What in the world is this organization? US Preventive Services Task Force? Where did this come from and who decided it was a good idea to install another regulatory agency?
Oh wait, Obama will have the answer. The "fundamentally change" Obama is pushing forward at all levels of our life to change America from a Republic to a European socialist democracy. And in the face of this failed agenda playing out right now in Europe, a huge portion of the voting public,about 42%, still believe Obama is on the right track.
Does this mean these people want to be controlled and managed by others?
The New Power of the United States Preventive Services Task Force
Source: Scott Gottlieb, "The Bleeding Edge of Rationing: Obama's Health Plan and the New Power of the United States Preventive Services Task Force," American Enterprise Institute, November 2011.
As it gradually becomes more important in terms of health regulation policy, the United States Preventive Services Task Force has begun to bear its fair share of criticism. Were the Task Force to have maintained its role as an advisory group, it likely would not have gained as much media attention as it has today. However, with the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the authority of the Task Force will be greatly expanded in the realms of policymaking and regulation.
In this light, the failure of the Task Force to meet many basic expectations for regulatory agencies has become a serious problem, says Scott Gottlieb, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
The sudden transition that the group made from advisory to regulatory roles has allowed it to avoid many of the checks on regulatory agencies.
For example, it does not have to comply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, nor does it have to obey the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act, both of which help to ensure transparency and open involvement of the public. Furthermore, the public has few opportunities to give opinions or make suggestions in the Task Force's decision-making process. The public also has few pathways through which it can appeal its decisions.
All of these shortcomings become particularly important given the new responsibilities and authority that the Task Force will be given with the implementation of the new health care system. In effect, it will have sole authority in deciding what preventative measures will be covered through government-run care. In making such crucial assessments, significant public pressure should be put upon the Obama administration and the Task Force in order to ensure that necessary reforms are put in place.
Wednesday, November 09, 2011
Environmental Insanity Moves Forward : More Taxes
I find it extremely difficult to comprehend the continued advancement of the climate change lie other than it's just an excuse to whirring money from the public.
Given all the information that is available now on how climate change from man made sources has been managed to show desired results of a small minority of individuals whose agenda has nothing to do with the environment, global climate change still moves forward to strangle industry and the general public of the freedom of movement, of choice and forces changes in every one's personal life style.
Again, this is just more "fundamental" change to the our way of life as determined by a select few who have decided we, as citizens, are not capable of rational decisions regarding our personal lives and the future of our country.
The question now is, who's in charge here anyway? Are we going to allow the insanity of the progressive left to dictate outcomes from their high perch in Washington? Think about this next November when you vote. Will it be freedom to chose your own destiny or submission.
Greenhouse Gas Tax Could Inflate Airfares
Source: Bart Jansen, "Greenhouse Gas Tax Could Inflate Airfares," USA Today, November 1, 2011.
Attempting to address concerns regarding global warming and the gradual increase of manmade emissions, the European Union has implemented an emissions trading scheme under which airlines will be forced to pay a carbon tax for emissions over a specific level. The plan has caused controversy all over the world, with airlines from the United States to China questioning why they should be forced to pay European emissions fees for emissions that are not released in European airspace. Regardless, it does seem clear that the costs of such a program are likely to be passed directly onto consumers, says USA Today.
The European program caps carbon dioxide emissions at 2006 levels and allows airlines to fly 85 percent of that amount for free in the first year, later dropping to 82 percent. The European program could raise round-trip ticket prices from the United States by more than $30 starting next year. After the program starts on January 1, U.S. airlines estimate it will cost them $3.1 billion over the next decade.
The European Union's commissioner for climate action estimates that the additional cost to passengers could range from $2.84 to $17 per ticket, with a ticket from Paris to Beijing costing an additional $10.68.
The program has primarily come under fire because of its international implications, despite the fact that it only has regional approval. The additional costs to the airlines and to consumers will undoubtedly affect rates to other countries that are not part of the European Union, causing many foreign airlines to cite violations of international law. Emphasizing the far-reaching impacts of this policy, some have pointed out that a flight from San Francisco to London would be taxed for its emissions for the entire trip, despite the fact that it is within European airspace for only 9 percent of the trip's duration.
Many have also complained that there is no guarantee that the additional revenue collected from the program will go back to environmental protection efforts. While the funds are to be directed by a general objective that would allocate them towards the environment, the funds will be collected by countries individually and will be left to their discretion, thereby reducing the chance for oversight.
Given all the information that is available now on how climate change from man made sources has been managed to show desired results of a small minority of individuals whose agenda has nothing to do with the environment, global climate change still moves forward to strangle industry and the general public of the freedom of movement, of choice and forces changes in every one's personal life style.
Again, this is just more "fundamental" change to the our way of life as determined by a select few who have decided we, as citizens, are not capable of rational decisions regarding our personal lives and the future of our country.
The question now is, who's in charge here anyway? Are we going to allow the insanity of the progressive left to dictate outcomes from their high perch in Washington? Think about this next November when you vote. Will it be freedom to chose your own destiny or submission.
Greenhouse Gas Tax Could Inflate Airfares
Source: Bart Jansen, "Greenhouse Gas Tax Could Inflate Airfares," USA Today, November 1, 2011.
Attempting to address concerns regarding global warming and the gradual increase of manmade emissions, the European Union has implemented an emissions trading scheme under which airlines will be forced to pay a carbon tax for emissions over a specific level. The plan has caused controversy all over the world, with airlines from the United States to China questioning why they should be forced to pay European emissions fees for emissions that are not released in European airspace. Regardless, it does seem clear that the costs of such a program are likely to be passed directly onto consumers, says USA Today.
The European program caps carbon dioxide emissions at 2006 levels and allows airlines to fly 85 percent of that amount for free in the first year, later dropping to 82 percent. The European program could raise round-trip ticket prices from the United States by more than $30 starting next year. After the program starts on January 1, U.S. airlines estimate it will cost them $3.1 billion over the next decade.
The European Union's commissioner for climate action estimates that the additional cost to passengers could range from $2.84 to $17 per ticket, with a ticket from Paris to Beijing costing an additional $10.68.
The program has primarily come under fire because of its international implications, despite the fact that it only has regional approval. The additional costs to the airlines and to consumers will undoubtedly affect rates to other countries that are not part of the European Union, causing many foreign airlines to cite violations of international law. Emphasizing the far-reaching impacts of this policy, some have pointed out that a flight from San Francisco to London would be taxed for its emissions for the entire trip, despite the fact that it is within European airspace for only 9 percent of the trip's duration.
Many have also complained that there is no guarantee that the additional revenue collected from the program will go back to environmental protection efforts. While the funds are to be directed by a general objective that would allocate them towards the environment, the funds will be collected by countries individually and will be left to their discretion, thereby reducing the chance for oversight.
Tuesday, November 08, 2011
Teachers Paid More Than Market Value
Little wonder the teachers want to maintain the status quo when it comes to job protection. Wisconsin governor made good on a campaign promise to keep as many teachers and other public employees if he is elected by enforcing a new budget that has the teachers paying something toward their health care and pensions instead of paying nothing. This alone saved the state millions and more than 5000 teachers jobs.
The catch here is that the teachers, and their union, would have to give up their collective bargaining option for health care and pensions. They would be able to retain the collective bargaining on wages. The results are dynamic as most school district saw millions in savings and most teachers retain their jobs. And as an added bonus, the teachers saw their checks go up by at least a $1000 by not have to pay union dues.
Who Knew? Just recently the union didn't even seek to be re-certified in the state as the members found little reason to join under the new contract. hmmmmm
Assessing the Compensation of Public School Teachers
Heritage Foundation
As state lawmakers trim budgets to bring expenditures in line with dwindling revenues, many are looking to the area of education as a potential source of deficit reduction. Groups including teachers' unions oppose this move, recognizing that state cuts and reforms will probably include personnel loss. They further this argument by pointing out that teachers already make little as it is -- how can congressmen consider reducing it even further?
However, this argument is based on a false premise, as public school teachers actually receive a salary that is greater than their real market value, say Jason Richwine, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, and Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
Measurements of teacher income in the past have relied upon poor methods of calculation. Standard analytical approaches compared teacher salaries to the salaries of similarly educated and experienced private-sector workers, and then added the value of employer contributions toward fringe benefits. In order to correct this equation, which understates the benefits that teachers receive, two changes need to be made: first, teachers should be compared with professionals of similar cognitive skill, as simply equating education levels does not take into account the low amount of skill necessary to be a teacher; and second, teachers' most generous benefits, such as pension programs, must be incorporated into this figure to maintain its accuracy.
Upon implementing these two changes, one of the first conclusions that can be seen is that the wage gap between teachers and non-teachers disappears when the two groups are compared by cognitive skills. Several other findings are also crucial to the final conclusion that not only do public school teachers receive a market wage, but their salary-benefits package is actually substantially greater.
Workers who switch from non-teaching jobs to teaching jobs receive a wage increase of roughly 9 percent, while teachers who change to non-teaching jobs see their wages decrease by approximately 3 percent.
When retiree health coverage for teachers is included, it is worth roughly an additional 10 percent of wages, whereas private sector employees often do not receive this benefit at all.
Teachers benefit strongly from job security benefits, which are worth about an extra 1 percent of wages, rising to 8.6 percent when considering that extra job security protects a premium paid in terms of salaries and benefits.
Taking all of this into account, teachers actually receive salary and benefits that are 52 percent greater than fair market levels.
Source: Jason Richwine and Andrew Biggs, "Assessing the Compensation of Public-School Teachers," Heritage Foundation, November 1, 2011.
The catch here is that the teachers, and their union, would have to give up their collective bargaining option for health care and pensions. They would be able to retain the collective bargaining on wages. The results are dynamic as most school district saw millions in savings and most teachers retain their jobs. And as an added bonus, the teachers saw their checks go up by at least a $1000 by not have to pay union dues.
Who Knew? Just recently the union didn't even seek to be re-certified in the state as the members found little reason to join under the new contract. hmmmmm
Assessing the Compensation of Public School Teachers
Heritage Foundation
As state lawmakers trim budgets to bring expenditures in line with dwindling revenues, many are looking to the area of education as a potential source of deficit reduction. Groups including teachers' unions oppose this move, recognizing that state cuts and reforms will probably include personnel loss. They further this argument by pointing out that teachers already make little as it is -- how can congressmen consider reducing it even further?
However, this argument is based on a false premise, as public school teachers actually receive a salary that is greater than their real market value, say Jason Richwine, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, and Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
Measurements of teacher income in the past have relied upon poor methods of calculation. Standard analytical approaches compared teacher salaries to the salaries of similarly educated and experienced private-sector workers, and then added the value of employer contributions toward fringe benefits. In order to correct this equation, which understates the benefits that teachers receive, two changes need to be made: first, teachers should be compared with professionals of similar cognitive skill, as simply equating education levels does not take into account the low amount of skill necessary to be a teacher; and second, teachers' most generous benefits, such as pension programs, must be incorporated into this figure to maintain its accuracy.
Upon implementing these two changes, one of the first conclusions that can be seen is that the wage gap between teachers and non-teachers disappears when the two groups are compared by cognitive skills. Several other findings are also crucial to the final conclusion that not only do public school teachers receive a market wage, but their salary-benefits package is actually substantially greater.
Workers who switch from non-teaching jobs to teaching jobs receive a wage increase of roughly 9 percent, while teachers who change to non-teaching jobs see their wages decrease by approximately 3 percent.
When retiree health coverage for teachers is included, it is worth roughly an additional 10 percent of wages, whereas private sector employees often do not receive this benefit at all.
Teachers benefit strongly from job security benefits, which are worth about an extra 1 percent of wages, rising to 8.6 percent when considering that extra job security protects a premium paid in terms of salaries and benefits.
Taking all of this into account, teachers actually receive salary and benefits that are 52 percent greater than fair market levels.
Source: Jason Richwine and Andrew Biggs, "Assessing the Compensation of Public-School Teachers," Heritage Foundation, November 1, 2011.
Global Climate Change on Agriculture : Baseless Assumptions
Good article on how agriculture will change over time to meet the demands of the population. The only thing that here that casts a dark cloud over the author is the idea that global climate change is a factor in food production. His assumptions on climate change raise questions about his findings on future crop production.
If there really was a scientific bases for climate change then he would have a point, but the facts that he must be using are baseless and unscientific. The facts he is using are manufactured by individuals wanting to control the population for financial gain and therefore power to control all activity by the population.
What better way to have total control over everything than to control the food and energy supply?
Weathering Global Warming in Agriculture
Source: Douglas Southgate and Julian Morris, "Weathering Global Warming in Agriculture," Reason Foundation, November 3, 2011.
Provided it is not a consequence of governmental interference with market forces, cheap food creates far-reaching benefits. Indeed, declining food scarcity has helped drive overall economic progress for decades, even as the demand for edible goods has been increasing at a fast clip, say Douglas Southgate, a professor at Ohio State University, and Julian Morris, vice president of research at the Reason Foundation.
Since the middle of the 20th century, when the population was slightly less than 2.5 billion, human numbers have shot up, surpassing 6 billion shortly before 2000 and currently approaching 7 billion. Yet food supplies have more than kept pace -- mainly thanks to technological advances during and since the Green Revolution that have caused global yields of cereals to rise by 150 percent since the early 1960s. The general tendency of food supplies to overwhelm food demand has registered in the marketplace.
Food prices can remain at current levels or even decline further in the years to come. But there are caveats. If governments continue to subsidize and mandate biofuel production, midcentury prices of crops could be 30 percent above current levels. Also, food could grow scarcer if global warming impairs agricultural productivity. The question is: will global warming impair agricultural productivity?
Southgate and Morris investigate the potential consequences of climate change for global agricultural output and identify policies that would reduce any negative impacts. Some researchers have estimated that climate change resulting from manmade global warming could reduce agricultural output significantly (compared to baseline assumptions), especially in tropical countries.
As a result, food prices would rise and malnutrition worsen. However, these estimates assume minimal or no adaptation to changes in the climate. In particular, they assume that farmers will fail to switch crops, modify their use of water and other inputs, and adopt new technology. This view is unrealistic: faced with changing conditions, farmers will adapt -- unless prohibited.
If there really was a scientific bases for climate change then he would have a point, but the facts that he must be using are baseless and unscientific. The facts he is using are manufactured by individuals wanting to control the population for financial gain and therefore power to control all activity by the population.
What better way to have total control over everything than to control the food and energy supply?
Weathering Global Warming in Agriculture
Source: Douglas Southgate and Julian Morris, "Weathering Global Warming in Agriculture," Reason Foundation, November 3, 2011.
Provided it is not a consequence of governmental interference with market forces, cheap food creates far-reaching benefits. Indeed, declining food scarcity has helped drive overall economic progress for decades, even as the demand for edible goods has been increasing at a fast clip, say Douglas Southgate, a professor at Ohio State University, and Julian Morris, vice president of research at the Reason Foundation.
Since the middle of the 20th century, when the population was slightly less than 2.5 billion, human numbers have shot up, surpassing 6 billion shortly before 2000 and currently approaching 7 billion. Yet food supplies have more than kept pace -- mainly thanks to technological advances during and since the Green Revolution that have caused global yields of cereals to rise by 150 percent since the early 1960s. The general tendency of food supplies to overwhelm food demand has registered in the marketplace.
Food prices can remain at current levels or even decline further in the years to come. But there are caveats. If governments continue to subsidize and mandate biofuel production, midcentury prices of crops could be 30 percent above current levels. Also, food could grow scarcer if global warming impairs agricultural productivity. The question is: will global warming impair agricultural productivity?
Southgate and Morris investigate the potential consequences of climate change for global agricultural output and identify policies that would reduce any negative impacts. Some researchers have estimated that climate change resulting from manmade global warming could reduce agricultural output significantly (compared to baseline assumptions), especially in tropical countries.
As a result, food prices would rise and malnutrition worsen. However, these estimates assume minimal or no adaptation to changes in the climate. In particular, they assume that farmers will fail to switch crops, modify their use of water and other inputs, and adopt new technology. This view is unrealistic: faced with changing conditions, farmers will adapt -- unless prohibited.
High Speed Trains : Another Democrat Failure
Wisconsin knew this would be the case so Scott Walker, a Conservative and the new governor, ran his campaign on this fact: he said if elected he would stop the high speed train nightmare. He was elected and he did just that and saved the state millions of dollars in overruns.
What is it that the people of Wisconsin know that the people in California don't other than most of them are Democrats. hmmmmm
The obvious question then is why are so many, maybe all, proposals and projects that are formulated by Democrats boondoggles?
High-Speed Rail Goes Off the Track
Source: "High-Speed Rail Goes Off the Track," Investor's Business Daily, November 1, 2011.
In California, site of the nation's most ambitious bullet train plan, a new, more honest accounting of costs and timetables has produced a jaw-dropping estimate for a line between San Francisco and the Los Angeles area. These financial costs frustrate taxpayers who are concerned first and foremost that their money is being allocated toward a project with little promise of long-term efficacy.
Critics further this point by emphasizing the advantages that air travel and cars have over the trains that are set to be used, arguing that even if the investors can be attained to finance the rail's construction, its usefulness will be minimal, says Investor's Business Daily.
The new estimate for the cost of California's planned bullet train puts the bill at nearly $100 billion, though it was originally pegged by the state at $34 billion. California's High-Speed Rail Authority estimates that the rail will receive no fewer than 7.4 million riders per year eight years before it is fully built. The one-way fare between Los Angeles and San Francisco would be $81 in today's dollars, whereas plenty of flights between the two cities, with a two-week advanced purchase, cost $139 round trip.
This final point speaks to many onlookers' anxiety about the prospects of the bullet train. They do not question the individual project, but rather the efficiency of trains on the whole in moving people around the country in an era of regularized air travel. The inability of trains to compete in this regard is reflected in the disparity in their respective pricing as shown above, in addition to the fact that planes are estimated to be three times faster.
Another fact that must be taken into account is that the date for the project's completion, though originally set for 2020, has since been moved to 2033. The long-term commitment necessary to complete the rail means that alternative forms of travel (such as air) will have a full 20 years in which to surpass rail travel even more than they already do. All of these facts make the conclusion difficult to escape that high-speed rail simply cannot keep up.
What is it that the people of Wisconsin know that the people in California don't other than most of them are Democrats. hmmmmm
The obvious question then is why are so many, maybe all, proposals and projects that are formulated by Democrats boondoggles?
High-Speed Rail Goes Off the Track
Source: "High-Speed Rail Goes Off the Track," Investor's Business Daily, November 1, 2011.
In California, site of the nation's most ambitious bullet train plan, a new, more honest accounting of costs and timetables has produced a jaw-dropping estimate for a line between San Francisco and the Los Angeles area. These financial costs frustrate taxpayers who are concerned first and foremost that their money is being allocated toward a project with little promise of long-term efficacy.
Critics further this point by emphasizing the advantages that air travel and cars have over the trains that are set to be used, arguing that even if the investors can be attained to finance the rail's construction, its usefulness will be minimal, says Investor's Business Daily.
The new estimate for the cost of California's planned bullet train puts the bill at nearly $100 billion, though it was originally pegged by the state at $34 billion. California's High-Speed Rail Authority estimates that the rail will receive no fewer than 7.4 million riders per year eight years before it is fully built. The one-way fare between Los Angeles and San Francisco would be $81 in today's dollars, whereas plenty of flights between the two cities, with a two-week advanced purchase, cost $139 round trip.
This final point speaks to many onlookers' anxiety about the prospects of the bullet train. They do not question the individual project, but rather the efficiency of trains on the whole in moving people around the country in an era of regularized air travel. The inability of trains to compete in this regard is reflected in the disparity in their respective pricing as shown above, in addition to the fact that planes are estimated to be three times faster.
Another fact that must be taken into account is that the date for the project's completion, though originally set for 2020, has since been moved to 2033. The long-term commitment necessary to complete the rail means that alternative forms of travel (such as air) will have a full 20 years in which to surpass rail travel even more than they already do. All of these facts make the conclusion difficult to escape that high-speed rail simply cannot keep up.
Monday, November 07, 2011
TARP and Hank Paulson : A DNC Player?
Here are a few question I have on Hank Paulson.
Who is Hank Paulson?
What part did he play in the 2008 500 billion run on the banks and what has been done on finding what happened?
Was this real or staged?
Who was responsible for this bank run?
What part did Paulson play in 'fixing' the problem?
Was Paulson already in the Democrats camp while Treasury Secretary for Bush?
Did Paulson's back ground, CEO of Goldman Sacks, play a part in TRAP?
When the 500 billion run on the banks didn't work as planned, what came next? Start a run on all banks?
What part did Paulson play with Dick Durban and Barney Frank in starting the run on the bank in California and then the rest of the country? Was this plan B to use when the first attack failed?
I guess I want to know if Hank Paulson was a willing player from the beginning of the melt down and how the big banks got the lions share of the TARP money to use.
Who is Hank Paulson?
What part did he play in the 2008 500 billion run on the banks and what has been done on finding what happened?
Was this real or staged?
Who was responsible for this bank run?
What part did Paulson play in 'fixing' the problem?
Was Paulson already in the Democrats camp while Treasury Secretary for Bush?
Did Paulson's back ground, CEO of Goldman Sacks, play a part in TRAP?
When the 500 billion run on the banks didn't work as planned, what came next? Start a run on all banks?
What part did Paulson play with Dick Durban and Barney Frank in starting the run on the bank in California and then the rest of the country? Was this plan B to use when the first attack failed?
I guess I want to know if Hank Paulson was a willing player from the beginning of the melt down and how the big banks got the lions share of the TARP money to use.
Sunday, November 06, 2011
Wind Energy : Costly, Inefficient AND A Fraud
Something to watch here is how this will be spun for the consuming public. Everyone with any sense knows wind energy was a bust from the very beginning, especially with the subsides that were needed to support it was substantial.
The real problem here is the general public not having the back bone to make rational decisions concerning their own well being in the face of supposed 'experts' telling them this is the wave of future to become independent of foreign oil interests. The experts here are eco-fascists Democrats looking to grab more power while lining their own pockets at the expense of the taxpayers. Example, Al Gore has gotten very rich on this lie of global climate change and carbon emissions.
All of these scenarios of huge costly overruns and terrible inefficiencies have come true, and yet a large portion of the voting public still buys into the fraud that is 'green energy'.
Ethanol and solar are as bad as wind energy in that they have to have large subsides to even exist. So where is the savings? What is the advantage? Bigger question : Why do progressive left Democrats that demand taxpayers support these boondoggles continue to get reelected?
Texas Wind Power Lines Bust Budget
Source: Kenneth Artz, "Texas Wind Power Lines Bust Budget," Heartland Institute, November 2011.
Though Texas now leads the nation as the top-producer of wind energy, this title does not come without additional baggage. The disadvantages of this form of green energy production are numerous and cause it to be an altogether inefficient means of producing electricity, says the Heartland Institute.
The most important detractor is its location. As opposed to coal-fired power plants which can be relatively close to urban centers, wind energy must be collected in rural areas where the conditions are more optimal. This electricity must then be transported via power lines to the urban areas they hope to serve. The problems here are twofold:
First, the power lines and new infrastructure necessary to transport wind energy is enormously expensive.
Second, much of the electricity produced is lost in transportation anyway. Texas is feeling the squeeze of this first factor as cost projections for its new, wind-energy friendly infrastructure are rising.
The independent contractor assigned the job has raised its total estimated bill from the original figure of $4.9 billion to $6.8 billion -- a 40 percent increase that amounts to $800 per household in the state.
However, the costs associated with wind energy are not isolated to the costs of infrastructure, as wind is also a much more expensive form of energy to capture and produce than other, more traditional sources. These increased costs will be felt in higher electricity premiums for the state's energy-consuming residents.
The real problem here is the general public not having the back bone to make rational decisions concerning their own well being in the face of supposed 'experts' telling them this is the wave of future to become independent of foreign oil interests. The experts here are eco-fascists Democrats looking to grab more power while lining their own pockets at the expense of the taxpayers. Example, Al Gore has gotten very rich on this lie of global climate change and carbon emissions.
All of these scenarios of huge costly overruns and terrible inefficiencies have come true, and yet a large portion of the voting public still buys into the fraud that is 'green energy'.
Ethanol and solar are as bad as wind energy in that they have to have large subsides to even exist. So where is the savings? What is the advantage? Bigger question : Why do progressive left Democrats that demand taxpayers support these boondoggles continue to get reelected?
Texas Wind Power Lines Bust Budget
Source: Kenneth Artz, "Texas Wind Power Lines Bust Budget," Heartland Institute, November 2011.
Though Texas now leads the nation as the top-producer of wind energy, this title does not come without additional baggage. The disadvantages of this form of green energy production are numerous and cause it to be an altogether inefficient means of producing electricity, says the Heartland Institute.
The most important detractor is its location. As opposed to coal-fired power plants which can be relatively close to urban centers, wind energy must be collected in rural areas where the conditions are more optimal. This electricity must then be transported via power lines to the urban areas they hope to serve. The problems here are twofold:
First, the power lines and new infrastructure necessary to transport wind energy is enormously expensive.
Second, much of the electricity produced is lost in transportation anyway. Texas is feeling the squeeze of this first factor as cost projections for its new, wind-energy friendly infrastructure are rising.
The independent contractor assigned the job has raised its total estimated bill from the original figure of $4.9 billion to $6.8 billion -- a 40 percent increase that amounts to $800 per household in the state.
However, the costs associated with wind energy are not isolated to the costs of infrastructure, as wind is also a much more expensive form of energy to capture and produce than other, more traditional sources. These increased costs will be felt in higher electricity premiums for the state's energy-consuming residents.
Free Markets Under Attack From The Left : Socialists Democrats
It seems the new mantra among the progressive socialist left Democrats is the free market doesn't work and must be abandoned for more government intervention and therefore more control.
The fact that the results of government control that Obama has brought to the table in the last three years has caused only chaos to the financial markets and the country as a whole. It is true, Wall Street banks have had a hand in the economic problems, but it is the direct intervention of government into the operation of the financial markets that is the problem. As a result, unemployment at record levels, 9% reported and 18% unreported, and minimal GDP growth levels that are proving industry has no idea of what to do next and won't make a move until they have some confidence that government won't take everything they have.
All this uncertainly bodes poorly for all of us. The free market has served us well for the last 235 years but now, according to the socialists and communist among us, it must be changed to reflect a more even playing field. That is we have to take the profits away from those that are paying the bills now and give it to those that lack the intelligence to get it for themselves. See this as the very bases for the Occupy Wall Street(OWS) riots.
As this article points out, everyone has benefited from the free market, it's just that to the progressive left socialists believe it's just not 'fair' that so few have so much and the rest of the working poor and middle class has to do with less. This is classic socialist ideology that was used all through Europe during the last century. Class warfare.
Make no mistake, this is the main trust of the OWS mob actions in New York and other major cities going on right now which are supported by the Obama administration and Democrats at all levels. Divide the people along economic lines causing hate for those that have worked for what they have with the result of the destruction of the America dream. Obama's "fundamentally Changing America" agenda.
The Material Well-Being of the Poor and the Middle Class since 1980
Source: Bruce D. Meyer and James X. Sullivan, "The Material Well-Being of the Poor and the Middle Class since 1980," American Enterprise Institute, October 25, 2011.
The U.S. economy has grown considerably over the past three decades, yet there is a prevailing sentiment that the middle class and the poor have been left behind. Much of this sentiment stems from official measures, such as median household income, which paint a bleak picture of the well-being of these two groups.
However, this dominant thought regarding socioeconomic class gaps is flawed in several ways, among them that people and policymakers alike tend to pour over the wrong metrics to make these kinds of judgments.
When these figures are adjusted, it becomes clear that the poor and middle classes are far better off than popular sentiment would have us believe, say Bruce D. Meyer of the University of Chicago and James X. Sullivan of the University of Notre Dame.
First, a more comprehensive measure to include non-standard forms of income is necessary to encapsulate gains that the poor and middle classes have made in recent years.
Second, the metric for inflation that is commonly used in these calculations inherently understates the material wealth of the non-rich.
Finally, income cannot be the only figure that is scrutinized when assessing how well-off a given person is -- solid examination should include average consumption, as this is often a superior measure of economic prosperity over time.
Upon including these amendments to otherwise-standard measures, results are obtained that create a thoroughly more optimistic image of middle class wealth.Median post-tax income has increased, as has consumption. A factor that is often ignored, physical amenities have improved in quality and increased in quantity amongst the middle class as well. This includes larger homes, greater usage of air conditioning and personal clothing dryers, and more valuable automobiles.
These same results also hold true for the poor (in this case measured to be the lowest 10 percent in income). Median income and average consumption have increased amongst the poor, and their access to physical assets such as those described above has also improved. This has culminated in a decrease in the poverty rate, though official statistics would suggest otherwise.
The fact that the results of government control that Obama has brought to the table in the last three years has caused only chaos to the financial markets and the country as a whole. It is true, Wall Street banks have had a hand in the economic problems, but it is the direct intervention of government into the operation of the financial markets that is the problem. As a result, unemployment at record levels, 9% reported and 18% unreported, and minimal GDP growth levels that are proving industry has no idea of what to do next and won't make a move until they have some confidence that government won't take everything they have.
All this uncertainly bodes poorly for all of us. The free market has served us well for the last 235 years but now, according to the socialists and communist among us, it must be changed to reflect a more even playing field. That is we have to take the profits away from those that are paying the bills now and give it to those that lack the intelligence to get it for themselves. See this as the very bases for the Occupy Wall Street(OWS) riots.
As this article points out, everyone has benefited from the free market, it's just that to the progressive left socialists believe it's just not 'fair' that so few have so much and the rest of the working poor and middle class has to do with less. This is classic socialist ideology that was used all through Europe during the last century. Class warfare.
Make no mistake, this is the main trust of the OWS mob actions in New York and other major cities going on right now which are supported by the Obama administration and Democrats at all levels. Divide the people along economic lines causing hate for those that have worked for what they have with the result of the destruction of the America dream. Obama's "fundamentally Changing America" agenda.
The Material Well-Being of the Poor and the Middle Class since 1980
Source: Bruce D. Meyer and James X. Sullivan, "The Material Well-Being of the Poor and the Middle Class since 1980," American Enterprise Institute, October 25, 2011.
The U.S. economy has grown considerably over the past three decades, yet there is a prevailing sentiment that the middle class and the poor have been left behind. Much of this sentiment stems from official measures, such as median household income, which paint a bleak picture of the well-being of these two groups.
However, this dominant thought regarding socioeconomic class gaps is flawed in several ways, among them that people and policymakers alike tend to pour over the wrong metrics to make these kinds of judgments.
When these figures are adjusted, it becomes clear that the poor and middle classes are far better off than popular sentiment would have us believe, say Bruce D. Meyer of the University of Chicago and James X. Sullivan of the University of Notre Dame.
First, a more comprehensive measure to include non-standard forms of income is necessary to encapsulate gains that the poor and middle classes have made in recent years.
Second, the metric for inflation that is commonly used in these calculations inherently understates the material wealth of the non-rich.
Finally, income cannot be the only figure that is scrutinized when assessing how well-off a given person is -- solid examination should include average consumption, as this is often a superior measure of economic prosperity over time.
Upon including these amendments to otherwise-standard measures, results are obtained that create a thoroughly more optimistic image of middle class wealth.Median post-tax income has increased, as has consumption. A factor that is often ignored, physical amenities have improved in quality and increased in quantity amongst the middle class as well. This includes larger homes, greater usage of air conditioning and personal clothing dryers, and more valuable automobiles.
These same results also hold true for the poor (in this case measured to be the lowest 10 percent in income). Median income and average consumption have increased amongst the poor, and their access to physical assets such as those described above has also improved. This has culminated in a decrease in the poverty rate, though official statistics would suggest otherwise.
Saturday, November 05, 2011
EPA Regulating Total Destruction of The Economy
The EPA is the face of the Obama administration - one need look no further than this department to understand just what Obama means when he say he wants to "fundamentally change America".
Obama doesn't need congress or an executive order to change how we live, when can rely on the EPA to 'execute' progress in this country.
Environmental Protection Agency Rules Threaten Jobs
Source: Todd Wynn, "Occupy EPA, Not Wall Street," Investor's Business Daily, October 27, 2011.
In assigning blame for those groups that arrest potential growth and are contributing to the continued stagnation of the American economy, look no further than the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). By continuing or increasing regulations on some of the most vital, productive sectors of our economy, the EPA's heavy-handed measures will plunge us disastrously further into recession and unemployment. And more importantly, threatening reliable and affordable electricity will further inhibit long-term economic development, says Investor's Business Daily.
By reclassifying coal ash as hazardous waste without justification, the EPA will impose costs of $20 billion annually and could lead to the early retirement of 250 to 350 coal plants.
The EPA plans to regulate over 10,000 commercial and industrial boilers that by some estimates will cost up to 800,000 jobs.
The proposed mercury and other air pollutants standard, which is the strictest in U.S. history, could cost over $350 billion and shut down 15 gigawatts (GW) of power, affecting energy prices and reliability for roughly 15 million American households.
The Cross State Air Pollution Rule threatens 55 GW of energy, potentially affecting up to 55 million Americans households with less reliable, more expensive energy.
The regulation of greenhouse gases could culminate in the loss of 2.5 million jobs by 2030, and increase energy costs by 50 percent for gasoline and residential electricity.
The effects that the EPA, with its newfound proclivity for pervasive intervention, will have on the economy and future growth are significant and devastating. In addition to these direct losses, the increasingly regulated business environment in the United States stands to impose numerous indirect losses, as corporations become increasingly unsure about the stability of American markets.
Therefore, because of all of these net negative impacts on the American economy, it is paramount that solutions to the current stagnation involve deregulation and an attempt to rein in the ever-increasing autonomy of the EPA in unilateral policymaking.
Obama doesn't need congress or an executive order to change how we live, when can rely on the EPA to 'execute' progress in this country.
Environmental Protection Agency Rules Threaten Jobs
Source: Todd Wynn, "Occupy EPA, Not Wall Street," Investor's Business Daily, October 27, 2011.
In assigning blame for those groups that arrest potential growth and are contributing to the continued stagnation of the American economy, look no further than the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). By continuing or increasing regulations on some of the most vital, productive sectors of our economy, the EPA's heavy-handed measures will plunge us disastrously further into recession and unemployment. And more importantly, threatening reliable and affordable electricity will further inhibit long-term economic development, says Investor's Business Daily.
By reclassifying coal ash as hazardous waste without justification, the EPA will impose costs of $20 billion annually and could lead to the early retirement of 250 to 350 coal plants.
The EPA plans to regulate over 10,000 commercial and industrial boilers that by some estimates will cost up to 800,000 jobs.
The proposed mercury and other air pollutants standard, which is the strictest in U.S. history, could cost over $350 billion and shut down 15 gigawatts (GW) of power, affecting energy prices and reliability for roughly 15 million American households.
The Cross State Air Pollution Rule threatens 55 GW of energy, potentially affecting up to 55 million Americans households with less reliable, more expensive energy.
The regulation of greenhouse gases could culminate in the loss of 2.5 million jobs by 2030, and increase energy costs by 50 percent for gasoline and residential electricity.
The effects that the EPA, with its newfound proclivity for pervasive intervention, will have on the economy and future growth are significant and devastating. In addition to these direct losses, the increasingly regulated business environment in the United States stands to impose numerous indirect losses, as corporations become increasingly unsure about the stability of American markets.
Therefore, because of all of these net negative impacts on the American economy, it is paramount that solutions to the current stagnation involve deregulation and an attempt to rein in the ever-increasing autonomy of the EPA in unilateral policymaking.
Wind Energy A Complete Fraud : Costs Unsustainable
For anyone to believe wind energy is a common sense way for this country to become energy independent is headed in the wrong direction or they have been living on another planet. In fact, the individuals that are forcing most of us to buy into this fraud are doing so against our collective will. It's the same people that gave us TARP, Stimulus 1, and now the bailouts that were rammed down our throats.
Power companies that are mandated through legislation to incorporate a certain amount of 'renewable energy sources' into their collective power generation base by a certain date or be fined is not Constitutional. This is insane given the data has been proven to be flawed and managed by a tiny group of people that seeks to change the way we live out a single vote.
How do we stop this grab for power by the few, we the many vote them out of office!!
The High Cost of Wind Energy
Source: Robert Bryce, "The High Cost of Wind Energy as a Carbon-Dioxide Reduction Method," Manhattan Institute, October 2011
For years, politicians, environmental groups and the renewable energy lobby have been claiming that widespread use of wind energy would result in substantial reductions in carbon-dioxide emissions. These calls have been supplemented by changes to public policy -- specifically, in 2008, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, an arm of the U.S. Department of Energy, issued a report that said the United States could produce 20 percent of its electricity from wind by 2030. This "20 by '30" goal, however, is not cost effective and will have a negligible impact on aggregate emissions, says Robert Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
Last year, electricity generation in the United States totaled 4.1 trillion kilowatt hours, with wind energy constituting 94.6 billion kilowatt hours, or about 2.3 percent of total generation.
For wind to expand to supply 20 percent of U.S. electricity consumption, it would require a nine-fold increase in the size of the installed wind generation base, from 40,000 megawatts of capacity to 360,000 megawatts.
Total installed electric-generation capacity in the United States (from all sources) is about 1 million megawatts.
Following these figures as they are today, it becomes clear that in order to meet this lofty objective, substantial changes would be required. This is especially true given the high costs of installment, land allotment required and increases in residential electricity rates.
Installing an additional 320,000 megawatts of wind power at $2.43 million per megawatt will cost the United States about $777.6 billion or about $44.7 billion every year for the next 19 years, amounting to a carbon tax of $54 per ton.
Following the estimate of 0.2 square miles per installed megawatt of wind capacity, 360,000 megawatts of capacity would require about 72,000 square miles of land to be occupied with wind turbines -- a land area just larger than North Dakota at 69,000 square miles.
A carbon levy of $54-per-ton could increase electricity rates in coal-reliant regions by about $0.058 per kilowatt-hour, which represents a 48 percent increase over current levels.
While these costs are substantial, perhaps the most compelling figure in the production of wind energy is that, even if the "20 by '30" goal is achieved, it would represent only a 2 percent decrease in global emissions. This should give lawmakers cause for pause as they weigh the enormous costs against these miniscule benefits.
Power companies that are mandated through legislation to incorporate a certain amount of 'renewable energy sources' into their collective power generation base by a certain date or be fined is not Constitutional. This is insane given the data has been proven to be flawed and managed by a tiny group of people that seeks to change the way we live out a single vote.
How do we stop this grab for power by the few, we the many vote them out of office!!
The High Cost of Wind Energy
Source: Robert Bryce, "The High Cost of Wind Energy as a Carbon-Dioxide Reduction Method," Manhattan Institute, October 2011
For years, politicians, environmental groups and the renewable energy lobby have been claiming that widespread use of wind energy would result in substantial reductions in carbon-dioxide emissions. These calls have been supplemented by changes to public policy -- specifically, in 2008, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, an arm of the U.S. Department of Energy, issued a report that said the United States could produce 20 percent of its electricity from wind by 2030. This "20 by '30" goal, however, is not cost effective and will have a negligible impact on aggregate emissions, says Robert Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
Last year, electricity generation in the United States totaled 4.1 trillion kilowatt hours, with wind energy constituting 94.6 billion kilowatt hours, or about 2.3 percent of total generation.
For wind to expand to supply 20 percent of U.S. electricity consumption, it would require a nine-fold increase in the size of the installed wind generation base, from 40,000 megawatts of capacity to 360,000 megawatts.
Total installed electric-generation capacity in the United States (from all sources) is about 1 million megawatts.
Following these figures as they are today, it becomes clear that in order to meet this lofty objective, substantial changes would be required. This is especially true given the high costs of installment, land allotment required and increases in residential electricity rates.
Installing an additional 320,000 megawatts of wind power at $2.43 million per megawatt will cost the United States about $777.6 billion or about $44.7 billion every year for the next 19 years, amounting to a carbon tax of $54 per ton.
Following the estimate of 0.2 square miles per installed megawatt of wind capacity, 360,000 megawatts of capacity would require about 72,000 square miles of land to be occupied with wind turbines -- a land area just larger than North Dakota at 69,000 square miles.
A carbon levy of $54-per-ton could increase electricity rates in coal-reliant regions by about $0.058 per kilowatt-hour, which represents a 48 percent increase over current levels.
While these costs are substantial, perhaps the most compelling figure in the production of wind energy is that, even if the "20 by '30" goal is achieved, it would represent only a 2 percent decrease in global emissions. This should give lawmakers cause for pause as they weigh the enormous costs against these miniscule benefits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
