California politicians are instead making themselves feel good about their efforts to save the planet, while likely assuming that the federal government will take care of the state’s finances.
Governor-elect Jerry Brown shows no signs that he’s any more willing to take the crisis seriously than has Mr. Schwarzenegger. Since his election victory last month, Brown has been virtually non-existent in the media, although reports have emerged indicating that sometime this coming week he will for the first time address the state about the fiscal crisis.
But despite his absence from the press room, Brown did nonetheless find time to publish the priorities of his so-called “green energy plan” last week. The plan raises more questions than it answers, but in a nutshell, it goes like this:
A) “Generate enough new renewable energy within California to serve more than 30% of current peak energy demand.” That’s a good “what” statement, but on this point the plan is devoid of any “how” substance. B) “Reducing energy consumption in exiting California homes by 40%.” One could imagine the legislature mandating energy rationing in California households. Or perhaps the state will hire a new “residential thermostat police” force, and then claim that ‘green jobs” have been created. C) “Revising energy efficiency standards for new homes and commercial buildings.” Such a maneuver would likely make it more difficult for those in the construction trades, but could nonetheless expand the work load for government employees who perform environmental control and building inspection tasks. D) “Adopting new energy-efficiency standards for appliances, lighting and consumer electronics sold in California.” There has already been such a standard established for TV sets sold in California – a mandate that TV sets consume “33% less electricity” than older sets – but that new policy hasn’t even kicked-in yet. If California continues to set such “standards” that are different than the standards across the country, the state will continue to drive up the costs of electronic products, but could probably justify hiring new state “product testers.” E) “Hire a renewable-energy jobs czar.” Yes, of course. “Creating jobs” always begins by expanding the government payroll.
Thus far, Governor-elect Brown’s “plan” has had nothing to do with saving California from its real nemesis, and has everything to do with expanding the power of government. And his plan is completely consistent – both in terms of its alleged “environmental “ components, and its reckless fiscal model – with what we’ve seen at the White House.
It is quite an opening salvo, from a soon-to-be-Governor will be asking the President for a bailout next year. But it serves to move California further and further away from the center of the universe.
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
First, let me make this clear: I’m a native Californian, and I grew up thinking that California was pretty much the center of the universe.
As a very small child I knew that President Richard Nixon was born about 25 miles north and his “Western White House” was about 35 miles south of where I lived (doesn’t every kid experience the President vacationing near his home?). While in elementary school, my favorite TV shows – “Emergency,” “Adam 12” and “The Rockford Files” to name a few – all included panoramic glimpses of cityscape's and freeways that were familiar. I didn’t “dream” about this California – for better or worse, I lived it.
College, graduate school, and my media career have taken me around the state – Sacramento, San Diego, Fresno, Santa Barbara, Los Angeles – all very different places, and all California. It’s a really big place that I know really well, and it is a part of me.
So it is with great personal sadness that I make this observation: while most of America made a sharp (and rational) turn to the right in this year’s election, California moved even further to the left. As a result, California will worsen.
California currently suffers with its’ self-inflicted $6 billion shortfall in this fiscal year’s budget (a wound that is supposed to swell to $24.5 billion over the next 18 months). 2 weeks ago outgoing Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger called for a “special legislative session” so the state Senate and Assembly can “fix” the budget crisis, but then quickly announced his legislative priority for the special session: a law to “ban” plastic grocery bags.
Earlier this year as the state continued to swim in debt without any budget at all, California’s legislature attempted a legislative ban on plastic bags. A budget full of accounting gimmicks got passed, but the bag ban failed.
So with the legislature called back to “fix” the phony budget, Governor Schwarzenegger is obsessed with creating his legacy: “We're going to try over and over again” he said, as he argued for a plastic bag ban, “because we have seen in the past that when you don't give up, eventually you can be successful."
Never mind that Rome is burning. California will “be green.”
Arnold may get his historic plastic bag ban (condolences to those who may subsequently lose their jobs in the plastics industry), but California will not seriously address its fiscal failures. California politicians are instead making themselves feel good about their efforts to save the planet, while likely assuming that the federal government will take care of the state’s finances.
Governor-elect Jerry Brown shows no signs that he’s any more willing to take the crisis seriously than has Mr. Schwarzenegger. Since his election victory last month, Brown has been virtually non-existent in the media, although reports have emerged indicating that sometime this coming week he will for the first time address the state about the fiscal crisis.
But despite his absence from the press room, Brown did nonetheless find time to publish the priorities of his so-called “green energy plan” last week. The plan raises more questions than it answers, but in a nutshell, it goes like this:
A) “Generate enough new renewable energy within California to serve more than 30% of current peak energy demand.” That’s a good “what” statement, but on this point the plan is devoid of any “how” substance. B) “Reducing energy consumption in exiting California homes by 40%.” One could imagine the legislature mandating energy rationing in California households. Or perhaps the state will hire a new “residential thermostat police” force, and then claim that ‘green jobs” have been created. C) “Revising energy efficiency standards for new homes and commercial buildings.” Such a maneuver would likely make it more difficult for those in the construction trades, but could nonetheless expand the work load for government employees who perform environmental control and building inspection tasks. D) “Adopting new energy-efficiency standards for appliances, lighting and consumer electronics sold in California.” There has already been such a standard established for TV sets sold in California – a mandate that TV sets consume “33% less electricity” than older sets – but that new policy hasn’t even kicked-in yet. If California continues to set such “standards” that are different than the standards across the country, the state will continue to drive up the costs of electronic products, but could probably justify hiring new state “product testers.” E) “Hire a renewable-energy jobs czar.” Yes, of course. “Creating jobs” always begins by expanding the government payroll.
Thus far, Governor-elect Brown’s “plan” has had nothing to do with saving California from its real nemesis, and has everything to do with expanding the power of government. And his plan is completely consistent – both in terms of its alleged “environmental “ components, and its reckless fiscal model – with what we’ve seen at the White House.
It is quite an opening salvo, from a soon-to-be-Governor will be asking the President for a bailout next year. But it serves to move California further and further away from the center of the universe.
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Here We Go Again!
It has been less than a month since the mid-term elections and there are already signs emanating from Washington that the ruling class is still firmly in control. It appears that the leadership of both parties is oblivious to the message sent by the people on November 2.
Admittedly, those now in session are not the newly elected 112th Congress. However, the leadership is the same.
Yesterday:
Eight Republican Senators "broke with their leadership" and voted against a GOP-proposed mandatory ban on earmarks. The proposal was defeated by a 56-39 vote. Seven Democrats voted to ban these lawmaker-directed funds.
Fifteen Republican Senators voted with the Democrats for passage of S. 510, the "FDA Food Safety Modernization Act". S.510 is best described as a "power grab" that will grow government, increase food prices, and drive small producers out of business without making our food any safer. Statistics show that America has the safest food supply in the world - and that it getting safer! S.510 replaces common sense with the heavy hand of government."
Early yesterday, Congressional leaders met with President Obama regarding the Bush-era tax rates set to expire in January.
Obama’s take on the “Historical Landslide Election” is that the voters want bipartisan cooperation to pass the rest of the Obama agenda. Will someone please staple Obama’s ears to his ass so that he can never again pull his head out?
The Republican headship(?) left the meeting talking about future “Cooperation”!
WHAT?
The voters have spoken! They voted against the Obama agenda and the heavy handed way in which the Democrats totally ignored the desires of the citizen’s and forced “Obamacare” down our throats! Most Americans do not want to be forced down the path to socialism. They voted to STOP the Obama agenda and to rollback “Obamacare”.
Democrats have had near absolute control of both Houses of Congress since 2006. During that time they have wrecked the economy and bankrupted the nation. On November 2nd, the voters fired them!
If the Republican leadership fails in that mission, they won’t be around for the 113th Congrss and America will be forever lost to Socialism.
If this Congress fails, only an armed revolution can restore democracy!
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Admittedly, those now in session are not the newly elected 112th Congress. However, the leadership is the same.
Yesterday:
Eight Republican Senators "broke with their leadership" and voted against a GOP-proposed mandatory ban on earmarks. The proposal was defeated by a 56-39 vote. Seven Democrats voted to ban these lawmaker-directed funds.
Fifteen Republican Senators voted with the Democrats for passage of S. 510, the "FDA Food Safety Modernization Act". S.510 is best described as a "power grab" that will grow government, increase food prices, and drive small producers out of business without making our food any safer. Statistics show that America has the safest food supply in the world - and that it getting safer! S.510 replaces common sense with the heavy hand of government."
Early yesterday, Congressional leaders met with President Obama regarding the Bush-era tax rates set to expire in January.
Obama’s take on the “Historical Landslide Election” is that the voters want bipartisan cooperation to pass the rest of the Obama agenda. Will someone please staple Obama’s ears to his ass so that he can never again pull his head out?
The Republican headship(?) left the meeting talking about future “Cooperation”!
WHAT?
The voters have spoken! They voted against the Obama agenda and the heavy handed way in which the Democrats totally ignored the desires of the citizen’s and forced “Obamacare” down our throats! Most Americans do not want to be forced down the path to socialism. They voted to STOP the Obama agenda and to rollback “Obamacare”.
Democrats have had near absolute control of both Houses of Congress since 2006. During that time they have wrecked the economy and bankrupted the nation. On November 2nd, the voters fired them!
If the Republican leadership fails in that mission, they won’t be around for the 113th Congrss and America will be forever lost to Socialism.
If this Congress fails, only an armed revolution can restore democracy!
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
A Soldier Died Today
Author: Unknown
He was getting old and paunchy
and his hair was falling fast,
and he sat around the Legion,
telling stories of the past.
Of a war that he once fought in
and the deeds that he had done,
In his exploits with his buddies;
they were heroes, every one.
And 'tho sometimes to his neighbors
his tales became a joke,
all his buddies listened quietly
for they knew where of he spoke.
But we'll hear his tales no longer,
for ol' Bob has passed away,
and the world's a little poorer
for a Soldier died today.
He won't be mourned by many,
just his children and his wife.
for he lived an ordinary,
very quiet sort of life.
He held a job and raised a family,
going quietly on his way;
and the world won't note his passing,
tho a Soldier died today.
When politicians leave this earth,
their bodies lie in state,
while thousands note their passing,
and proclaim that they were great.
Papers tell of their life stories
from the time that they were young,
but the passing of a Soldier
goes unnoticed, and unsung.
Is the greatest contribution
to the welfare of our land,
some jerk who breaks his promise
and cons his fellow man?
Or the ordinary fellow
who in times of war and strife,
goes off to serve his country
and offers up his life?
The politician's stipend
and the style in which he lives,
are often disproportionate,
to the service that he gives.
While the ordinary Soldier,
who offered up his all,
is paid off with a medal
and perhaps a pension, small.
It is not the politicians
with their compromise and ploys,
who won for us the freedom
that our country now enjoys.
Should you find yourself in danger,
with your enemies at hand,
would you really want some cop-out,
with his ever waffling stand?
Or would you want a Soldier--
his home, his country, his kin,
just a common Soldier,
who would fight until the end.
He was just a common Soldier,
and his ranks are growing thin,
but his presence should remind us
we may need his like again.
For when countries are in conflict,
we find the Soldier's part,
is to clean up all the troubles
that the politicians start.
If we cannot do him honor
while he's here to hear the praise,
then at least let's give him homage
at the ending of his days.
Perhaps just a simple headline
in the paper that might say:
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING,
A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
He was getting old and paunchy
and his hair was falling fast,
and he sat around the Legion,
telling stories of the past.
Of a war that he once fought in
and the deeds that he had done,
In his exploits with his buddies;
they were heroes, every one.
And 'tho sometimes to his neighbors
his tales became a joke,
all his buddies listened quietly
for they knew where of he spoke.
But we'll hear his tales no longer,
for ol' Bob has passed away,
and the world's a little poorer
for a Soldier died today.
He won't be mourned by many,
just his children and his wife.
for he lived an ordinary,
very quiet sort of life.
He held a job and raised a family,
going quietly on his way;
and the world won't note his passing,
tho a Soldier died today.
When politicians leave this earth,
their bodies lie in state,
while thousands note their passing,
and proclaim that they were great.
Papers tell of their life stories
from the time that they were young,
but the passing of a Soldier
goes unnoticed, and unsung.
Is the greatest contribution
to the welfare of our land,
some jerk who breaks his promise
and cons his fellow man?
Or the ordinary fellow
who in times of war and strife,
goes off to serve his country
and offers up his life?
The politician's stipend
and the style in which he lives,
are often disproportionate,
to the service that he gives.
While the ordinary Soldier,
who offered up his all,
is paid off with a medal
and perhaps a pension, small.
It is not the politicians
with their compromise and ploys,
who won for us the freedom
that our country now enjoys.
Should you find yourself in danger,
with your enemies at hand,
would you really want some cop-out,
with his ever waffling stand?
Or would you want a Soldier--
his home, his country, his kin,
just a common Soldier,
who would fight until the end.
He was just a common Soldier,
and his ranks are growing thin,
but his presence should remind us
we may need his like again.
For when countries are in conflict,
we find the Soldier's part,
is to clean up all the troubles
that the politicians start.
If we cannot do him honor
while he's here to hear the praise,
then at least let's give him homage
at the ending of his days.
Perhaps just a simple headline
in the paper that might say:
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING,
A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)