States Rated for For Freedom? : Freedom Brings Prosperity

What this article states is freedom to chose is freedom to prosper. Unencumbered by an overreaching government and it's smothering taxes and regulations.

What does it mean toe lose freedom? We have no clue in America, but we are beginning to understand to some extent over last 6 years of attacks on freedom by the progressive socialist liberal democrats.

Which American States are the Most Free?
Source: Dean Stansel, Jose Torra and Fred McMahon, "Economic Freedom of North America 2014," Fraser Institute, December 2, 2014.

December 3, 2014

Which American states are the most free? Texas, South Dakota and North Dakota, according to a new report from the Fraser Institute on economic freedom. In fourth place was Virginia, followed by New Hampshire, Louisiana and Nebraska in fifth place, Tennessee in the ninth spot and Indiana, Georgia and Utah tied for tenth.

The least free state was Maine, with Vermont and Mississippi not far behind.

To calculate freedom, researchers Dean Stansel, Jose Torra and Fred McMahon analyzed a number of different components, including the size of government, takings and discriminatory taxation, regulation, property rights and the state's legal system.

What does economic freedom translate into? Higher incomes for state residents. As Stansel wrote in the Washington Examiner, Texas, South Dakota and North Dakota had average incomes 20 percent higher than Maine, Vermont and Mississippi. Similarly, the top 10 most free states saw a 3.5 percent growth in employment and 8 percent economic growth, while the 10 least free states saw hardly any employment growth and only 2 percent economic growth.
 

Energy Policy In Germany, Destructive : Green Energy Demanded

This has been discussed before and how 'green energy' will impact our lives, and how it doesn't matter that these burdens will effect the average families financial agenda, and how they will have to change their lives to satisfy a myth that is climate change.

The Germans are ahead of us in the destruction of their society, but we are headed in the same direction. The only hope that exists is the election of Republicans last November to bring common sense back into our government. But will they have the nerve and spine to do the right thing, only time will tell.

German Energy Policy Drives Up Electricity Prices
Source: Jared Meyer, "America Should Avoid Germany\'s Failed Energy Policy," Economics21, December 1, 2014.  

December 2, 2014

Less than 25 percent of German energy comes from green energy sources, yet the country aims to have that figure at 80 percent by 2050. Already, German energy is wildly expensive due to its relatively high reliance on wind and solar power, explains Jared Meyer of Economics21.

German household energy bills are 50 percent higher than the rest of the European Union. Why? Because wind and solar power are unreliable. Both sources require the wind to be blowing or the sun to be shining in order to generate power; when the wind does not blow, the power grid has to ramp up energy production from other sources to meet demand. This process -- called "cycling -- is inefficient, wasting energy and raising costs.

Indeed, the United States only gets a small portion of its energy from wind and solar sources -- a function, says Meyer, of the inordinate costs associated with green power:

• In 2019, wind power will cost between $64 and $175 per megawatt.
• Solar power will cost between $155 and $195 per megawatt.

By comparison, natural gas plants produce energy that costs just $14 per megawatt.

 

Wind & Solar Tax Credits : A Perpetual Political Fraud

The question that remains will the new congress members have the will to "Fundamentally" change the ebb and flow of government? Where is the common sense when this much money is spent to support a resource system that is totally without logic?

Who makes these decisions to drive out country into the ditch? Who elected and probably reelected these people?

Wind and Solar Lobby for Tax Credits
Source: Kenric Ward, "'Green' lobby pushes to extend lucrative tax breaks," Watchdog.org, November 28, 2014.

December 2, 2014

Lobbyists of all stripes are on Capitol Hill seeking renewals of tax credits as 2014 comes to a close, with groups pushing for renewal of what are known as "tax extenders" -- a diverse group of tax breaks that must be renewed from year to year. Among those lobbying for the tax extenders are wind and solar industry representatives. Kenric Ward at Watchdog.org reports that billions of dollars' worth of energy subsidies could expire at the end of the year.

Who gets the tax credits? Primarily, wind and solar. According to the International Energy Research Group, for every unit of energy produced, oil receives 64 cents in federal tax credits, and nuclear power gets $3.14. But the real money is in wind and solar power: wind power receives $56 for every unit of power produced, while solar power takes in a staggering $775.

These tax credits are hardly commensurate with their respective industries' contributions -- wind and solar are responsible for just 11 percent of American electricity, yet the industries receive 77 percent of federal tax breaks, says Ward.
 

Keystone / Trans -Alaskian Pipelines Brings Prosperity : Democrats Deny Prosperity

The Trans-Alaska Pipeline and the Keystone Pipeline are one and the same to the progressive socialist environmentalists and democrats. Their ideology of population control demands that it must deny prosperity to individuals to accomplish their agenda of dependency on an all powerful government. It's no more complicated then that.

Trans-Alaska Pipeline Debate Sounds a Lot Like Keystone XL
Source: Stephen Moore and Joel Griffith, "The Trans-Alaska Pipeline: Lessons for the Keystone XL Pipeline Debate," Heritage Foundation, November 18, 2014.

December 2, 2014

The Keystone XL pipeline would bring 830,000 barrels of oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico each day, but President Obama has repeatedly refused to support the pipeline, expressing concern that it would have a negative impact on the environment. In a new report for the Heritage Foundation, Stephen Moore and Joel Griffith explain that similar claims were made about another pipeline -- the
Trans-Alaska Pipeline -- in the 1970s, but the arguments were proven false.

The Trans-Alaska Pipeline was first proposed in 1969 but wasn't approved until 1973. The plan was to build an 800-mile pipeline that would carry oil from northern to southern Alaska for distribution in the rest of the United States. But environmental groups objected, insisting the pipeline could be destroyed by earthquakes and could hurt wildlife populations.

In fact, write Moore and Griffith, the pipeline was a success -- the area's ecosystems remained strong, the pipeline survived a 7.9 magnitude earthquake in 2002 and oil spills (which were small, at just 1,151 barrels per year throughout the entire pipeline) were easily contained. Moreover, the country's caribou population actually grew after the construction of the pipeline, growing 13 percent from 1976 to 1990; while caribou numbers have declined somewhat in recent years, the population remains four times larger than it was when the pipeline was constructed.

Moreover, the authors note the remarkable economic impact of the pipeline: it was responsible for one-fifth of all American energy production for the two decades after 1980 and still transports 500,000 barrels of oil each day.

The arguments against the Trans-Alaska Pipeline were discredited, write Moore and Griffith, yet they note that the same arguments are being used to denounce the Keystone XL proposal.
 

National Flood Insurance A Disaster : Free Market Solution Work

Flood insurance that covers people and property that is repeatedly claimed for damage is not a workable solution to fixing the problem. The free market will do a much better job allocating resources, and for those that have used and abused the system by continuing to make claims, will have to awaken to the reality that they will have to pay for their inability to make sound decisions regarding their personal welfare.

National Flood Insurance Program is Financially Unsound
Source: Chris Edwards, "The Federal Emergency Management Agency," Cato Institute, November 18, 2014.

December 2, 2014

What's the most frequent hazard associated with natural disasters in the United States? Flooding, says Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute, who notes that more than 90 percent of natural disasters in the country involve flooding. This makes the federal government's National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) especially significant.

Unfortunately, the NFIP is in dire need of reform. There are 20,000 communities that participate in the program, meaning that all homeowners and businesses in those areas are eligible to purchase federal flood insurance, and those communities must meet federal flood regulations. Today, there are 5.6 million flood insurance policies.

What's the problem? Edwards details a host of issues with the program, including:

• FEMA takes in only $3.5 billion in premium payments each year, meaning that it must borrow from the Treasury when payouts cost more than premiums. It has accumulated billions in debt as a result.
• One-fifth of policyholders receive subsidized insurance rates, while the rest pay "full" rates; still, says Edwards, those "full risk" rates are below-market rates. According to a recent study, NFIP premiums are half of what they need to be to meet costs.
• The program is required to accept all NFIP applicants, no matter how risky, and they must retain policyholders whose property is repeatedly damaged. Additionally, rates do not increase after claims are made.

Edwards notes that "repetitive loss properties" are only 1 percent of all policies, yet they constitute one-third of claims. He describes a $69,900 home in Mississippi that has flooded 24 times since 1978; since that time, the owner has received more than $660,000 from the NFIP.

The program incentivizes people to move into dangerous, flood-prone areas, says Edwards -- there are more than 16 million Americans living in "Social Flood Hazard Areas" today, up from 10 million in 1970. Edwards explains that individuals are willing to move into areas that they would otherwise stay away from because much of the risk is borne by government, which promises assistance in the event of disaster.

Edwards argues Congress should end the NFIP and replace it with a private flood insurance market that charges real premiums and can refuse to offer coverage in the event that development is too risky.
 

Progressive Media Political Derangement : A mental disease

If you have Yahoo for your email you have to have noticed that each time you boot the Obama daughter outrage is first to come up and that has been for the last three days or more.

It would seem if attacks are on Republicans it fair game. Republican Scott Walker of Wisconsin family is under attack even now. His children needed special protection because of death threats as well as his wife. Walker's children were threatened by stalkers. But even the FBI said they were too busy to look into this.

Yahoo uses the Associated Press for it information which tells us all we need to know about their bias. The truth cannot be tolerated. The ideology of the progressive is not based on truth. It's based on 'by any means necessary'.

It seems the double standard is still in force among the progressive socialist left liberal media. It would seem the derangement and mental disease that infest the media and the democrat party, one and the same, continues without even the least bit of reality.

EPA Over Reaches Under Investigation : Supreme Court Looking

The EPA is the most over-reaching, out of control and corrupt agency in the government, which, of course, is directly controlled by the White House, Mr Obama and the progressive socialist that are driving our country into the ditch.
 
When one thinks about how bad the DOJ is and then realize the EPA far worse, this should be a game changer for the population.

Supreme Court Will Hear Challenge to EPA Rule
Source: Adam Liptak and Coral Davenport, "Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Rules on Mercury From Power Plants," New York Times, November 25, 2014.

December 1, 2014

In 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a sweeping set of rules aimed at limiting mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule -- also known as Utility MACT -- is wildly expensive. Nicolas Loris at the Heritage Foundation has reported on the rule's staggeringly divergent costs and benefits: its mercury reductions would create $6 million in benefits, yet the EPA cites benefits at $90 billion annually. How? It lumps in co-benefits from reducing particulate matter -- not mercury, the actual element targeted by the rule -- despite that those particulates are already regulated elsewhere.

The rule costs almost $10 billion annually, according to the EPA's estimates. NCPA Senior Research Fellow Ann Norman has written about this issue before, noting how the costs of the rule were between 1,500 and 19,000 times greater than the benefits from reducing mercury, the targeted pollutant.

Now, the New York Times reports the rule has found its way to the Supreme Court, with industry groups challenging the agency's refusal to consider costs when choosing to issue the regulation in the first place. The Clean Air Act asks that regulations be "appropriate and necessary." The EPA contends the requirement does not require the agency to analyze monetary costs when deciding whether it is appropriate to regulate. It considered costs later in the regulatory process, the agency says.

The D.C. Court of Appeals looked at the case in April 2014 and ruled in favor of the EPA, concluding it was reasonable for the agency to look at public health concerns when deciding whether the rule was "appropriate or necessary," rather than looking at costs. The court was divided, however, with the dissenting judge saying the agency should have considered costs, both as a matter of "common sense" and "common practice."
 

FDA Menu Labeling Law - Strangling the Free Market

More crushing regulations from the over reaching progressive socialist democrats. What more do we need to understand that the prevailing power structure in Washington is not about what is best for our country but what is best to cement a power structure in place that will bring control over others for decades to come.

From the FDA to the IRS to the FBI or the DOJ, every agency or Department in our present government is dictated to strangling freedom of the individual. You have to know we the people have become pawns, tools to be used and then abused.

FDA Menu Labeling Law Overreaches
Source: Daren Bakst, "FDA\'s Final Menu Labeling Rule: Going Way Beyond What\'s Required Under Obamacare," Daily Signal, November 25, 2014.

December 1, 2014

When Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, it included a provision requiring restaurants to display nutritional information for their menu items. Specifically, the rule applied to "a restaurant or similar retail food establishment that is part of a chain with 20 or more locations."

The Food and Drug Administration proposed a regulation to implement the new requirement in 2011, but Daren Bakst of the Heritage Foundation contends the agency went far beyond what was required by the law. Instead of applying the nutrition mandate to traditional food establishments, the agency included grocery stores and convenience stores as well: as long as the stores sold prepared food, they would be required to include nutritional information for their products. This means, says Bakst, that a convenience store whose only prepared food offering is a hot dog would still be required to comply with the labeling requirements.

Now, the agency has released its final rule. Rather than scale back its 2011 proposal, the FDA has only increased the reach of the regulation: movie theaters and bowling alleys, among other locations, will now be required to comply with the menu requirements.

Do these menu laws even have an influence on nutrition and health? There is no clear, scientific indication that they do. In fact, when New York City imposed a law requiring food establishments to post nutrition information for consumers to see, a study from New York University and Yale University discovered that people actually consumed more calories, not less, after the labeling requirement was imposed.
 

Liguor Sales To Be Privatized : Free Markets Work

One this the prevailing thought is the statues quo - the politician like the revenue and the control of a substance that a huge segment of the population seems to need and want. What better way to control outcomes by a small number of people.

Little wonder when the proposal to make liquor to be sold in a free market, the politico's resisted. Taxes are the very life's blood of all politicians and especially socialist politicians. The unrestricted power to take what others have, by law.

Privatizing Liquor Sales
Source: A. Barton Hinkle, "End State Monopolies on Liquor Sales," Reason.com, November 26, 2014.

December 1, 2014

Eighteen states have control over liquor sales in their state, including Virginia. There, liquor is sold only by state-run "ABC" stores managed by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC).

The stores are a large source of revenue for the state. Last year, ABC earned $140 million, to which Virginia added $200 million in revenue from liquor taxes. Facing a budget shortfall, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe has ordered the agency to increase its profits to $145 million this year, meaning that consumers will be forced to pay higher prices for liquor.

But will charging more for liquor mean higher revenue? A. Barton Hinkle of Reason.com says that's no guarantee: when prices rise too much, consumers merely substitute cheaper products.

Four years ago, the state proposed ending the government's control over the liquor business, says Hinkle, but anti-privatization interests lobbied against the proposal. They argued that big-box retailers would dominate the liquor industry, that liquor consumption would rise and that teenage drinking would skyrocket.

However, critics of privatization made the same claims when the state of Washington decided to privatize its state-run liquor industry, but Hinkle says nothing of the sort resulted. Liquor sales did rise, but only by 6 percent -- much less than forecast. And while large retailers like Costco do sell liquor, there are now 1,400 locations in Washington where consumers can purchase liquor -- previously, there had only been 329 state-run stores.

What has happened in Washington, however, is that liquor prices have risen. Is that the fault of privatization? Hinkle says no: when Washington privatized liquor sales, it imposed a number of fees on market participants, requiring distributors to pay a 10 percent fee and retailers to pay a 17 percent fee. Those fees -- not privatization -- are what have caused prices to rise.
 

Dept. of Education Attacking Vocational Schools : Progressive's Politics Running Sacred

This new ruling by the Dept. of Education is understandable. Public education is failing to deliver the results that the ruling class believes leads to success. But the public educational system has failed the students coming out of high school or college as the current job market is riff with lightly educated part-time or unemployed workers.

Know this, the dismal prospects that are awaiting students after graduation from all sources of education are due to the abject failure of progressive socialism, the democrat ideology of dependency, income redistribution and class warfare.

That the government is attacking for profit vocational schools, the Voucher system and charter schools is just a screen, a skim to protect the highly unionized organizations of public education that provide support for progressive liberal democrats who depend on the unions for the funding of their campaign coffers. I

f the socialists lose their source of funding by the unions they lose their power take our freedom, a good thing.

This ruling is just the politics of "fundamental change" that Mr Obama and the progressive liberal socialist democrats told us all they would bring to our country. Know this as well, their promise is being make good as we speak!

New Department of Education Rule Limits Student Choice
Source: George Leef, "Education Department's 'Gainful Employment' Rule: Futile Tinkering That Misses Root Problems," Forbes.com, November 21, 2014.

December 1, 2014

Because a number of students attending for-profit, vocational training programs have found themselves in debt and without a job, the Department of Education has released a new rule: schools whose students are failing to find jobs will become ineligible for federal aid. Unfortunately, writes George Leef, director of research for the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, the rule will do nothing to help students.

For-profit schools teach students the skills they would need in a variety of careers. But because the job market has been poor as of late, many of these students have struggled to find employment. While the Education Department is targeting their colleges as the source of these problems, Leef says the real culprit is the Obama job market.

The Department of Education's new "gainful employment" rule will compare graduates' loan payments to their earnings; if their average loan payments are more than 12 percent of their annual earnings, a school is deemed to be failing.

If, after two years, the school is unable to bring its debt-earnings ratio down, the federal government will withdraw federal student aid from the program.

Leef says the rule is misguided: it merely assumes that the school must be the culprit behind students' failure to succeed in the job market. The rule will only limit students' options, says Leef. Moreover, students whose schools are closed down will merely turn to other for-profit schools for training; when those students fail to find jobs, those schools will also see their debt-earnings ratio rise. He says the real problem is not with the schools but with the labor market, which has fewer offerings for young people and jobs that are often part-time rather than full-time.