I don't know if this is on the level, but even if it isn't, it's still cute - enjoy
Two California Highway Patrol Officers were conducting speeding enforcement on I-15, just north of the Marine Corps Air Station at Miramar.One of the officers was using a hand held radar device to check speeding vehicles approaching the crest of a hill.
The officers were suddenly surprised when the radar gun began reading 300 miles per hour (the maximum). The officer attempted to reset the radar gun, but it would not reset and then turned off.
Just then a deafening roar over the treetops revealed that the radar had in fact locked on to a USMC F/A-18 Hornet which was engaged in a low flying exercise near the location.
Back at the CHIPs Headquarters the Patrol Captain fired off a complaint to the USMC Base Commander. The reply came back in true USMC style:
Thank you for your letter.
We can now complete the file on this incident. You may be interested to know that the tactical computer in the Hornet had detected the presence of, and subsequently locked on to, your hostile radar equipment and automatically sent a jamming signal back to it, which is why it shut down.
Furthermore, an Air-to-Ground missile aboard the fully armed aircraft had also automatically locked on to your equipment location. Fortunately, the Marine Pilot flying the Hornet recognized the situation for what it was, quickly responded to the missile system alert status and was able to override the automated defense system before the missile was launched to destroy the hostile radar position.
The pilot also suggests your officers cover their mouths when cussing at him, since the video systems on these jets are very high tech. And Patrolman Johnson, the officer holding the radar gun, should get his dentist to check his left rear molar. It appears the filling is loose. Also, the snap is broken on his holster.
Thank you for your concern. Semper Fi.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Tony Snow Can Not Be Replaced
When I saw the article on Fox, I was shocked beyond reason - I was stunned - I had no idea he was even sick, other than I knew he had cancer, but he told Rush he was fine a few days before he left the White House as New Secretary.
I found that I had to swallow hard as I read the article, still not believe it to be true. How could this happen to such a dynamic person - I respected him - I believed when he said something it was the truth. How can that kind of person be replaced in this day and age of false journalism?
Simply put, he can't. I will miss Tony more than I can say - his passing is a pain that I will carry for some time to come. I still don't want to believe it.
This article is good in that it conveys just the heart felt remembrances of someone that knew him well.
Keep the faith now and hope the battle for freedom will win the day for Tony and others that gave us strength and direction.
In Remembrance of Tony Snow
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
By: Arnaud de Borchgrave
It was the best decision in my 62 years of professional life as a journalist. I was the Washington Times' editor in chief and looking for a new editorial page editor. Tony Snow was the first and last recommended name I interviewed. The year was 1987.
Tony was 32 years old. We had breakfast, lunch, and dinner the same day in a secluded beach location, away from the rumor mill.
I was bowled over. His keen intellect, erudition, knowledge, kindness, and charm left no doubt he was a nonpareil. His writing skills were obvious from the Detroit News clips I had already read. His philosophy for editorial writing: If your gut tells you something's fishy, trust your gut.
For mechanical reasons, the Times editorial pages in those days had a noon close, which meant we would miss afternoon and evening news, a handicap we overcame by pitching our chosen subjects as far forward as possible. Tony and I met at 8 a.m. daily before he met with his editorial writers.
Glasnost and Perestroika had been launched by Mikhail Gorbachev.
Conservative gurus argued this was yet another Soviet detente trick and warned us not to fall for Communist snare and delusion.
Tony could see, and I concurred, that what Gorbachev had started could only lead to the beginning of the end of the Soviet empire or to Gorbachev's downfall. It did both. And Tony's early wisdom prevailed.
Always of good humor, Tony exuded humanity and compassion, as he broke through traditional teachings seeking truth and the word of life, of a better life for mankind. It is very rare when the friendship of an exemplary human being hoists you to a higher plane. Such a man was Tony. An exceptionally talented human being. A lovely man in all respects. I seldom cry upon the death of a friend of long standing. For Tony, I wept unashamedly.
We both resigned our respective positions in 1991. The new post-Cold War era led me to believe my job was done and new times required fresh eyes and ears to focus on our unfinished domestic agenda.
Tony could see his future in the exploding electronic media. He became a shooting star there, too.
His level of inspired insight was his gift to millions of listeners and viewers. And his passing at such a young age with a future still full of promise, leaving Jill and three fabulous children behind, leads me to question the Almighty's judgment in letting Tony lose his battle against cancer. And this despite the prayers of millions of admirers.
I found that I had to swallow hard as I read the article, still not believe it to be true. How could this happen to such a dynamic person - I respected him - I believed when he said something it was the truth. How can that kind of person be replaced in this day and age of false journalism?
Simply put, he can't. I will miss Tony more than I can say - his passing is a pain that I will carry for some time to come. I still don't want to believe it.
This article is good in that it conveys just the heart felt remembrances of someone that knew him well.
Keep the faith now and hope the battle for freedom will win the day for Tony and others that gave us strength and direction.
In Remembrance of Tony Snow
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
By: Arnaud de Borchgrave
It was the best decision in my 62 years of professional life as a journalist. I was the Washington Times' editor in chief and looking for a new editorial page editor. Tony Snow was the first and last recommended name I interviewed. The year was 1987.
Tony was 32 years old. We had breakfast, lunch, and dinner the same day in a secluded beach location, away from the rumor mill.
I was bowled over. His keen intellect, erudition, knowledge, kindness, and charm left no doubt he was a nonpareil. His writing skills were obvious from the Detroit News clips I had already read. His philosophy for editorial writing: If your gut tells you something's fishy, trust your gut.
For mechanical reasons, the Times editorial pages in those days had a noon close, which meant we would miss afternoon and evening news, a handicap we overcame by pitching our chosen subjects as far forward as possible. Tony and I met at 8 a.m. daily before he met with his editorial writers.
Glasnost and Perestroika had been launched by Mikhail Gorbachev.
Conservative gurus argued this was yet another Soviet detente trick and warned us not to fall for Communist snare and delusion.
Tony could see, and I concurred, that what Gorbachev had started could only lead to the beginning of the end of the Soviet empire or to Gorbachev's downfall. It did both. And Tony's early wisdom prevailed.
Always of good humor, Tony exuded humanity and compassion, as he broke through traditional teachings seeking truth and the word of life, of a better life for mankind. It is very rare when the friendship of an exemplary human being hoists you to a higher plane. Such a man was Tony. An exceptionally talented human being. A lovely man in all respects. I seldom cry upon the death of a friend of long standing. For Tony, I wept unashamedly.
We both resigned our respective positions in 1991. The new post-Cold War era led me to believe my job was done and new times required fresh eyes and ears to focus on our unfinished domestic agenda.
Tony could see his future in the exploding electronic media. He became a shooting star there, too.
His level of inspired insight was his gift to millions of listeners and viewers. And his passing at such a young age with a future still full of promise, leaving Jill and three fabulous children behind, leads me to question the Almighty's judgment in letting Tony lose his battle against cancer. And this despite the prayers of millions of admirers.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Only Legal Citizens Have A Right to Vote
Voter registration is or should be one of the most important aspects of our free society - if you are a citizen of this great country you must have a say in how it is run, that is how Democracy works.
On the other hand, if you are not a citizen, don't pay taxes and have entered this country illegally, you have no right to take part in deciding how this country functions.
Does it make any sense to you that we should allow anyone to vote no matter what their status is according to our laws? Are laws on the books to use only when they are convenient and don't interfere with your political agenda? Of course not, so why allow illegal aliens to vote, or for that matter, be allowed to remain in this country at all without proper citizenship registration.
The Heritage Foundation come through again on this matter, and we will hear much more on this as we get closer to November.
keep the faith, the battle is about to heat up.
Rule of Law.
Hans von Spakovsky, who served as a member of the Federal Election Commission for two years, explains the threat to electoral integrity from non-citizen voters in a new Heritage analysis.
“Thousands of non-citizens are registered to vote in some states, and tens if not hundreds of thousands in total may be present on the voter rolls nationwide,” he writes. This is enough to swing several close local and even national elections.
“Americans may disagree on many areas of immigration policy, but not on the basic principle that only citizens—and not non-citizens, whether legally present or not—should be able to vote in elections.”
On the other hand, if you are not a citizen, don't pay taxes and have entered this country illegally, you have no right to take part in deciding how this country functions.
Does it make any sense to you that we should allow anyone to vote no matter what their status is according to our laws? Are laws on the books to use only when they are convenient and don't interfere with your political agenda? Of course not, so why allow illegal aliens to vote, or for that matter, be allowed to remain in this country at all without proper citizenship registration.
The Heritage Foundation come through again on this matter, and we will hear much more on this as we get closer to November.
keep the faith, the battle is about to heat up.
Rule of Law.
Hans von Spakovsky, who served as a member of the Federal Election Commission for two years, explains the threat to electoral integrity from non-citizen voters in a new Heritage analysis.
“Thousands of non-citizens are registered to vote in some states, and tens if not hundreds of thousands in total may be present on the voter rolls nationwide,” he writes. This is enough to swing several close local and even national elections.
“Americans may disagree on many areas of immigration policy, but not on the basic principle that only citizens—and not non-citizens, whether legally present or not—should be able to vote in elections.”
Monday, July 14, 2008
Root Cause of High Gas Prices - Radical Environmentalism
Okay, here is the scope on the impact of radial environmentalism on the price of gas in America and, for that matter, the entire world.
If there were any question in the past as to the environmentalists need to crush our way of life, not in my opinion, the environmentalists have turned on the lights so we all can see where they have been hiding and what they have been up to for the last forty years; legislation in congress to stop all energy development and demonstrations at jobs sites of new energy construction.
I love this country and I want it to be as beautiful as we can make it and that means having a good environmental policy that benefits us all. But it is equally important that this policy take into effect the needs of the population that depends on a growing economy. Without a growing and dynamic economy we won't have the money to support an environment that will sustain us and our offspring.
This is important - come November we have to get common sense back in our government - vote with your eyes open. Read as much as you can about free markets and energy demand that we need now and in the future. I will continue to bring this up as I see it as the single most important item in our country. Everything we do and need is related to fossil fuels.
Keep the faith, we are all doing our best in the battle for America!
Plugging Up The Pipeline
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted Thursday, July 10, 2008
Anyone who's not sure why gasoline prices are so high has the opportunity to see a real-time reason being played out in public as an environmental group sues over the expansion of a refinery
The Natural Resources Defense Council is asking a federal judge to stop construction of BP's planned $3.8 billion expansion — not a new facility — of its Whiting refinery in northwest Indiana. The group claims BP needs a more restrictive air permit from the state because the refinery would discharge far more pollution than what it's been approved for. In addition to shutting down construction, the NRDC wants BP fined $32,500 a day for each day it has been under construction without the more restrictive permit.
There hasn't been a new oil refinery built in the U.S. since 1976, in part because of actions like those of the NRDC. The environmental lobby, which went off the rails decades ago, has resisted almost every attempt to create more energy from fossil fuels.
One particularly telling example outside of Indiana can be found in Arizona. There, construction of a new refinery was held up for almost 10 years by environmental groups using regulations from the Clean Air Act as a hammer. The environmentalists will point out that industry executives themselves have said that refinery margins in the past 10 to 15 years have not been high enough to justify new refineries and that there will be no need to build a new one at least through 2030. But, we submit, that's because the industry was forced to keep up with demand by, in a sense, doing more with less.
First, the industry resorted to expansions of existing plants because it's cheaper than building new facilities due to environmental regulations. These are the same regulations that are holding up BP's Indiana expansion, which, according to environmental groups, isn't needed anyway. (If that's so, why is BP building it?).
Second, technological advances in refining let the demonized oil companies continue sending a steady supply into the market, even as refineries closed. While the number of facilities has been more than halved, from 324 in 1981 to 149 today (see chart), refining capacity over the same time has hardly dropped at all, from 18.6 millions barrels a day to only 17.5 million barrels a day now.
It should be obvious that more capacity is needed, given that as domestic refinery capacity fell, U.S. gasoline consumption jumped 42%, from 2.4 billion barrels in 1981 to 3.4 billion barrels last year. To keep our economy humming and maintain our standard of living, we need more refineries. It's that simple.
The environmentalists don't see it that way, though. Their gaze is to the rear, never ahead, except for their apocalyptic visions of the future: scorched Earth, too-thick-to-see-through smog, burning rivers, oceans running with crude, dried-up lakes, naked forests and hospitals overflowing with people sickened by industry, all watched over by greedy oilmen counting their billions.
America has so far paid a small price for the radical environmentalism that grew out of a rational movement in the 1960s. The costs will eventually be deeply painful, though, if lawmakers and the courts continue to give these groups license to shut down needed energy
advancements.
While the environmental groups will claim they are in no way responsible for rising gasoline prices, the fact is that, according to the National Center for Policy Analysis, almost 25% of the capital investment in refineries in the 1990s was used to comply with environmental regulations.
In raw dollars, oil companies laid out more than $100 billion between 1992 and 2001 to bring their refineries into compliance with environmental rules. Is the public supposed to believe these costs have had no impact on today's gasoline prices?
Americans need to get wise to what their "protectors" are doing to them, supposedly on their behalf.
If there were any question in the past as to the environmentalists need to crush our way of life, not in my opinion, the environmentalists have turned on the lights so we all can see where they have been hiding and what they have been up to for the last forty years; legislation in congress to stop all energy development and demonstrations at jobs sites of new energy construction.
I love this country and I want it to be as beautiful as we can make it and that means having a good environmental policy that benefits us all. But it is equally important that this policy take into effect the needs of the population that depends on a growing economy. Without a growing and dynamic economy we won't have the money to support an environment that will sustain us and our offspring.
This is important - come November we have to get common sense back in our government - vote with your eyes open. Read as much as you can about free markets and energy demand that we need now and in the future. I will continue to bring this up as I see it as the single most important item in our country. Everything we do and need is related to fossil fuels.
Keep the faith, we are all doing our best in the battle for America!
Plugging Up The Pipeline
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted Thursday, July 10, 2008
Anyone who's not sure why gasoline prices are so high has the opportunity to see a real-time reason being played out in public as an environmental group sues over the expansion of a refinery
The Natural Resources Defense Council is asking a federal judge to stop construction of BP's planned $3.8 billion expansion — not a new facility — of its Whiting refinery in northwest Indiana. The group claims BP needs a more restrictive air permit from the state because the refinery would discharge far more pollution than what it's been approved for. In addition to shutting down construction, the NRDC wants BP fined $32,500 a day for each day it has been under construction without the more restrictive permit.
There hasn't been a new oil refinery built in the U.S. since 1976, in part because of actions like those of the NRDC. The environmental lobby, which went off the rails decades ago, has resisted almost every attempt to create more energy from fossil fuels.
One particularly telling example outside of Indiana can be found in Arizona. There, construction of a new refinery was held up for almost 10 years by environmental groups using regulations from the Clean Air Act as a hammer. The environmentalists will point out that industry executives themselves have said that refinery margins in the past 10 to 15 years have not been high enough to justify new refineries and that there will be no need to build a new one at least through 2030. But, we submit, that's because the industry was forced to keep up with demand by, in a sense, doing more with less.
First, the industry resorted to expansions of existing plants because it's cheaper than building new facilities due to environmental regulations. These are the same regulations that are holding up BP's Indiana expansion, which, according to environmental groups, isn't needed anyway. (If that's so, why is BP building it?).
Second, technological advances in refining let the demonized oil companies continue sending a steady supply into the market, even as refineries closed. While the number of facilities has been more than halved, from 324 in 1981 to 149 today (see chart), refining capacity over the same time has hardly dropped at all, from 18.6 millions barrels a day to only 17.5 million barrels a day now.
It should be obvious that more capacity is needed, given that as domestic refinery capacity fell, U.S. gasoline consumption jumped 42%, from 2.4 billion barrels in 1981 to 3.4 billion barrels last year. To keep our economy humming and maintain our standard of living, we need more refineries. It's that simple.
The environmentalists don't see it that way, though. Their gaze is to the rear, never ahead, except for their apocalyptic visions of the future: scorched Earth, too-thick-to-see-through smog, burning rivers, oceans running with crude, dried-up lakes, naked forests and hospitals overflowing with people sickened by industry, all watched over by greedy oilmen counting their billions.
America has so far paid a small price for the radical environmentalism that grew out of a rational movement in the 1960s. The costs will eventually be deeply painful, though, if lawmakers and the courts continue to give these groups license to shut down needed energy
advancements.
While the environmental groups will claim they are in no way responsible for rising gasoline prices, the fact is that, according to the National Center for Policy Analysis, almost 25% of the capital investment in refineries in the 1990s was used to comply with environmental regulations.
In raw dollars, oil companies laid out more than $100 billion between 1992 and 2001 to bring their refineries into compliance with environmental rules. Is the public supposed to believe these costs have had no impact on today's gasoline prices?
Americans need to get wise to what their "protectors" are doing to them, supposedly on their behalf.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Economic Doom and Gloom is Media Driven
With the doom and gloom that seems to prevail on all of our main stream media outlets concerning our economy, this report by the Heritage Foundation finds the facts tell a different story about our supposed crisis situations. Certainly things could be better but, as we all know, they could be a lot worse.
Hey, look around - who do you know that is in crisis situation? I don't know anyone! Don't we all have to make changes in allocations of resources when outside forces take a turn for the worse? Come on, get a grip - get on with it - live with reality. You live in the greatest country in the world. How bad can that be?
Of course, it doesn't take a national publication to tell us things aren't as bad as the liberal media wants us to believe. As you might have surmised, it's a political ploy in this election season to make things look as bad as possible before the election and then, if the forecasters of doom win, come January 1st, suddenly the economy will take on a completely different color in the press. If they lose, well, things will continue to be bad. sigh
But when the liberal groomers win, the economy and all world things the media reported as disasters, will be reported as they really are for the most part. Oh well wait, look, of course, for the media to slip in a little news management on the plus side of things now to help out their agenda. - something like "the economy is in a slump but more people are doing better than 'expected' and it's time to drill for more oil right now which will bring down the gas price experts say. At the same time, we will continue to look for new sources of renewable energy". The dark clouds of economic gloom will suddenly disappear.
WOW - hmmm - See, with the liberal hand on the wheel of state, all things will be better.
Keep the faith, we will fight the battle with renewed vigor.
Entrepreneurship.
Despite claims of economic gloom and doom in the media and on the campaign trail, Americans are better off today than a generation ago.
Heritage economist James Sherk argues that, on balance, “the quality of jobs available to Americans has increased over the past generation.”
For example, he notes “the increased need for highly skilled and educated workers,” which “means expanded opportunities for upward mobility” as incomes rise.
Hey, look around - who do you know that is in crisis situation? I don't know anyone! Don't we all have to make changes in allocations of resources when outside forces take a turn for the worse? Come on, get a grip - get on with it - live with reality. You live in the greatest country in the world. How bad can that be?
Of course, it doesn't take a national publication to tell us things aren't as bad as the liberal media wants us to believe. As you might have surmised, it's a political ploy in this election season to make things look as bad as possible before the election and then, if the forecasters of doom win, come January 1st, suddenly the economy will take on a completely different color in the press. If they lose, well, things will continue to be bad. sigh
But when the liberal groomers win, the economy and all world things the media reported as disasters, will be reported as they really are for the most part. Oh well wait, look, of course, for the media to slip in a little news management on the plus side of things now to help out their agenda. - something like "the economy is in a slump but more people are doing better than 'expected' and it's time to drill for more oil right now which will bring down the gas price experts say. At the same time, we will continue to look for new sources of renewable energy". The dark clouds of economic gloom will suddenly disappear.
WOW - hmmm - See, with the liberal hand on the wheel of state, all things will be better.
Keep the faith, we will fight the battle with renewed vigor.
Entrepreneurship.
Despite claims of economic gloom and doom in the media and on the campaign trail, Americans are better off today than a generation ago.
Heritage economist James Sherk argues that, on balance, “the quality of jobs available to Americans has increased over the past generation.”
For example, he notes “the increased need for highly skilled and educated workers,” which “means expanded opportunities for upward mobility” as incomes rise.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Government NOT by The People or FOR the People
This article by the Heritage Foundation is interesting in that we can see how our government is not 'for the people and by the people' as we all thought, given what the Constitution says. It's really about people grabbing for power at our expense.
I guess the question now is how long will we let them do this?
keep the faith and vote for independent thought and freedom of choice - this is what the battle is all about.
Energy and Environment
The unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency are preparing to enact an economically ruinous economic plan that even the liberal-controlled Congress rejected. In what Heritage’s Ernest Istook calls a “power grab,” they are looking to implement a costly program to regulate carbon dioxide and “exert new powers to regulate and control our lives.”
I guess the question now is how long will we let them do this?
keep the faith and vote for independent thought and freedom of choice - this is what the battle is all about.
Energy and Environment
The unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency are preparing to enact an economically ruinous economic plan that even the liberal-controlled Congress rejected. In what Heritage’s Ernest Istook calls a “power grab,” they are looking to implement a costly program to regulate carbon dioxide and “exert new powers to regulate and control our lives.”
Friday, July 11, 2008
Britain's Answer to Clean Electricity - Tidal Power
What a great idea - harness the natural environment that's all around you. The biggest problem, as always, is the cost and the eco-fascists that oppose everything that isn't completely biodegradable. heh.
This is only in the planning stages, but I find it most amusing that the environmentalist demand hard evidence to prove it won't be harmful to the environment, but when they say it won't work and will be harmful, all they need is soft science, that is, opinion or belief that bad things will happen is enough. A consensus of opinion is truth.
This is world wide insanity!
This article from Britain is good as it shows the struggles that they are having, as we are here in America, to combat this nonsense of man-made global warming. How is it that so many people refuse to debate this problem? Why not debate man's involvement so we can find the real answer? The 'real' answer could save our country from those that wish to do us harm.
Why, indeed, should we debate when it's not about finding the truth, it's all about a belief that makes us feel useful and part of the solution without having to do anything ourselves. No thinking aloud, it's too confusing. The true believers don't even have to get their hands dirty with the details, all they have to do is sit in the front pew and clap there collective hands to beat of the song brought forth by the preacher.
Hallelujah - Al Core will save us all from ourselves and, just think, all we have to do is put in the plate every time it passed around. Can life really be this simple?
Hang on to your wallets here people and keep the faith in freedom of choice, we are fighting the good battle!
*Daniel Clery*
Harnessing nature's energy to produce up to 5% of the United Kingdom's electricity without any carbon emissions sounds too good to be true. It is, according to a report last week from 10 environmental groups opposing plans to build the world's largest tidal power scheme.
High water.
The River Rance barrage in France has been churning out electricity for more than 40 years. The proposed Severn barrage would be much bigger. Britain is under pressure to combat climate change with more renewable energy. According to the European Union's (E.U.'s) common energy policy, 15% of the U.K.'s total energy consumption should come from renewables by 2020. Wind turbines and other renewables now provide less than 5% of U.K. electricity. As a result, the government is reviving mothballed plans for a dam, or barrage, across the Severn estuary, which separates southwest England from south Wales.
But wildlife and environmental groups, including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), the Worldwide Fund for Nature, and The National Trust, who argue that it will damage a unique ecosystem, now also assert that it will cost too much. "The report shows that this exorbitantly expensive and massively damaging proposal cannot be justified on economic grounds--there are simply too many cheaper options for clean energy generation," says RSPB Chief Graham Wynne.
Positioned across an estuary or inlet, a tidal barrage is essentially the same as a hydroelectric dam, but the rise and fall of the tides drives water through its turbines. The first such barrage began operating on France's River Rance in 1966. Because of high construction costs and fears of ecological damage, there have been only two, smaller imitators, in Canada and Russia.The River Severn has the second highest tidal range in the world--15 meters between high and low tide. The first of many plans for a tidal power scheme there dates from 1925, but none has left the drawing board.
The $29 billion scheme now being considered by the U.K. government is an order of magnitude larger than that on the Rance. The barrage would stretch 16 kilometers from Weston-super-Mare in Somerset to Cardiff in south Wales and would generate 17 terawatt-hours of energy per year, equivalent to the output of two 1-gigawatt power stations. A tidal barrage has lower operating costs than a nuclear station and would last up to three times longer, as long as 120 years.
The Severn barrage would have locks to accommodate ships and perhaps a road or rail link along its top. Proponents say that the water behind it would be safe for shipping and watersports and would reduce the threat of floods.
Then there are the drawbacks. Apart from cost, the barrage will irrevocably change the ecosystem of the enclosed estuary. The groups that sponsored last week's report say that it would threaten 35,000 hectares of protected wetlands, home to 68,000 birds in winter and more in summer. The barrage will also disrupt the migration of salmon, shads, lampreys, and sea trout to their spawning grounds. "The estuary is truly exceptional for its ecological value," says Wynne.
In 2007, the government-funded Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) issued a report supporting a Severn barrage, as long as it does not contravene E.U. environmental directives. The directives allow for schemes that alter habitats if there is overwhelming public benefit--such as combating climate change--and if compensatory habitats are provided, either by restoring damaged habitats or creating new habitats somewhere else. SDC also recommended that the project should be government-funded and owned to avoid higher commercial interest rates. In January, the U.K. government launched a 2-year feasibility study into the barrage.
Last week's report, drawn up by the consultancy group Frontier Economics, argues that there is no compelling reason for the government to bankroll a project that the private sector could do equally well. Doing so, it adds, may actually contravene U.K. treasury rules. Public money would be better spent on other types of renewable project, it concludes.
Researchers are divided over both the economic and the environmental arguments. "I'd rather see more distributed, smaller [schemes] built sooner," says ecologist Peter Randerson of Cardiff University in the U.K., who believes a barrage would take 20 years to build. Hydraulic engineer Richard Burrows of the University of Liverpool in the U.K. notes that E.U. targets have Britain getting 60% of its energy from renewables by 2050 and that small-scale schemes will never reach such a target. "You have to capture a larger part of the tidal power out there," he says.
The barrage's environmental impact is also debatable. "There will be environmental modification but not necessarily degradation," says Burrows. "You could argue that there will be a richer ecological state inside the impounded reservoir." Oceanographer Robert Kirby, who has studied the estuary for 40 years, predicts that the barrage will be good for the estuary, slowing the fast tides that stir up sediments and blocking sunlight from the water.
Randerson says that this is a "tantalizing argument" but that as yet there have been "no serious studies" of the idea. In any case, he expects the decision to be made on political rather than scientific grounds. "It's very attractive for politicians to have a big, megabucks, grandiose scheme to hang their credentials on," he says. "It's inevitable for all the wrong reasons."
This is only in the planning stages, but I find it most amusing that the environmentalist demand hard evidence to prove it won't be harmful to the environment, but when they say it won't work and will be harmful, all they need is soft science, that is, opinion or belief that bad things will happen is enough. A consensus of opinion is truth.
This is world wide insanity!
This article from Britain is good as it shows the struggles that they are having, as we are here in America, to combat this nonsense of man-made global warming. How is it that so many people refuse to debate this problem? Why not debate man's involvement so we can find the real answer? The 'real' answer could save our country from those that wish to do us harm.
Why, indeed, should we debate when it's not about finding the truth, it's all about a belief that makes us feel useful and part of the solution without having to do anything ourselves. No thinking aloud, it's too confusing. The true believers don't even have to get their hands dirty with the details, all they have to do is sit in the front pew and clap there collective hands to beat of the song brought forth by the preacher.
Hallelujah - Al Core will save us all from ourselves and, just think, all we have to do is put in the plate every time it passed around. Can life really be this simple?
Hang on to your wallets here people and keep the faith in freedom of choice, we are fighting the good battle!
*Daniel Clery*
Harnessing nature's energy to produce up to 5% of the United Kingdom's electricity without any carbon emissions sounds too good to be true. It is, according to a report last week from 10 environmental groups opposing plans to build the world's largest tidal power scheme.
High water.
The River Rance barrage in France has been churning out electricity for more than 40 years. The proposed Severn barrage would be much bigger. Britain is under pressure to combat climate change with more renewable energy. According to the European Union's (E.U.'s) common energy policy, 15% of the U.K.'s total energy consumption should come from renewables by 2020. Wind turbines and other renewables now provide less than 5% of U.K. electricity. As a result, the government is reviving mothballed plans for a dam, or barrage, across the Severn estuary, which separates southwest England from south Wales.
But wildlife and environmental groups, including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), the Worldwide Fund for Nature, and The National Trust, who argue that it will damage a unique ecosystem, now also assert that it will cost too much. "The report shows that this exorbitantly expensive and massively damaging proposal cannot be justified on economic grounds--there are simply too many cheaper options for clean energy generation," says RSPB Chief Graham Wynne.
Positioned across an estuary or inlet, a tidal barrage is essentially the same as a hydroelectric dam, but the rise and fall of the tides drives water through its turbines. The first such barrage began operating on France's River Rance in 1966. Because of high construction costs and fears of ecological damage, there have been only two, smaller imitators, in Canada and Russia.The River Severn has the second highest tidal range in the world--15 meters between high and low tide. The first of many plans for a tidal power scheme there dates from 1925, but none has left the drawing board.
The $29 billion scheme now being considered by the U.K. government is an order of magnitude larger than that on the Rance. The barrage would stretch 16 kilometers from Weston-super-Mare in Somerset to Cardiff in south Wales and would generate 17 terawatt-hours of energy per year, equivalent to the output of two 1-gigawatt power stations. A tidal barrage has lower operating costs than a nuclear station and would last up to three times longer, as long as 120 years.
The Severn barrage would have locks to accommodate ships and perhaps a road or rail link along its top. Proponents say that the water behind it would be safe for shipping and watersports and would reduce the threat of floods.
Then there are the drawbacks. Apart from cost, the barrage will irrevocably change the ecosystem of the enclosed estuary. The groups that sponsored last week's report say that it would threaten 35,000 hectares of protected wetlands, home to 68,000 birds in winter and more in summer. The barrage will also disrupt the migration of salmon, shads, lampreys, and sea trout to their spawning grounds. "The estuary is truly exceptional for its ecological value," says Wynne.
In 2007, the government-funded Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) issued a report supporting a Severn barrage, as long as it does not contravene E.U. environmental directives. The directives allow for schemes that alter habitats if there is overwhelming public benefit--such as combating climate change--and if compensatory habitats are provided, either by restoring damaged habitats or creating new habitats somewhere else. SDC also recommended that the project should be government-funded and owned to avoid higher commercial interest rates. In January, the U.K. government launched a 2-year feasibility study into the barrage.
Last week's report, drawn up by the consultancy group Frontier Economics, argues that there is no compelling reason for the government to bankroll a project that the private sector could do equally well. Doing so, it adds, may actually contravene U.K. treasury rules. Public money would be better spent on other types of renewable project, it concludes.
Researchers are divided over both the economic and the environmental arguments. "I'd rather see more distributed, smaller [schemes] built sooner," says ecologist Peter Randerson of Cardiff University in the U.K., who believes a barrage would take 20 years to build. Hydraulic engineer Richard Burrows of the University of Liverpool in the U.K. notes that E.U. targets have Britain getting 60% of its energy from renewables by 2050 and that small-scale schemes will never reach such a target. "You have to capture a larger part of the tidal power out there," he says.
The barrage's environmental impact is also debatable. "There will be environmental modification but not necessarily degradation," says Burrows. "You could argue that there will be a richer ecological state inside the impounded reservoir." Oceanographer Robert Kirby, who has studied the estuary for 40 years, predicts that the barrage will be good for the estuary, slowing the fast tides that stir up sediments and blocking sunlight from the water.
Randerson says that this is a "tantalizing argument" but that as yet there have been "no serious studies" of the idea. In any case, he expects the decision to be made on political rather than scientific grounds. "It's very attractive for politicians to have a big, megabucks, grandiose scheme to hang their credentials on," he says. "It's inevitable for all the wrong reasons."
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Judges Stealing Freedom From the People
The Marxist liberal left Democrats, remember who they are, the New Socialist Progressives, in this country have absolutely no limit in there efforts to destroy America. It is their very bases for living.
I am continually amazed at the ignorance of so many of our fellow citizens that believe it is necessary to expose government secrets for public scrutiny. What possible use could the general public have for information that is strictly related to national security?
Why do we allow federal judges the power to dictate control of our personal security as well as national security? One person can put an entire nation at risk?? Why would they do this other than for political advantage.
Hundreds of thousands may die as a result of their action, and they believe that is a bad thing, but just look at the political advantage that this gives to the Marxists socialists, see these people as urban terrorists, in our court system and government. What a nice advantage for them in bringing down the country. This would be a perfect opportunity to rebuild America as a true socialist state.
The rich would be few and powerful while the many would be poor and powerless. A true socialist state. Think federal judges and many of our United States Senators. They are taking our power to control our own destiny. It's the beginning.
Make no mistake about this, the socialists have a huge backing with the voting public. You say this isn't possible but wake up, as I have stated many time before, the general public has no idea what the loss of freedom means as they have had it for so long. Worse, when they lose it, they won't know it - they will just suffer in their bondage wondering what happen and whose fault it is.
They will not know that the greatest position in history has been taken from them, their freedom.
Some smart person said, and believe it completely, and this sums up the disposition of the voting liberal left Democrat, the new Republican visionary, the uncommitted fence sitter or even the so called independent," 'tis folly to be wise when ignorance is bless".
I believe that disaster looms large for us if we fall for this scenario. Luckily for us, the Heritage Foundation, always a watch dogs for suspected socialist propaganda, has been following this and is shedding much needed national light on these dark proceedings.
Take heart though, and keep the faith, you and I have joined the battle and we are moving forward.
Playing politics with national security
The radical left won a major victory last week when a San Francisco judge ruled that a program to spy on America’s terrorist enemies is not protected by secrecy rules.
“This means that government officials and companies that helped to implement the program may be forced to testify about its structure and operations,” Heritage Foundation legal analyst Andrew Grossman explains.
“Now things stand to really get dangerous,” he continues. That’s because the courts could soon start to “legally siphon top-secret information from the government and its private-sector helpers.”
On top of that, the courts could punish private companies that cooperated with a national security program in good faith. “It’s not fair to hold these companies liable for trying to help protect the nation,” Grossman writes.
But this national security information doesn’t necessarily have to become public. Congress could “pass legislation that pulls these super-sensitive suits out of federal courts.” Grossman laid out the case for modernizing our intelligence programs this way back in April.
“Enough is enough,” he concludes. “It’s time to stop playing politics with intelligence and national security.”
I am continually amazed at the ignorance of so many of our fellow citizens that believe it is necessary to expose government secrets for public scrutiny. What possible use could the general public have for information that is strictly related to national security?
Why do we allow federal judges the power to dictate control of our personal security as well as national security? One person can put an entire nation at risk?? Why would they do this other than for political advantage.
Hundreds of thousands may die as a result of their action, and they believe that is a bad thing, but just look at the political advantage that this gives to the Marxists socialists, see these people as urban terrorists, in our court system and government. What a nice advantage for them in bringing down the country. This would be a perfect opportunity to rebuild America as a true socialist state.
The rich would be few and powerful while the many would be poor and powerless. A true socialist state. Think federal judges and many of our United States Senators. They are taking our power to control our own destiny. It's the beginning.
Make no mistake about this, the socialists have a huge backing with the voting public. You say this isn't possible but wake up, as I have stated many time before, the general public has no idea what the loss of freedom means as they have had it for so long. Worse, when they lose it, they won't know it - they will just suffer in their bondage wondering what happen and whose fault it is.
They will not know that the greatest position in history has been taken from them, their freedom.
Some smart person said, and believe it completely, and this sums up the disposition of the voting liberal left Democrat, the new Republican visionary, the uncommitted fence sitter or even the so called independent," 'tis folly to be wise when ignorance is bless".
I believe that disaster looms large for us if we fall for this scenario. Luckily for us, the Heritage Foundation, always a watch dogs for suspected socialist propaganda, has been following this and is shedding much needed national light on these dark proceedings.
Take heart though, and keep the faith, you and I have joined the battle and we are moving forward.
Playing politics with national security
The radical left won a major victory last week when a San Francisco judge ruled that a program to spy on America’s terrorist enemies is not protected by secrecy rules.
“This means that government officials and companies that helped to implement the program may be forced to testify about its structure and operations,” Heritage Foundation legal analyst Andrew Grossman explains.
“Now things stand to really get dangerous,” he continues. That’s because the courts could soon start to “legally siphon top-secret information from the government and its private-sector helpers.”
On top of that, the courts could punish private companies that cooperated with a national security program in good faith. “It’s not fair to hold these companies liable for trying to help protect the nation,” Grossman writes.
But this national security information doesn’t necessarily have to become public. Congress could “pass legislation that pulls these super-sensitive suits out of federal courts.” Grossman laid out the case for modernizing our intelligence programs this way back in April.
“Enough is enough,” he concludes. “It’s time to stop playing politics with intelligence and national security.”
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
New Poll Rates Congressional Approval At 7%
This is the lowest approval rating in the history of the congress - is it any wonder we have no confidence in our elected government to do their job. Why are always pointing their collective fingers at President Bush and his bad numbers?
As I have mentioned previously, too many of our legislators think they are royalty so they have the right to rule by power alone.
I believe this situation came up once before a few hundred years ago, it was call the "Boston Tea Party". Remember the cry, "no taxation without representation". And what happened there after? hmmm Can it happen again?
This article shows what a politician can do and has the responsibility to do as elected Representatives of the people. The burning question that I have is why haven't they preformed as promised?
Keep the faith in our Constitution - it works when politicians fail.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 300 million - are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank. I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party. What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.
The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Army &Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ. If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees. We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.
As I have mentioned previously, too many of our legislators think they are royalty so they have the right to rule by power alone.
I believe this situation came up once before a few hundred years ago, it was call the "Boston Tea Party". Remember the cry, "no taxation without representation". And what happened there after? hmmm Can it happen again?
This article shows what a politician can do and has the responsibility to do as elected Representatives of the people. The burning question that I have is why haven't they preformed as promised?
Keep the faith in our Constitution - it works when politicians fail.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 300 million - are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank. I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party. What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.
The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Army &Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ. If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees. We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Taxes and Subsidies Are Killing Baltimore
This is the third post on this poor city that I have made in recent weeks. Remember the TV show 'The Wire' and how it was based on the rot in Baltimore? It just seems there is no end to the misery that can befall Baltimore Maryland.
I wonder what political party is in control of city government in Baltimore and has been for decades? I wonder what political party is in control of New Orleans? Just what is the problem here?
From where I stand, Baltimore is just a 'poster child' for what the Marxist socialist, New Progressive Democrats, have in mind for the rest of the country. The agenda of how, we as citizens, must sacrifice more for the greater good, now and in the future, bodes ill for our future.
Rest assured this will come to pass given the rhetoric of the past months from Barack Obama and his promise to take our incomes and give it to others that they believe deserve a better life. This is just what has transpired in Baltimore - as the city deteriorated further and further into economic and moral decay, the more the corrupt politicians raised taxes to support their failed policies.
This article lays out some good points on how continuing failed policies only makes the situation worse for Baltimore. The points made here can be applied to most cities that seem to have an agenda of 'if we spend more the problem will go away".
This is good ammunition for our battle to save ourselves from America's own internal rot.
Blame Taxes for Baltimore's Rot*
By STEVE H. HANKE and STEPHEN J.K. WALTERS July 5, 2008
Baltimore -If you've seen HBO's "The Wire," you know why those of us who live in Baltimore are often asked whether our city really is the hellhole it is portrayed to be on TV. Our answer is, well, yes.
Baltimore deserves the Third-World profile it has developed because it has expanses of crumbling, crime-riddled neighborhoods populated by low-income renters, an absent middle class, and just a few enclaves of high-income gentry near the Inner Harbor or in suburbs.This wasn't what Baltimore looked like in the 1950s. Then it was a prosperous, blue-collar city of about 950,000 with a median family income 6.6% above the national average.
Back in the good old days, Baltimore had a smaller percentage of residents living in poverty (22.7%) than the nation as a whole (27.8%), and a greater percentage of families (23.1%) earning a middle-class income of at least $44,600 in today's dollars than the rest of the country (19.1%).
Today, the city has a population that is almost 50% smaller, and about 40% of families with children live at or near the federal poverty line. Among the country's 100 most populous cities, Baltimore ranks a shameful 87th on median household income. How did this happen?
Most people think of cities as dense concentrations of people. They are that, of course. But they are also dense concentrations of capital – homes, offices, factories, theaters and roads. All of these assets are attractive to people because, when they are in close proximity to each other, they offer the chance of a more prosperous life.The problem is that once capital is built, it can become a target for tax-and-spend politicians who bank on the fact that physical capital will continue to draw people, even as it is taxed more heavily.
This is what has happened in Baltimore. The city has waged a war on capital for more than 50 years, raising property taxes an astonishing 21 times from 1950 to 1985. But what politicians don't seem to understand is that the target may be degraded or destroyed in the process. There are now at least 30,000 housing units in Baltimore that are abandoned and waiting to be demolished, while even old, upper-crust neighborhoods now have a seedy look. Property taxes are so high – as well as the strong likelihood they will soar even higher in the future – that even maintenance, no less capital improvements, are a losing proposition.
Renovations or upgrades may add less value to a house than it will cost in taxes on that house with a higher assessed value. Politicians, in short, reason that because physical capital cannot typically be picked up and moved, it is immutable. Wrong. It depreciates. Fail to replenish or improve it, and it decays to uselessness. Moreover, while physical capital may not be mobile, financial and human capital are. Property tax rates in Baltimore County (outside the city) are less than half of those inside the city (1.1% versus 2.268%). The suburbs are thriving even with the center city decaying.
In the 1990s, private-sector employment shrank 12.7% (a loss of 46,800 jobs) in Baltimore. From 2000 to 2007 it shrank again, this time by 10.4% (33,600 jobs). By contrast, employment in the rest of the metro area grew by 25.1% in the 1990s, and by another 13.9% since 2000.
To the extent that city officials recognize the problem, they seem to confuse symptoms with the root cause of the economy's disease. For them, poverty, street crime or bad schools are the problem. Their solution is always more social spending and still-higher taxes, together with targeted tax breaks and subsidies aimed at bringing "big footprint" development projects downtown. And because the city has managed to entice developers to build a few large projects (the National Aquarium, two stadiums, several office towers, upscale hotels and pricey waterfront condos), the champions of public redevelopment argue that the city is on the right track.
True enough, the ability to hand out subsidies gives officials great power. But it also gives them a reason, and incentive, to dismiss the common sense that if tax breaks for the well-connected are a good idea, lower tax rates across the board would lead to broad-based redevelopment.
The person best positioned to put an end to the city's war on capital is Democratic Mayor Sheila Dixon. Over the past year she even hinted at making tax reform a priority. In December, a commission appointed by Ms. Dixon concluded that the city should immediately cut its property tax rate to 2.02% and, within a few years, reduce it further to 1.614%. That isn't going to happen, however. Her budget, approved last month, raised spending 11% and reneged on a promise made by Gov. Martin O'Malley when he was still mayor in 2006 to cut property taxes by 0.02% to 2.248%.
But the issue of property taxes and development is not yet over. The state prosecutor is currently looking into allegations that Ms. Dixon took gifts from property developers while giving special tax breaks.
The evergreen rationale for high property-tax rates is that a city can't afford low ones. When she announced her spending plan for the year, Ms. Dixon insisted that "people think there's fat within the budget, [but] it's very lean."Left unsaid: The city spends 61% more per person than the surrounding county. And in reality, cutting property taxes would only temporarily cut property tax receipts. Making Baltimore friendly to capital investment would unlock a flood of new (unsubsidized) investment that would restore revenues and facilitate an organic, widespread renewal of the city.
What's needed is the political will to tighten the bureaucracy's belt in the near term, and the ingenuity to create a fiscal bridge to a recapitalized, healthier city. So far, Baltimore is sticking with its "capital punishment" policies and it's killing the city.
*Mr. Walters is an economics professor at Loyola College in Maryland. Mr. Hanke is a professor of applied economics at Johns Hopkins University and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.*/See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on/ Opinion Journal^1 ./And add your comments to the/ Opinion Journal forum ^2 .
I wonder what political party is in control of city government in Baltimore and has been for decades? I wonder what political party is in control of New Orleans? Just what is the problem here?
From where I stand, Baltimore is just a 'poster child' for what the Marxist socialist, New Progressive Democrats, have in mind for the rest of the country. The agenda of how, we as citizens, must sacrifice more for the greater good, now and in the future, bodes ill for our future.
Rest assured this will come to pass given the rhetoric of the past months from Barack Obama and his promise to take our incomes and give it to others that they believe deserve a better life. This is just what has transpired in Baltimore - as the city deteriorated further and further into economic and moral decay, the more the corrupt politicians raised taxes to support their failed policies.
This article lays out some good points on how continuing failed policies only makes the situation worse for Baltimore. The points made here can be applied to most cities that seem to have an agenda of 'if we spend more the problem will go away".
This is good ammunition for our battle to save ourselves from America's own internal rot.
Blame Taxes for Baltimore's Rot*
By STEVE H. HANKE and STEPHEN J.K. WALTERS July 5, 2008
Baltimore -If you've seen HBO's "The Wire," you know why those of us who live in Baltimore are often asked whether our city really is the hellhole it is portrayed to be on TV. Our answer is, well, yes.
Baltimore deserves the Third-World profile it has developed because it has expanses of crumbling, crime-riddled neighborhoods populated by low-income renters, an absent middle class, and just a few enclaves of high-income gentry near the Inner Harbor or in suburbs.This wasn't what Baltimore looked like in the 1950s. Then it was a prosperous, blue-collar city of about 950,000 with a median family income 6.6% above the national average.
Back in the good old days, Baltimore had a smaller percentage of residents living in poverty (22.7%) than the nation as a whole (27.8%), and a greater percentage of families (23.1%) earning a middle-class income of at least $44,600 in today's dollars than the rest of the country (19.1%).
Today, the city has a population that is almost 50% smaller, and about 40% of families with children live at or near the federal poverty line. Among the country's 100 most populous cities, Baltimore ranks a shameful 87th on median household income. How did this happen?
Most people think of cities as dense concentrations of people. They are that, of course. But they are also dense concentrations of capital – homes, offices, factories, theaters and roads. All of these assets are attractive to people because, when they are in close proximity to each other, they offer the chance of a more prosperous life.The problem is that once capital is built, it can become a target for tax-and-spend politicians who bank on the fact that physical capital will continue to draw people, even as it is taxed more heavily.
This is what has happened in Baltimore. The city has waged a war on capital for more than 50 years, raising property taxes an astonishing 21 times from 1950 to 1985. But what politicians don't seem to understand is that the target may be degraded or destroyed in the process. There are now at least 30,000 housing units in Baltimore that are abandoned and waiting to be demolished, while even old, upper-crust neighborhoods now have a seedy look. Property taxes are so high – as well as the strong likelihood they will soar even higher in the future – that even maintenance, no less capital improvements, are a losing proposition.
Renovations or upgrades may add less value to a house than it will cost in taxes on that house with a higher assessed value. Politicians, in short, reason that because physical capital cannot typically be picked up and moved, it is immutable. Wrong. It depreciates. Fail to replenish or improve it, and it decays to uselessness. Moreover, while physical capital may not be mobile, financial and human capital are. Property tax rates in Baltimore County (outside the city) are less than half of those inside the city (1.1% versus 2.268%). The suburbs are thriving even with the center city decaying.
In the 1990s, private-sector employment shrank 12.7% (a loss of 46,800 jobs) in Baltimore. From 2000 to 2007 it shrank again, this time by 10.4% (33,600 jobs). By contrast, employment in the rest of the metro area grew by 25.1% in the 1990s, and by another 13.9% since 2000.
To the extent that city officials recognize the problem, they seem to confuse symptoms with the root cause of the economy's disease. For them, poverty, street crime or bad schools are the problem. Their solution is always more social spending and still-higher taxes, together with targeted tax breaks and subsidies aimed at bringing "big footprint" development projects downtown. And because the city has managed to entice developers to build a few large projects (the National Aquarium, two stadiums, several office towers, upscale hotels and pricey waterfront condos), the champions of public redevelopment argue that the city is on the right track.
True enough, the ability to hand out subsidies gives officials great power. But it also gives them a reason, and incentive, to dismiss the common sense that if tax breaks for the well-connected are a good idea, lower tax rates across the board would lead to broad-based redevelopment.
The person best positioned to put an end to the city's war on capital is Democratic Mayor Sheila Dixon. Over the past year she even hinted at making tax reform a priority. In December, a commission appointed by Ms. Dixon concluded that the city should immediately cut its property tax rate to 2.02% and, within a few years, reduce it further to 1.614%. That isn't going to happen, however. Her budget, approved last month, raised spending 11% and reneged on a promise made by Gov. Martin O'Malley when he was still mayor in 2006 to cut property taxes by 0.02% to 2.248%.
But the issue of property taxes and development is not yet over. The state prosecutor is currently looking into allegations that Ms. Dixon took gifts from property developers while giving special tax breaks.
The evergreen rationale for high property-tax rates is that a city can't afford low ones. When she announced her spending plan for the year, Ms. Dixon insisted that "people think there's fat within the budget, [but] it's very lean."Left unsaid: The city spends 61% more per person than the surrounding county. And in reality, cutting property taxes would only temporarily cut property tax receipts. Making Baltimore friendly to capital investment would unlock a flood of new (unsubsidized) investment that would restore revenues and facilitate an organic, widespread renewal of the city.
What's needed is the political will to tighten the bureaucracy's belt in the near term, and the ingenuity to create a fiscal bridge to a recapitalized, healthier city. So far, Baltimore is sticking with its "capital punishment" policies and it's killing the city.
*Mr. Walters is an economics professor at Loyola College in Maryland. Mr. Hanke is a professor of applied economics at Johns Hopkins University and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.*/See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on/ Opinion Journal
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
