Radical Green – Page 26

A new link

You may notice I made a couple changes here over the weekend.

First of all I removed the Salisbury city election box on the left hand side since the election is now complete. More importantly though I added a new link under the Eastern Shore blogs on the right.

Don’t Tread On Me! is an outgrowth of the Salisbury Tax Day Tea Party and promises to be a new gathering place for political activists – just don’t tell Janet Napolitano. (You may also notice in the photo up top there’s a guy holding up a camera about center frame wearing a hoodie. That would be me.)

As founder Chris Lewis notes in the second post:

Enough is enough. I am tired of the lies, of the selfish and greedy nature of the politicians who do not listen or care what we have to say. The people who should be sacrificing, are the politicians, not the people. They work for us. it is time to take our country back from the elitist idiots who are screwing up America. This will and must start right here in our local communities. We can no longer be satisfied to work all day, take care of our families, enjoy time with our loved ones and offer our time to local communities and charities; we must now be more active in local, state and federal politics.

Well said, but this sentiment was more succinctly phrased by President Eisenhower in 1954:

Politics ought to be the part-time profession of every citizen who would protect the rights and privileges of free people and who would preserve what is good and fruitful in our national heritage.

In either case, it is good to see more and more people waking up to face some of the ills afflicting our nation. And, to the critics who echoed the vapid utterances of Janeane Garofalo about these Tea Party protests being solely about having a black President, take note that the first post-Tea Party act involves…private property rights. That sounds pretty racist to me.

It’s also worthy of note that Chris announced in his first post a run for a Wicomico County Council at-large seat, so perhaps he’s putting his money where his mouth is. Certainly we will hear more about that as the months progress although the start of filing is only about 2 1/2 months away as I recall.

As one who has been slogging in the trenches of political activism in my own little way for awhile, it’s good to have some company in the foxhole. Let’s hope that Lewis has a hit on his hands and Wicomico County gets an activist group of citizens on the right side of the political spectrum for a change.

The party’s not over

So I’m not going to turn off my lights tomorrow night for “Earth Hour”.

You may recall I blogged about this last year. Unfortunately, this year’s edition of the Spring Luau was last week but I may just take that hour to do the upcoming “Weekend of local rock volume 22” post in commemoration of that enjoyable use of thousands of watts of amplification from 17 (!) bands.

Needless to say, a number of people have poked fun at this including the fine folks at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. They put out a press release for the “Human Achievement Hour” noting in part that:

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a leading free-market think tank, plans to recognize “Human Achievement Hour” between 8:30pm and 9:30pm on March 28, 2009. The new one-hour holiday coincides with Earth Hour, a period of time during which governments, individuals, and corporations have agreed to dim or shut off lights in an effort to draw attention to climate change.

(snip)

The new one-hour holiday, unknown prior to this press release, has already received overwhelming support from many of Washington, D.C.’s leading institutions. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, for example, tells CEI that it does not plan to shut down all of the city’s bus and rail lines for the “Earth Hour.” The Kennedy Center, likewise, has scheduled a performance of the long-running play Sheer Madness, a jazz concert, and a dance performance to coincide with the Human Achievement Hour. Washington, D.C.’s Target store, furthermore, will remain open until 10:00pm on the evening of the 28th. The Smithsonian Institution also plans a film showing that will extend into Human Achievement Hour.

(snip)

Other organizations around the world and the nation have planned events in support of the new holiday. For example, The United State Marine Corps will continue its combat and humanitarian operations around the world during Human Achievement Hour. The New York Times confirms that it intends to put out a paper on March 29th, 2009 (preparation and printing for that issue will take place during Human Achievement Hour). At least 30,000 movies will also be screened in celebration of Human Achievement Hour. Hospital emergency and operating rooms, likewise, will remain open in Washington and in the rest of the country. Nearly all of the nation’s Wal-Mart locations will also be open during Human Achievement Hour.

Those wishing to celebrate Earth Hour, however, do not need to take part in Human Achievement Hour. “Earth Hour is a viable alternative to human achievement hour,” says CEI Senior Fellow Eli Lehrer. “Those who wish to celebrate Earth Hour should sit in the dark, turn off the heat, and breathe as little as possible.”

It goes without saying that, except for CEI itself, the institutions listed above have not actually endorsed “Human Achievement Hour.” (All the quotes and facts, however, are real and may/should be used.)

It goes without saying that this time around I’ll likely be home for that hour so I may have to turn on a few extra lights. This will assure the power grid doesn’t have an abnormal drop in usage and malfunction.

Do you get the idea that I see this Earth Hour as patently ridiculous? This may be one of the ultimate expressions of symbolism over substance. Besides, thanks to global cooling (created by the sun) there may be a number of people who won’t have a choice about whether their house is heated and the lights are on because they’ll either be flooded out (North Dakota/Minnesota), enduring a power outage thanks to a blizzard (Oklahoma/Texas), or not have a habitable home at all (various locations in the Deep South have been hit by tornadoes in the last couple days.)

So if you want to sit in the dark feel free, but I’ll be doing something productive because I know that my contributions to society require me to use at least some energy. We have no need to retreat to a 19th century lifestyle regardless of what the doomsday prophets say.

The 2012 campaign continues

And if you don’t believe me, just check out this video from the Obama front group “Organizing for America”:

You’ll notice about 2/3 of the way through that Mitch Stewart solicits e-mail addresses – again, a clever way to build up and expand the database originally started way back in Howard Dean’s abortive 2004 Presidential campaign and enhanced with Obama’s 2008 run.

Then again there’s nothing wrong with activism and involvement; it just needs to have a push from the correct direction. It’s interesting that Stewart blames “special interests” for standing in Obama’s way when it’s the special interests who have the most to gain from Obama’s agenda – that is if you consider Big Labor, supporters of a rewarmed HillaryCare, the teachers’ unions, radical environmentalists, and corporations who have gained from the massive government involvement in their affairs and are now rent-seeking as special interests – most right-thinking Americans who inhabit the producer class do believe those groups are special interests.

President Obama submitted the largest budget in American history with the largest projected deficit in American history at a time when the government is actually being run via continuing resolutions because the current budget is still being ironed out. Something about that just doesn’t make sense, particularly when it’s his party running Congress.

Seven weeks into an Obama presidency it almost appears that he’s already running the country in perpetual campaign mode much as President Clinton did during the first four years of his run. (The second term was more damage control mode thanks to the Monica Lewinsky scandal and accompanying impeachment drive. In Obama’s case the scandals seem to be falling amongst his underlings, though.)

It goes without saying that little of Obama’s agenda can be stopped in the House of Representatives and given the tendency of a small group of Senate RINO’s to place what they consider political expediency above principle it’s not likely that body will be much of a speedbump either.

But the one thing both House and Senate are afraid of is a large-scale backlash from constituents – witness the firestorm conservatives caused on immigration or the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination.

I’m considering this video an effort to short-circuit the prospect of a conservative grassroots rebellion by isolating those on the left who would be most likely to be active and sending out their competing propaganda to a list of activists all their own, one backed by much of the mainstream media. This is particularly true in our Congressional district, where a freshman Democrat who barely won election (and flip-flopped on the stimulus bill) will most likely face a strongly conservative challenger next year.

So I bring this video to your attention even though it’s from a source that would normally not attract my notice as much. It proves a point that we on the right need to stay on our toes and not let the intraparty squabbles such as Limbaugh vs. Steele or Limbaugh vs. Newt distract us from the main goal of squelching the socialist Obamanation agenda.

Profit-taking by Uncle Sam

I don’t know if you’ve noticed this, but while I was out and about today I saw that gas prices are edging back up again. What were numbers in the $1.50 range a month or so ago are now creeping back up into the mid-$1.80’s at some stations I witnessed along U. S. 50.

In the meantime, the buzz around our nation’s capital has centered on the tax difficulties encountered by several of President Obama’s nominees and the fate of the so-called stimulus package in the Senate.

But a few months ago you’ll likely recall that gas was north of $4 a gallon and Exxon/Mobil was making what many termed obscene profits because of the price spike in crude oil futures. Last May, a bill (S.2971) was introduced which would, in part install a “temporary fee on excess oil profit”:

(a) In General- In addition to any other tax imposed under this title, there is hereby imposed on any applicable taxpayer an excise fee in an amount equal to 50 percent of the excess profit of such taxpayer for any taxable year beginning during 2008.

(b) Applicable Taxpayer- For purposes of this chapter, the term `applicable taxpayer’ means, with respect to operations in the United States–

(1) any integrated oil company (as defined in section 291(b)(4)), and

(2) any other producer or refiner of crude oil with gross receipts from the sale of such crude oil or refined oil products for the taxable year exceeding $1,000,000,000.

The reason I bring this up now is because forecasting the effects of legislation sometimes takes awhile, and this week a study was released showing the possible consequences of such a tax on our domestic energy industry. Continue reading “Profit-taking by Uncle Sam”

Lesson three: green that costs green

One final lesson, for now.

Over the last decade or so, a movement has arisen. It’s embodied by Al Gore’s schlockumentary “An Inconvenient Truth”, which unfortunately is factually challenged at best. In effect, this movement blames the advance of mankind and our expanding economy (which, in turn, creates a demand for more energy, predominantly based on burning carbon-based fossil fuels) for global climate change.

(It used to be global warming, but inconveniently the earth’s average global temperature has actually declined over the last decade. So the green movement needed a new term.)

In response, we have undergone a number of changes in our lifestyle. Let me say right at the top that I believe I speak for conservatives when I say we have no problem with energy-efficient methods of operation. Where we differ from Democrats is believing that there should be a choice in the matter, and energy efficiency should not be achieved through fiat.

An example of this comes with “smart grid” technology. Quoting from Wikipedia:

“…smart grid features could expand energy efficiency beyond the grid into the home by coordinating low priority home devices such as water heaters so that their use of power takes advantage of the most desirable energy sources.

(snip)

Some of the benefits of such a modernized electricity network include the ability to reduce power consumption at the consumer side during peak hours, called Demand side management.

This all sounds well and good. But where does “the ability to reduce power consumption” end? For example, if Barack Obama repeated Jimmy Carter’s idea about keeping our home thermostats at 65 degrees in the winter and 78 degrees during the summer, couldn’t that same technology reset your home thermostats to those levels whether you wanted them there or not? Personally I’ve found my house is most comfortable at 68 and 75, repsectively. But the green lobby has pitched these sorts of measures in the guise of combatting global climate change.

Then we have our energy sources. Democrats like President Obama believe that we should cut our dependence on foreign oil, and so do I. The problem with their approach is that they don’t want to drill for domestic oil! Obviously any oil or natural gas we find here lessens our need for imports, but that lesson is lost on Democrats. Instead they want to “invest” (read: spend taxpayer dollars on subsidies) in “alternative” energy.

What should be most offensive to every one of you is the fact that some bureaucrat in Washington, D.C. who you’ve never met nor have you vetted for qualifications makes the decisions for you when it comes to the car you drive, the kind of light bulbs you use, and where energy companies can look for new sources of energy to rebuild our sagging economy.

The “green” movement is a symptom of a larger disease. When I cited the Pew study on Sunday, the Democrats’ 45-26 margin among the youth voters was only the second most alarming statistic.

What bothered me more than anything was the 69 percent of voters age 18-29 who thought that government should do more to solve problems, adopting an expanded role in our lives.

Benjamin Franklin is often quoted as noting, “(t)hey who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” While many use this as a warning about the PATRIOT Act (which is a valid criticism; personally I feel that act should have a sunset date), I look at this idea in a number of other ways.

On the whole, what the Democratic Party in place circa 2009 and their liberal, socialist followers would like to do is exert their control over your daily life.

This is perfectly embodied in the fact that, if you’re an employee who draws a paycheck, who gets the fruit of your labor first? The government does. Before you can cash your check at the bank or draw from the direct deposit, your money automatically goes to the federal and state government through backup withholding.

What I would suggest to our youth is to take an hour and study a copy of our Constitution, paying particular attention to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Bill of Rights.

You’ll see that it’s not a perfect document, but the idea that freedom and liberty for the individual can and should be paramount shines through.

However, the party you subscribe to and their method of governance ignore that clear advice, instead believing that rights truly belong to the government and should be given out as they see fit.

I know that theory and practice aren’t exactly the same, and elites seem to operate under their own set of rules. This is only because we the people allow them to. In a more perfect Union, Americans would be much more vigilant and protective of their own rights.

By subordinating yourselves and believing only government can bring about solutions, you sell yourselves short and doom future generations to either a Long March toward serfdom or another bloody revolution to once again break the chains of tyranny. It’s your choice – please choose more wisely.

Is energy a priority?

My friend Jane Van Ryan at API played interviewer in this video shot a few days ago. I’ll share the video first, then my thoughts.

First of all, she looked a little chilly – then again, standing out in the street for whatever time it took to get three minutes of usable footage would tend to be a bit frosty. Since I’ve never done one of these on-street interviews I have no idea.

More importantly, the group Jane represents wanted to make their thoughts known about continuing oil exploration and its associated job creation to the incoming Obama Administration.

Certainly I’m not an expert in the oil business. Before I started communicating to Jane on an occasional basis, I never really thought about all the steps involved in getting something from a mile or more underground in some instances through the entire refining and transport process to the gas pump where I stand and fill my car’s gas tank. If nothing else, I have learned a little bit about the business side of things there thanks to her.

But Jane also serves to put a face on the human side of the equation. There are a whole lot of people who depend on the oil industry for their livelihood, and in truth with oil prices beginning to bottom out her industry may be in for some fairly difficult times. That’s not to say many people will be shedding tears for those in the oil business since all they hear about is the huge profits oil companies made in 2008.

On the other hand, with oil prices so low at the moment, the onetime plan to collect a windfall profits tax on oil when prices were over $80 a barrel isn’t going to happen – unless the Obama Administration does something to drive prices up to that level, such as restoring the offshore drilling ban. Remember, there are some BHO supporters who thought that $4 a gallon gasoline was a good floor price, so I’m sure they shake their head disapprovingly at gas going for $1.75 per gallon. (Either that or they think this is a great time to increase the federal gasoline tax.) Continue reading “Is energy a priority?”

Waste not, want not?

I wasn’t familiar with the ads in question, probably because I don’t hang out in the DC area. But writing in the openmarket.org blog, Sam Kazman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute thinks that Vladimir Putin should be Chevron’s Man of the Year because Russia recently cut off the natural gas pipelines to Europe which run through the Ukraine over a payment dispute between Naftogaz Ukrainy and Gazprom, the two state-run gas companies serving Ukraine and Russia.

Nominally, that’s not really worth the post by itself – after all, the Russia-Ukraine dispute has simmered for a few years and Europe has shivered in prior winters when one of the host countries for these vital gas pipelines decided to teach a lesson to a country farther down the line.

One has to wonder, though, about what happens if one of our energy suppliers gets into a disagreement with us. Suppose Israel escalates their excursion into Gaza farther and flattens the Hamas forces. Would our support for Israel be again translated into an OPEC embargo? While that would only take away perhaps 1/3 to 1/2 of our total usage since Canada and Mexico are our main foreign oil suppliers, the toll on our gasoline price and supplies would be severe. Overnight we could be back at $4 a gallon – or more. That cutoff could also leave many in colder areas of the country needing to decide whether to heat or eat because their heating oil would be spiking in cost as well.

While Europe doesn’t have a great deal of choice in the matter because of the scant reserves of oil and natural gas under much of that continent, America does have options because we’re blessed with abundant supplies of both.

Unfortunately, shortsighted people who seem to care more about what scare tactics they could conjure up of oil platforms blocking the sunrise on your favorite beach or vast environmental damage killing the caribou and polar bears frolicking like they’re in a real-life holiday Coke commercial on the snowy Alaskan tundra are hampering efforts to secure our own supplies of these vital fuels. They’re doing it through a compliant Congress or via a byzantine court system which has been a weapon of choice for environmentalists to block oil exploration because of the perceived impact on wildlife.

Recently my friend Jane Van Ryan at API pointed out to me that drilling expenditures in 2007 doubled their previous record, set way back in…2006. Each new oil well cost oil companies about $4 million apiece, while natural gas wells were ever-so-slightly cheaper at $3.9 million a pop. Overall oil companies invested $220 billion into oil exploration in 2007, and I’ll stack the jobs created by that $220 billion up against those created by the $700 billion bailout scheme Congress passed last year any day of the week.

However, one item that I could not find in the information provided by API is just how much of that $4 million or so per well goes to comply with the red tape created by regulations and the lengthy court battles which may need to be won before exploration can even begin. It’s overhead OPEC sure doesn’t have to put up with. (Maybe Jane knows that number too, she seems like a pretty smart lady.)

As a return to the Kazman piece, while Chevron advertises John Q. Public stating in various ways that, “I will use less energy,” (I found the ticker of oil and gas consumption running during my site visit fairly humorous), it’s interesting to note that the company itself is using plenty of energy rebadging their local gasoline outlets with the old “Pure” moniker. While it’s refreshingly retro, they have nothing on the Sinclair dinosaur signs.

More importantly, think of the energy used in the process of seeking and securing new sources of energy and compare that with the energy burnt up in some courtroom or back office inside the Beltway attempting to hold the former process up. Which is truly the better investment and which may leave us freezing like Europeans whose natural gas supply was cut off over a payment dispute between two faroff countries?

Subsidies for our plenty

I’m having an interesting conundrum pondering this particular video from the CATO Institute that came to my attention. It’s about 5 1/2 minutes long and may hit some of my readers where they live.

In a lot of respects I can see CATO’s point; however, there is something to be said for helping out the smaller farmers rather than the large multinational corporations. Perhaps there’s a better way than just handing them checks, though.

Farming is by all accounts a risky business. In order to make a profit, a farmer has to have three things simultaneously occur: good weather for growing the crops or allowing the purchase of their feedstock at a reasonable price, a steady market for the product (which can be an export market as well), and a price per unit which enables the grower to sell at a profit. Factor in the increasing costs for fuel, labor, equipment, property taxes, insurance, and regulatory compliance – mainly due to environmental concerns – and it’s small wonder that the tiny 40-acre family farm has all but disappeared.

On the other hand, a portion of the tax burden comes from paying for those subsidies the farmers enjoy and the price of many commodities is propped up artificially by mandates such as the one corn farmers profit from regarding ethanol. And in case the weather doesn’t cooperate, farmers can generally take advantage of federally-backed low-interest financing to stave off the bill collectors until the crops come in a more plentiful manner.

Like many other businesses, those who work the land for a living are forced to keep an eye on the doings in Washington and their state capitals. However, it’s also an unfortunate fact of life that just one regulation change can wipe out years worth of planning. While that is the right states are given thanks to the Tenth Amendment, I’m quite convinced that farmers in the end would be better off with at least the subsidies from Washington phased out – in return, federal regulations can and should be sunsetted as well.

Another topic which wasn’t brought out by the CATO video but I feel is worth discussing briefly is the relatively recent practice of rural landowners selling their future development rights for cash up front, akin to taking a smaller lump-sum payment in lieu of lottery winnings normally paid out over a number of years.

My contention is that these tradable development rights should not be made permanent but instead only be in effect for a limited period of time; appropriate to me would be a 20- or 25-year term. Since farming tends to be a generational pursuit and families have been known to stay on the same homestead for a century or more, I think it’s quite fair to allow each succeeding generation to decide for themselves whether they wish to place their land off-limits to development or not. They can re-evaluate their circumstances based on the conditions present at the time – perhaps they’d like to take advantage of their frontage on what used to be a sleepy country lane when it becomes a major artery decades later. Or, instead of going to the bank for another loan because of a poor harvest, they could sell a small portion of their land if local usage creates a demand for the acreage. It’s a matter of highest and best use, as land policy should generally be.

On a personal note, I appreciate the kind words about monoblogue which were shared by some of the attendees at our Tri-County Central Committee meeting tonight. I’m sure I gained a few extra readers there, so I hope this article served as a good introduction to what I try to write as thought-provoking insight and reporting. If I may, I’d also like to suggest reading two other sites I contribute to, Red Maryland and Red County, where I edit and contribute to the Wicomico County subsite as well as post to the national site on occasion.

A Quixotic effort

From the “why doesn’t this surprise me?” department, courtesy of Bill Wilson and Americans for Limited Government:

Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson has called upon Labor Secretary Elaine Chao to launch an immediate investigation into plans by a coalition of union officials and environmentalists to raid employee pension funds in order “to pursue a dubious political agenda.”

Wilson’s call came in a letter to the Secretary hand delivered on Tuesday, December 30th. In the letter, the ALG executive warned that the announced union/environmentalist action directly violates Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) provisions by draining working pension funds to wage a political war on global warming. The letter specifically cites the Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR) as culpable in what he terms an “elaborate shell game.”

The INCR’s Action Plan has 49 signers, including leaders of pension funds, union officials, state treasurers, state and city comptrollers, financial service firms, asset managers, and foundations.

(snip)

Dating back to December of 2007, the Department of Labor has repeatedly informed union officials that it rejects “a construction of ERISA which would rend the Act’s tight limits on the use of plan assets illusory, and which would permit plan fiduciaries to tap into ERISA trusts to promote myriad public policy preferences….”

Wilson’s letter to Secretary Chao calls upon the Department of Labor to ensure that the union/environmentalist coalition properly acts in the best interests of participants and beneficiaries under the plan. It states, “We urge you to take the actions necessary to ensure the fiduciaries within your jurisdiction are complying with ERISA… and are investing solely for the benefit of the participants and beneficiaries of their plans.

Wilson noted that that the success of the investment strategy, by its own admission, is actually necessarily tied to restrictions in carbon emissions that the federal and state governments have yet to enact, thus posing greater uncertainty and risk to investors.

“The INCR with its Big Labor and state participants create the very financial risks to investors its own action plan portends to reduce,” said Wilson in a statement. “In the process, it is putting the retirement savings and investments of thousands of investors, workers, and retirees in jeopardy by tying financial returns to projected government actions that have not yet taken place, and to a disputed science that may not be factual.”

The union/environmentalist plan ostensibly seeks to “reduce climate risks” in investor portfolios by requiring investments to consider climate risk, investing capital in “developing and deploying clean technologies”, reducing by 20 percent energy use in real estate portfolios, and to support policy actions to enact a “mandatory national policy to contain and reduce national greenhouse gas emissions economy-wide, making sizable, sensible, long-term cuts in accordance with the 60-90% reductions below 1990 levels by 2050 that scientists and climate models suggest are urgently needed to avoid the worst and most costly impacts from climate change.”

Wilson contends that “reducing climate risk” is not the real intention of the investment plan, nor should it be allowed even if it were. “This amounts to an elaborate shell game to reduce carbon emissions by endangering retirements,” he said.

“All of which has nothing to do with protecting the savings of investors from risk to their portfolios,” Wilson added.

Wilson warned that left unchecked, “[t]his green-union pension raid will not only endanger workers’ retirement benefits, but the greater economy. The American people have yet to seriously question the cost of going green.”

There are a couple of things which stick out in the information provided within the links.

First is that one of the 49 signatories to the INCR Action Plan is our own State Treasurer, Nancy Kopp. Little surprise there; in fact I’m more shocked that Peter Franchot didn’t jump on board too.

However, the second item is noticing the Action Plan dates back to early last year by my reckoning. Unfortunately, Secretary Chao is going to be replaced by an Obama appointee soon, his initial pick was California Congresswoman Hilda Solis. Her selection was praised by labor leaders so you can bet your bottom dollar Wilson’s request for an investigation will be quickly shelved once Solis takes over, assuming she’s confirmed.

Living once upon a time in a state where pension fund investment in non-traditional avenues became a celebrated scandal (I’m reaching waaaay back in the archives for this one, all the way back to my old blog), the question of whether this investment is appropriate given ALG’s concern is valid; unfortunately we can see just how much of a story this has become in the media because Wilson and ALG are seemingly the lone voices bringing this up.

It’s quite possible that the best route to circumvent this is a similar route taken against Maryland’s so-called Fair Share Act in 2006 – through the court system. There was another case where the ERISA statute came into play, but for a completely different reason. In this case, it may be much more appropriate because the signatories and their pension funds represent a number of different states.

Where Wilson is absolutely correct is citing the dubious science of manmade climate change, particularly when the INCR Action Plan openly supports government action to combat it. In general, the solution sought is one of draconian, job-killing restrictions on industrial and human activity which would do little to stop global warming even if it were present. Of course, an end result which balances the monetary gain possible from increased energy efficiency with the demands of those who want to attain a higher standard of living has been well-achieved by the free market for decades. And where efficiency ran into limits, until recently bold entrepreneurs were encouraged to seek new and better energy sources and supplies.

The push away from those items which were tried-but-true, such as incandescent light bulbs and domestic oil, has accelerated over the last decade as liberal environmentalists (as I repeat myself) demand substitutes which are more expensive and/or require heavy subsidies to remain viable in the market, such as compact fluorescent light bulbs or electric-powered cars. Until then, it seemed that technology and innovation flowed naturally – in less than a normal lifespan we went from our first flight to walking on the moon.

And while it can properly be argued that the latter achievement came as a result of federal government involvement, the same is not true within the evolution of wireless technology or in the manufacture of thousands of goods one uses on a regular basis. In most cases, we’ve advanced without needing a subsidy – only recently has the norm become going to the Beltway bureaucrats and lawmakers with outstretched hands.

Regardless, asking for the financial security of retirees to be based on the risky schemes and straight-up lobbying that the INCR Action Plan suggests is far from proper fiduciary prudence. Wilson is correct to be calling for an investigation and for action, but I fear he is far too late.

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.

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.