December 2008 – Page 2

Weekend of local rock volume 19

Since it’s Friday, it’s time to kick back into that last weekend of Christmas shopping. Next weekend, I’ll be compiling the items for WLR volume 20 at Skip Dixxon’s 12 Bands of Christmas but in the meantime I wanted to review the last two weekends, which I’m melding into one post. By the way, for the benefit of Final Frontier and whoever else checks out the site, I’ve saved the photos as 640×480 so they should load much faster (I hope.)

You know, you’d think I go out every weekend but I really don’t. It just seems that way. I wasn’t planning on making this particular show until I learned that my friends from Semiblind were going to take a hiatus (for the most part, as they’re on Live Lixx this evening at 6 p.m. and one of the Twelve Bands of Christmas next weekend) and this would be their last full-night show for awhile. So I made tracks to Long Neck to show my support.

There’s one personnel change in the band, which explains part of the break. (Another part is hoping they write more great original songs, expand that set list, and do some recording.) Now there’s two guys named Jim in the band, as I call the new drummer Jim 2. He played last with the Baltimore-area band Seventh Seal.

I added this last picture just because it’s sometimes funny when the band gets some unexpected help, as they did playing “Simple Man.”

As is normally the case, Semiblind put on a good show and I enjoyed rockin’ with them. I’m not sure just how long they plan on taking it easy, hopefully it won’t be too far into the spring if that.

The next Saturday night, I decided a trip to OC was in order once I found out about this show:

To be honest, I was expecting something more along the lines of more modern rock, but instead a number of the bands who were there played more in the hardcore punk vein. Not that I minded; sometimes I like to pull out an old hardcore tape (or record, yes I own vinyl still!) and crank it to 10. I’m more of a metalhead but I can abide by thrash and punk too. Anyway, the first band was called The Odd Squad, from Delaware.

The Odd Squad bashed out hardcore classics and originals before heading out the door to do another show up in Smyrna. Then another band in that same realm took to the stage. These guys were called DUI, and they were also down here from Delaware.

Again, about a dozen songs, mostly covers. Going second, DUI wanted to play another song or two but Odd Squad had already done those numbers.

We got a change of pace with band number three. No, they were still from Delaware, but Arizona Lives had a sound more in line with what I expected when I came to the fundraiser.

I know the stage setup was a bit unusual, but man! did these guys make it hard to take pictures because the poor drummer was buried behind several amps. It’s probably going to be a memorable show for them as one of the guitarists broke his string midway through the first or second song. One thing the singer might learn from the experience is a bit of self-promotion in these cases…give out the Myspace, pimp your upcoming shows and the later bands, introduce the guys, whatever while you’re waiting. Better a show with 40 or 50 people in the place than 400 or 500, I suppose.

Next up was a more traditional three-piece band called Phantom Limbs. They got two pictures for a reason.

Phantom Limbs was one of the more enjoyable bands of the evening, because they had a lot of energy without being thrash – more straight-ahead, blues-based rock. The drummer did double duty as he also played for the next group up, called MDHC.

I’m going under the assumption that MDHC stands for Maryland Hardcore, because that’s what they cranked out. Yep, back to the traditional three-piece punk/thrash setup.

We had one more hardcore band, but this band was different because they featured two lead singers and was 40 percent female. Hence the name Speed Queen. Also, I thought the Bettie Page hairdo was appropriate given recent events.

Yes, there’s a lady bassist and we all know I dig chicks with bass. Gratuitous shot alert.

The next band came across the bridge to help out the Salisbury Skatepark cause; this was the surf/punk band Nagchaumpa.

When I looked up the Myspace for the link, I realized that surf/punk is a perfect description of their style. They’re not as hardcore as some of the earlier bands but do play fast.

Finally, we got to the headliner, Lower Class Citizens. I don’t have to add the link because they’re already linked from here. Besides Semiblind, they may be my favorite local band. I have several pictures of these guys, mainly because the crowd that was 40 or 50 for Arizona Lives was probably three times that by the time LCC got underway, and I was right up front (naturally.)

One last shot before I go. Here’s the set list for the LCC show, I just thought it was interesting, and song #10 (by my count) – that’s a good one.

So the event I figured would be done by 10 wasn’t through until 2 a.m. But it was a good time and the last two bands in particular were worth the wait.

Become a fan of monoblogue!

As many of you know, I’m a fairly recent joinee of Facebook (thanks to my friend Maria.) One thing I’ve found about the site is that there’s probably millions of groups one can join.

In my case, I decided to create a group just to see what sort of reaction it gets. About a week ago I created the group Fans of monoblogue. With little word of mouth or promotion, seven people have found it. (Hey, seven is better than just me.) But I wanted to try an experiment and see how many new people I can add on, at least those who have a Facebook profile. (Believe me, Facebook can be a little addicting so be careful about joining if you haven’t already.)

In this group, I update those who join about some of the other places my words are going. While I sometimes crosspost to other sites like Red Maryland, That’s Elbert With An E, and Pro-Maryland Gazette, the majority of my words find their way to the Red County Wicomico site as well. However, I’ve invited a new contributor to join me there; one who’s familiar to readers of my site comments as “Marc.” Marc Kilmer will soon be adding content to the Red County Wicomico page and there’s another gentleman who’s been invited as well to come on board this site I edit.

The idea there is to eventually have at least 4 to 5 talented writers in my blogpen who are familiar with local and state politics and want to write in a setting that has a national distribution but a local focus. (One analogy I’ve been given is Fox Sports Net.) The goal of the Red County site is to have 100 or more subsites by the end of next year and given their growth so far I believe they’ll make it easily.

This blog won’t go anywhere because I like having the freedom to write about other topics which interest me. I think I have a pretty good thing going, so there’s no reason to stop nor is there a reason to set my goals for my site and my words in general too low.

I may as well add one more update. I’m still plugging away at what I’m calling the 2009 Guide to the Maryland Blogosphere. This is a sample of the entry style I’m using; let me know what you think.

monoblogue (Salisbury)
Tagline: News and views from Maryland’s Eastern Shore since 2005.
Posting since: December 2005. Frequency: 1-2 per day.
Contributors: 1
Focuses on: Conservative politics.
Memberships: BlogNetNews Maryland, BlogNetNews Delmarva, Maryland Bloggers Alliance.

monoblogue is an Eastern Shore blog which focuses on conservative politics in both Maryland and nationally. There’s also coverage of political events occurring in and around the Salisbury area. However, monoblogue’s subject matter also detours into local music and, each Thursday during the baseball season, a player is selected as the Delmarva Shorebird of the Week. Michael Swartz is also a contributor to two other Guide blogs, Pro-Maryland Gazette and Red Maryland. In 2008 monoblogue ranked as the #2 most politically influential blog overall by BlogNetNews Maryland, along with #1 in the conservative category and #1 in the per-post category. monoblogue was also ranked by BlogNetNews as the #2 most politically influential blog overall in 2007.

Technorati rating: 37 Google page rank: 3/10

TMI? Not enough? It will be a long post/page because I’m up over 40 confirmed entrants, about 15 written, and there’s another couple dozen that may qualify (so far.) I’m now shooting to have this completed by the first week in January.

As fair warning to close: because of the Christmas holiday, next week will probably be just one post per day. I’m saving bloggy goodness for when people get back home from their travels but don’t want to be idle for more than a day.

Feds crunch credit creators

Today federal regulators announced a number of pro-consumer changes to the credit card industry that are slated to take effect in July 2010. Most consumers would benefit from a change that ends the practice of credit card companies increasing the interest rate on accounts carrying a balance.

As expected, banks and other card issuers were less than pleased with this change, claiming that credit would be tightened and cards more difficult to get. One study pegged the cost of the new rules for the banking industry as $10 billion a year.

Previously I’ve had this sort of game played on accounts I’ve had, with one card issuer who shall remain unnamed (hint: it’s not in my wallet anymore!) deciding to jump my interest rate from 7.9% to 12.9% while I had an outstanding balance. Never mind I paid the bills on time and generally well over the minimum monthly payment! Fortunately I read the change in terms that was enclosed with my bill and opted out, allowing the company to close the account while I paid it off at the lower rate. Most likely they decided to penalize me since I wasn’t using their card to make purchases.

With this drop-dead date all but certain, I can see 2009 as a year of transition for credit card issuers. Already I’ve had one card issuer tell me that effective early next year, my card will suddenly have a $10 monthly fee attached to it. (They must be mad because I’m taking my sweet time paying off a balance they’re charging 3.99% interest on for the life of the offer. No one told them to offer me that deal, and I would have been a fool not to take it and cut my interest rates and payments significantly.) Fortunately I have plenty of room elsewhere to transfer the balance should I choose to do so.

That’s one practice which doesn’t appear to be placed off-limits by the new rules. Also there’s no restriction on changing the interest rates on future purchases significantly, so anticipate any new items purchased after July 2010 on existing accounts to be placed at higher rates. Moreover, credit card companies will likely put the squeeze on consumers like me who pay more than the minimum payment in an effort to get out from under debt by raising interest rates in the latter half of 2009 and early 2010.

By providing a long lead time for these rule changes, the federal government is attempting to keep the credit spigot relatively open for another eighteen months – while credit remains tight – before locking out much of the subprime credit market by making it much less lucrative for lenders to inhabit. Some of these cards for people with poor credit are comparable interest- and fee-wise to payday loan outlets but consumers have little choice in the matter if they want to build or rebuild credit.

The lead time will also provide a chance for lobbyists and lawyers to squint through all the fine print and points of law in the rules and work out ways to avoid making these new restrictions hurt the card companies’ bottom line. In other words, the phrase caveat emptor applies more than ever.

HB_/SB_ – 2009 Maryland General Assembly

Yes, I can see the Maryland General Assembly jumping in line right behind North Carolina on this – in fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if this were pre-filed. From Michelle Malkin:

First, they hand us our Obama-approved tire gauges.

Next, they police our odometers. Fresh from North Carolina, here’s the latest Nanny State proposal: Monitoring our odometers and taxing us accordingly.

She goes on to detail a Charlotte Observer story detailing the VMT tax, which the state’s 21st Century Transportation Committee suggested could kick in at 1/4 cent per mile, with the first 2,000 miles driven free. Thus, the “average” 12,000 mile per year driver could see a $25 tax bill annually.

More sinister is this passage from the Observer story by Steve Harrison:

If the “road-use tax” is implemented, it would at first be simple – with the state checking your odometer annually and taxing you based on how many miles you have driven. But transportation experts say new GPS technology could allow the state to charge people different rates based on when and where they drive, in an attempt to manage congestion.

Would this be a revenue builder? Of course, and it would hit rural and far-suburban areas particularly hard as workers who live in those areas and commute for an hour or more daily to work naturally rack up a lot more mileage than the average person. The same goes for those in particularly car-dependent professions like sales. Someone who drives 40,000 miles a year for those reasons could be stuck with a $95 tax bill – perhaps that doesn’t sound like a lot, but when have usage taxes ever decreased after adoption?

I also see a second, more hidden agenda with this idea, though, and it has to do with so-called “Smart Growth” policies – especially if rates become flexible based on when and where one drives. Let’s say you’re one of those who commutes from Easton to Annapolis, which is a 42-mile commute and takes about an hour each way, disregarding any tie-ups on the Bay Bridge. Someplace along the line with this GPS technology experts say is already in place, the state could decide to raise the tax to 2 cents per mile between the hours of 6 a.m. and 9 a.m. and from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays, and only in particular urban regions. If you have that sort of commute, you’d likely drive about 20,000 miles a year and that original $45 tax becomes $336 annually. Throw in the daily Bay Bridge toll and this practice could make it less economically viable to work on the Western Shore while enjoying the lifestyle of the Eastern Shore.

The goal of “smart growth” advocates is to push people out of their cars, either by bringing them back closer to the urban core, by encouraging mass transit, or both. And as rural areas wither and die, it becomes possible on some far-off day to connect vast “green” corridors for wildlife where human intervention is discouraged.

Given that the state of Maryland has a chronic budget deficit, a thirst for spending more money, a Governor who promised to “invest in mass transit options to allow more Marylanders to use light rail, buses and Metro rails as an alternative to cars” as well as “ensure Maryland grows in smarter ways that depend less upon new highways and increased traffic”, and a environmentalist lobby who’s fought tooth and nail against highway improvements such as the Inter-County Connector, it’s almost certain that we’ll need to stand against this idea here in what used to be the Free State come January. That’s why I titled the piece as I did because I can see this new tax coming a mile away.

Seeking more ‘make-work’ jobs

As someone who makes his living in that realm, I can emphatically assure you that 2008 has been far from a banner year in the building industry. Beginning with that loud popping sound many heard around the beginning of 2007 as the housing bubble burst (maybe it was mistaken for the champagne corks unsealed for various New Years celebrations), continuing through the subprime mortgage crisis, fueled in part by the spike in energy costs, and culminating in the near-collapse of the banking industry and tightening of credit, building activity has all but ceased in many portions of the country.

One of Barack Obama’s solutions to the problem is a program to focus on infrastructure, and it’s no surprise that every left-wing lobbying group wants to get its fingers into the pie. Certainly the United States Green Building Council was ecstatic about an Obama victory and saw his agenda as a way to get major portions of its agenda enacted:

USGBC is now working to promote sound policies in the next administration that will stimulate a green economy, create millions of green jobs, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, advance greener, more energy-efficient buildings, and spur green infrastructure.

Apparently they want to become yet another lobbying group who has bright ideas they’d like to see put into practice. However, if you look deeper into what they want to achieve, their agenda raises a few red flags. Let’s begin with “Green Buildings.”

President-Elect Obama has proposed the expansion of federal grants to assist states and localities in building more efficient public buildings through the use of LEED. In addition, under President-Elect Obama’s plan, all new federal buildings would have to be carbon-neutral by 2025. This plan also would commit all new federal buildings to a 40% improvement in efficiency within five years and would seek a 25% improvement in the efficiency of existing federal buildings within the same period.

By the language being used, there’s already a program in place for these grants – in essence the USGBC wants the federal government to put even more money that it already doesn’t have into these programs. The scratching of USGBC’s back occurs when a LEED mandate is placed on the buildings, since certification is a money-maker for the USGBC. As for the efficiency improvements, that’s all well and good if there’s a reasonable payback period on the investment. I don’t think carbon-neutrality is nearly as admirable of a goal though.

Next up is “Building Efficiency Goals and Incentives.”

President-Elect Obama has proposed a goal of carbon-neutrality for all new buildings by 2030. This will be achieved by establishing a goal of 50% greater building efficiency for new buildings and 25% greater efficiency for existing buildings over the next decade. Under the plan, the federal government would award grant funds to states and localities that implement new, energy efficient building codes, and would provide matching grants to states that promote building retrofitting through public benefits funds.

Again, more grants where the money’s not in place yet. It wouldn’t surprise me if there wasn’t eventually a cap-and-trade scam adopted on the federal level to pay for these grants. Welcome to Maryland, the canary in the coal mine for liberal lunacy – we already have adopted a similar idea.

Let’s talk about building codes, though. The idea of building codes originated out of concern for life safety, and energy efficiency was added into the mix much later. The problem with this approach is that retrofitting existing buildings will actually be discouraged, since building codes generally dictate full compliance if a change of use occurs. This also leads to the carrot-and-stick approach to lawmaking; sooner or later the grants will be turned into funds withheld for non-compliance with the items Fedzilla wants.

Next up, “Green Jobs and Job Training”:

President-Elect Obama has proposed an investment of $150 billion over 10 years to spur the development of renewable and other technologies, promote energy efficiency, and advance new fuel and smart electricity infrastructure. This plan would direct funding to the manufacturing sector for job training and transition programs, and would create an estimated 5 million new green jobs. Additional training programs, including a Green Jobs Corps for disadvantaged youth and a Clean Energy Corps, have been proposed to stimulate the development of a highly skilled workforce.

It’s not “investment”, it’s taxpayer money being taken from possible private-sector usage, confiscated from the wage-earners, passed through a layer or two of bureaucracy, and spent to reward certain industries who may or may not be heavy campaign contributors or have the ear of lobbyists. Moreover, there’s a fairly good chance that whatever the government picks out to spend funding on turns out to be an expensive boondoggle or needs further subsidization to succeed in the marketplace.

I’d also love to see what types of jobs those in the “Green Jobs Corps” and “Clean Energy Corps” are trained to do, and where they’d apply in the real world. I guess the world needs ditchdiggers, so it needs tree planters too.

Speaking of tree planting, I suppose that can work as a segue to the next part, “Transportation and Infrastructure”:

President-Elect Obama has proposed the consideration of smart growth principles in the transportation funding process, as well as renewed support for public mass transit projects. The President-Elect’s proposed plan also includes the creation of a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to direct $60 billion over 10 years to infrastructure projects that could create some 2 million new jobs and $35 billion annually in economic activity.

Back in September, I detailed California’s new laws in the area of transportation funding as part of the Smart Growth concept; apparently the Obama plan is to take this nationwide. Combine that with the bid to push mass transit over highway funding, and it becomes woefully apparent that Detroit’s bailout becomes a true waste of money. People aren’t going to be able to use their cars before too long, so why buy new ones?

And I can already see the infrastructure projects Obama will want: four-lane bike paths, pedestrian connectors, conversion of traffic-filled downtown streets to pedestrian plazas, and the like. There may be a bridge replacement here and there, but a disproportionate amount of the funding will surely go toward less efficient and/or less private modes of transportation, modes which will sooner or later need more subsidies.

Don’t get me wrong, I have no issue whatsoever with adopting certain building code provisions leading toward more energy-efficient buildings; perhaps it can be handled as a reward basis much like the inclusion of sprinkler systems allows a building of a particular construction type to be larger and/or have more stories. And if highway widening includes space for a bicycle path, that’s no issue for me either. (I like Maryland’s practice of widening shoulders for creating bicycle lanes because it’s safer for both driver and rider.) These and similar issues are ones that firstly should be up to individual states to adopt without federal interference and secondly need to be done in such a manner that leaves maximum flexibility to the building owner or developer.

The Obama Administration has a number of hot-button issues which must be addressed in order to improve our economy and our society in general; foremost among them on the domestic side will be straightening out the financial mess our poorly-considered lending legislation put global markets in. Instead of tightening the noose around the building industry by adding more expensive mandates to the already high cost of construction, it’s better for the near-term future that we ignore the green building lobby and work on simply getting the building industry back on its feet by loosening regulations and credit. Simply allowing market forces to return would kickstart the industry where I make my own living in a much better manner than the throwback to the inefficient and wasteful Works Progress Administration version 2.0 that Obama proposes.

Where Buchanan goes wrong

Twice a week, columnist and former Presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan posts a column to the Human Events website. Of late, Pat has railed in favor of the Big Three bailout, casting its recent failure in his latest column as a permanent blow to Republicans because they’ll forever lose the votes of the Reagan Democrats who work at these auto plants.

While Pat makes a good point about the subsidies that several Southern states have provided to get various auto plants within their borders, the cost of these pale in comparison to the amount of money the Big Three would receive from the federal government. Moreover, there’s no guarantee that the Big Three wouldn’t have to file for bankruptcy and close anyway should the “car czar” installed as part of the bailout proposal not decide that their business plan is meeting whatever specifications are dictated to the automakers as a condition for survival.

Buchanan is known as a protectionist conservative, who supports the idea of tariffs on imports in order to save American jobs. He notes:

In today’s world, America faces nationalistic trade rivals who manipulate currencies, employ nontariff barriers, subsidize their manufacturers, rebate value-added taxes on exports to us and impose value-added taxes on imports from us, all to capture our markets and kill our great companies. And we have a Republican Party blissfully ignorant that we live in a world of us or them. It doesn’t even know who “us” is.

While there are definitely inequities in how we open our markets to others as opposed to how they open their markets to us, on the whole the trade situation benefits consumers in America. (This isn’t to say some improvements couldn’t be made.) And while Pat decries the “Toyota Republicans” who voted against the bailout, it’s worth noting that many of these Reagan Democrats abandoned the GOP two cycles ago because the party was straying from fiscally conservative principles!

The Republicans had a poor choice in the matter – either alienate those who work and depend on the Big Three (and make up a significant percentage of voters in Rust Belt states) or go against their principles and support a bailout that wasn’t guaranteed to work without significant concessions from many of those same voters. And it’s doubtful that the GOP would get any credit for attempting to save their jobs in the auto plants via the union missives these workers receive, but I’m certain the Republicans would be assigned the blame for making the unions concede wages and benefits for workers and retirees.

There’s no question that one or more of the Big Three would file for bankruptcy in 2009 without some sort of federal help, but this could be a liberating factor as well. Perhaps a merger is in order between two or even all three of Detroit’s automakers – certainly it wouldn’t create a monopoly because the Big Three’s market share has declined to a point where foreign automakers are closing in on the lion’s share of the American market.

In this case, the conservative Buchanan advocates for the wrong choice. Certainly many Republicans set a poor precedent by voting to bail out the financial industry, but one wrong move does not deserve another and it’s time for Detroit to catch up to the marketplace.

Listening to the choir

This was yet another blog idea which landed in my mailbox; as always it took root in my fertile mind and began the questioning process. I haven’t talked a whole lot about Delaware lately, but this item was chosen especially for my friends there:

Governor-elect Jack Markell will host a public town hall meeting, Tuesday, December 16, to solicit ideas from Delawareans as to how his administration can make state government as effective and efficient as possible. Due to the national economic downturn, Delaware is facing significant revenue shortfalls over the next two fiscal years, and Gov.-elect Markell is looking for innovative, out-of-the-box ideas to cut spending.

The meeting will be held from 5 to 6:30 p.m. in the DART/DTC auditorium on 119 Lower Beech St., which is in the Wilmington Riverfront area.

Please feel free to share this invitation with persons who you think would be interested in attending.

All right Jack, consider your request done. Now I have a question on the philosophy of this townhall meeting that your incoming administration should consider.

First of all, this announcement of yours brought to mind something that you said when you first announced to be Governor of the First State. I’ve been on Jack’s e-mail list since his Treasurer run in 2006, and it didn’t take me long to comb my archives to find this nugget from June 19, 2008:

I didn’t want to play favorites. I care about every inch of this state, and I will be governor for every single Delawarean. It only makes sense that my campaign will kick-off in every single town. We have great momentum. Up and down the state, my fellow Democrats are telling me they are ready for new ideas, and a new direction. I’m ready to bring new leadership to Dover, and bring bold Democratic solutions to the problems we are facing in cities and towns all over Delaware.

Yet when it’s time to begin to consider what you’re doing to combat Delaware’s budget shortfall, you schedule this town hall meeting in an area where you drew most of your support, at a time hard-working Delaware residents would find inconvenient at best. Perhaps this will make a good backdrop for the on-the-scene news report during the 6:00 evening local news (with film at 11, as the old television saying goes) but to me it would be more like preaching to the choir. Maybe budget cuts aren’t the “bold Democratic solutions” you were thinking about when you signed up to run for the gig, but it’s the hand you’ve been dealt by your Democrat predecessor. Certainly states aren’t alone in having to make hard choices – ask the half-million plus Americans who went to sign up for unemployment benefits a week ago.

Nor is this the example I would expect from a campaigner who made outstanding efforts to reach out to everyone in the state by scheduling 57 campaign events in 57 hours and through his Tour de Delaware. I may disagree with the ideas Jack has, but can’t fault the hard work involved in getting them out on a personal basis (especially as a guy who’s rediscovered the joy of getting the bike out when the weather’s nice over the last summer as my physical shape improved.)

In order to be a governor for everyone in Delaware, I would hope that your budget-cutting meeting isn’t just a one-time deal and that you seek to spend more time listening to your opposition and considering good counter-arguments as they apply to what they have to propose. Had I decided to locate my abode just a few miles north of where I live now I would be one of those you govern over, and you do directly affect many good friends of mine who live just across the Mason-Dixon Line in Sussex County. I’m sure a good deal of the residents at the southern end of the state already have the “red-headed stepchild” complex of being the forgotten part of Delaware.

Here in Maryland Governor O’Malley preaches a “One Maryland” concept but only seems to govern in the interest of those who live within a few miles of the I-95 corridor between Baltimore and Washington. Governor-elect Markell, if you truly want to be a different kind of Democrat it behooves you to meet face-to-face with voters all over your state as you did while campaigning, not just give the time to those who gave you the votes to be elected.

Crossposted on That’s Elbert With An E.

Senator against government waste

I have Pat Toomey and the Club For Growth to thank for this one.

Earlier this month one of my favorite Senators, Oklahoma’s Tom Coburn, put out a report on the worst examples of government waste in 2008. (I suppose one could argue this report by one who’s on the public payroll and his publicly-funded staff would be an example of wasting money and time compiling such nonsense, but it is a small price to pay.)

Really, the first paragraph in the executive summary says it all:

Politicians in Washington outdid themselves in 2008, wasting taxpayer money in ways and amounts once thought unimaginable – all without blushing. So outrageous was the spending, an outside observer would be forced to think that not only do Americans love to pay taxes, but that the federal budget was in a state of perpetual surplus. This report is an attempt to pull back the curtain on 65 examples of wasteful Washington spending worth more than $1.3 billion, and by doing so, provide a mechanism to hold Congress accountable for fiscal responsibility. It is time for Washington to stop recklessly spending other peoples’ money and burdening future generations with insurmountable national debt.

I’ll have to admit that when we’re looking at a budget deficit which could be 1,000 times the amount of waste Senator Coburn found the effort is fairly symbolic at best. But it serves as a talisman to point out that we really have stuck our federal (and state) governments into many places they don’t belong, like my other example.

As we found out on Friday, the proposed $15 billion bailout to the Big Three (read: United Auto Workers) died for lack of cloture in the Senate. In the same e-mail the Club For Growth handily put in the House and Senate votes on the issue. While it’s not unexpected that the local Maryland and Delaware delegations basically split along party lines, it’s more telling that neither of the two local participants in the 110th Congress who won’t return failed to vote; neither Biden or Gilchrest recorded a vote. Particularly in the Senate, where 13 Senators did not vote and the measure failed by eight, the timing of the lame duck session made a difference – most of the non-voters were leaving the Senate after this term.

In any case, for the moment American taxpayers have dodged one expensive bullet – unfortunately the Democrats are rolling into Washington with an arsenal of bright ideas to spend your money on.

Plugging the holes by digging the earth

I have my API friend Jane Van Ryan to thank for alerting me to a news item from just up the road in Pennsylvania as part of another update she sent me. Apparently the Commonwealth is allowing oil and gas companies to take advantage of the Keystone State’s natural resources for a price set by the market, and Governor Rendell is taking advantage of the unexpected windfall to help plug his own state’s $1.6 billion budget deficit.

Not surprisingly, the green lobby is up in arms about this transfer idea, at least according to this article by Robert Swift in the Hazleton Standard-Speaker. Swift is correct in that this is one of the oldest accounting tricks in the book, and the $190 million would apparently be many times the amount of money normally found in the fund.

The first question I have though is whether there’s any such prospect of this happening in Maryland. Earlier this year a number of private owners out on the western edge of Maryland in Garrett County were fortunate enough to take advantage of the opportunity to lease their properties for natural gas drilling rights, and while it’s not quite money for nothing (let alone chicks for free) it might be worth checking out that option on the vast swaths on land in that region the state controls.

Rendell’s situation also brings up a budgeting question common in Maryland, where money is subdivided into numerous smaller pots in addition to the state’s General Fund. Each year, there seems to be a new crop of specificially-devoted funds added by the General Assembly for a myriad of purposes; for example a new Education Trust Fund was set up by the legislation (SB3) which was passed for video slot machines in 2007 for the 48.5% of eventual slots revenue committed to education. A similar shell game was played by Martin O’Malley (with the help of the General Assembly) in balancing the FY2009 budget and the extreme situation Pennsylvania finds itself in points out the weakness in having that sheer number of funds rather than allowing money to go where it’s most useful. In particular, environmental programs benefit greatly from having dedicated funds created by the General Assembly when the money could be better used in other areas. (Program Open Space is one example which truly frosts me.)

Similarly, in Pennsylvania Governor Rendell seems to have the sensible idea that reallocating money to where it would do the most good is a better alternative than “monitoring the impact of gas development, improving park and forest hiking trails, acid mine drainage cleanup, buying sub-surface mineral rights in state forest areas and buying heavy equipment for park operations” that environmental activists wish to spend the $190 million windfall on. Certainly the situation creates a good argument for streamlining the budget and eliminating those dedicated funds.

It’s a question of how to spend the money most wisely, and if using the money from the Marcellus Shale rights can allow Governor Rendell to avoid taking more out of the pockets of Pennsylvanians that’s the wisest way to spend it. (Considering Rendell is a Democrat, I’m not even going to hold my breath on him cutting the fat out of the budget – I’ll just assume he spends every nickel he can get.)

When there’s a private-sector industry out there willing to spend money to create jobs and not looking for a handout or a subsidy to put people to work, that’s something responsible governance needs to explore further. If the resources in Maryland are there and the charge is to create a highest and best use, it’s only right that we should take advantage of opportunities where we can.

Shining the light on solar (and its subsidies)

In an interesting bit of happenstance, last weekend’s Maryland Republican Party Fall Convention was held at the same time and same venue as the MDV-SEIA Solar Energy: Focus 2009 Conference & Exhibition, which brought together exhibitors and those interested in solar energy around the capital region. (We kicked them downstairs for Saturday, which shows me Doubletree has its priorities correct. Capitalism before wackoism.) Since the mission of the MDV-SEIA is to “speak out on solar legislation, codes and standards issues in Richmond, Annapolis and the District, seeking better financing and broader consumer awareness,” I thought it would be a good idea to see just how much “better financing” they’re getting now. (Emphasis mine.)

Obviously there are a number of businesses which deal in solar energy, and the bulk of the exhibitors (I’m guessing there were around 20) were companies who sell or install solar panels. Probably the most known, and one who actually has a solar panel manufacturing facility in Frederick, Maryland, is BP Solar – obviously a subsidiary of British Petroleum (corporately known as BP plc.) They’re quite helpful in the “better financing” regard, with a area on their website devoted to rebates and incentives for installing solar panels (read: redistribution of tax money as subsidies.) Maryland is one of 24 states who have enacted financial incentives to install solar panel systems; surprisingly to me we were one of the most miserly in that regard – only Utah had a smaller allowance than Maryland’s $3,000 while Wyoming’s was equal. (By comparison, Delaware’s incentive as listed is fifth highest at $20,000.) BP’s information is a little out of date, though, as I’ll detail later.

While BP is pleased to share the costs borne by government of its solar program, it’s much more difficult to determine its impact on the corporate bottom line. Effective in 2008, BP placed its alternative energy subsidiaries in a grouping with overall corporate operations, and through the third quarter this area was their lone loser among BP’s various businesses. (You can find the breakout on Page 10 of this document. Notice U.S. operations take the biggest toll.) Not being an accountant by trade, I’m still led to assume that the alternative energy portion of BP’s business is the loss leader, but serves them a little bit of a shield against criticism from the extreme environmental left.

However, BP itself hasn’t been left off the subsidy train. A pamphlet I picked up at the event glowingly notes, under “Investing in Communities”:

BP Solar has been awarded a U.S. Department of Energy grant under the Solar America Initiative (SAI) to accelerate the path to grid-parity (bringing the cost of solar on par with traditional brown power). This ~$40 million effort encompasses all levels of the manufacturing and deployment steps for residential and commercial applications.

The SAI is part of the laundry list of programs for energy independence President Bush outlined in his 2006 State of the Union Address, and that $40 million is a big chunk of the $148 million he proposed in FY2007. Fiscally conservative that’s not.

As you can tell already, many of these exhibitors wouldn’t be there if not for a large heap of federal money. But the state of Maryland, and at least one locality within, is not immune to shoveling tax money toward homeowners who believe solar energy may be right for them.

One bill (HB377) which passed the 2008 General Assembly increased Maryland’s former $3,000 cap on solar grants to $10,000, divvied out as $2,500 per installed kilowatt. But according to the Maryland Energy Administration, the full budget allocation for these grants was wiped out in one day of applications, and they’ve stopped taking applications for the FY2009 waitlist for money to replenish the grants extorted from utility companies and others who participate in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative cap-and-trade program. They’re now starting to take applications to wait for reimbursement in 2010.

If that’s not enough, residents of perhaps the greatest socialist’s paradise in America – Montgomery County – have the opportunity to participate in their “Clean Energy Rewards” program. Of course, it comes at a cost to the consumer:

County residents, businesses, and other organizations will receive a half a cent ($0.005) for each kilowatt-hour (kWh) of program eligible clean energy used. Depending on the product selected the cost of clean energy through the program ranges from 1.5 to 3.5 cents more than standard electricity (10/14/08).

There’s also a cap to the program of 20,000 kWh annually for residences and 400,000 kWh annually for businesses. All this does then is subsidize a small portion of the out-of-pocket cost to those who feel guilty enough after being browbeaten by the radical environmentalists out there to decide to fork over a premium price for the same exact form of energy that the most polluting coal-fired plant produces at a much better price. Even in a best-case scenario for a homeowner who uses 20,000 kWh, they’re paying a $300 premium to get a $100 check from the government.

Clean Energy Rewards is not the only scam Montgomery County promotes, they also encourage the purchase of renewable energy certificates as well. Once again, this is done to create a market for alternative energy where none exists, and again taxpayers pay for a reward that’s a pittance compared to the actual costs. (But it also keeps a few pencil pushers employed too.)

Job creation is a good place to finish my look at this subject. Many claim that green-collar jobs are the wave of the future, and there was one start-up business present at the trade show with a mission to “create permanent green-collar jobs that support an environmentally sustainable locally-based economy.” Another little handout I picked up last weekend was from a group called the Worldwatch Institute, who claimed that “(b)y 2006, the U.S. renewables industry had created 386,000 jobs compared to 82,000 jobs in the coal industry.” Perhaps that’s true, but the renewables industry pales greatly in comparison to the over 1.6 million jobs currently held by those working in the oil and gas industry. Nor does the Worldwatch Institute give a time frame for that job creation purportedly in the renewable energy field.

As a whole, I have nothing against those who wish to invest in solar power for whatever reason – if they have the resources to do so and feel it’s right for them, go for it. The same goes for companies who have a better idea in that realm of technology. But it should be up to the market to determine winners and losers, and my biggest problem with the heavy government involvement and subsidy of that industry for the dubious purpose of preventing climate change is that there are so many other priorities our federal and state governments should be funding first, well before engaging in corporate welfare of this type.

While the nation argued for days about a $15 billion bailout of the Big Three, we seem not to notice the billions in subsidies and tax breaks that go to make renewable energy cost about the same as those fossil fuels we hold in abundance, but which may not be as politically correct to use. Someday solar energy will have its place, but the economics of today suggest that day isn’t here yet.

Odds and ends no. 15

It’s time once again for another compilation of items that aren’t necessarily worth a full post but sparked my interest nonetheless, a post I call ‘odds and ends.’

First of all, this is from a group I’ve supported before, the pro-troop group Move America Forward. I’ll allow spokesperson Kristen Schremp to pick things up from here:

Move America Forward, the nation’s largest pro-troop grassroots organization, is conducting a nationwide tour to support sending care packages to the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“With Americans focused on the economic problems facing our country, we have to ensure that our troops in harm’s way are not forgotten during the Christmas and Hanukkah holiday season,” said Melanie Morgan, Chairman of Move America Forward.

Traveling on the tour will be Gold Star Mom Debbie Lee, – whose son Marc Alan Lee was the first Navy S.E.A.L. killed in Iraq. Lee said, “I remember his feelings of pride for serving our country, but also the loneliness troops endure during the holiday season. Instead of celebrating Christmas and Hanukkah with their families, many military men and women will be spending the holidays this year protecting our freedom in far off lands.”

To show the nation’s gratitude and support, Move America Forward’s Debbie Lee and singer/songwriter Diana Nagy (who will perform her hit song “Where Freedom Flies” at each stop) will be on the road encouraging people to send care packages from December 13 – December 19.

In their case, the tour itinerary runs through the southern part of the country, but readers can still donate regardless of where they live by going here.

The next little item is a method to rate bills before Congress from a fairly new group to me called the Sunlight Foundation, a group whose goal is to make Congress more accessible. Blogger Ellen Miller explains:

OpenCongress has just launched Battle Royale, their new feature that collects all the data about Congress generated by users of “My OpenCongress” since January 2008. David Moore, OpenCongress’ director, describes it as a “Billboard Chart” for legislation or a “Digg” for Congress. Battle Royale lets you see what bills people are loving or hating. It will gauge their user community’s views on legislation by stacking up all the bills, issues, and members of Congress. “This new tool is a key part of our work to harness the social wisdom created on OpenCongress and make it accessible and useful across the Web,” David wrote in an email. One purpose of Battle Royale is to give a bird’s eye view for researching the public’s opinion of Congress. Check it out and you’ll find a list of the top ten most supported and most opposed bills of the past 30 days on OpenCongress.

Perhaps the only thing I don’t care for about Battle Royale is having to log in to express your views; it’s probably holding participation back to some extent. We’ll have to see where the concept goes in the 111th Congress that begins come January.

At this time of the year, there’s a whole lotta listing going on. Yesterday, even with 20 days left in 2008 to come up with a real doozy like the auto bailout, The Business & Media Institute (which is an arm of the Media Research Center, for those of you keeping track of the myriad organizations lobbying inside the Beltway) came up with the Media’s Top 10 Worst Economic Myths of 2008. What surprised me was the amount of depth and linkage placed in most of the categories (all but one had three or more outside links to either their own blog posts or “mainstream” media outlets.) I may have flip-flopped #1 and #2 for starters since the #2 myth affected the election more, but on the whole I can’t quibble a lot with their picks.

Now I’ll shift from the biggest issue of the recent election to one which was predicted to be a much bigger issue a year or so back, and one that could have sank John McCain’s bid had the debate occurred a little later: immigration. This item is a couple weeks old, but the information the Center for Immigration Studies put out is still valid unless and until the laws regarding this change:

Each year, tens of thousands of United States citizens and Legal (LPR), at both home and abroad, meet and marry foreign nationals. Spouses of American citizens have priority over most other immigration categories, making marriage the quickest way to receive a green card. As the new Obama administration prepares to take office, the long dormant debate over levels of legal immigration is sure to resurface, but that debate is unlikely to include discussion of fraud amongst the most common path to American residency. The prevalence of such fraud contributes to illegal immigration, poses potential national security vulnerability, and clogs the system for legitimate applicants.

The Center for Immigration Studies, a non-profit research organization, has released a new Backgrounder detailing the ways the marriage-based green card categories are exploited and offers recommendations to protect the system from fraud. “Hello, I Love You, Won’t You Tell Me Your Name: Inside the Green Card Marriage Phenomenon,” was written by David Seminara, a former Consular Officer with the U.S. State Department who has adjudicated thousands of marriage-based green card applications in several countries. (Emphasis in original.)

Being a single man, I’ve actually had experience with women finding my Yahoo profile and sending me instant messages wanting to get to America. But as Seminara (whose work I’ve discussed before on this website) notes, while there are thousands of cases where love was found across oceans or continents, in too many cases the marriages are a scam designed to bring someone to America for whatever reason.

On another side of immigration, a group who I regularly get e-mail from but generally don’t use sent me this piece regarding a pair of Border Patrol agents who are a cause celebre amongst immigration hawks and pro-law enforcement citizens, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Antonio Compean:

Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) already has filed not one, but two friend of the court briefs (here and here) for Ignacio Ramos and Jose Antonio Compean. In those briefs, GOF has pointed out to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that the 10-year conviction of the two agents is for a crime which doesn’t exist.

(snip)

The two agents were convicted of the “Discharge of a Firearm in Relation to a Crime of Violence” — something which is not an offense, rather it is a sentencing enhancement after the government has established illegal gun possession, use or carrying.

Of course, if the Feds had gone for that kind of charge, they would have run into the problem that the agents were required to possess, use and carry guns on them while on duty. That is why the US Attorney, Johnny Sutton, went for, and succeeded, in making up an offense that would not force him to explain away that the agents are required to be armed.

One of the reasons the Border Patrol requires agents to be armed is so they can use their guns against armed drug smugglers such as Osvaldo Aldrete.

Even if the Supreme Court reverses this injustice done to Ramos and Compean, they could expect to sit in jail for upwards of another two years — for a crime that was impossible for them to commit.

GOF was a friend of the court in a similar case before the Supreme Court. Our position was upheld nine-to-nothing. It involved a drug dealer who took a gun in payment for a bag of dope. The Feds gave him many extra years because he supposedly had “used” a gun in a crime. The Supreme Court agreed that such a view was ridiculous and clearly not the intent of the law. The Fifth Circuit has simply overlooked these fatal flaws in the government’s case.

George Bush is thinking about his legacy. We have a chance to convince him that his legacy is on the verge of staining his reputation with the miscarriage of justice perpetrated by the federal prosecutor, Johnny Sutton. Keep in mind that Sutton lied to the trial court and to the appeals court about Aldrete’s connections with the drug trade. He also concealed from the jury that he was paying Aldrete for his testimony against the agents.

Hopefully, President Bush does not want to be known as one who stood by while innocent men — and the wives and children — suffered because of a blatant injustice.

All gun owners should be alarmed at what the government has done to these two agents. If they will do this to police officers, we cannot assume they will treat the rest of the population any better.

While I do happen to think, along with the GOA, that this pair should be pardoned for a so-called crime committed in the course of doing their assigned tasks, the question I have is open to other bloggers who may be on the mailing list of the entity called Special Guests, or to the company itself.

In looking at their site and their “about us” section, it appears the focus of their operation is placing clients on radio and television as “special guests” – hence the name. Fair enough. SG’s clients pay a fee to get their word out, such as a book to promote. In the case of this e-mail, the client is GOA Executive Director Larry Pratt, who is promoting a new book he’s written.

As readers have probably figured out, one thing I enjoy doing is a short-form interview (Ten Questions.) What I wonder is whether Special Guests is pondering doing the same in the blogosphere, or if I’m just the lucky one who gets their e-mails? Obviously they wouldn’t need to charge a client as much to secure an interview with a website like mine (which is small, but seeks to grow in readership and stature) as they would for a larger, more read website.

There’s times where I get e-mails from people who want to get their word out soliciting interviews with bloggers – this is how I got the last two I’ve done, I just responded to their offer nicely. The good thing for me is that these provide a basis for securing more and better interviews, because I’d like to make Ten Questions at least a monthly feature. You need to start someplace!

It’s a question I thought I’d ask and a good way to wrap up this method I use to clean out my “blog ideas” mailbox.

Ten reasons McCain lost

Editor’s note: in contacting Scott Migli about the report, I found out it’s available from the Wilson Research Strategies website here.

Sure, I’m a bit behind the curve on this one but then I didn’t have all this polling data Scott Migli of Wilson Research Strategies shared with us during our luncheon session last Saturday after the Maryland Republican Party Fall Convention.

Migli’s presentation broke the GOP loss down into ten points. What I’m going to do here is give readers my impression on whether I felt the reason was correct and maybe the flaw in the strategy.

This was a winnable race after the convention. Failure on the economy cost McCain and Republicans.

John McCain did not leave the Senate after he was nominated, unlike Bob Dole in 1996. Because he was still in the Senate, I think he could have taken some time out as the underdog and introduced his agenda in advance of the election in order to look proactive and like a leader. Certainly he would have better spent his time in Washington off the campaign trail talking about the bailout introducing some alternatives instead.

We didn‘t put the mistakes of the past behind us fast enough and McCain wound up tied to them.

In illustrating this point, Migli used two pieces of data: the right track/wrong track numbers and President Bush’s approval/disapproval ratings. The Democrats and media (but I repeat myself) succeeded greatly in painting McCain as “McSame” or “Bush III” and McCain did run a fairly defensive campaign.

McCain‘s failures on the economy killed him. A floundering embrace of a big government solution only hastened his demise.

Many say that had McCain voted against the bailout he may have won the election; after all another polling result Migli showed was a CBS News poll from early October showing 51% of Americans were against the bailout and just 31% supported it. This also goes with the next point.

McCain failed to draw a distinction of fundamental ideological vision with Obama.

Again, voting no on the bailout would have helped him draw a distinction – Lord knows John McCain couldn’t seem to gain any traction during his debates with Barack Obama. And while we thought that Barack Obama was very liberal (based on his voting record) he successfully connected with less-informed (because they read or watch the drive-by media) voters as a moderate – 55% of voters thought his philosophy was “about right” while just 40% thought Obama was “too liberal”. The best Democrat of modern times on that score was Bill Clinton in 1992, who had 56% of voters convinced he was “just right” and he won too.

Go Negative is not a winning strategy in and of itself. We have to give voters a reason to vote for us.

To an extent this is true, but many on the conservative side thought McCain was being TOO restrained against his Senate colleague and other Democrats. There was so much material the pajamas media and conservative commentators had come up with to engage Barack Obama on – not just his associations with Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright or the dozens of “present” votes in the Illinois Senate, but directly tying him in with the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fiasco as a huge recipient of campaign cash from those groups. We kept waiting on McCain to name the names we knew helped cause the subprime mortgage crisis but once he did it was barely in passing. And when you compare spending $300 billion we didn’t have to buy “bad mortgages” to “a tax cut for 95% of Americans” that was no contest.

At the Congressional level a bad year was made worse by bad apples, poor candidates, and out-of-touch incumbents.

There were a number of examples Migli used in his presentation – Tim Walberg in Michigan, Elizabeth Dole in North Carolina, Bill Sali of Idaho, and Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado were all perceived as “out of touch” or hostile to their districts, while Rick Renzi of Arizona, Vito Fosselli of New York (neither of whom ran for re-election), Tom Feeney of Florida, and Ted Stevens of Alaska were tarred by scandal.

On a local level, it seemed that Wayne Gilchrest was out of touch with his district – until he lost his primary, then it became time to avenge the defeat by sinking Andy Harris’s campaign. Suddenly he was all over campaigning for Frank Kratovil. The Democrats also did well in playing up the perceived arrogance of Andy Harris. It actually caused a possible violation of the next point.

America remains a center-right country: when Republicans stick to conservative principles we win.

The First District was an exception to this rule to some extent, but it’s worth pointing out that Frank Kratovil only won by a plurality and not a majority. Had Georgia’s electoral rules providing for a runoff if no candidate gets a majority of the vote been in place in Maryland and a runoff occurred without Libertarian challenger Richard James Davis, the conservatives coming back home to Harris and the lack of Barack Obama on the ballot to dampen the heavy minority turnout may have shown a turnaround in the numbers.

On the other hand, conservative voters knew John McCain was a latecomer to the principles of low taxation, did not stand foursquare on the immigration issue with them, and talked openly about fighting climate change. None of these were winning positions with conservatives, who have long memories.

On key issues a conservative position still wins. We dont need to abandon our principles, we need to stand by them.

Migli showed a number of slides on various issues bearing this out, but that’s simply intuitive based on the point above. Unfortunately, for the most part GOP candidates don’t seem to run on those principles unless they come from safe GOP districts.

We need to face a couple facts in this respect. Try as we might, conservatives will rarely get newspaper endorsements nor will they be given a fair shake in coverage. And especially in this area, the inside the Beltway crowd will do its best to mold the GOP into a Democrat-lite loyal opposition party. A candidate needs to know these things going in.

We have to get “out of Iraq” and have bigger vision. As long as we are arguing about Iraq, we are losing.

Welcome to the drive-by media. Successes in Iraq (such as the surge) were belittled and failures (like Abu Gharab) were magnified to such a point that public opinion became negative. And woe to the person who reminded people that it was Islamofascists who executed the 9/11 attacks, and that “you’re either with us or you’re against us” in the overall fight. Democrats successfully created the perception of the overall war as simply an invasion and portrayed our troops as those sticking their noses into an Iraqi civil war.

Well, guess what folks. Just in time for the 2012 campaign, we’re going to be out of Iraq. And it wasn’t Obama who made that country safe – but it is Obama’s doing if the terrorists successfully bide their time until we leave and remake that country into a caliphate.

In the long term we need a “50 State Strategy”, not a “50% + 1” Strategy.

I said this not too long ago – Howard Dean did much more damage to the conservative movement as DNC head than he ever would have as President. He’s the one who vowed a 50 state strategy and it paid off for Obama and the Democrats. We ceded way too much to Obama in this campaign, abandoning several states with a month to go in the faint hope to swing other states which turned out to support Obama anyway. The point Migli made is valid – by not fighting everywhere and engaging in at least a token rear guard action in certain areas we allowed Democrats to concentrate on “purple” states and swing them their way.

While some may fault the Maryland GOP for not picking the best candidates in several Congressional districts or giving them a lot of monetary support, the fact is that we at least filled the ballot in all eight Congressional districts and no Democrat got a completely free ride. Unfortunately, it’s very tough to get an entrenched Democrat incumbent to debate on the issues since they know intuitively the point above about conservative positions winning. (Living in Ohio’s Ninth District for most of my political life, we always asked the longtime Democrat incumbent Marcy Kaptur to debate the Republican candidate and were always rebuffed. Chicken. It would be worth charging admission just to see her debate Joe the Plumber, who lives in that very same district.) In looking at this critically, it’s almost like we need Barry Goldwater circa 1964 to run in those districts in the next couple cycles, except a little more in their face about it.

Since I don’t hold the copyright to the original data and don’t know if WRS wants all of it used for public consumption, I’m going to defer for the time being on a link despite the fact I have a copy of the original on my personal computer for reference. If I secure permission I’ll amend the post accordingly.

The study has been linked at the top of the page.